No one ever said debate had to be pretty. That certainly was not always the case during often-heated public meetings for 70 Arlington Dr. and resulting letters to the editor that, on a few occasions in particular, were downright ugly.
That hasn’t changed well after project approval as two groups continue to throw stones at the other over the exact same issues of density, green space, unaccountable politicians, intolerance and site history.
Debate is strongest, and perhaps ugliest, on the Internet where an online slugfest erupted over the fallout from the Habitat for Humanity sign that was defaced and subsequent letters to the editor that, at times, contained very strong views on the subject.
Some have questioned the wisdom of publishing the original article on the vandalism or why the Gazette gives space to controversial, ugly letters. The vandalism report was a no-brainer given the history of the site, the strong feelings on all sides, and the bigoted political message scrawled for all to see. A newspaper can’t maintain credibility if it ignores news just because someone might get upset. It’s our job to report about what goes on in our community, good, bad, ugly and everything in between.
The letter issue is more complex. My view has always been to make the letters pages of the Gazette true to the label “Your Views.” These pages are a place for the public to share ideas, opinions and foster debate. We can’t publish everything we receive — we just don't have enough column inches of space — but we do try to get in as many as possible. My preference is to choose only local letters on the timeliest issues of importance to this community, views that get people to think and, hopefully, participate.
Sometimes that means we print letters some people — or let’s face it, in the case of the infamous Perry letter, many people — find objectionable. We got a lot of heat for publishing that letter, and more recently the Michael Ciciarelli letter (Aurora Place development not wanted in Akinsdale, Feb. 19) that said Habitat families are looking for handouts, called politicians two-faced and pointed out karma is a bitch.
Why give people a forum to spout bigotry and ignorance? Well, it’s not just because we want to print scandalous letters or create a national story. These letters, as ugly as they were, touched on a long-running hot-button issue in St. Albert. More importantly, the Perry letter in particular made public views that most of us can agree exist in St. Albert but that no one had the cajones to say. Was the letter naive and bigoted? Of course. But at least it was honest and dared to utter the idea — St. Albert doesn’t want affordable housing — many suspected was at the root of the issue receiving mere lip service and no action by scores of past city councils who were more than happy to make Edmonton our affordable housing strategy.
In the same vein we chose to run the Ciciarelli letter, which was angry and bigoted and unpleasant and accusatory, but honest. And while I can understand the final paragraph might be pushing the boundaries of good taste with what could be perceived as a veiled threat, we felt the anger and honesty in this writing also spoke to the degree of emotions stirred through the Arlington Drive debate. Thankfully, this view does not represent the majority, as so many letter writers and online commenters have opined, which is how it should be.
Sometimes that debate isn't pretty, but we should all be glad we're allowed the opportunity.
Bryan Alary is an editor at the Gazette.
