Should Mission become a city, rather than a district? In my opinion, no.
In the Mission Record’s story from Aug. 21, it states “The city moniker could increase the ability to attract and retain business.”
We don’t have parking for the businesses we have.
I know of many instances where customers drive around the block three times and can’t find a parking spot. They then go somewhere else to spend their money. As far back as the 1970s, a Mission High School teacher suggested multi-level parking in what was then the Eaton’s parking lot.
Mayor Randy Hawes suggested polling the business community to see if “being a city would be an attractant.” I suggest polling the taxpayers, since it would cost about $40,000.
Previously, I’ve lived in Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Vancouver and Coquitlam. Since 1973, I’ve lived in Mission and I love the “backwoods type of community,” as opposed to a “progressive city.”
If I wanted to live in a city, I’d live in Vancouver. Most move here because it is a rural area. Mission was Mission City from 1892 to 1969. If it’s not broke, don’t change it. If we want to “see the community grow and prosper,” we’d do well to spend the money on parking, not a name change.
When I’m asked where I live, I don’t say District of Mission, I say Mission.