Mack Laing goes to court today and, have spies infiltrated local government?

Mack Laing goes to court today and, have spies infiltrated local government?

by | Sep 6, 2022

Hamilton Mack Laing, a man who gave his house, property, many possessions and money to the Town of Comox, who took it and then snubbed him.

Mack Laing goes to court today and, have spies infiltrated local government?

By

It’s a shame the Town of Comox waited almost four years before finally taking their petition back to the BC Supreme Court today (Wednesday, Sept. 7) to vary the town’s trust agreement with Hamilton Mack Laing to tear down his heritage house and spend the money he gifted for purposes other than his original intentions.

The Town Council could have collaborated to find a win-win with the Mack Laing Heritage Society and those community members who have volunteered to preserve some form of the house, called Shakesides. Instead, the Town Council stopped listening.

And they also stopped going to court for the permissions they need.

The court dates this week fall just 37 days before the 2022 municipal election, making it unlikely the Justice hearing arguments will rule before voters go to the polls. Win or lose, we would have preferred that those incumbents seeking reelection had to account for their voting record on this issue.

As an intervenor, the Mack Laing Heritage Society has asked the court in public filings to dismiss the town’s application to vary the trust, and instead order a forensic accounting of the Trust Fund, an independent assessment of the viability of the Shakesides structure and to direct the town to include the rental income it derived from Shakesides into the trust fund or a related separate fund.

“In breaching its obligations as trustee and allowing waste and neglect of the culturally valuable and irreplaceable trust object (Shakesides), Comox has manufactured the very crisis it now claims as justification to vary the trust; Comox does not come before the court with clean hands and is the author of a delay of several decades,” the society says in its written submission.

The society goes on to assert that the town has “willfully ignored all evidence, offers of assistance and reports that do not contemplate the demolition of Shakesides, or that require a proper accounting of the Trust Fund.”

If the court agrees with the MLHS and orders an accounting and structural assessment before ruling on the town’s application, it could be another year before the matter is finally settled.

Of course, the Town of Comox has had about 40 years to atone for their neglect, so what’s another dozen months?

What’s important for this election is that only one incumbent candidate in the race for Town Council, Nicole Minions, had the ethical integrity to vote against proceeding with this petition and for continued collaboration. Stephanie McGown voted with Minions, but she is not likely to seek office in Comox this year.

Jonathan Kerr no doubt would have joined those two in doing the right thing, but he only joined the council nine months ago.

Stay tuned, as Decafnation will file additional reports on the court case later in the week.

 

Candidates coming out of the woodwork

Former Courtenay mayor Starr Winchester has filed again for City Council, and so has Deana Simkin. They both ran in 2018 and missed the cut by about 10 percent. Brennan Day, who failed to get elected provincially, is now trying local government again. He fell short by nearly seven percent of the vote last time. Nobody has filed for mayor except perennial candidate Erik Eriksson.

Incumbent Arzeena Hamir will have at least two challengers in Area B, Richard Hardy and Keith Stevens. And Tamara Meggitt will challenge incumbent Daniel Arbour in Area A.

Big news, Don Davis has filed again in Comox, as he has every election since, well, forever.

Bad news, Courtenay resident Peter Gibson has filed in Comox. The last time a Courtenay resident filed in Comox, to our knowledge, was when former Comox councillor Tom Grant moved to Crown Isle and tried to keep a seat in Comox. That ended badly as it should have and as it should again.

 

American political creep

The four or five people who are behind the vacuous website, Comox Valley Mainstream, are either rebranding themselves or they’ve gained partners.

A new anonymous website has cropped up called Take Back Comox Valley. Take back from whom, we wonder? The people who built a plant so we wouldn’t have regular boil water advisories? The people who have kept governments going during the pandemic and kept taxes reasonable while doing it?

The people who have taken the backroom dealing out of local politics and put their work transparently into formal policies to deal fairly and consistently with everyone concerned?

It seems these folks are dragging a little right-wing conspiracy tendency across the southern border. Even their name sounds a little like Make America Great Again.

Based on their website, the Taker Backers are going after some group they won’t name that wants to “to stop the expansion of our business community, disrupt our industries, and defund our police.” Holy Moly, who are those evil people?

Frankly, I haven’t heard anybody around here calling to defund the police. Anyway, wouldn’t that be the RCMP? Good luck with that.

And what industry is being disrupted? Even if we stop cutting old-growth timber, the logging industry will remain robust. The Alberta oil industry? Whether the Comox Valley allows 1,000 new gas stations or zero, it won’t send chills down anybody’s spine in Calgary.

But, these concerned citizens claim a righteous fight, “to keep American money and foreign activists out of our local politics.” That’s right, American billionaires are so concerned with issues like garbage and kitchen waste pickup in the rural areas that they are paying undocumented secret agents to infiltrate our local governments.

Sorry, Taker Backers. When you try to get QAnon-style conspiracy thinking going outside the American South, it just doesn’t roll so easily as it does in Alabama.

 

Heads in the sand

There is always a small element of the public that wants our municipal councillors to do nothing more than fill potholes and make the toilets flush. They may be the same people that want schools to do no more than teach students to read, write and add numbers.

The basics are important in every aspect of life but don’t people want, even demand a quality of life that goes far beyond that? Where would we be without music and art in our lives? Without hobbies? Parks and trails? Access to all the things that people are passionate about? Visionary thinking?

Those aren’t the basics, but they enrich our basic lives and in the Comox Valley it may be the single most common reason that people live here.

Councillors who only think about sewers and potholes won’t lead us toward a more vibrant, interesting and rewarding community. Such stunted thinking will do the opposite. And who wants to live in a town without any charm or soul?

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More

Our recommendations in the 2022 Comox Valley local government elections

Decafnation announces its list of preferred candidates in this year’s local government elections and for the first time we identify candidates that we think show promise and provide our reasons for not endorsing the other candidates. Our endorsements fall on the first day of voting at advance polls

Regional District terminates CVEDS contract, opposing views were too entrenched

Regional District terminates CVEDS contract, opposing views were too entrenched

by | Mar 1, 2021

Decafnation archive photo

Regional District terminates CVEDS contract, opposing views were too entrenched

By

This story was updated March 2 to include a reaction from Area C Director Edwin Grieve. Comox Councillor Ken Grant and Comox Mayor Russ Arnott did not respond.

After almost a year of public discussions, in-camera meetings and mediated workshops that were often divisive, the Comox Valley Regional District will terminate its contract with the Comox Valley Economic Development Society on Aug. 26.

In an email to CVEDS Chair Deana Simkin sent Feb. 25, board Chair Jesse Ketler said the regional district was invoking Section 22 of the current service agreement signed just seven months ago on July 27. The section provides for early termination of the contract with six months notice.

A press release issued by the regional district this morning made the termination public knowledge.

The 33-year-old Economic Development Society will now almost certainly fold without a contract that provided local public funding in excess of $1.2 million annually in recent years in exchange for economic development and destination marketing services, and management of the Visitor’s Centre.

In this morning press release, Chief Administrative officer Russell Dyson said, “the CVRD with their municipal partners (City of Courtenay and Town of Comox) will continue reviewing the economic development service to provide a path forward on how economic development will be delivered within the region.”

One possible path that Comox Council has already discussed is for the town to hire its own economic development officer, as Cumberland did in 2016. Comox could still continue to participate in regional funding for destination marketing and Visitors Centre management.

Regional directors made the decision to terminate the contract at an in-camera session following the Feb. 9 full board meeting, which had become heated over the Economic Development Society’s 2021 work plan and budget.

The Comox Town Council has been at odds with the majority of regional district directors over how to manage the CVEDS contract and over its fundamentally opposing view about what constitutes economic development.

The board majority comprising directors from Courtenay and Electoral Areas A and B have pressed to make CVEDS more financially accountable and to modernize its view of what drives the local economy.

Comox Director Ken Grant made the Town Council’s position crystal clear at the Feb. 9 meeting.

“With all the angst around this, I don’t see any way how this relationship with CVEDS can continue,” he said. “So it’s time to cut our ties with CVEDS and stop pouring good money after bad.”

He said the society’s 2021 workplan included seven projects specifically requested by the board “that, in my opinion” have nothing to do with economic development. That’s taking us down a road our community really isn’t interested in.”

Those seven items included, among others, efforts to help create broader access to child care to enable women to return or enter the workforce and addressing the need for affordable housing to accommodate employees of local businesses.

Grant said the regional board has been “interjecting our decisions into their board … in an independent governance model you don’t get to tell them how to do their business,” he said. “That’s been the problem from day one.”

 

NOBODY WAS HAPPY

Comox Town Council wasn’t happy with the board’s new vision for economic development. The board majority wasn’t happy with how CVEDS operated, especially its lack of transparency and what it considered an outdated approach.

It appears both sides had become tired of the conflict.

Some observers believe Comox developed its own economic development strategy last year when the differences of opinion looked irreconcilable and they didn’t have the votes to prevail.

Town Chief Administration Officer Jordan Wahl recently spoke about hiring its own economic development officer as Cumberland did after withdrawing from the regional service five years

The town hired Lara Greasley, former CVEDS marketing manager, last year and now there is speculation they might hire CVEDS executive director John Watson.

That would leave Courtenay and the electoral areas to form their own economic development plan.

But there might still be room for a regional-wide destination marketing service and management of the Visitor’s Centre, both of which are currently under contract with Tourism Vancouver Island.

 

REACTION TO THE TERMINATION

Area A Director Daniel Arbour said the ongoing service review will allow the municipalities and rural areas to discuss how to support economic development in each respective community. He said it’s clear there are a variety of needs, some which may be best addressed in each jurisdiction, and some through regional collaboration.

“For Area A, CVEDS has worked primarily on the promotion of the shellfish sector for years. Without CVEDS, as chair of the Baynes Sound Ecosystem Forum, and AVICC local government representative on shellfish issues, I look forward to continue to grow the relationship with the businesses, BC Shellfish Association, and K’omoks First Nation on the promotion of sustainability initiatives in and around Baynes Sound,” he told Decafnation.

“Ultimately, in the years ahead, the most important economic consideration in Area A will be to properly manage growth in and around Union Bay, and to make thoughtful decisions around infrastructure requirements and integrated community planning,” he said.

Area B Director Arzeena Hamir said she has been advocating for more support for the farming sector ever since she was elected in 2018.

“Supporting farmers to increase their incomes per acre and create a vibrant food economy has always been at the forefront of my asks of our Economic Development Service. I hope to continue pushing for that,” she told Decafnation.

“I do also support more childcare places and I do see the direct connection between the vitality of the workforce and the ability of that workforce to return to work without having to worry about who is taking care of their kids,” she said.

Hamir added that she is looking forward to a transformed Economic Development Service.

“It’s been a long haul. We did try to work with CVEDS under the new contract but I felt we weren’t getting the deliverables we agreed to and CVEDS continued to make decisions (like the contract to Tourism Vancouver Island) without even informing the CVRD in advance,” she said.

Area C Director Edwin Grieve thanked the “incredible list” of volunteers who stepped up and donated so much of their time and expertise to serve on the CVEDS board. He noted past presidents Richard Hardy, Ian Whitehead, Justin Rigsby, Deana Simpkin. He also gave recognition to John Watson and Geoff, Lara, Arron and others from the staff that worked magic and doubled every public dollar.

“In this, as in so many Comox Valley endeavours, it was the volunteers, societies and not-for-profits that made this such a great place to live,” he told Decafnation. 

 

WHAT’S NEXT

It was the Comox Council that unanimously voted to request a formal review of the economic development service. That review with a hired consultant began on Jan. 17 but has so far resulted in only one in-camera meeting, which primarily focused on the process and procedures for the review.

The next meeting of the review committee is scheduled for mid-March but does not appear on the regional district’s website because they have closed the meetings to the public.

The review committee comprises representatives from Courtenay, Comox, the three electoral areas and the regional board chair.

 

 

 

 

Read Decafnation’s extensive coverage of the Economic Development Society, it’s history and how the shifting political climate foreshadowed its demise 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More
Regional District terminates CVEDS contract, opposing views were too entrenched

Survey finds Areas A-B happy with regional board, directors, little interest in schools

by | Feb 15, 2021

Photo Caption

Survey finds Areas A-B happy with regional board, directors, little interest in schools

By

Just over halfway through their first terms in local government, regional district directors Daniel Arbour and Arzeena Hamir have earned high approval ratings from the respondents to a Local Government Performance Review conducted recently by Decafnation.

Decafnation initiated the survey to measure how satisfied voters were with the performance of the councillors, directors and trustees they elected in 2018.

The first article summarizing the survey’s findings published earlier this week took a close look at the Courtenay and Comox municipal councils and individual council members. This second article focuses on the rural electoral areas of the Comox Valley Regional District, as well as the District 71 school board and Island Trust representatives from Denman and Hornby Islands.

Electoral Area A Director Daniel Arbour received the highest approval rating of all the Comox Valley’s 33 elected officials reviewed in the survey. Eighty-nine percent of Area A respondents said they were either very satisfied (61%) or satisfied (28%) with his performance so far. That was also the survey’s highest ‘very satisfied’ rating.

Affordable housing the top issue in Areas A and B. In Area C, it was protecting the Regional Growth Strategy

Electoral Area B Director Arzeena Hamir was close behind Arbour with a 65 percent approval rating from respondents, including a 58 percent approval rating in the top ‘very satisfied’ level.

Respondents from electoral areas A and B also said they were satisfied with the work of the Comox Valley Regional District board of directors.

But veteran electoral director Edwin Grieve didn’t fare as well. Fifty-seven percent of electoral area C respondents said they were dissatisfied with his performance at mid-term, including 30 percent who said they were very dissatisfied.

Despite Grieve’s low approval rating, the survey found that Area C respondents were still mostly satisfied with the regional board as a whole, although their satisfaction level (38%) was the lowest of the three electoral areas. Also, the number of Area C respondents who gave the board a neutral rating (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) was the highest of the three rural areas.

The survey results also show that most residents in the municipalities and rural areas were ambivalent about School District 71 school board trustees as well as Island Trust representatives. With a few exceptions, most of these elected officials’ received the neutral rating of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

A neutral rating usually indicates the survey respondent doesn’t have enough information to form a strong positive or negative impression or that they are indifferent to, in this case, the school board and Island Trust issues.

Denman Island’s Laura Busheikin received the strongest satisfaction rating (54%) among the four Islands Trust representatives from Denman and Hornby islands. But both Busheikin and Denman’s other representative, David Critchley, received a significant number of written comments.

All four Islands Trust trustees received high neutral satisfaction ratings, probably because twice as many Area A residents live in the Royston to Fanny Bay portion of the district as on the islands. Those residents are not as likely to follow Denman and Hornby civic issues.

“Although a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour is doing a good job of representing both the “Big Island” and “Little Islands” parts of Area A.”

The survey also asked respondents to identify the top issues elected officials should address before voters go back to the polls on Oct. 15 of next year.

Although the list of top issues varied in each jurisdiction, areas A and B choose affordable housing as the number one issue. In Area C, the top issue was protecting the Regional Growth Strategy, quite possibly a reaction to the multi-year controversy over a large subdivision proposed by 3L Developments.

The survey was conducted over a three-week period via Survey Monkey and the results independently analyzed by community volunteers not associated with Decafnation.

Respondents could choose among five levels: very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied or dissatisfied, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied. For this story, in most instances, we have combined the top two satisfied ratings and bottom two dissatisfied ratings and refer to them as simply satisfied or dissatisfied.

Most of the 314 survey respondents included written comments to help explain their satisfaction ratings. These can be found elsewhere on the Decafnation website.

Here’s a closer look at the results for the Comox Valley Regional District Electoral Areas, school trustees and Island Trust representatives.

 

CVRD ELECTORAL AREA A

Almost two-thirds of survey respondents from Area A (61%) said they are satisfied with the regional district board. That was the highest approval rating of any local government surveyed and may be a reflection of respondents’ satisfaction with CVRD Director Daniel Arbour.

Arbour not only received the highest approval rating in the survey (89%) but he also had the lowest disapproval rating (7%) and the fewest number of indifferent respondents (4% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied).

Area A respondents’ satisfaction level with the regional district board – click to enlarge

One respondent said they were very satisfied with Arbour because, “Although a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour is doing a good job of representing both the “Big Island” and “Little Islands” parts of Area A.”

“He has a good media presence so I see things he is trying to do. Shares information on Facebook. Connects with locals about rural concerns and get what it’s like to live rurally,” said another respondent.

You can find all of the regional district, school trustee and Islands Trust comments here.

District 71 school board Chair Sheila McDonnell, who represents Area A, received the highest satisfaction rating (29%) of any school trustee and a low dissatisfaction rating (5%).

But survey respondents across the Comox Valley gave all of the school board trustees, including McDonnell, and the four Islands Trust representatives overwhelmingly indifferent ratings. Sixty-seven percent of Area A respondents said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with McDonnell.

Respondents said they “have no kids in school, so not an interest,” and “No idea what she’s up to.” While another respondent said, “Sheila has been very receptive to feedback and concerns about the school board processes.”

Few Area A respondents said whether they were satisfied not with the Denman and Hornby Island Trust representatives.

Denman’s Laura Busheikin topped the survey for most responses and respondents also gave her the highest satisfied rating (54%) and also the lowest indifferent rating (37%).

“Laura is by far the best Islands Trustee we’ve had in the 31 years I’ve lived on Denman Island. She’s smart, hard-working, and faultlessly ethical despite being cast, in some Islanders’ minds, as a foil to Local Trust Committee members whom they regard as “elitists,” said one respondent.

Area A respondents’ top issues – click to enlarge

Only about 20 percent of Area A respondents said they were satisfied or dissatisfied with Hornby trustees Grant Scott and Alex Allen and Denman trustee Dave Critchley. But respondents did have several conflicting comments about Critchley

“Trustee Critchley is a lawyer and performs his LTC job officiously. He tends to take a conservative position on certain issues, particularly housing which has become a hot-button again as the IT Council has decided to crack down on non-conforming dwellings and has been issuing eviction notices since last winter. These “illegal” dwellings have existed on this Island for 47 years—ever since the imposition of the Islands Trust. They exist because they are critically necessary: the AVERAGE age on Denman is 61 years old and younger workers of every sort are needed—and need places to live. Trustee Critchley has tended to support the recent crackdown on non-conforming dwellings. About 20% of our population lives in these,” said one respondent.

And when it came to the top issues Area A respondents want Arbour to address before the end of his first term, Affordable housing topped the list (66%). Next was mental health and opioid addiction issues.

 

CVRD ELECTORAL AREA B

More than twice as many Area B respondents to the survey say they are satisfied (53%) than dissatisfied (20%) with the regional district board. And 65 percent say they are satisfied with the performance of Director Arzeena Hamir. Just 13 percent said they were dissatisfied.

Area B respondents’ satisfaction level with the regional district board – click to enlarge

“Arzeena Hamir is an outstanding director. I highly respect her for her willingness to speak up and be vocal about issues she feels strongly about. She communicates professionally and thoroughly researches issues she’s addressing. She has been unafraid to speak publicly about CVEDS, and other challenges the CVRD is facing,” said one respondent.

“Have been very impressed with Director Hamir in every way. Particularly appreciated her support of Curtis Road residents in our difficulties with the Sewage Treatment plant,” said another who echoed other respondents’ comments.

The comments from Area B respondents, which can be found here, included these:

“On the whole I am pleased with how the CVRD has handled things this past term. I’m especially happy that they are putting CVEDS through their paces and bringing them to task for the years of secretive operations and inadequate service to the area as a whole,” said one.

Area B respondents’ top issues – click to enlarge

While another said, “I think that personal relationships seem to trump community greater good when it comes to decision making for Director Edwin Grieve. Very satisfied with Daniel Arbour and Arzeema Hamir.”

Survey respondents were dramatically indifferent about school board Trustee Michelle Waite. Ninety percent of Area B respondents said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, because, according to one respondent, “No idea how that is going.”

Another respondent said, “The school district does a poor job of getting its news and information to the public. Sometimes this feels intentional.”

The top issues Area B respondents want to be addressed are affordable housing and the Regional Growth Strategy. But they also noted support for the farming sector and climate change as top issues leading up to the 2022 civic elections.

 

CVRD ELECTORAL AREA C

Of the Comox Valley’s three electoral districts, Area C is the most unhappy with their regional board representation, and the least happy with the CVRD board itself.

Area C respondents’ satisfaction level with Director Edwin Grieve – click to enlarge

Area C respondents said they were decidedly dissatisfied (56%) with the performance of Director Edwin Grieve.

“Grieve appears to support the visions of CVEDS and the Exhibition Grounds Committee that are not in keeping with more sustainable, grassroots, community-based values. BIG is not necessarily beautiful. Input from local growers and the community at large should be valued and respected, not minimized or criticized. Time for him to join many of the other “old boys club” members and step aside,” said one respondent.

All of the survey’s written comments about Grieve, the regional district and their school board trustee can be read in their entirety here.

But 30 percent of Area C respondents were also satisfied with his performance.

Area C respondents’ top issues – click to enlarge

“Edwin has been between a rock and a hard place for a long time, what with 3L being in his grill for so long. Director Grieve seems to be a conciliator personality type and is not his own best advocate. I think that many times what he does is not actually understood by the electorate and the press,” according to another survey respondent.

The recently appointed school trustee for Area C, Cristi May Sacht received equally small numbers of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents and 81 percent who said they didn’t know enough about her or were indifferent to school issues.

Protecting and updating the Regional Growth Strategy is the top issue (65%) that respondents from Area C want their director to address in the last half of his term. Respondents ranked affordable housing second (52%) and then economic development and climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOW YOU RATED ELECTORAL AREA DIRECTORS, SCHOOL TRUSTEES AND ISLANDS TRUST REPS

Cumberland school board trustee Sarah Jane Howe’s result derives from only three respondents, two who gave her a neutral rating and one who gave a satisfied rating.

 

 

SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION

 

 

SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY AGE GROUPINGS

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More

Electoral Area A Comments

by | Feb 15, 2021

These are the written comments made by Electoral Area A residents who participated in Decafnation’s Local Government Performance Review. Comments that breached our journalistic standards have been eliminated. All other comments appear as entered into the online survey platform. Click on each image to enlarge the view.

Daniel Arbour

⇒ He seems committed to the work and is a very good speaker.

⇒ Admirable!

⇒ He has a good media presence so I see things he is trying to do. Shares information on Facebook. Connects with locals about rural concerns and get what’s it’s like to live rurally.

⇒ Has done a good job of reaching out to residents

⇒ I respect his stand with BCF although it did not really get us anywhere.

⇒ Daniel has made an effort to reach out and provide support and advocacy for a number of Denman Island community projects.

⇒ He’s accessible and sympathetic – this is great for us.

⇒ High profile, gets on with it. He is most approachable. Is sincere in what he says.

⇒ Seems smart and very involved which is great.

⇒ Although a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour is doing a good job of representing both the “Big Island” and “Little Islands” parts of Area A.

⇒ hard-working, clear communicator, approachable, makes things happen, engaged, ethical

⇒ Takes the area concerns seriously and is very good with keeping us informed.

⇒ He has done an exceptional job of keeping the community informed and obtaining feedback.

⇒ Good one you for speaking up! even when it makes them uncomfortable. Be the politician that speaks truth.

⇒ Who? Where is his media presence letting the public know how things are.

⇒ This guy is great! One of our very best area directors

⇒ Daniel reaches out to the community much more than our previous director. He works to keep us informed.

⇒ He’s good at communicating.

⇒ Any emails or short Meet Your Area Rep has always gone well. Daniel Arbour is a hard worker and wants to do his best.

⇒ Very approachable, helpful, accessible and informative.

⇒ Hard working director.

⇒ I appreciate that Daniel uses Facebook to communicate with constituents.

⇒ He has failed Union Bay with his Developer friendly attitude. The Developer is screwing with people’s lives.

Area A Comments on CVRD

⇒ Not familiar with enough of the issues to assess their work.

⇒ Not sure what they are responsible for, what they do.

⇒ Suggestion that the financial reports of tax funded committees on Denman Island should be more readily accessible to the residents. Thanks for the new stairs at Denman West, and other work on trails.

⇒ Other than Daniel A. , I’ve not yet had any dealings with any of them.

⇒ We Denman and Hornby Islanders used to have our own Regional District Area but have since been rolled back into Area A. Luckily Area A elected a Hornby Islander, Daniel Arbour.

⇒ Haven’t followed closely enough to offer a judgement.

⇒ Unsure of their performance, except Daniel Arbour is the only one I’ve followed, and he has a good lick of practicality and seems quite “real” about whats going on. Appreciate his efforts and hope he keeps speaking truth to power.

⇒ Have not heard anything from any one in the district during Covid.

⇒ Too much favourism among the Directors

⇒ They seem to be doing an okay job.

⇒ We have one person looking after CVRD A which encompasses a large area with a diverse population. I hope most of the residents are reasonable people and approach their elected official respectfully. I know some things take long to progress but we also need to remember it’s different levels of government who may have more power in doing things.

⇒ We’ll see as time goes on, Union Bay is in transition.

⇒ So far so good, from what I’ve been able to glean from Decafnation and Daniel’s Facebook page.

⇒ What do they do for Union Bay?

Area A Issues

⇒ Taxes on the Valley’s highest emitters could be redirected to support local decarbonization strategies. Anyone in the Valley driving an F350, towing a boat, and driving quads and Skidoos should pay steel registration fees. The collected revenue put into active transport infrastructure etc.

⇒ The Comox Valley is doing a great job at pushing the hard-working people in low-income jobs out. If you don’t deal with the disgusting rent and housing costs you will have no service people left.

⇒ Internet access: high speed (>25 Mbs), equally accessible and affordable.

⇒ Just get stuff done in a timely manner.

⇒ Never mind relations with first nations. And low-income housing ?? What spend the money and time on infrastructure that benefits the island. And make the complaint system disappear, please. Turning people against each other. Clean up the trailer, buses and shacks. Islands trust doesn’t fund low-income housing. The low-income housing application have both been on lands that have a better use. Alr and forestry. Application NEEDS to be on residential lands.

⇒ Please pay attention to the upcoming census as Denman is changing rapidly and this will reflect in needs of the Islanders.

⇒ Consistent application of bylaws to ensure the quality of life for all.

⇒ COVID recovery and response

⇒ Thanks for making this available. Thanks for asking.

⇒ Affordable housing is by far the biggest issue on Denman Island, especially since the ITC has decided to impose a crackdown on non-conforming dwellings that have existed here for nearly 50 years. The Regional District has jurisdiction over building permits, inspections, etc, but delegate this to the LTC even though the Island is not a municipality (which are customarily delegated such jurisdiction). The problem is, the LTC does not provide building inspection (the province provides septic and electrical inspection only) —I suppose as a sop to residents who objected to the imposition of the Islands Trust in 1974; as a result, non-conforming dwellings (and a large proportion of conforming ones) are substandard, potentially unhealthy and unsafe despite the BC Building Code being in effect on every square inch of the province. However, we need to house workers employed at the various businesses here or who provide many services our generally geriatric population needs. This issue is becoming extremely contentious as the new bylaw enforcement officer has been handing out eviction notices with zeal unlike we’ve ever seen before. The new Bylaw Enforcement Notification system is an attempt to insulate the IT from court costs —that is, it deprives —or claims to, at least—residents’ of their day in court to settle bylaw disputes (the BEN system apparently substitutes for a number of failed attempts to implement a municipal-style ticketing system which, because the ITC is not responsible to is electors, is unconstitutional—beyond the IT’s jurisdiction in the same way the IT may not levy taxes, requiring the CVRD to do it in its stead as per the English Bill of Rights 1688/89, its derivatives in Common Law enshrined in the British North America Act 1867 and, now, the Constitution Act 1982). Many residents feel the BEN system is unfair and imprudent, if not unconstitutional. Naturally, the IT is precisely that: a trusteeship like any other, meaning its Trustees represent the special mandate of Islands Trust Act to residents—residents are not represented to the IT. In other words, our two elected Trustees (the ITC chair is a Trustee elected by residents of Bowen Island) are responsible to the narrow mandate of the IT Act only, not to their electors. Thus, because the LTC has sole authority over land-use zoning, we Islanders have few democratic tools to solve the severe housing shortage here—even though, ironically, we have four jurisdictions to which we elect officials whereas most BC citizens have only two or three. This mounting problem is not the fault of any elected representatives but, rather, of conflict between the IT mandate and residents who also elect representatives to responsible governments which cannot respond to their electors because of the restrictive IT mandate. It is a systems problem that has been assiduously ignored since 1974–which is why non-conforming dwellings are so common here, a sort of detente because almost everybody either knows someone who lives in such a dwelling, lives in one themselves, or provides such for someone: if anybody makes an official (anonymous) complaint, it risks a storm of tit-for-tat retaliation, suspicion and unneighbourliness that would affect nearly everyone here. Apparently, the IT Council (which is not elected by residents) is willing to take that risk—at the expense of humanity, peace, happiness, neighbourliness and prosperity on our Island. The position of Islands Trustee on Denman Island (and, presumably, on other Islands in Trust too) is therefore fraught with difficulty and, often, rancour. That’s why many residents here vote for and are thankful to have an energetic Trustee in Laura Busheikin who works tirelessly with the utmost integrity to find compromises within this strange, restrictive kind of jurisdictional conundrum that is not responding to an urgent problem: the lack of affordable housing. This could be solved if secondary dwellings were generally permitted on all properties (save ALR, about 50% of our Island, which has its own restrictions in this regard that trump the IT)—a possibility only Trustee Busheikin has shown any interest in. This issue is getting very, very hot here. It hasn’t been a healthy situation for a long time but looks to get even less so if something isn’t done soon about how we residents are represented to responsible governments. We already have affordable housing, such as it is, we just need it to be legal, healthy and safe.

⇒ Climate change, sustainable economics, and affordable housing are at the top of my political agenda, but I don’t think local and regional representatives have the power to deal meaningfully with them. They all urgently require fast, decisive provincial, national, and international action.

⇒ Provide the needs of the citizens at a reasonable cost. Don’t waste money on pet projects. Unless infrastructure is addressed, that includes ferries and bridges, we do not need more growth.

⇒ Policing in rural areas

⇒ People are suffering, it is getting worse, and those of us who are trying to help by housing (illegally) those who lack housing are now being targeted by bylaw enforcement. We will have a tent city in no time if something doesn’t happen now.

⇒ Fix the problems. We need to repave roads, more help for mental health persons, we need to keep our green spaces and stick to the growth plan. Stop big developers from tearing down and destroying green space. Upgrade the run-down areas and increase density in pockets rather than urban sprawl that only helps the realtors and developers.

⇒ All of the above. I would like to see some more concrete action with the people who seem to need to heat their homes with wet wood. Dry wood is still bad for everyone regardless. The burning in the back yards is awful and spreads the smoke all over the neighbourhood. I know there is a committee/forum on it and incentives to switch to alternatives. Tougher laws are needed. Help those of us who have difficulty breathing and everyone else whose health is impacted whether they know it or not.

⇒ What about COVID?

⇒ Oh man, I wanted to tick everything. The global climate crisis is having a knock-on effect on so many other variables … We really need to be thoughtful about our growth strategy. The Weekender Effect has taken hold and it’s a crying shame. I keep saying that the barometer I use is how “dog friendly” our communities are. Can’t believe someone asked me to leash my dog when we were walking up Forbidden the other week – man oh man, it wasn’t so long ago that you could go up Becher with your pack of dogs, and not see a single other party on the trail. We have to be very mindful of the culture we develop as Vancouver moves in.

Another environmental dilemma: Do biosolids pose a public health risk?

Another environmental dilemma: Do biosolids pose a public health risk?

by | Jan 12, 2021

Creating Coal Hills Class A compost at the CVRD  |  Comox Valley Regional District photo

Another environmental dilemma: Do biosolids pose a public health risk?

By

Members of the Comox Valley Electoral Areas Services Commission came face-to-face with yet another environmental dilemma this week: sewage sludge.

Sewage sludge is the concentrated residue of everything Comox Valley residents flush down their toilets or pour into their sinks after the wastewater has been separated, treated and piped into the Strait of Georgia.

Unlike most other regional districts, the Comox Valley Regional District treats its sewage sludge to a level that qualifies it as a Class A compost, according to provincial Ministry of Environment regulations. That means the sludge has met certain Organic Matter Recycling Regulation (OMRR) levels of pathogens and other contaminants, such as heavy metals.

The CVRD then sells the compost to local homeowners as Skyrocket and to companies outside of the Comox Valley for large scale land applications for agriculture, forestry and other industries.

Most other BC regional districts either dispose of their sludge in landfills or treat it to Class B (raw biosolids) or to Class A biosolids products (sterilized sludge). Only Ladysmith, Kelowna and Vernon produce a Class A compost equivalent to the CVRD.

But is the treated sludge safe to use in gardens that grow food for human consumption or to be spread on open land?

The CVRD says it is, and staff point to studies embraced by the BC Ministry of Environment.

But after a large-scale land application of Class B treated sludge from the Powell River sewage treatment plant on a Hamm Road property in the Black Creek area earlier this year, a Campbell River environment group has challenged the safety of biosolids.

In a presentation to the Electoral Areas Services Commission Monday, Philippe Lucas said land applications of biosolids are dangerous because they pose a health risk to humans and legal liabilities for the regional district.

Lucas, a PhD student at the University of Victoria and a former Victoria city councillor and Capital Regional District director, represented the Campbell River Environmental Committee.

“After years of debate, academic studies examining the impact of sewage sludge on the local marine environment confirmed what many of us have long suspected: sewage is unquestionably harming the health of our oceans and subsequently threatening human health as well,” he told the commission.

The Capital Regional District recently stopped dumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

“So why would it be any safer to expose our local farms, fields and or forests?” Lucas said.

In a letter to the commission, Leroy McFarlane, president of the Campbell River Environment Committee, said even Class A sludges pose health risks.

“If you walk through Canadian Tire, be aware that every liquid on their shelves could potentially find its way into the sewer system and therefore show up in biosolids,” McFarlane wrote. “A similar walk-through London Drugs will remind you that pharmaceuticals and chemicals sold there might also become a part of biosolids being applied to fields and gardens and show up in our food supply and enter our water and in some cases become airborne.”

Lucas said that some European countries have banned the use of biosolids. And he said that some grocers, including Thrifty Foods, refuse to carry products grown on land fertilized with biosolids.

He said First Nations bands, the Sierra Club of BC and others, including the Island Organic Producers Association (IOPA), all oppose land applications of biosolids.

The IOPA certifies organic farms on Vancouver Island. It has certified about a half-dozen farms in the Comox Valley as organic growers. It is supported by local businesses such as Seeds Food Market in Cumberland, Edible Island Whole Foods Market, the Atlas Cafe, Locals Restaurant and Buckerfields.

The commission took no action, but directors suggested the CVRD staff review the science and assess the legal liabilities.

Area A Director Daniel Arbour noted the difference in the CVRD product versus the Hamm Road application but said the discussion would be informative for the public.

“My view is that the skyrocket product is a highly processed composted material, and staff report low levels of contaminants. Granted it is not pure and free of pharmaceuticals, but we need to report on levels so people understand the level of risk, which could prove minimal compared to alternatives,” Area A Director Daniel Arbour told Decafnation after the meeting.

 

MINISTRY AND CVRD SAYS IT’S SAFE

The Lucas presentation focused on Class B and Class A biosolids, as did the studies his presentation relied on.

The BC Ministry of Environment website doesn’t clearly differentiate between Class B and A biosolids and the Class A compost product produced by the CVRD. It appears to lump all biosolids together and labels them safe.

“Biosolids are the stabilized products that are recovered at the end of the wastewater treatment process. Biosolids are rich in nutrients that may be beneficially used to improve soil conditions and provide nutrition for plants. Because of the biological components of biosolids, proper management is important to control the impact on the environment and human health,” the website says.

The website has links to multiple studies that support its statement.

But the CVRD has “invested heavily … to produce a product that has unrestricted use, and is a valuable source of recycled nutrients,” Kris La Rose, senior manager of water/wastewater services, told Decafnation.

And in a report to the EASC in April of this year, CVRD Chief Administrative Officer Russell Dyson noted the numerous standards and regulations that the regional district’s biosolids must meet.

“In comparison to other nutrient sources available to agricultural producers, such as manure or chemical fertilizers, land application of biosolids has a more stringent regulatory framework, while providing a similar soil amendment,” he said. An attachment to his report included a comparison of regulatory, product composition and environmental considerations for biosolids, manure and chemical fertilizers.

The regional district Skyrocket page on its website suggests the product is safe for use in landscaping, flower gardens and lawns. It does not mention using the product in vegetable gardens

Area B Director Arzeena Hamir, who operates a certified organic farm, told Decafnation after the meeting that she “could not and would not” use biosolids as fertilizer on the food products she sells.

That’s not the case in the United States, she said, where certified organic growers are allowed to use biosolids.

“This is a big societal question we have to address,” she told Decafnation.

 

COMOX VALLEY BIOSOLIDS

Mike Imrie, the CVRD’s manager of wastewater services, said the district sells between 7,000 and 7,500 cubic yards of Skyrocker per year, while the wastewater treatment plant generates about 1,375 to 1,500 tonnes of dry biosolids annually.

Every week a total of 800 yards is placed in one of five bunkers, which ends up as 160 yards of finished product for sale, after composting, screening and curing. The loss in volume comes about from evaporation, and screening out of oversize amendment, which is recycled back into the next batch.

“All of our Biosolids are used in the composting process and none are disposed of in any other way.” Imrie told Decafnation.

The wet biosolids are mixed with an amendment product, which is usually chipped and ground green waste from the landfill, Imrie says. Every four kilograms of wet biosolids is mixed with six kilograms of amendment.

The Class A composting process exposes the sludge to high temperatures for extended periods. The result is a higher level of sterilization of the end product and a higher extent of oxidation of contaminants of emerging concern.

La Rose says the regional district is keeping up with worldwide research on the presence of pharmaceuticals in biosolids.

“So far the conclusions are that pharmaceuticals that are present in our wastewater are more likely to be discharged in the liquid, and the pharmaceuticals that remain in the biosolids are more likely to be broken down during the composting process,” La Rose said.

He said they are following best practices known now that recycling nutrients and organic matter through composting the biosolids is the best way to recycle them.

“It’s interesting to note that there is increased discussion in Europe to allow biosolids from smaller communities with less industry to be used on organic farms,” he said. “The reason for this is that organic farms can only use rock phosphate or compost, and rock phosphate interestingly enough also contains heavy metals. It’s also of concern that our world supply of phosphorus is diminishing, so we need to recycle as much as we can.”

 

OTHER ALTERNATIVES?

During his presentation on behalf of the Campbell River Environment Committee, Lucas said regional districts have four other options for disposing of biosolids.

He said there are technologies to remove heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and pharmaceuticals, but other regional districts have found this too expensive.

Biosolids can be turned into energy through gasification. Also, biosolids can be shipped to cement kilns on the Lower Mainland for use as fuel (the Capital Regional District has been doing this).

Finally, he said, biosolids can be shipped to a biochar facility in Prince George where the carbon is sequestered and turned into a high-value end product.

But the list of alternatives didn’t resolve the issue for Area A Director Arbour.

“The question of what to do with such material is a good one, and I am not convinced that burning carbon is the best alternative either,” he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT THE BC MOE SAYS ABOUT BIOSOLIDS

Biosolids are residual products from sewage treatment processes that have been treated to reduce pathogens and vectors. They are primarily used as a fertilizer to promote grass growth on rangeland, for forest fertilization and for site reclamation at sites like gravel pits and mines. Biosolids are not sewage sludge.

The land application of biosolids does not pose a risk to human health or the environment when they are applied in accordance with all of the requirements in the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. Biosolids should be handled in the same manner as animal manure; efforts should be taken to minimize the risk of accidental ingestion or body entry. The primary method of reducing risk is to limit direct exposure to biosolids.

— BC Ministry of Environment

 

CLASS B BIOSOLIDS NOT SAFE SAYS STUDY

On July 2, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that there may be public health risks from using processed sewage sludge as a commercial fertilizer. Approximately 60 percent of an estimated 5.6 million tons of dry sludge is used or disposed of annually in the United States.

Sludge also includes traces of household chemicals poured down drains, detergents from washing machines, heavy metals from industry, synthetic hormones from birth control pills, pesticides, and dioxins, a group of compounds that have been linked to cancer.

— University of Georgia research

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Enter your email address to subscribe to the Decafnation newsletter.

More