JimsWorld

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Good trash talk - more about Bylaw 280

 10/12, 3:22pm Facebook message

Jim Routledge  did you hear that thing i talked to you about before i left - its coming up for a decision soon          

   Ian Gartshore  The request to be able to stop the exportation of waste?          

   Jim Routledge  Yes, the Minister announced she will have a decision soon          

   Ian Gartshore  By the way, I was told that the local landfill is open 7 days a week. Someone told you it wasn't, right?          

Jim Routledge   It is closed on long weekends          

   Ian Gartshore  Should be interesting to see what the Minister decides. This could affect shipping metro van's trash to other jurisdictions, no?      Ah, long weekends.      For incineration, I mean.          

   Jim Routledge  1) yes, 2) it could or MRFS          

   Ian Gartshore  What's MRFS?          

   Jim Routledge  sorting, Material Recovery something somethng          

   Ian Gartshore  I wonder if Metro Van has thought this through?          

   Jim Routledge  Unamous at the board level, even Vancouver directors support this          

   Ian Gartshore  Me don't understand... They don't want to see their garbage exported while putting out an RFP for WTE options that would require exporting their garbage!          

   Jim Routledge  They don't want to see their garbage exported - period          

   Ian Gartshore  Not even to Nanaimo?? Or are we talking about the city of Vancouver vs. Metro Vancouver?          

   Jim Routledge  The point is to stop it going unsorted and uninspected to Oregon - all the efforts to insitute diversion, bans and prohibitions is being undermined          

   Ian Gartshore  Yep.          

   Jim Routledge  Not only that, the cost of the system that is in place is increasingly being shifted to citizens     

Not only that - who is getting any jobs out of the Oregon bound stuff?          

   Ian Gartshore  A few benefit at the cost of the many. I'm seeing this theme being played out over and over again.          

    Jim Routledge  i will be honest with you Ian - there is a scary side to being in favour of this - a risk but I feel its one worth taking          

   Ian Gartshore  The risk?          

  Jim Routledge  yes, the risk is that it does open the door to incineration. so do I trust the system and put my faith in the people running it or vote against it and risk the whole last 20 years of gains          

   Ian Gartshore  So the ban on export of waste is only for unsorted stuff, right? So why does this open the door to incineration? Because then there's more trash to deal with?          

   Jim Routledge  its a complex issue Ian - hard to explain. I have been working on this for a while. I am a business kinda guy and my university degree taught me to be wary of things like "monopoly", "expropriation" & "Government controls" yet I find myself leaning towards that in the name of saving the planet, jobs and fairness to taxpayers          

   Ian Gartshore  I get that. Isn't it fun (not!) when our simple solutions don't work very well in the more complex world of reality??          

   Jim Routledge  to answer your question - it opens the door to incineration because without Bylaw 280 there is no control for any purpose going forward - incineration, local landfill volumes or MRfs          

   Ian Gartshore  It appears to me that we are slowly reducing the power of governments while simultaneously increasing the power of large corporations.     I see.          

   Jim Routledge  this Bylaw 280 will do the exact opposite - more government     its the application of 280 if it passes, if mary says "yes" that is the biggest challenge - it could be done right          

   Ian Gartshore  We don't need incinerators. I am trying to understand this situation from Metro Van's perspective.          

   Jim Routledge  if you let your trash leave the province, no jobs, no NRE, no diversion targets - are you sure that’s what you want?          

   Ian Gartshore  I don't think waste resources should be shipped off-shore any more than should raw logs.      Nope.     I am trying to understand Metro Van's perspective.          

   Jim Routledge  it is a tricky one - I think there is too much too lose to let private industry handle this - its a public thing, like education, water, ferries          

   Ian Gartshore  I think that private industry could make wiser decisions if we did a full cost accounting -one that includes the usually externalized costs of hauling distances, burning, burying, etc.     In other words, including the costs of pollution, GHG emissions, having to dig up more resources, etc.          

   Jim Routledge  who stands to benefit if Bylaw 280 is defeated, if Mary says "No"?          

   Ian Gartshore  Haulers     U.S. dumps          

   Jim Routledge  yes and the jobs here that are at risk - NRE, our landfill, our recycle industry          

   Ian Gartshore  Yep.     And one more sector would continue to benefit: industries that generate a lot of waste, especially the food sector. They throw away tons of edible foods every year.          

   Jim Routledge  good point Ian-its a slippery slope     ,we just start getting serious buy in on recycle and then take the pressure off - how crazy would that be          

   Ian Gartshore  Chad of our local Green Store said that he has difficulty getting some of these discards because they're rather throw it away then have to sell it to him!      I know the RDN solid waste folk are concerned about lots materials.     That should read "lost materials."          

   Jim Routledge  most every regional district has sent letters of support for 280 to the minister          

   Ian Gartshore  I was just told one of their staff that the MMBC funds are not subsidizing or lowering the tipping fees but are used for subsidizing their utility bills.     I see.     Do you get to play a role in this decision, Jim?          

   Jim Routledge  I am nobody Ian - so no - not yet at least           

   Ian Gartshore  OK. I think those funds should be used to boost local manufacturing utilizing the waste stream.          

   Jim Routledge  i would love to play a role if its endorsed - it it goes ahead - yes, yes, yes - you got the idea now          

   Ian Gartshore  How about using some of the Duke Point area for a waste recovery center and associated manufacturing?          

   Jim Routledge  i love Ian Gartshore          

   Ian Gartshore  Thanks! But I'm not running!           

   Jim Routledge  true - but i am           

   Ian Gartshore  I ran for the Zero Waste conference.     True!          

   Jim Routledge  just wish i had the time to go thru all that with enough people to make a difference          

   Ian Gartshore  Yep! Just a month to go before e-day!      Do you have some folk who will help you get the message out?          

   Jim Routledge  i need help          

    Jim Routledge  Good morning Ian - could I please have your permission to share the conversation we had above about Bylaw 280. You asked some good questions.          

Today

    Ian Gartshore  Hi Jim, Sure. Thank you for asking

Cheers,

Ian

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Good treasure in trash. Bylaw 280.

Bylaw 280 is a garbage hauling bylaw. It is a proposed rule that says if you make garbage here, you have to dump it here, at one of the government approved places.

Bylaw 280 aims to stop the increasing trend of hauling waste to Oregon.

One year ago Bylaw 280 was unanimously passed and supported at the civic level. It requires Provincial approval, Mary Polak - Minister of Environment, in order to be enacted. Her decision is expected soon.

Bylaw 280 has been described as:

1) a Tax Grab

2) a step towards an Incinerator

3) help for Recycle & Diversion

4) part of Provincial Recycle Plan

5) the best option to share costs

6) A Substantial Move

I think Bylaw 280 is all of the above. It is a big deal.

It represents a fundamental decision about what governments role is, in the lives of citizens.

Like water, education & ferries I believe it makes sense for waste to be a public responsibility. There is more than money at stake here. There is a bigger picture - its about the planet, the air, the water and how we shape economic activity moving forward.

If enacted Bylaw 280 will create more government.

How exactly that happens - exactly what, when & how this new bureaucracy is set up & operates is vitally important. I believe it should and will happen. I can see that the responsibility to see it done right, is one of the biggest challenges facing elected officials and citizens this generation.

A robust, progressive waste management system is a vital part of the modern world. It simply has to be balance the interests of all stakeholders - private, public and Non Profit.

Bylaw 280 makes it clear whose job "trash" is and how it will be funded. I sincerely support it and want to be involved in the process, in the solution.

The "treasure" in trash is more than money - support bylaw 280.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

"Up in Smoke" - a series of articles on the Waste to Energy (WTE) proposal involving Nanaimo

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Parkwood Transportation Plan Concern II

From: Jim Routledge <routledgejim@shaw.ca>

Subject: Re: Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting - 2014-FEB-11th

Date: 11 February, 2014 11:07:09 AM PST

To: George Anderson <George.Anderson@nanaimo.ca>

Cc: Jodi Wilson <Jodi.Wilson@nanaimo.ca>, Amir Freund <Amir.Freund@nanaimo.ca>, Andrew Tucker <Andrew.Tucker@nanaimo.ca>, "Bill McKay" <Bill.McKay@nanaimo.ca>, Bob Prokopenko <Bob.Prokopenko@nanaimo.ca>, David Grey <dgrey@sd68.bc.ca>, David Murchie <dmurchie@murchie.ca>, "Gordon Foy" <Gordon.Foy@nanaimo.ca>, Michele Patterson <michele.patterson@viu.ca>, Randy Churchill <Randy.Churchill@nanaimo.ca>, Rod Davidson <Rod.Davidson@nanaimo.ca>, Ted Greves <Ted.Greves@nanaimo.ca>

Good point George, debate has taken place and since I was absent I would appreciate a moment, to at least try to do what I said to my neighbours, that I would do - change the plan.

If this neighbourhood can get one line on this plan changed, would it not speak positively about the Master Plan and the city's sensitivity to its residents?

Regards

Jim Routledge

On 2014-02-11, at 10:33 AM, George Anderson wrote:

Hi Jim,

As you are aware the committee discussed this item at the last meeting and potential solutions, which included possible deletion. The committee decided the best option would be to leave options open and if/when the property develops that discussions with the neighbourhood take place to see if traffic calming measure can be implemented or potential disconnection of Parkwood Drive. I am happy to clarify the debate with you in person and Mr.Foy can clarify how the potential traffic mitigation may work as well. Therefore, since debate has taken place on the issue, I would like to see the committee move forward with the direction given.

Sincerely,

George Anderson

Councillor

City of Nanaimo

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Parkwood Transportation Plan Concern

From: Jim Routledge <routledgejim@shaw.ca>

Subject: Re: Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting - 2014-FEB-11th

Date: 11 February, 2014 6:02:50 AM PST

To: Jodi Wilson <Jodi.Wilson@nanaimo.ca>

Cc: Amir Freund <Amir.Freund@nanaimo.ca>, Andrew Tucker <Andrew.Tucker@nanaimo.ca>, Bill McKay <Bill.McKay@nanaimo.ca>, Bob Prokopenko <Bob.Prokopenko@nanaimo.ca>, David Grey <dgrey@sd68.bc.ca>, David Murchie <dmurchie@murchie.ca>, George Anderson <George.Anderson@nanaimo.ca>, Gordon Foy <Gordon.Foy@nanaimo.ca>, Michele Patterson <michele.patterson@viu.ca>, Randy Churchill <Randy.Churchill@nanaimo.ca>, Rod Davidson <Rod.Davidson@nanaimo.ca>, Ted Greves <Ted.Greves@nanaimo.ca>

Good day TAC members: My apology for missing the last meeting. Compliments to all for the continued good progress.

I feel obliged to follow up on one item that affects the neighbourhood where I both I've and work - Parkwood.

The following excerpt from the minutes of the last meeting indicates the concerns raised over recent weeks and months since the Woodgrove Open house in November.

Subsequent to the open house, I attended a meeting on this issue of approximately 65 area residents at Randerson Ridge School. Another neighbourhood meeting voicing concerns occurred in December at Cathedral Grove Park which was attended by city staff.

"TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2013-Dec-19 Minutes: Page 6
8. NEW BUSINESS:
a) Parkwood Neighbourhood
As part of DP#3 – Major Roads (Map 7), Enterprise Way is proposed to be extended east to Uplands Drive and Uplands Drive completed to four lanes if the Green Thumb site redevelops. Both projects are identified as long-term and dependent on future development.
The adjacent Parkwood neighbourhood is concerned that Parkwood Drive is being used as a short-cut between Uplands Drive and Turner Road and is concerned that a proposed connection to Enterprise Way will exaggerate this behaviour.
The City has responded to several emails from the neighbourhood advising that the City does not have any intentions of changing Parkwood Drive or its function as a neighbourhood street. The only change in the plan specific to Parkwood Drive is to identify it as a potential local street bikeway.

TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2013-Dec-19
Page 7
If at the time development occurs on the Green Thumb site, the City would consider whether mitigation is required on Parkwood Drive in the form of traffic calming, or if the neighbourhood supports it, disconnection of Parkwood Drive.
The best time to address these issues is if or when a development is proposed. Wording to clarify these positions could be added to the Plan to address neighbourhood concerns.
David Murchie would like to see more generic wording used, rather than naming a specific street. Feels it is appropriate to add “in the event that a road is being used inappropriately due to congestion of other routes, we will do traffic calming”. "

I would like to propose a specific change to the above referenced Map 7:

that the proposal to "extend Enterprise east to Uplands" be deleted as shown.

It is just the "Uplands leg" from the Enterprise/Calinda road that I would like to see deleted from the plan. The plan and map would still show a connection from Enterprise to Calinda, i I agree completely with the logic described in the minutes that the best time to address specifics would be if and when development occurs. If the Uplands "leg" is deemed necessary at that time, it could still be incorporated by way of the City's planning and development approval process that includes considerable opportunity for public input and "mitigation".

Regards

Jim Routledge

250 616 2151