Add new comment

I received the following via email.  This is more like it.  We are now talking about the relative merrits of different sites and recognizing that the criteria matter.

I must admit I am one of those causing your email inbox to “currently runneth over” but I do not apologize for lobbying my elected officials to make sure that decisions are made on behalf of all voters and citizens.
When you say that what is missing from these letters is an alternative location is simply not true. The RDOS has looked at over thirty sites of which 9 sites were considered sufficiently viable to conduct impacts on GHG, Transport, Odour and Life Cycle costs. Other sites could also be considered, such as crown land east of Penticton or the Weyerhaeuser site. The point being that cost is being used as the ultimate determination on whether the site is viable. Take a look at the Triple Bottom Line Analysis conducted by your consultants. The sites are ranked by the above four impacts but cost is the one that makes the cut. For instance, if you were to not consider cost, the Penticton WWTP site rates the best location by far. If you remove cost then the Summerland site is shown as the better location than the Marron Valley site.
So, what you are saying is that in order to save all the RDOS taxpayers some money you will have 31 residents of Marron Valley lose $100’s of thousands or millions of dollars in property value. Is that democracy………that the few are to pay the most to benefit the many?
You say that the RDOS staff seems to be favoring the Marron Valley site but that is a VERY premature judgement. I was at the meeting where Cameron Baughen made a presentation to the RDOS directors on March 2, 2017 and he was asked which site was preferred AT THAT TIME. He did answer Marron Valley. However, he was discussing the results of the Triple Bottom Line analysis carried out by your consultants, SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. I’ll quote from that document: “Triple Bottom Line is a generic description for any analysis of options which involves a selection of criteria which comprise financial, environmental and social parameters”. Notice that the social parameters had not yet been assessed……that is what the open houses and discussions with the public has been all about. Only two of the three analysis had been carried out at that time.
Even at that, the conclusion of your consultants was: “If the RD (regional district) considers that odour control is the primary concern in the site selection process, then the TBL (triple bottom line) analysis suggest that development of a new regional processing facility at Summerland would be the marginally preferable option” AND “Development of an AD facility at the City of Penticton WWTP for co-processing of biosolids and food scraps is an attractive proposition in principle and shows strong scores in respect of GHG and transport impacts”
When I had a conversation with Mr. Baughen last week I referred to his answer at the March 2 meeting and he told me that it was premature since they hadn’t yet conducted the social aspects of the issue.
So in conclusion, I am not being a NIMBY. I have pointed out the many negative aspects of the Marron Valley Site and have shown that even the RDOS staff have good reason to pick Summerland. And except for the cost, other sites are even better. But why not save all the RDOS taxpayers some money when ONLY up to 31 residents will suffer major financial loss?

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Registered users of this site do not have to do this.