Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Power to spare

I find B.C. Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom's letter to the editor last week chastising reporter Jesse Ferreras rather disingenuous. At least Mr.

I find B.C. Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom's letter to the editor last week chastising reporter Jesse Ferreras rather disingenuous. At least Mr. Ferreras has balance in his reporting, giving two sides of the issues and leaving the reader with a choice of opinion.

To the contrary our distinguished minister, or whoever wrote the piece for him, only recites the propaganda from the private power proponents who capitalize off ratepayers to BC Hydro. The statement that we enjoy low priced electricity rates used to be true. After the recent rate increase we are now ahead of four other provinces for power rates. In two years time the cost to B.C. residents will be 40 per cent higher than what we paid in March 2010. That will put us at par with most US urban centres and the highest in Canada excluding the Territories.

We should perhaps listen to Rex Weyler, John Calvert, Joe Foy or the ex- minister Corky Evans who all say B.C. is NOT in need of more power generation to attain self sufficiency. The continual mis-representation of facts by our Energy Minister makes one wonder who he actually works for?

Maybe Blair would be good enough to let us know.

Steve Anderson

Whistler

 

Taxpayers will foot the bill

I was watching with interest on cable the last RMOW council meeting dealing with the asphalt plant. I had to give up after three presentations by Whistler residents. I could no longer stand the mayor's evading the direct answers and interrupting the people trying to express their feelings and concerns. One older resident appropriately reminded Ken that he should at least be polite and let the older people speak. Since Ken has done the same thing to me on a previous occasion when I addressed the council, I would like to tell him that when I was young I was told not to interrupt older people. I can understand that his objective is to move meetings along, but his behaviour does not encourage residents to come and talk before the council.

As far as the Olympic Village is concerned, I just cannot believe how something that was to be the greatest legacy of Whistler's and Ken's Olympic Games is fast turning into the greatest screw-up, physical and political stink and a potential financial disaster. Who is responsible for this mess? Not the asphalt plant, not the buyers in CC. In my opinion, the people that have to accept the responsibility are the members of the past council, Ken included, who did not do proper diligence and voted to approve that location. The municipality spent $40 million to upgrade the water treatment plant so it would not stink during the Olympic Games, but the council did not foresee the issues with the asphalt plant. Forget the air; just the fact that there are 50 trucks going through there proves that it was not the place for residences. They were so single-minded about the Olympic Games that they could not see beyond.

Unless a satisfactory solution is found for the residents who do not want to live there, the existing council members who voted for that location should do the proper thing and resign. It is nice to hide behind the clause in the contract. American banks had legal sub-prime mortgage contracts too. But as more and more facts come to light about the Olympic Village, the purchasers may have a good legal case. Supposedly it is not legal for a plant to be located within 300 metres of residences, so conversely, how could the municipality issue building permits that violated that? The plant is now being moved the proper distance, but it could mean that when building permits were issued and when contracts were signed, the permits were not valid. One way or another, we, the Whistler taxpayers, will be left with the final bill for this incompetence.

Drago Arh

Whistler

 

Asphalt plant fumes not safe

All of us would agree that asphalt fumes contain many strongly toxic and carcinogenic materials; one of the worst and most deadly is Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs.

There are a lot of studies done about asphalt pollution causing cancer in humans. Some of them say it needs to be in high concentrations; some studies say only very small amounts will make the damage.

Just because some of you may live a few kilometres away from the Whistler asphalt plant and are not going to move into the Cheakamus Crossing, does it mean you are safe? Do you want to toss a coin and risk your health and bet on your children's health?

Do you know that the temperature inversions we have in our Whistler valley greatly magnify the concentration of carcinogens and their risks? Will the asphalt plant relocation, by a mere 150 metres south from its current location, make any difference?

The deal is apparently sealed! And it is done before the re-zoning of the new location took place! There is a protocol to be followed and public hearing to be held to decide if the re-zoning is a good idea! If the new location is re-zoned (and by the way it will be a much larger area than the area where the asphalt plant is currently operating) it will allow processing of aggregate and related materials and storage of related equipment; the asphalt plant can increase its operations.

I believe we can stop the re-zoning, close or re-locate the asphalt plant to a really safe distance very soon.

Please, get involved! This is not a health risk for the Cheakamus Crossing new residents alone!

Judy Bonn

Whistler

 

Move over-hyped

Don't believe the hype. And by "the hype," we mean don't believe the assurances by the RMOW that the asphalt plant (moved and upgraded) will be completely safe for residents at Cheakamus Crossing or elsewhere in Whistler.

The asphalt plant issue is not a joke. It is not a conspiracy theory by a group of people who want to bitch about the local government. It's not a fear-tactic, anti-industry campaign. It's not a group of NIMBY people looking to protect the beautiful view from their patios. And it's not (as many will tell you) a dramatic overblown reaction to a non-issue.

The asphalt plant situation is a serious threat to the health of our community's residents. It is a line in the sand drawn by a growing group of concerned citizens with very legitimate reasons to be concerned.

We didn't know much about asphalt plants or related health impacts when we signed our disclosure statement. We thought that "noise, dust, odours and activity" where the worst of it and we were willing to deal with those after waiting seven years on the list for a home in Whistler.

But now that we've done some research we've noticed that the most significant impact related to asphalt production is actually toxic air quality emissions. We're wondering why this wasn't included in the disclosure statement.

Did you know that Whistler's asphalt plant - yes, that small seemingly innocuous operation on wheels next to Whistler's newest, greenest Olympic legacy neighbourhood - is, on a heavy production day and on an annual average basis, currently responsible for approximately half of the particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) in Whistler? And did you know that PM2.5 and PM10 are undeniably linked to human illness such as asthma, emphysema, bronchitis and death - especially in children and people with existing respiratory conditions?

Here's an excerpt from the "Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Report, Whistler BC" released by the B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection in 2002: "PM10 has been identified as the most important ambient air pollutant in British Columbia with studies suggesting an association between increased ambient PM10 concentrations and negative health effects, including mortality."

It's unbelievable that we have to fight to get this plant moved away from our neighbourhoods. The decision by the RMOW to upgrade and "move" the asphalt plant is simply not enough. This "move" is clearly not a relocation in the sense that we all understood it, in terms of protecting air quality in nearby neighbourhoods.

Even council acknowledges that the move is insufficient. The "move" of 150 metres now puts the source of toxic, potentially deadly emissions less than 400 metres away from our community's nearest doorsteps. Does this make you feel safe?

And while this air hits the residents of Cheakamus Crossing first, remember that air moves and we all breathe it. Even the ambient air quality testing at Meadow Park (12 km away from the plant) demonstrates elevated levels of PM2.5 and PM10 that are attributed to the asphalt plant.

When you look at the RMOW's graphs you'll notice that they describe the "annual average" emissions - the asphalt plant currently contributes nearly half of all the annual average particulates in Whistler's air. Remember that the asphalt plant only operates for six months of the year. Now do the math - it doesn't look good.

Admittedly, the proposed upgrades to the plant will make a significant difference toward reducing emissions - assuming that all upgrades function 100 per cent properly 100 per cent of the time and that best operating practices are also implemented 100 per cent of the time. Which third party entity will be assuring this for us?

The upgrades are not the solution. We've been told by RMOW that living near the asphalt plant will be about the same or better than living in Vancouver in terms of the air quality. This is not the case at all. According to the recent RMOW reports, the worst-case scenarios actually look pretty bad compared to air quality in Burnaby, with PM10 in Cheakamus estimated at nearly three times the amount of Burnaby and PM2.5 at exactly three times the amount. That's not even close - it's a lot higher.

And again, the "annual average" data doesn't apply, as the asphalt plant only operates six months per year, which means that air quality will be significantly worse during those six months.

It's great that the RMOW is committing to ambient monitoring at Cheakamus Crossing but will the RMOW be able (or even willing) to shut down plant operations if emissions repeatedly exceed the new bylaw's maximums? What happens then? Where is our assurance that the bylaw can and will be enforced in a way that prohibits and effectively halts dangerous point-source air pollution in our valley?

With the proposed upgrades to the plant, the picture is a little prettier but it's not even close to enough to protect our community's health. The emissions are still significant and the plant is simply too close for comfort, for all of our comfort.

We can't - nor should we - just lie down and accept that our local government won't fight for our right to clean, healthy air. Here's the call to action. This is about clean air and the health of our families. Please speak up.

Daniel White

Whistler

 

Entitled to what?

In response to the letter from Patricia Westerholm (Pique May 20) and all the other Checkamus Crossing residents complaining about the asphalt plant.

I lived in Detroit for a few years. I suggest anyone who lives in assisted housing in this beautiful valley take a long hard look at what assisted housing looks like in other parts of North America. Zillow Regents Park or the Jane-Finch corridor in Toronto for comparison purposes.

Few people, if any, want an asphalt plant in their backyard. But Cheakamus residents knew there was an asphalt plant in their backyard when they purchased your home. This was no secret. You weren't duped. You signed a disclosure statement. So stop whining and complaining to council that they aren't appeasing YOU.

I'm a little sick and tired of the sense of entitlement of many residents in this valley. Times are tough for all taxpayers. If Cheakamus residents want this plant moved immediately why don't they pay for it? If they can't afford it, put their request on the same list of Needs and Wants that all residents of the valley subscribe to.

This misplaced anger towards the mayor and council should be confronted in the mirror.

Janice Goegan

Whistler

 

Another successful pit party

You can always tell a good party at the gravel pit by the number of drinking containers left behind and the area they are spread over. Every year I have the pleasure of walking with my dogs through the Emerald Forest. May is a wonderful time to see the trees and bushes budding and the black bear grazing at the gravel pit. Today was extra special, in the streams, trails and bushes approaching the gravel pit were beer cans, pop containers and cigarette packs. In the centre of the gravel pit where the RMOW has a sign saying something about no fires was the remains of a fire and the mother lode of beer cans, pop bottles, barbecue skewers, paper product, six pack plastic holders, etc. The one thing missing was the RMOW sign; it had been dismantled and tossed in the bush.

Now this is not a new phenomenon. Every year, especially around grad, there are parties at the gravel pit.

1. At least this year they did not leave the fire smouldering like the kids did about two years ago when the fire hazard was high. Although it is worrying to see scorched wood several metres from the fire pit.

2. There were no good finds this year. In past years I have found designer hoodies and back packs that I have washed and given to the re-use-it centre. I am sure it made someone very happy.

3. If any of the attendees took the outdoor recreation course they should get an F. One of the tenets of experiencing the outdoors is you leave it as you find it, pack out what you pack in, right down to the barbecue skewers.

4. Cigarettes are the number one pollutant in the world. The butts take a long time to decompose, are full of chemicals and are detrimental to wildlife.

Today the dogs and I collected all the outlying garbage, using my spare dog pooh bags, and placed it in the area of the fire pit for the RMOW to collect. There was no back pack or grocery bags left behind for me to use to pack it out this year. The bear was there too, enjoying the grazing on the slopes of the gravel pit.

Welcome to summer.

Francesca Cole

Whistler

 

Libraries looking for support

This letter was addressed to MP John Weston. A copy was forwarded to Pique for publication.

As a concerned member of your constituency, I am writing to you today to ask you to please support Bill C-509, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials).

Introduced by Merv Tweed, MP for Brandon-Souris, this bill would preserve the existing reduced rate for postage on books between libraries in Canada and would expand the library book rate program to include magazines, records, CDs, DVDs and other audio-visual materials.

The Canadian Library Association (CLA) offers its full support for Bill C-509 (formerly Bill C-458 and C-322) as does the Canadian Library Trustees Association.

The Library Book Rate supports and encourages the sharing of taxpayer-funded library books in Canada. At relatively little cost, it acts as a bridge between all Canadians, including the disabled, the shut-ins and residents in remote locations. It is also a way of creating a more literate and knowing population, by helping, for example, students enrolled in distance learning education programs or Canadian pursuing lifelong learning goals.

With over 2,000 libraries actively using the Library Book Rate and over one million Canadians benefiting from it annually, it is an indispensable part of the service delivered by the public, academic, school and special libraries that make up the Canadian Library Association.

In my role as Chair of the Whistler Public Library Board of Trustees, I continue to be concerned about the sustainability of the Library Book Rate, which contributes to the national public policy goals of literacy, lifelong learning, inclusion and vibrant communities.

The entire library community strongly urges you, as an MP, to support this bill and to resolve the future of the Library Book Rate Program. This program is in jeopardy as it is currently scheduled to end without renewal on Dec. 31, 2010. Your leadership will be critical in determining the future of this key component of the country's intellectual infrastructure and the net benefits it provides to all Canadians.

This bill is slated for second reading in the House of Commons on May 28, 2010.

It is absolutely vital that the Government of Canada guarantee support for the Library Book Rate. I am asking you to support Bill C-509 and ensure that permanent and sustainable investment is provided in order to maintain a reduced rate of postage for library materials.

Thank you for your support.

Alix Nicoll

Chair, Whistler Public Library Board of Trustees.