Moving the Surrey boundaries to better reflect the town centre or community core makes very much sense. It is difficult for people like me who live on boundaries of ridings (this impacts me federally) to identify with that riding.
Ensuring that the heart of the community (whether it be a shopping centre, rec centre, school, hospital etc.) is within the electoral boundaries will likely engage further democratic participation, in that the people within the boundaries will have tangible connection to and care about the outcomes of the community spaces in their area. It is truly in our community and public spaces that citizens tend to get passionate, which facilitates engagement in the political process.
I am concerned about many of the proposed amendments brought forward by high-powered politicians and community groups. I believe that the boundaries were selected based on community-based reasons and that the only concern based on anything other than partisan politicking would be to include Fleetwood Park and Secondary School into the Surrey-Fleetwood boundaries as the citizens who engage with that community space would certainly identify with being a part of the 'Fleetwood" community. Pulling out sections of communities because of voter composition (or so it would seem is the basis of the recommendations brought forward at the community forum) is of pure partisan political self-interest and should not be considered at all.
On a bigger picture, we need to focus on the needs of the citizens of Surrey and in a rapidly growing city, it makes sense to more accurately represent our community centres. The politicians (if they truly represent the people of their community) should have no issue with boundaries that are intended to be more reflective of our changing city structure. It is my hope that your commission will put more weight on what is actually in the best interest of reflective democracy for our city than the objections by political strategists. Thank you.