Letter to : Mr. Geoff Young, CRD Chairman, and Directors from Russ Lyon.
September 7th 2009
Dear Mr. Young,
Thank you for copy of the recent letters of Bill Bennett (Aug 27th), and Barry Penner (Aug 26th). The letters indicate assurance to the CRD of the province’s commitment to share 1/3 of the funding required, “to identify the best, lowest-cost solution to provide proper sewage treatment to Greater Victoria.”
My first concern is that even if the province does follow through, the project as proposed remains of zero cost benefit because no clear marine or land environmental or public health benefits have been established.
My second concern is with the commitment itself:
- The commitment is non-binding. This party has a history of not following through on promises. For example: not to expand gambling; to share 1/3 gaming revenues with charities; not to rip up contracts; not to implement HST; not to privatize BC Rail.
- The commitment comes with conditions. The new infrastructure must use public-private partnerships, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. As in other such arrangements, the federal government must contribute equally, an uncertain event, given the size and nature of the request, coupled with a looming fall election.
- No funds mentioned in the 2009/10 budget. During the 2006 UBCM Convention, and the (Feb 13th) 2007 Throne Speech, the CRD estimated spending in the 447M range, or $573 per household.
On Friday, March 23, 2007, Rob Shaw of the Times Colonist reported on the new estimate of 1.2B, “As one politician described it, “chins are bouncing off desks" over the cost.”
Two years later, Mayor Leonard told me, among other things, that $1.2B was too much. Nevetheless, the new estimate was confirmed in a June 2, 2009 media release, that the CRD voted in favour of four sewage plants for $1.2 billion.
In Saturday’s paper (Minister: No sewage cash until plan done, TC, Sept 5, 2009, pg A6), on why support for the project wasn’t mentioned in the provincial budget, Bennett responds that he would have to ask for a dollar figure, that he has no idea what the numbers are, and that there is no project yet. Such response indicates that the government’s position has changed. This should come as no surprise in light of the $2.8B deficit for 2009/10, and anticipated deficits through 2013. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-to-post-deficits-through-2013/article1259294/, accessed Sept 9 2009).
So where will the $1,200,000,000 funding come from?
Former MP and Minister of the Environment David Anderson said during a talk show on CFAX, that the province would not have to share costs in order for the project to get funding; a bond could be carried and retired solely by the taxpayers within the CRD.
Should a $1.2B ball and chain be tied around us, in absence of environmental and cost benefit, your legacy will be one of suffocating fixed taxes and user-based tariffs that will limit our ability to pay for other large infrastructure projects now and in the future.
Before that mistake is made, please conduct a peer reviewed environmental impact study and cost benefit analysis and make the information public, and use that information as a basis for deciding if this project should go ahead or not.
In the meantime, encourage the City of Victoria to make improvements to their pre 1920s sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems to eliminate overflows caused by inflow and infiltration, which will go a long way in resolving marine and beach pollution at a fraction of the cost.
Sincerely,
Russ Lyon, CMA