Letters to the Editor: Lost and Stripped
Ron Bolin: Nov. 13, 2013
I have recently written two letters to the Editor of the Nanaimo Daily News regarding issues which I believe are important, not only to me, but to the general public of Nanaimo. One was not published, apparently due to my chiding of the author of a significant story that his reporting was perhaps misleading, and another which, while within the length limits allowed, was significantly trimmed for no apparent reason. I present these letters here. I would appreciate your comments on whether my complaint here is reasonable or merely the ranting of a poor loser.
At the COW meeting of November 4, 2013, in item 7(f) Council (watch item 7(f) in the video and listen to the Introduction to the item by Mayor Ruttan and our new City Manager Mr. Swabey), where the recommendation from Staff in the agenda distributed was to write to Metro Vancouver indicating that the City of Nanaimo was not interested in hosting an incinerator for burning Metro Vancouver’s garbage, this recommendation was apparently countermanded by Mayor Ruttan and changed at the meeting to a recommendation to simply receive the report.
https://www.nanaimo.ca/meetings/VideoPlayer/Index/COW131104V
The significance of this change remains unclear, but here is the gist of the matter:
Letter to the Editor, Nanaimo Daily News:( Sent Nov. 5, 2013)Re: Incinerator options presented to Council: Spencer Anderson, NDN, Oct. 5, 2013 It is naïve, perhaps disingenuous, to report that “Council held off rejecting or embracing a proposal to build a waste-to-energy incinerator at Duke Point…” What actually happened following a change in Staff’s recommendation without adequate notice, is that the City lost control over the situation. The original recommendation in the agenda would have provided notice to Metro that Nanaimo was not interested in the facility. Metro Vancouver had previously noted that they would not give further consideration to any municipality which did not desire it. The effect of Council’s decision yesterday took the option away from the City and its Citizens and left it to Metro and the local bidders: Wheelabrator, Urbaser and Seaspan who, among them, own land at Duke Point zoned for waste disposal. Apparently mislead by the notion that more needs to be known about this project, Council and others have overlooked the fact that we have had many months to come to some conclusions about the safety and utility of a facility which proposes to bring 375,000 tons of garbage from Metro Vancouver to Nanaimo in barges and burn it here. And who is going to haul all those ashes? Over the past months the partners in this bid have held private meetings with Council and City Staff. Staff have also had discussions with Metro on the topic. To say that we know nothing about this project and therefore need to give it more time is preposterous.
As Nov. 15th is the deadline for Metro to select the five contenders for the honour of providing their garbage dump, we can only hope that Metro will man up to the responsibility of managing their own waste. Council has taken it out of our hands.
Ron Bolin
As we have not removed ourselves from the running as a possible trash burner in the time apparently allowed for outright rejection, what opportunities remain? Subsequent correspondence with Metro on this subject is ambiguous:
Mr. Bolin: Thank you for your email to Sarah Wellman regarding the potential site identification process for Metro Vancouver’s New Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Capacity Project. The development of new waste-to-energy capacity is a multi-phase process with opportunities for consultation with stakeholders, including the public, throughout the process. Community support for potential new waste to energy projects will be a key criterion in evaluating potential projects. At this phase in the process, 9 proponents with 10 ten submissions have been selected to participate in subsequent phases of the procurement process. In the first phase of the process (RFQ1), these proponents demonstrated the capability to process municipal solid waste for Metro Vancouver based on existing facilities using their proposed waste-to-energy approach. The current phase of the project will identify all potential sites both in and out of region. Metro Vancouver will announce sites secured by proponents for their own use at a Special Meeting of the Zero Waste Committee on November 21. Sites offered by landowners for potential use by all proponents will be identified once analysis of those offers is complete, and sites have been optioned for purchase or lease. Once potential sites are identified, Metro Vancouver will conduct public events in proximity to each site. These events will provide information on the process to develop waste-to-energy capacity, and provide an opportunity for community members to provide input on criteria for evaluating proponent submissions in subsequent phases of the project. In the next phase of the process (RFQ2) expected to commence in 2014, proponents will submit further information providing details of their proposed approach including community benefits related to the project. Proponents will also have the opportunity to provide evidence of community support for their projects. Proponents will be required to comply with local bylaws and municipal development approval processes. Metro Vancouver will carry-out a full environmental assessment for any project selected. Thank you again for writing. Paul Henderson, P.Eng General Manager, Solid Waste Services Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway V5H 4G8If, due to our refusal to remove ourselves from the competition by the time indicated, we are found to be in the running, what leverage to we have for removal later if we should so decide?
The staff report on this matter gave three options:
Option 1–Advise Metro that Nanaimo does not support a waste-to-energy facility within the boundaries of the city. Council and City staff have discussed this issue with Metro staff and has been advised by them that if the City of Nanaimo provides written notice that Nanaimo does not support their waste-toenergy facility, sites in Nanaimo will no longer be considered. Option 2– Amend the Zoning Bylaw to prohibit waste-to-energy facilities. Prohibiting the waste-to-energy facility could also affect any future local waste-to-energy uses. Staff understands there are processes under review by industry in Nanaimo that involve converting waste-to-energy (i.e., compost to biofuel). The implication of eliminating the use is potentially negative for local business and for the management of solid waste in the region. Option 3– Do not take any action at this time. The primary implication of this option is the Metro process would continue and include the current candidate proposal for a waste-to-energy site proposed at Duke Point.The conclusion of the report gives the following recommendation:
In conclusion, if Council would like to act on this issue, staff recommend Council give direction to write to Metro outlining its opposition to the waste-to-energy facility within the boundaries of the city.
In this context it is worthwhile reviewing the introduction to this item (7-f) on the video of the meeting:
https://www.nanaimo.ca/meetings/VideoPlayer/Index/COW131104V
Nanaimo pays its Staff very well in order to get and keep knowledgeable and professional staff. Is this a case where political interests have overwhelmed professional judgement? Why, and what are the implications for the health and wealth of the Citizens of Nanaimo?
In a related matter concerning public health and wealth, another letter to the Editor of the Daily News was published today, shorn of it impact. Here is the letter in full. It was within the word length rule and I will let you be the judge of the impact of the removals. I consider them very significant. The redacted portions are indicated in red.
Letter to the Editor:
Watching the Remembrance Day ceremonies today I was again reminded of the sacrifice of those who fought and died for our freedom. I also wonder what they think about the right of a monopoly corporation to demand, either that we accept their active radiation device on our homes and castles, or alternatively, that we pay an extortionate fee for the privilege of not having it? Hydro doesn’t have to do this. They can put their “smart” meter radio transmitter on their end of the unique line that brings power to my home. I recently heard a local lady proudly tell how she had reduced her hydro bill to only $15/mo. Does she realize that unless she takes a “smart”meter her bill will increase by 200%?
I have no quarrel with those who accept the device on their home. We have found ourselves at similar junctions before and have made our individual choices: to smoke or not to smoke; to use asbestos insulation or not; to take thalidomide or not, etc. But never before have we been told that unless we take a product like an active radio transmitter on our home, we will be forced to pay an extortionate fee to a monopoly for the privilege of NOT having one.
There is no more important time than this to remember the words of Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.
Ron Bolin
I note with humility that Laurence E. Wayman, an 89 year old veteran of WWII, wrote a much better letter which was published in the daily News yesterday. See:
http://www.nanaimodailynews.com/opinion/letter-smart-meter-problem-waits-to-be-resolved-1.693073
As a footnote I add that at 1:30 tomorrow, Nov. 14, at the Eagles Hall in Ladysmith, there will be a showing of the documentary: Take Back Your Power, dealing with the issue of RF radiation and “smart” meters. It will also be shown in Meeting Room A of the Harbourfront Branch of the Vancouver Island Regional Library at 1 pm on Sunday, Nov. 17. You will find the film informative.
end
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
Council is caught between a rock and a hard place.
There are those within Council & those that influence it that have the romantic desire for a hockey team & the related multiplex.
WHITHOUT the co operation of Seaspan who hold the deeds to the right of way to the Welcox lands this is not going to happen.
Seaspan stand to make millions of dollars shipping Vancouvers waste to Nanaimo for it to be burnt.
The so called hesitance of some Councillors is nothing but a ploy to say..
‘Whilst I had serious issues with the project I now endorse it”….
Remember Bill Holdom? he was a master of the game.
Sorry should be WITHOUT.
hard day at the office.
“Option 2- Amend the Zoning Bylaw to prohibit waste-to-energy facilities. “
This is a red herring option. Is it not necessary to ban waste-to-energy facilities. It is only necessary to ban incineration of garbage with-in the City limits. Backyard burning of garbage in residential areas is already banned. It is banned for health reasons. Let’s get on with acting on behalf of voting citizens who clearly reject mainland garbage in their backyard!!!!!!
Bang on Joe: Nanaimo regs say: “Burning of wooden construction material, stumps, land clearing materials/debris or household garbage is not permitted.”
While your point is appreciated here, you may wish to write a letter to the editors. It would make a hilarious piece.
There is no copyright on the story, it’s iconic, and you are welcome to it (fix the typos).
There is another story to understand about this affair. The narrative as told to Council by Staff Report recommends informing Metro of opposition to an incinerator with-in our city limits. (Metro is an association of 24 local authorities operating a garbage and solid waste management system on the mainland. They are planning expansion and improved efficiency in the management of solid waste in their region.) It would seem that a simple recommendation from staff to council; we are not in the source region, would be all that is necessary. Maybe staff should point this out directly to Metro?
And then there is the Metro marketing plan with reverse billing options, no action means more marketing to staff who already have said no, and to the public who also have already said no. So with the recommendation tabled, it’s onward with the campaign. We can expect to be subjected to more garbage marketing.
Tell me again what Harmac is burning, and that is OK??
Who said it was OK??
I presume the community said it was OK, as I remember not so much as a peep in opposition when it was first announce.
Guess what? The community is fickle… Go figure….
We have the ability to stop this ridiculous scheme but do we have the political will?
I think not.
Egos & romance will trump common sence.
Re the Wellcox fair. Posted to NDN today . . . “At the Waterfront development table, to which I remained all evening, there appeared to be building a consensus for an intermodal transportation center.
From my personal point of view I have my doubts about that until I see the foot ferry up, running and established mindful that two previous endeavors have failed!
With the Island corridor people working hard to restore the Victoria Comox passenger / tourist rail line and an already insitu transport center on Prideaux why push for more parking, bus and auto traffic downtown!
I am more favourable towards a . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viveros_de_Coyoacán
. . . Viveros Naniamo.”
See where it goes . . .
Roger
; I think that a foot passenger ferry would be a wonderful idea.
If it comes to pass it must be a private enterprize endevour & not subsidised in any way such as the cruise ship terminal & convention centre.
The financial returns on these projects has been much less than stellar.
The Island Corridor farce is cut from the same cloth differing only in that the main recipients of it’s largesse are the Bruce family .
Ok; I missed a point. Apparently Bill MacKay lusts for a position on the foot ferry board of directors.
Thanqxz, Trailblazer, for the heads up but I’m pretty sure, one way or another, the foot ferry will be subsidized for the following reason:
1. The cat model proposed does not perform in bad weather.
2. The two previous cat foot ferries (Van,Vic,Nan) failed, lasting less than a year.
3. Bill Mckay needs the work like so many other in Nanaimo: my suggestion to Bill is, follow the crowds go the Fort Mac. I read that half the cars there bear BC plates.
Having done biz here since 1959 and living here since 1998 I know the probs.
4. As for the foot cat being a wonderful idea well sure but in practice, see 2, it doesn’t work. (Even BC Ferries is having is having its problems!).
5. That end of town will become one massive commuter parking lot with empty buses and rail cars piling up waiting for passengers. There will be no increase in downtown biz because everyone is moving thru.
6. I am tired of going thru another Last Tango in Nan, lots of expense, time and hope, only to be confronted with what the usual suspects wanted in the first place.
Right now Nanaimo is not working and that’s the bottom line!
PS Even if FPN has won the vote the downtown lemon would still be a lemon!
It’s official. The foot ferry requires subsidies.
What are the chances that once subsidised & in operation the companies investors will sell out?
A sign of the times. We don’t wish to pay taxes but we want the taxpayer payed benefits!!
Please tell me that Council will not sucumb.
6. I am tired of going thru another Last Tango in Nan, lots of expense, time and hope, only to be confronted with what the usual suspects wanted in the first place.
You are correct Roger.
Halifax has nothing on this!
“….. there appeared to be building a consensus for an intermodal transportation center.”
A stupefying idea originally proposed by Victoria consultants working on the OCP.
Greyhound is moving operations to Departure Bay where they make eminent sense.
The Island Rail Corridor is nowhere near the Waterfront. BC Transit is not going to change bus routes and relocate its exchange. A passenger ferry terminal is a long shot to say the least. The upshot of all of this is a vast parking lot which could become a multi-plex if only some kind of scheme could be cooked up to make it happen!
I agree Joe.
@Joe.
It would’perhaps’ make even more sence to move all ferry operations to Duke Point & expand the bus service from down town to the terminal.
One ferry terminal is enough.
Nanaimo seems to have too many plans of competing origin.
@Trailblazer
What makes sense is reducing carbon emissions, not creating more by requiring vehicles using the ferry system to drive to the middle of nowhere (Duke Point). My guess on travel patterns would be that most vehicles arriving at Departure Bay are going north not south.
I think it’s a far superior route.
Stop start traffic converging around Nanaimo or a smoother drive to and from Duke Point.
I would bet you can drive from Duke Point to the Inland Island Highway quicker than going from Departure Bay to the north end of town & use less gas in doing so!
Ron:
I read your article on being #1 in residential taxes and I would laugh if it did not hurt so much. Maybe the city has to build a bigger industrial/commercial tax base?
Imagine if our guardian angel came along and said.. if I can give you the biggest investment in over 50 years, and I can prove to you it will meet or exceed your economic, social and environmental concerns. Would you at least listen? or would you say ‘don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!’.
Let’s be real. Harmac, Coastland and Catalyst in Crofton and Port Alberni all burn waste. They are not burning the choice logs, they are burning waste. We know the logs are not grown in Nanaimo, they import the hog fuel.
There is a major cement/ashphalt supplier considering a move to a location where waste heat can be utilized instead of burning vast amounts of oil. Do we say no, our residential rate payer will prop up the city spending for the next fifty years!
You want sustainability.. but the island imports almost all of it’s electricity.. not many of our electrons travel from the island to the mainland. If we can reduce that dependence, do we not have an onus to do that?
Ho, I have heard the argument.. we should not import Vancouver’s garbage. BFI, who does most of the multi-tenancy garbage collection, ships OUR garbage off island..
I think we should at least listen to a proposal. You know at one time.. Christopher Columbus had a problem making people listen.
@ TinMan
Guardian angels? What planet is that?
Reduce dependence on BC Hydro? That power is 87% hydro generated! The cleanest system on the planet and you want to replace that with hog fuel?
Importing garbage from Vancouver? What, so we can burn it and create more jobs in the health care field taking care of sick people?
Does anyone know what the relation between this “WtE” project and BC Hydro is? Is it supposed to generate power for BC Hydro at their very high private producer rates? Could it actually be bought by the City from the producer at bulk rates and then resold to Nanaimo citizens at a wholesale rate using our power on Hydro’s lines with having to pay for BC Hydro’s many bad management decisions? Could we use this to take back our power?
Ron,
Burning garbage produces heat along with toxic emissions. (See the Sierra Club presentation to City Council). Excess heat can be used to generate electricity which can then be sold to BC Hydro which will purchase it at a wholesale price. I do not know the wholesale rate per kilowatt hour. Any revenue generated from the sale of power is used to reduce the operating expenses of the facility. The incinerator under discussion is a private facility. There is zero benefit to Nanaimo citizens regarding the generation of electricity. Incineration to energy is a spin doctor’s ruse used to paint incineration as environmentally friendly which it is not.
The RDN through the Waste Stream Management Licensing Bylaw authorizes waste management schemes not the City of Nanaimo. It is the policy of the RDN to reduce the waste stream going to landfills by 75% so it is difficult to see how the importation of waste from the mainland is supportable under current policies. The purpose of the policy is to divert and recycle as much waste as possible thereby reducing emissions overall.
“Incineration to energy” should not be confused with “waste to energy” projects which are truly green and produce revenue for the RDN and its’ citizens. An example of this type of project is the extraction and collection of green house gases at the Regional Landfill which are then used to generate and sell electricity to BC Hydro.