The Horror! The Horror!
Ron Bolin: May 24, 2013
The following email from Mr. Stead went to Council and to many others yesterday. It raises questions which all of us sometimes ask about living in Nanaimo, but until the Colliery Dams question came along tended to ignore. (Movie goers or readers may recognize the words in the heading to this piece as the dying words of Kurtz (Marlon Brando) in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.)
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:22:42 PM
Subject: demand same consideration
We the residents of the flood prone areas of Nanaimo, living below the dams of Nanaimo, demand the same consideration for our lives, safety and property as the residents living below the Harewood Colliery dams are being afforded. To wit, the removal of all water from all the lakes formed by said dams, and the immediate deconstruction of these dams.
It has been stated that all of the dams in Nanaimo, and the people living below them, are at risk in the event of a major storm or a catastrophic earth quake.
We also demand the construction of seawalls at the entrances to all exposed coves, bays, inlets and outer shore lines, for the protection of the residents of these areas, people and property in the event of a major tsunami occurring due to said seismic event.
Why has Harewood been selected as a protected area, while the rest of us in Nanaimo are left vulnerable to total destruction, flooding and drowning?
Down town Nanaimo is at ultra-extreme risk in the event of a major earth quake causing a severe up swelling of water in the inner harbour, resulting in the same destruction and flooding as a tsunami, in the inner harbor. The entire harbor should be fortified with seawalls in protection against this possible catastrophic event occurring.
We want the same consideration, the same treatment, the same protection, we want equality, if you can do it for Harewood, you can do it for us.
Respectfully. Ronald Stead
The broader questions raised by Mr. Stead’s plaint concerning the responsibility of government in general and Council in particular to protect citizens, not only from each other, but from the very environment, have been made manifest in the current debate. Council, apparently acting solely on the demand for a 1:10,000 event standard of fallibility for the Colliery Dams by the province’s Dam Safety Branch, perfidiously fails to examine all the other damages that could arise from 1:10,000 events. Such events seem to be defined by the number of the deaths which could arise from a related structural failure and is marked by an estimated number of deaths of over 100 persons.
Others, as well as Mr. Stead, have already questioned the standard as it might apply to other dams in Nanaimo, in particular the Westwood Lake Dam. ( See Lawrence Rieper: “Nanaimo Dams and Dangers – A new Look” on this blog. A short version or the piece is appended as a comment to that post.) If, however, the question really is about the number of deaths which might occur during an extreme event in a structure which has been permitted by the City, why stop at dams?
The collapse of a single building in Bangladesh recently led to more than 1,100 deaths, a toll much greater than that needed to define a 1:10,000 event risk. How many buildings has the City permitted that may, in a catastrophic event, lead to more than 100 deaths? I believe we could all name many among our schools, public buildings, and high rise structures which have been approved by the City and either directly or indirectly by the Province which could result in many more than 100 fatal casualties in an extreme event. Unless I misheard, it was even admitted at a recent Council meeting that our new $16 million dollar City Hall Annex would not survive a 1:10,000 event. If that standard is not only to be imposed, but imposed without even taking the time to undertake a full design and rebuild strategy for our dams, what should be happening with our other structures which are subject to similar or even greater danger to human life?
All life is risky. We all know how it ends, at least for us as individuals. In the meantime what we would like to do –what we can afford to do- is mitigate these risks without spending all our resources on insurance. No one wishes to ignore the risks associated with the Colliery Dams. But, like all elements in life, there are other factors at play in the matter, such as the trade-off between rushing to action, especially in the face of risks which might be even greater, and risks with regard to the ongoing health and safety of the general population which finds recreation and solace in the park. The real risk in this affair is that people get the idea that the insurance cost of acting precipitously is not only too high and too uncertain, but that the entire matter is being manipulated for hidden purposes.
All in all, the proposal to take the time to do a proper design/build contract can alleviate the worst aspects of the situation for both the Dams and the fabric of our community. If need be, some water from one or both of the dams can be removed to bring the risk category down to where it may be commensurate with our other dams –and other high risk structures. Let’s not allow this matter to degenerate into another act which leaves the citizens of Nanaimo wondering about the “real” motives behind major City shaping actions and the secret in-camera meetings which lie behind them.
Be careful of what you wish for it may come true!
Some of Council & many on staff must be salvinating on possibilities!!
Jobs for life; Shoot; it has more potential than a Senate seat.
Trailblazer: Since they say that they are personally responsible for such events, if just one of them happens we can clean them out.
And how could it be that Councillors are financially responsible for natural disasters, yet not financially responsible for failures of their own making? Or are we just not understanding something here?
Whilst listening to Rex Murphy on CBC radio today a caller commented upon the fact that we live in a society where our elected & unelected (they were talking of the Senate) live by a book of rules in other words the law and all thats legal or illegal.
The caller noted that our officials are no longer effected in their actions they have no pride , respect for their positions or shame of their manipulation of the system.
The same could be said of our municipal bureaucrats & elected officials .
Far too many of them manipulate the system to their own ends.
Any of us that have reared children should not be surprised by their actions; for ‘give them an inch & they will take a mile’ speaks well to the problem.
The problem lies within the act that governs Muncipalities that in effect privatises democracy.
When we have a Mayor ( not for the first time) that sees it as his job to create wealth within the city by enabling phoney free enterprise groups such as the down town business ass ,tourism Nanaimo the NEDC etc to swallow endless tax dollars & more importantly sway Council decisions we have a recipe for disaster and disaster we have.
As the sign ,when leaving Tahsis says, will the last person to leave please turn out the lights.
What will be the new name for Colliery Dam Park since there won’t be a dam? Let’ run a naming contest! How about Boondoggle Park? We can have a naming ceremony………
Can we get a CBC reporter from W5 to do a story on this whole idiotic affair?
Would a news story be generally instructive? Could others benefit from our experience or is it that we are really a special and unique case when it comes to self governance?
Letter to the Editor, NDN, re: Council members disagree on dams (May 27)
It is ironic in the extreme that Councillor Brennan should, as this story relates: “blame(s) colleagues’ dissenting views and “fear mongering” for creating doubt the Colliery dams will be rebuilt.”
Back in 2004, along with her then Council colleagues, Councillor Brennan put forward a promise to citizens in the form of a referendum which provided that, if the referendum passed, the City could borrow $30 million dollars for the purpose of building a conference centre and a hotel for a maximum cost to Nanaimo taxpayers of $52.5 million dollars. This promise has proven to be a farce as we now find a Conference Centre in our downtown which cost an “admitted” $72.5 million though it has not undergone a forensic audit, and continuously leaks taxpayer operating and maintenance dollars- but no hotel. Is it any wonder that the public is skeptical of more such promises?
Councillor Brennan’s final quote in your piece frosts the cake by saying of those who voted for a complete plan and against a fantasy mashup that: “”They were not politic enough to understand that nine people voting to rebuild . . . is an extremely strong statement,” she said.”I am really sorry they (didn’t vote) because five of us absolutely intend to do this.””
“Since they say that they are personally responsible for such events, if just one of them happens we can clean them out.” Sadly we would not clean them out that’s why they have insurance:) The taxpayer as usual would bare the brunt as you can bet our insurance rates would sky rocket. Of course with the statement admitting responsibility the rates may increase anyway.