Editor:
I agree with Carole Rubin's letter saying the best approach to managing Area A's waste is to "get together and build something environmentally sound for Harbourites for generations to come."
Area A has already shown it can do this. It was one of the first B.C. communities to achieve 50 per cent waste reduction, and can improve to 70 per cent any time they decide to spend a little more on separation and recovery at the landfill. A small but efficient zero-waste facility could be developed that would be a source of community pride and employment. But none of this will happen if the regional board closes the landfill and trucks Pender waste to Sechelt. That will only burn up a lot of fuel, turn Highway 101 and downtown Sechelt into waste corridors and shorten the life of the Sechelt landfill. Landfill space is precious in today's world, and using it up unnecessarily is like using up money in the bank. If the full cost of transferring Area A's waste to Sechelt is counted, it is neither cheaper nor environmentally preferable.
The real reason the Regional District wants to close the Pender landfill is leaked on page 10 of the Sperling Hansen Report: "By disposing of the waste at one site instead of two, capital funding can be focused to improve environmental protection at the Sechelt landfill " In other words, the Sechelt landfill needs multi-million dollar environmental upgrades and the regional board wants to capture Area A's fat tax base to help pay for them, something it can't do unless they first make Area A a client of the facility.
As Carole alludes, the regional board's threat to push ahead with its agenda despite survey results showing over 80 per cent opposition has rekindled separation talk in Area A. Those directors who have already made up their minds to vote against Area A's expressed wishes should take this seriously because incorporation barely failed last time, and fresh proof that Area A autonomy is no longer respected would likely push it over the edge. This would be very costly for Gibsons and Sechelt and especially for the remaining rural areas, which would be left holding the bag for some of the District's most expensive functions.
Happy empire-building at Field Road would suddenly be replaced by radical downsizing. Think again, directors!
Howard White
Madeira Park
