Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: Rodney on December 03, 2013, 11:42:42 AM
-
This is a public hearing going on tonight which many may not be aware of. This just came in my email after being circulated. The proposed location is along the Fraser River just upstream from the mouth of the Vedder.
---------------------
CITY OF CHILLIWACK
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
8550 Young Road, Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 8A4
www.chilliwack.com
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the City of Chilliwack will hold a Public Hearing, as noted above, on
the following item:
1. ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2013, No. 3970 (RZ000815)
Location: 7582 Cannor Road (a portion of)
Owners: G. Mohammed Enterprises Ltd. and Cattermole Group Holdings Ltd.
Purpose: The proposal is to rezone a 1.78ha portion of the subject 9.1ha property, as shown on the map below, from an M4 (Heavy Industrial) Zone to an M6 (Special Industrial) Zone to facilitate the construction of a waste recycling and transfer facility.
The proposal includes the registration of a restrictive covenant to restrict the range of uses, as well as a good neighbour agreement, to provide a process to deal with any complaints with respect to the operation of the facility.
Persons who deem that their interest in the property is affected by the proposed amendment bylaw
will have an opportunity to be heard at the Public Hearing or, if you are unable to attend, you may
provide a written submission, including your full name and address, to the City Clerk’s Office no
later than 4:00 p.m. on the date of the Public Hearing. All submissions will be recorded and form
part of the official record of the Hearing.
This proposed bylaw may be inspected between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays, from Wednesday, November 20, 2013 to Tuesday, December
3, 2013, both inclusive, in the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall, 8550 Young Road, Chilliwack, BC.
Please direct your enquiries to our Planning & Strategic Initiatives Department at 604-793-2906.
Please note that no further information or submissions can be considered by Council after the
conclusion of the Public Hearing.
Delcy Wells, CMC
City Clerk
-
I dont see anything in that about hazardous waste?
Regardless, right beside the river is no place to be sorting trash of any kind.
-
I dont see anything in that about hazardous waste?
Regardless, right beside the river is no place to be sorting trash of any kind.
This link might help.... http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?102094-Chilliwack-Residents-URGENT
-
This link might help.... http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?102094-Chilliwack-Residents-URGENT
That helps. Helps A LOT. Tells what the site is going to be used for if the rezoning is approved...
Although it doesn't fill in the whole picture.
The first post on that forum linked says "The last time we had a large snow melt / rain event this site was under water."
Thats not very specific. We have a large snow melt every 2-3 years, at least, and rain events happen all the time. Is he saying this flooded the last time we had a large snow melt, which happens almost every other year, or is he saying the last time we had a large snow melt WITH a large rain event, which hasn't happened in a while now (2007 or 2008 I think?)
-
Bottom line is that the area is subject to flooding, whether it is yearly or not. While they detail the safety measures for containing a "spill" within the site, there is no mention of their contingency plan for a flood (you would think a plan to be a good idea if you are going I build such a facilty on a floodplain).
-
They passed it.
http://www.theprogress.com/news/234468281.html
-
http://www.theprovince.com/business/Mercury+PCBs+recycled+near+Fraser+River+Chilliwack/9247016/story.html
the province article gives some more info on supposed safety measures
-
Kinda strange how this got passed with relative ease considering the location.
-
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/cheam-s-toxic-landfill-a-greater-threat-1.752863
-
http://toxicrecyclingchilliwack.blogspot.ca/2013/12/whats-going-on-down-by-fraser-river-at.html
-
http://westislandgazette.com/news/story/2013/11/25/dangers-of-pcbs-still-lurking-new-fears-raised-about-leaks-like-the-one-in-pointe-claire-in-march/
-
Okay, I will get it started. Are they out of their minds???
-
The staff report can be found here (pages 58-73): http://www.chilliwack.com/apps/council/meetings/agendaPackage/reg/2013.11.19%20Regular%20Council%20Agenda%20Package.pdf (http://www.chilliwack.com/apps/council/meetings/agendaPackage/reg/2013.11.19%20Regular%20Council%20Agenda%20Package.pdf)
The video from Council granting 3rd reading after the public hearing can be found here (Dec 3, 2013 Council Meeting 7:00PM reconviened starting at the 1:00 minute mark): http://www.chilliwack.com/main/page.cfm?id=1443 (http://www.chilliwack.com/main/page.cfm?id=1443)
-
We have a number of people and groups on board and we will issue a press release in the next day or so.
Will post here.
-
We have a number of people and groups on board and we will issue a press release in the next day or so.
Will post here.
Unfortunately, once the public hearing has been held it is illegal for Mayor and Council to hear any additional information as the land use descision has already been made. The only thing that would prevent the zoning bylaw from being adopted would be a failure on the applicant to deliver on the conditions of 3rd reading.
-
We have a number of people and groups on board and we will issue a press release in the next day or so.
Will post here.
Media event will be at the Fraser at Old Orchard Road in Chilliwack on this coming Tuesday at 11AM, I will be bringing coffee and donuts. It looks like a number of TV stations will be covering it and we met tonight to flesh out the details. The press conference will see the press release presented. I believe we have about 8 or 9 major groups signing on. Public is welcome.
-
Watch Global or CBC news tonight for the coverage of the press conference held this morning.
-
http://www.theprogress.com/news/236278011.html
-
Global news link
http://globalnews.ca/video/1037180/chilliwack-community-groups-oppose-hazardous-waste-plant
-
Good job Chris!
-
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/VIDEO-detail/chilliwack-residents-decry-proposed-fraser-river-toxic-waste-recycling-site/
-
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/opposition-mounts-to-hazardous-waste-facility-on-fraser-river-in-chilliwack-1.761676
-
Complete press conference that I filmed for those that wish to see it, 20 minutes long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4rbIy7-BzI&feature=share&list=UU_4LtEFjHj-ulBHuoq6COmQ
-
CBC report
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/BC/ID/2425064328/?page=6
-
Hope some from this forum that are concerned about this can show up next Saturday.
https://www.facebook.com/glen.thompson.7146#!/photo.php?fbid=1440144452881290&set=gm.413848218718730&type=1&theater
-
http://www.theprogress.com/news/240143741.html#.UtWs_cFwMn0.facebook
-
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/bc-rivers-day-founder-talks-hazardous-waste-in-chilliwack-saturday-1.789122
-
Listen up tomorrow morning because at 6:20am (January 17) Mark Angelo will be on CBC Radio's The Early Edition talking about this this hazardous waste treatment facility in Chillwack #morethanjustachillwackissue
-
Time change, around 6:40 AM now.
-
Thanks for keeping us updated Chris
-
Filmed the 2 hour meeting, here is part of of Mark Angelo's presentation. Standing room only at the meeting. :D ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzyFp__8X98&feature=share&list=UU_4LtEFjHj-ulBHuoq6COmQ
-
Re Saturday's meeting.
http://www.theprogress.com/news/241372541.html
-
Oops I posted a link for those that want to read more about this and write letters but I posted it before the final daft is completed, sorry, will have tomorrow I believe.
-
Oops I posted a link for those that want to read more about this and write letters but I posted it before the final daft is completed, sorry, will have tomorrow I believe.
Some may wish to send a letter about this, here is the link.
http://www.community-revision.org/waste/letter/
-
And a petition to sign !
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151976478363095&set=a.49239768094.60558.697283094&type=1&theater
-
Unfortunately, once the public hearing has been held it is illegal for Mayor and Council to hear any additional information as the land use descision has already been made. The only thing that would prevent the zoning bylaw from being adopted would be a failure on the applicant to deliver on the conditions of 3rd reading.
I have ben told that : Two exceptions to "its too late" :
1. Mayoral Privilege - Gaetz used it a year ago when council voted her down on something (even if not likely here, its important to recognize this);
2. if a covenant is to be used on a rezoning and its wording does not satisfy a councilor in any way, the councilor can legally vote NO
-
This story made the Globe and Mail.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/fraser-river-not-the-place-for-hazardous-waste-plant/article16657224/
-
Looks like a legal challenge is now the way to go.
http://www.theprogress.com/news/243591761.html
-
http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/recycling-facility-hazardous-waste-and-fraser-river
-
http://www.theprogress.com/news/245229181.html
-
A new story in The Globe and Mail today.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/chilliwack-community-up-in-arms-over-hazardous-waste-plant/article17189168/
-
http://www.theprogress.com/news/248445961.html
-
Looks like a legal challenge is now the way to go.
http://www.theprogress.com/news/243591761.html
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/262010481.html#.U5DHNpSVj58.facebook
-
http://globalnews.ca/video/1702906/bid-to-stop-hazardous-chilliwack-waste-plant-fails
-
http://www.theprogress.com/news/284366331.html
-
Hi Chris.
Sounds like the proposal for site permit to dispose of contaminated soil at Upland's pit. This gravel and rock quarry is located at the top of the watershed of Cold creek which is used at the Quinsam fish hatchery.
Doesn't anyone have a conscience any more or is money the sole goal today.
-
Up to the ministry of environment now... I was here today, and didn't even know that was the location.
-
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Court+dismisses+prevent+hazardous+waste+facility+from+locating+near+Fraser+River/10430670/story.html
-
http://aptn.ca/news/2014/12/08/toxic-waste-facility-one-step-closer-built-chilliwack/
-
Money talks and common sense walks.
-
The latest news. http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/287542471.html
-
Today's Vancouver Province. http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Foes+toxic+waste+plant+Chilliwack+repeat+warnings/10726265/story.html
-
http://youtu.be/aKCYPeCiyPw
-
What other suitable locations? So far I haven't read any suggestions from environmentalists. Mark Angelo says they exist but where are they? There are creeks, rivers and sloughs everywhere in the Lower Mainland. In addition, potential sites would also be close to residential areas or farmland, so where do you draw the line? If you read comments on other boards they say that the facility shouldn't be located in any watersheds. WTF does that mean? Everything in this province is part of one watershed or another. Rivers like the Vedder flow into the Fraser so that would be off limits according to this rationale. How close is too close? When you read some of the comments from critics in the media they don't want it in Chilliwack period as mercury emissions have been brought up.
Environmentalists have started to highlight these emissions, as well as potential leakage and spills; however, the alternative of having these bulbs with mercury in landfills is far worse for the environment (leaching toxins into landfills or a forest service road near you) so again I have to shake my head at environmentalists that seem to just say "No" and wonder if they know what they are really protesting. Is it about the proposed location near the Fraser River or is it about the people of Chilliwack and area not wanting the facility at all - anywhere in it's boundaries, whether it is close to the Fraser or not?
-
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/290941541.html#storyComments
-
Last night's Global coverage. http://globalnews.ca/news/1816643/chilliwack-residents-oppose-hazardous-waste-plant-on-fraser-river-bank/
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/first-nation-wants-say-on-proposed-hazardous-waste-site-near-fraser-river/article22825775/
-
It is interesting that First Nations is opposing the Aevitas Facility, while at the same time they operate 2 large dump sites on the banks of the Fraser River near Chilliwack.
Who knows what is leaching into the Fraser and water aquifer. I don't hear any environmentalists opposing dump sites such as these which are so close to the river.
Dump sites and gravel removal seem to go hand in hand these days with little or no opposition from groups that say they cherish the Fraser River.
-
It is interesting that First Nations is opposing the Aevitas Facility, while at the same time they operate 2 large dump sites on the banks of the Fraser River near Chilliwack.
Who knows what is leaching into the Fraser and water aquifer. I don't hear any environmentalists opposing dump sites such as these which are so close to the river.
Dump sites and gravel removal seem to go hand in hand these days with little or no opposition from groups that say they cherish the Fraser River.
Also interesting is the fact FN have been OK with the development and usage of that property for over 40 years ... now all of a sudden it has cultural significance.
-
It is interesting that First Nations is opposing the Aevitas Facility, while at the same time they operate 2 large dump sites on the banks of the Fraser River near Chilliwack.
Who knows what is leaching into the Fraser and water aquifer. I don't hear any environmentalists opposing dump sites such as these which are so close to the river.
Dump sites and gravel removal seem to go hand in hand these days with little or no opposition from groups that say they cherish the Fraser River.
Points taken and we ALL need to do more to help save our rivers from any pollution and habitat distruction that has and is taking place. This article from today's Vancouver Sun is timely I think. http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Opinion+upstream+battle+save+rivers/10793825/story.html
-
We ALL have to ask ourselves, what are WE doing to stop these things from happening?
-
I think it’s too late Chris … imo, the only way to have prevented these increasing environmental calamities was for our parents not to have children, or at the very least, far fewer.
-
I think it’s too late Chris … imo, the only way to have prevented these increasing environmental calamities was for our parents not to have children, or at the very least, far fewer.
Its never too late if enough people care enough.
-
So at this stage the Sto:lo are attempting to piggy back on the TNG vs. the province of BC decision, but somehow it wasn't an issue before this facility was planned for this site. Well, for one thing, non-aboriginal environmentalists and anglers (like Clapton and Angelo) who are allied with the Sto:lo in opposition to this recycling facility should be careful what they wish for because any similar decision to what happened up in the Chilcotin last year will likely impact their activities (including the members they represent) in and around the Fraser River.
If spillage and accidents are such a big concern as noted by Angelo then what about the railways that are on either side of the Fraser. There are dangerous materials being transported daily within metres of the Fraser River by rail, but we are not relocating railways away from the river up into the mountains. If the Sto:lo are operating dump sites along the banks of the Fraser already that doesn't help their argument much because its hypocritical. We all watched the video from Aevitas. The containment and safeguards built into the proposed facility are likely far greater than what is done in these dump sites.
Again, what Angelo doesn't mention is where are these other suitable sites he has been talking about. Let's find solutions instead of just saying "NO". Angelo, Crey, Clapton and the other environmentalists should go out and find a suitable site (because apparently there are many) and publicly give their stamp approval for that new location. Now this "new" site may not be as good as what environmentalists think it is, but at least it will have their approval and they can deal with the any new opposition instead of the proponent. We can move forward and recycle this toxic material instead of having it in a landfill or along the ditch of a Forest Service Road.
-
So at this stage the Sto:lo are attempting to piggy back on the TNG vs. the province of BC decision, but somehow it wasn't an issue before this facility was planned for this site. Well, for one thing, non-aboriginal environmentalists and anglers (like Clapton and Angelo) who are allied with the Sto:lo in opposition to this recycling facility should be careful what they wish for because any similar decision to what happened up in the Chilcotin last year will likely impact their activities (including the members they represent) in and around the Fraser River.
If spillage and accidents are such a big concern as noted by Angelo then what about the railways that are on either side of the Fraser. There are dangerous materials being transported daily within metres of the Fraser River by rail, but we are not relocating railways away from the river up into the mountains. If the Sto:lo are operating dump sites along the banks of the Fraser already that doesn't help their argument much because its hypocritical. We all watched the video from Aevitas. The containment and safeguards built into the proposed facility are likely far greater than what is done in these dump sites.
Again, what Angelo doesn't mention is where are these other suitable sites he has been talking about. Let's find solutions instead of just saying "NO". Angelo, Crey, Clapton and the other environmentalists should go out and find a suitable site (because apparently there are many) and publicly give their stamp approval for that new location. Now this "new" site may not be as good as what environmentalists think it is, but at least it will have their approval and they can deal with the any new opposition instead of the proponent. We can move forward and recycle this toxic material instead of having it in a landfill or along the ditch of a Forest Service Road.
You would make a good politician.
-
Good deflection....but I understand why environmentalists don't want to stick their neck out and announce publicly what these "suitable" sites are. It's less riskier for these groups to bash authorities and the proponent and wipe their hands clean at the end of the day then to take initiative and find solutions.
-
Good deflection....but I understand why environmentalists don't want to stick their neck out and announce publicly what these "suitable" sites are. It's less riskier for these groups to bash authorities and the proponent and wipe their hands clean at the end of the day then to take initiative and find solutions.
Where would you think it should be located or do you think the proposed site is a good spot?
-
http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/News_Releases/UBCICNews02061501.html#axzz3R7CLQDwT
-
http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/breaking_news/291102691.html
-
Where would you think it should be located or do you think the proposed site is a good spot?
That's the whole thing, Chris. I don't know what would be a good site, but guys like Angelo do. Apparently, it can't be located in a watershed so that pretty much eliminates a whole lot of land. If it's moved anywhere else someone is inevitably going to complain. It will be too close to residential house...it's too close to farmland....it's too close to schools....it's close to Costco.
MOE still hasn't given final approval. It may turn out not to be a "good spot". Hopefully it is based on the merits of the site and not the rumblings from the Sto:lo. If the decision is that it is not a good place then another location will have to be found because the alternative to not recycling these materials safely is actually worse for the environment.
-
Here is the video I filmed of the hazardous waste plant press conference from Friday, part 1. The wind was terrible so it makes watching and listening hard because of the wind noise, sorry about that.
Thought I would post it anyway so you can view what went on. Of course you donot have to suffer watching it for too long. Maybe part 2 will be better as the wind did die down some.http://youtu.be/A37m21eDSfU
-
I watched all the videos from this press conference. One guy from the Friends of the Chilliwack Riverbed was bringing up concerns about trucks transporting hazardous materials with mercury and PCBs to and from the proposed facility. He was started talking about the threat of these trucks crashing on Hwy #1 - dumping these materials into the Fraser River. Well, not sure how he proposes to move hazardous materials to recycling facilities if it is not by trucks or rail. How precautionary are we going to get here? How do we get it from the consumer or industry to a recycling facility to safely dealt with? Again, there are railways are either side of the river already transporting potentially hazardous materials. Is he protesting about potential accidents from train derailments which are more likely to happen than his other concerns?
He is missing the big picture, in my opinion. The fact is that most CFLs end up in the trash. These CFL bulbs are already being disposed of improperly in landfills or some back road - releasing mercury into the environment potentially contaminating water and the atmosphere. The real more immediate concern he should be having is that the recycling of CFL bulbs is voluntary - even in his own backyard of Chilliwack. So, if he is really concerned about hazardous waste in our environment due to some accident then he should be focused on what is going on right now rather than to solely focus on the possibility other potential accidents. In addition, his opinions kind of go beyond concern about the proposed site as he seems to be opposed to any hazardous waste recycling facility in the area.
I also didn't see much knowledge at the conference of the company (Aevitas), their operations, their safeguards or the emergency planning measures they propose. Everyone has a right to oppose this and be heard, but instead of just looking at what can go wrong some folks should look at what is being proposed and the technology behind it. A representative from Watershed Watch Salmon Society suggested that they would assist in finding another site which is as close as any critic on this has been to being constructive; however, I didn't see any suggestions coming from the rest of the group.
Some information on CFL bulbs:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/compact-fluorescent-bulbs-often-end-up-in-trash-1.2580693
http://globalnews.ca/news/1798793/ontario-could-ban-compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-from-landfills/
-
Video 2 of the press conference re Aevitas proposed plant. http://youtu.be/d3DOrPaxP28
-
http://www.theprogress.com/news/291560761.html
-
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/toxic-waste-facility-could-risk-catastrophe-fraser-stolo-advisor
-
Looks to me Chris that we enjoy all the products of life here but we want some one else to clean up our waste. Perhaps if we were allowed the permission by self appointed environmentalists to have the ability to better refine our own waste here at home there would be far less of it flowing down our rivers and streams. :)
-
Spreading the message of L Ron again Bawb? People throwing garbage around don't care if we "refine " their social misfit tendencies. give yer head shake
-
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/toxic-waste-facility-could-risk-catastrophe-fraser-stolo-advisor
But the safety measures are not enough to convince those who are alarmed by the idea of hazardous waste being housed within the floodplain of the lower Fraser, and opposition to the project appears to be growing. More than 20 groups representing 120,000 people have voiced their concern over the proposed location of the plant, noting the hazards of floods, earthquakes, or fires— or even trucks carrying hazardous waste to the plant going through a guardrail on the Vedder Bridge.
I thought the protest was all about the proximity of the facility to the Fraser River. Now it includes the risk of trucks carrying hazardous waste to the facility going off the road into the Vedder River. I guess that is a possibility, but so is a commercial airliner crashing into the facility, the derailment of a train carrying hazardous materials along the same area or a semi-trailer unit carrying hazardous materials (materials already allowed to travel on our roadways, but environmentalists don’t notice the transportation of hazardous goods decals attached to the truck) going off the highway on any number of stream crossings. The first one is the most unlikely to happen, but the other two are not. How would Crey rate the risks of these other potential catastrophes?
Secondly, how else is the waste supposed to get from the source to the recycling facility if not by road or even rail? How do we avoid having it moved across bridges? I mean if the current proposed site is rejected then this hazardous material will have to travel to another location, by road or rail, potentially crossing streams that drain directly into a major river like the Fraser. These critics apparently don't dispute the need for this recycling facility, but they don’t want it in their backyard and they are providing no alternative location. According to critics there are many alternative locations, but they are not saying where. What they really want to say is “Don’t dump your garbage here. Go away and locate somewhere else in the province”, but that wouldn’t be very “environmentally correct”. Meanwhile, “the garbage is being dumped here” as most CFL bulbs are disposed of in landfills or illegally off the side of some Forest Service Road.
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trail-battery-recycling-fire-leaves-questions-1.805780
We send batteries to this place. So do lots of companies.
-
The facility near Trail is one of hundreds of hazardous recycling facilities in the country. Companies also send a lot of materials to these places which deal with a variety of hazardous waste:
http://www.hazwastebc.com/receiver-processor-list/
-
The facility near Trail is one of hundreds of hazardous recycling facilities in the country. Companies also send a lot of materials to these places which deal with a variety of hazardous waste:
http://www.hazwastebc.com/receiver-processor-list/
Good to know. Thanks for the link Steve. :)
-
http://www.theprogress.com/news/296233591.html
-
http://www.theprogress.com/news/296233591.html
Sounds like a responsible plan from Aevitas. Hopefully it will appease the NIMBY' ers.
-
That's great to hold more consultations before conducting a more technical review by the province. That sounds pretty reasonable; however, I doubt critics of the facility will be using this opportunity to learn more about it. In my opinion, they have made up their minds and will just use the consultation period to discredit the company. Critics just want the province to agree with them - it's not about trying to find out more. Meanwhile, people like Mr. Angelo are silent on what other sites this company can locate and those CFL bulbs that could be recycled safely will continue to go into landfills and into ditches along forest service roads impacting the environment.
-
That's great to hold more consultations before conducting a more technical review by the province. That sounds pretty reasonable; however, I doubt critics of the facility will be using this opportunity to learn more about it. In my opinion, they have made up their minds and will just use the consultation period to discredit the company. Critics just want the province to agree with them - it's not about trying to find out more. Meanwhile, people like Mr. Angelo are silent on what other sites this company can locate and those CFL bulbs that could be recycled safely will continue to go into landfills and into ditches along forest service roads impacting the environment.
This is a site suggested by one organization. "5340 & 5390 192nd Street, Surrey. 16.85 acres, heavy industrial land with rail, 400m off a dangerous goods truck route, over a hill & 9km away from the Fraser."
-
What organization?
-
What organization?
Water Wealth
-
Is this now the beginning of the end of this plant in this location on the banks of the Fraser, what a terrible place for it to be.
Our waterways and the environment is under so many acttacks these days, glad I am not one that attempts to justify what we are now seeing.
-
Water Wealth
Have the good people from Water Wealth passed on this information to Aevita's? If so, what were their comments?
-
Have the good people from Water Wealth passed on this information to Aevita's? If so, what were their comments?
When and if they have the public meeting here I am sure it will be suggested, hope you come and talk about what a good idea it is to have it in the suggested location in Chilliwack. Maybe SS, and the other PPAG will come too. We can then see who we are dealing with. ;D ;D ;D Saying that I think they like to remain hidden behind their computer screens. ;D ;D
-
If Water wealth has not yet passed on this information of a better site for this facility, there must be a reason ... I will trust our elected officials to make the correct decision.
-
If Water wealth has not yet passed on this information of a better site for this facility, there must be a reason ... I will trust our elected officials to make the correct decision.
Funny thing Dave (except on a few matters ;)) you seem like an intelligent person - I don't "trust" our elected officials to make the correct decision. A simple look at the litany of lunacy from all levels should give one a moment to pause and reflect that they all cave to those who gave them money for the party and to get in power. A broad stroke, but think about it.
-
Thanks for the guarded compliment Nova ;D … as I said in another post, it seems to me at some point we have to let people the majority voted for make decisions, even though they may be unpopular . Call me naïve if you like but what’s the point of having elections if all we do for these people is put up roadblocks? Why would anyone want to be involved in the electoral process if that was the case?
Back on topic, if you were passionate about this issue and had found a viable alternate site for this facility, wouldn’t you do your best to let the proponents in on it, asap?
I am looking forward to Aevita's response, and the gnashing of teeth that is sure to come.
-
Thanks for the guarded compliment Nova ;D … as I said in another post, it seems to me at some point we have to let people the majority voted for make decisions, even though they may be unpopular . Call me naïve if you like but what’s the point of having elections if all we do for these people is put up roadblocks? Why would anyone want to be involved in the electoral process if that was the case?
Back on topic, if you were passionate about this issue and had found a viable alternate site for this facility, wouldn’t you do your best to let the proponents in on it, asap?
I am looking forward to Aevita's response, and the gnashing of teeth that is sure to come.
Of course this is what those in power bank on, they just hope there is enought people will just sit back
and let them do what they want to do without stirring up a fuss. This days its all about money and the heck with the environment.
Remember Bill C - 38?
-
It is all to do with money today. They are bought and paid for. Time to smell the roses.
That doesn't mean that you can't speak your mind about what is going on.
Did I forget about Bill C51.
-
Yep, recycling toxic materials safely so they don't adversely impact the environment is "all about the money". Good grief.
-
Yep, recycling toxic materials safely so they don't adversely impact the environment is "all about the money". Good grief.
Recycled responsibly but not on a flood plain. Since you're the king of research, do some on governments of most stripes that , once elected, don't reward those that got them elected. Partisan politics is a simple, plain fact. To believe otherwise is rather naive. (Evian spelled backwards ;D)
-
Recycled responsibly but not on a flood plain. Since you're the king of research, do some on governments of most stripes that , once elected, don't reward those that got them elected. Partisan politics is a simple, plain fact. To believe otherwise is rather naive. (Evian spelled backwards ;D)
Since you are not "the king of research" you should start sometime otherwise you will continue to be naïve. Thanks for confirming my previous criticism about opponents not really interested in knowing more about the proposal.
-
Since you are not "the king of research" you should start sometime otherwise you will continue to be naïve. Thanks for confirming my previous criticism about opponents not really interested in knowing more about the proposal.
What are your comments on Bill C - 38, I know it was passed a couple of years ago but was it a good Bill?
-
Since you are not "the king of research" you should start sometime otherwise you will continue to be naïve. Thanks for confirming my previous criticism about opponents not really interested in knowing more about the proposal.
Snarky today aren't we? ;D That was a compliment, but obviously your thong must be riding a bit high because all I said was don't place hazardous material site on a flood plain. Simple. Not difficult to understand. And governments reward those that put them in power. Absolutely undeniable. Try silk boxers, they might not irritate you as much. ::) ;) ;D
P.S.- Good to see you still love me Steve!
-
Snarky today aren't we? ;D That was a compliment, but obviously your thong must be riding a bit high because all I said was don't place hazardous material site on a flood plain. Simple. Not difficult to understand. And governments reward those that put them in power. Absolutely undeniable. Try silk boxers, they might not irritate you as much. ::) ;) ;D
P.S.- Good to see you still love me Steve!
According to Aevitas, hazardous materials are planned to be stored above the high water mark. Also, if and when high water were to come there would likely be some time for the company to move materials off the site if needed as I doubt the water would hit like a tsunami with no warning. But like I said before, people like you have your mind made up already and are not willing to try and understand the whole proposal.
Meanwhile, these materials are already making their way into our water and air if they are not recycled properly. Are you implying that Aevitas is getting preferential treatment from the provincial government due to campaign donations? Again, thanks for confirming my criticism of critics who are going to use this consultation time to bash the company rather than find out more about the proposal.
Still have that underwear fetish? Go fishing instead.
-
What are your comments on Bill C - 38, I know it was passed a couple of years ago but was it a good Bill?
Not a big fan of Harper or Bill C-38, but I don't see the relevance with this issue, especially with the need for this type of facility to prevent this hazardous material from being put into landfills and illegal dumping grounds. I noticed the FB comment from Water Wealth already, but like Dave already mentioned, did this "organization" (never heard of them before) pass this along to Aevitas? According to Mr. Angelo there are many other sites to put this facility, but to date only one critic of this facility (Water Wealth) has stepped up, went on record and endorsed another suitable location. Why is that Chris? Even then we don't know if that site mentioned by Water Wealth is indeed suitable as I am sure there are many other factors that need to be considered.
I thought recycling hazardous materials was important to environmentalists. You would think that they would all be stumbling over each other coming up with solutions because they said this facility was important. But really, the truth is that nobody in Chilliwack or the Lower Mainland really wants it anywhere in the area and wishes the company would just go away (i.e. Not In My Back Yard) - perhaps out of the province. They are all thinking it, but just don't want to say it. Some critics are even fearful of this material being transported on the highway and are already predicting accidents. In my opinion, it's not about it's location near the river anymore.
-
According to Aevitas, hazardous materials are planned to be stored above the high water mark. Also, if and when high water were to come there would likely be some time for the company to move materials off the site if needed as I doubt the water would hit like a tsunami with no warning. But like I said before, people like you have your mind made up already and are not willing to try and understand the whole proposal.
Meanwhile, these materials are already making their way into our water and air if they are not recycled properly. Are you implying that Aevitas is getting preferential treatment from the provincial government due to campaign donations? Again, thanks for confirming my criticism of critics who are going to use this consultation time to bash the company rather than find out more about the proposal.
Still have that underwear fetish? Go fishing instead.
I hardly consider the Vancouver Sun as a left wing rag, but even they've acknowledged that political donations get those who donate a leg up
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Corporations+fill+Liberal+coffers/8280000/story.html
You can paint it with a brush, a roller or a spray gun but it still doesn't make sense to me and quite a few others to site a facility in the proposed area. I don't oppose the operation at all, I just oppose the location. An example of why not is our long overdue earthquake or any other occurrence that would compromise the "storage".
-
Thanks for the guarded compliment Nova ;D … as I said in another post, it seems to me at some point we have to let people the majority voted for make decisions, even though they may be unpopular . Call me naïve if you like but what’s the point of having elections if all we do for these people is put up roadblocks? Why would anyone want to be involved in the electoral process if that was the case?
Back on topic, if you were passionate about this issue and had found a viable alternate site for this facility, wouldn’t you do your best to let the proponents in on it, asap?
I am looking forward to Aevita's response, and the gnashing of teeth that is sure to come.
If and when politicians don't break their word and keep the promises and not bald faced lie to the electorate, that's when I'll sit back.I wonder when the dividends from the"prosperity fund" will start to lighten up my tax load? How long before the LNG plants start up in this "golden era"? When do we get the details about the(secret) free trade deal with China? When do the (another lie) omnibus bills stop? The Burrard bike lane that the city crews installed overnight after the late night"vote"? All levels (of deceit) seem to economize with truth.
Sorry Dave, but take a look at all levels of government and all you see is a winner decided by who can tell the best lies. I can't rest on my laurels when an employee lies their face off to me.
Now if they would simply sign an agreement that if they fail to keep the electioneering promises they would resign in 30 days.... Until then, I'm going to squawk loud, long and hard.
Back on topic- not on a flood plain.
-
I hardly consider the Vancouver Sun as a left wing rag, but even they've acknowledged that political donations get those who donate a leg up
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Corporations+fill+Liberal+coffers/8280000/story.html
You can paint it with a brush, a roller or a spray gun but it still doesn't make sense to me and quite a few others to site a facility in the proposed area. I don't oppose the operation at all, I just oppose the location. An example of why not is our long overdue earthquake or any other occurrence that would compromise the "storage".
As expected, the question about Aevitas getting preferential treatment wasn't answered. I guess it makes you and other environmentalists feel real powerful when you can try to manufacture as much dirt as you can against a company who is actually doing the environment a huge favour by getting these hazardous materials out of landfills. You say you don't oppose the operation, only the site, but you still find the opportunity to smear the company. Bravo (slow clap and a standing ovation is in order for that one.....).
Really.....if money was being handed over from the company to the BC Liberals then why is the company being told to hold more consultations? This could be another example of a proposal that actually helps the environment, but is actually killed by environmentalists. Go figure. The real funny thing is that we will all come full circle a year or two from now and the same environmentalists fighting this will be complaining that hazardous materials are going into our water and air and that government and industry needs to do something about it. Like a classic Groundhog Day sequel.
An example of why not is our long overdue earthquake or any other occurrence that would compromise the "storage"? Well, I am not an expert in seismology, but I highly suspect that if the facility was located a kilometer or more from the Fraser River it wouldn't be any less susceptible to damage from a major earthquake. As I said before, it's not about it's location near the river anymore. If another location is found then another reason or more will be brought up to kill the facility. While environmentalists are thinking of all these things that can go wrong with the facility these toxic materials will continue to be put into landfills or dumped off the side of the road. Brilliant strategy. Environmentalism is so progressive. Thanks for confirming that also.
-
If it was not for "Environmentalism" our province and Canada would be in worse shape when it comes to the environment than it is, most people know that.
-
"Environmentalism" comes in different forms. In my opinion, our province and country would be in worse shape if it were not for the parents that not only instilled the values of a healthy environment in their children, but also encouraged their children to educate themselves about those issues and the world around them as well as provide constructive solutions. It would also be in worse shape if it were not for those that actively participated in projects (hmmm...who can I be talking about?....) and/or had careers that actually benefited the environment instead of those whose only participation is opposing on social media while not really understanding what they are really protesting in the first place.
If the environment is so important to these many groups who represent all these concerned people then why has only one group so far suggested an alternative location for this facility, Chris? So many people that apparently care for the environment, yet only one suggestion so far. What is the goal for all these groups in this? Is it to just ensure that the facility is not another intrusion on our rivers or is it also to ensure that those hazardous materials that are presently impacting the environment right now are considered and dealt with properly - preferably by companies who have the proven expertise?
-
The people building the plant should know how to find a better location than this, not up to us to find them a site, we are only volunteers.
A number of us had a good meeting with some MLA's today. ;D ;D ;D
-
Careful Chris, can't trust those elected officials .. :D
-
Careful Chris, can't trust those elected officials .. :D
Have to keep trying.
-
The people building the plant should know how to find a better location than this, not up to us to find them a site, we are only volunteers.
A number of us had a good meeting with some MLA's today. ;D ;D ;D
So, if volunteers know what constitutes as a bad site surely they must have some idea what a good site is. Mr. Angelo apparently knows of many other sites. But like you said, "It's not up to us to find them a site". Will you trust ministry officials with their assessment of the proposed site considering they likely have some experience in this area or do critics know best in these situations?
-
Another rally today. https://youtu.be/-1sPGYMqX2w
-
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/03/23/region-asked-to-help-stop-waste-facility?utm_source=addThis&utm_medium=addthis_button_facebook&utm_campaign=Region+asked+to+help+stop+waste+facility+%7C+Vancouver+24+hrs#.VRGsTvCtnsQ.facebook
-
http://www.burnabynow.com/news/burnaby-rivers-advocate-wants-proposed-hazardous-materials-plant-moved-1.1807215#
-
Maybe getting some where on this.
http://www.theprogress.com/news/301141701.html
-
So you are in favour of Burnaby and Metro Vancouver telling you how Chilliwack should act? I hope they don't pass a law like the "no breeding in captivity" out your way or the hatcheries will be in tough shape. But I guess the people living in Yaletown know what is best for Chilliwack anyway.
Politics, indeed, does make strange bedfellows.