By Brad Hodge
Published: Aug. 16, 2014
A few weeks ago William Roberts, Priest of St. John’s in Garibaldi Highlands, invited myself, Nate Dolha (pro), Auli Parvianien and Tracey Saxby (con) to argue, in a public forum, the merits of the proposed Woodfibre LNG export facility.
“Avoid more tax increases. Restore curtailed services. Yes to LNG.” Brad Hodge
I never expected to find myself in a debate like this, urging the community to accept an industrial proposal worth some $1.6 billion, not to mention millions in tax revenues. It is a measure of how much Squamish’s politics have changed since the Olympic announcement that this proposal would even be controversial, especially given how the District has struggled to match service expectations with revenues and a general dearth of well-paying jobs.
One would think most would be tired of annual tax increases, but some seem to be just fine with that, or have convinced themselves KBI/rec-tec will cure all. Maybe in 20 years or so, but what about right now?
Don’t get me wrong, I respect opponents’ right to disagree. But the whack-a-mole nature of their arguments suggests their opposition is still seeking a rationale. The opponents’ case against the plant is like a tent, each peg securing it an argument. First they argued it would bring minimal taxes. That peg was pulled up when it was revealed taxes might be close to $3M annually. Then they went after the ‘foreign jobs’, until the proponent announced their intention to try to hire as much as possible locally. They warned of tourism Armageddon, in full view of mega-port Vancouver, BC’s tourism king.
At the debate, former mayoral candidate Auli made the bizarre claim that allowing the creation of an as yet non-existent LNG export industry would cause us to require gas imports by 2017, less than three years from now, despite the fact that most experts agree we have between 150 to 250 years worth of the stuff in BC alone.
At every turn opponents have accused Woodfibre LNG of being unresponsive, secretive or nefarious, even as they were making changes like switching to electric drive or moving facilities on land in response to community concerns. The tent is to the wind!
And then there’s the complaints about democracy being violated, despite the explicitly pro-LNG party winning the provincial election last year. Opponents call for a referendum, but likely that would just annoy Victoria and cause Woodfibre to disappear from our tax boundaries, IPP-style. And what happens when potential investors can no longer trust zoning laws to withstand fits of populist outrage? Sure, West Vancouver and Lions Bay oppose LNG also, but they can afford to; I don’t think most of their residents worry about finding employment.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. This is mine: don’t cut off our noses to spite our own faces. Take the jobs, take the taxes. Use some of those taxes on pollution/carbon mitigation in Squamish. Encourage other industries to come here and provide needed jobs now, not 20 years from now, if ever. Avoid more tax increases. Restore curtailed services. Yes to LNG.
Peter Legere says
Well said, Brad.
Chris Pilutik says
Thank you Brad. THat was an excellent article. We must continue to speak up. I firmly believe the plant will be very good for Squamish.
Wolfgang W says
I suppose you would interpret the ‘explicitly pro-LNG party winning the provincial election last year’ as having received the green light, or a clear ‘mandate’ as you wrote in another post to do as it pleases in this field.
Let’s see what that mandate amounts to: 44% of votes on a 52% voter participation, which equals 23% of registered voters. – Allright, happens in a ‘first-past-the-post system all the time, nothing unusual here, but there is more: A look at the BC Election 2013 map will show you that virtually all of the coastal districts, where the plants are supposed to be located, voted for the other party. Exceptions were pockets on Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland and, of course, our own riding. Now, are we to believe that the good folks living on the islands and the southern shores of Howe Sound and likely contributing to the win of the ‘pro-LNG party’ here were doing so for that reason? Especially when considering that numerous councils in that area felt politically safe to vote unanimously against LNG tanker traffic? It looks to me that the case for the ‘mandate’ you think is there doesn’t stand up to reality.
As to your fear that ‘mother’ in Victoria might punish us for being naughty about LNG in a referendum, maybe it is justified, but if so, who would then violate democracy, Brad? The rulers in Victoria or the people who voiced their opinion and are simply being ignored?
By the way, why the fear detectable in all proponents that it may result in a ‘No’? Maybe there really is a ‘silent majority’ in favour of it, so who would prevent it from going out to vote its ‘Yes’ as you just did in this article, Brad?
Your other fear about investors staying away ‘if the can no longer trust zoning laws to withstand fits of populist outrage’, where you seem to equate ‘populist outrage’ with a referendum: What about the established process of Public Hearings. If Kingswood’s travails here and for that matter for others in any other BC jurisdiction are a guide, it has never deterred any developer, whether industrial or residential as long as a decent profit beckons at the end of that road.
I respect your pro-LNG stance Brad, particularly about ‘cash-in-hand’ now versus maybe more tomorrow, but not the ones you put forth to oppose a referendum in Squamish. Let the public voice its opinion on this. It is too important a decision to burden a handful of local politician with.
Brad Hodge says
Hi Wolfgang,
Both the NDP and Liberals endorsed LNG development. Likely the non Liberal ridings are not as opposed as you might think.
Public hearings are fine and are a part of the process a developer expects, especially whem they are trying to rezone a property. That is a calculated risk. A random, pop up referendum on the other hand is something else entirely. There’s no way to predict if it will happen or what the result will be. It means the zoning you legitimately have is irrelevant. Better not to risk capital in the first place. If you’re seeking rezoning, thats a different matter. But if you have the zoning, that means the community already decided, for good or for ill, what would be there.
I also don’t want some of our local politicians (and they know who they are) using a referendum as a stalling tactic to avoid taking a position in advance of the election. They need to be called out now. Personally I am confident the No side will regret its referendum push if it happens, I simply don’t want a precedent being set. We elect governments to govern. Let them do so or else do away with them altogether.
Wolfgang W says
Hello again Brad,
‘The community already decided what would be there’? The zoning states only that the site is classified industrial, surely you don’t interpret this to mean carte blanche for potentially anything going in there, from say, a coal-fired power plant or waste-incinerator to even a nuclear reactor without the public having its say? Why should it be different with the proposed LNG facility?
You deplored in a post elsewhere the ‘selectivity’ of referendums, pointing out we did not have one on the SeatoSky gondola. You must admit that the gondola never generated the level of controversy as Woodfibre LNG does, in fact it became quickly apparent that there was a broad consensus in the community in favour of this tourism project. That is most certainly not the case here, unless the so called ‘silent majority’ is not just silent, but positively asleep.
I fully agree with you that a referendum on WFLNG should not be allowed to be used as a stalling tactic by local politicians for not taking a position in advance. As I have said in another post in this paper, we should expect them to make their case based on their own convictions and thereby hopefully help contributing to a better decision by the voters of Squamish.
Brad Hodge says
“The community already decided what would be there’? The zoning states only that the site is classified industrial, surely you don’t interpret this to mean carte blanche for potentially anything going in there, from say, a coal-fired power plant or waste-incinerator to even a nuclear reactor without the public having its say”
We have a say. This is why we have the EA process and so on. People are free to engage it. There have been roundtables, information sessions and so on. Their not liking the result does not equate to being denied democracy. These are the processes that were put in place by duly elected governments. We just had a provincial election. Why are we electing representatives if we’re not going to let them carry out their agenda 18 months into their mandate? Locally, we zoned this for industrial and IIRC the permitted uses are generally spelled out. As Coun. Heintzman once said, municipally, this is pretty much done. Which is why I treat her call for a referendum with a dose of cynicism.
“You deplored in a post elsewhere the ‘selectivity’ of referendums, pointing out we did not have one on the SeatoSky gondola. You must admit that the gondola never generated the level of controversy”
Earlier in the conversation you pointed out that the Liberals derive their mandate from just 23% of the electorate, and implicit in your mentioning that was the question of how legitimate that mandate could be. I ask the same question about a referendum taken on a highly technical issue, organized and executed in just 3 months and voted on by less than 60% of registered voters. What legitimacy would it have either way? For all the waves this will create in the investment community and with a non-binding result derived from a sliver of the electorate.. is it worth the cost? I honestly don’t think so.
“I fully agree with you that a referendum on WFLNG should not be allowed to be used as a stalling tactic by local politicians for not taking a position in advance. ”
Excellent. I hope you will join me in corralling them. I’ve had enough of the fence sitters trying to have it both ways. This is going to be something I hammer away at during the campaign. I hope others, be they pro or con on LNG do the same. Don’t trust someone who won’t give you a straight answer.
Wolfgang W says
I admire you trusting nature in the infailability of the system. I think it astonishing that you would find an occasional referendum on an important issue potentially damaging, but are quite comfortable, nay unquestioning, to let a few ‘select’ people possibly do just as much in their zeal to push an agenda. Frankly, I would consider the results of a public referendum achieved on the basis of similar statistics as those during the last election to have more legitimacy than what is being served up by the few.
You and I are in fundamental disagreement on this, and we are not likely to convince each other of our respective point of view. I would only like to add that systems, including our specific system of democracy, are not and have never been static. A more direct involvement of the electorate in the decision making on certain important issues, albeit with the responsibility to become informed, can only be welcomed to bring back trust in the system by ordinary folks, a trust that you obviously have not yet lost.
Brad Hodge says
I don’t trust in the infallibility of the system. I am simply advocating letting the system attempt to work before declaring it a failure. This is a new industry for BC, there is lots to be worked out. It could all founder on any number of issues, taxes key among them. Let the final details be hammered out before we go second guessing at the ballot box. That is all I’m saying, though we won’t agree. 🙂
Wolfgang W says
I actually do agree with you, Brad. 🙂 We shouldn’t go ‘second guessing at the ballot box’. You seem to misunderstand the crux of a referendum: It is about letting voters make choices based on the best information available.
Nick Swirla says
How do you spell “PROGRESS” it’s 2014!
Jean says
There is a simple minded cost effective way to send a message to the council, as they are still wanting to get more educated to make decision on LNG.
Here is my suggestion….. No cost to thee taxpayer no hassle to go to the poling booth and an immediate result, not waiting for election day to have the result.
Ask yourself whether you will get a job out of this , the house taxes will go down, more businesses moving in or more people possible leaving, because of it, whether there is a net gain from some taxes that W-LNG might bring, then ask yourself whether you will be paying more for your heating fuel once the door is open to sell it in bulk to other places, other you will have cleaner air and a cleaner environment, when all the friends of LNG Cronies, that have a hard time finding a place to hang there shingle, as they are Mfr or distributing or distill poisonous material and now would have a fine place to set up shop, in the “W-LNG Chemical plant industrial alley” away from the population to be checked, but not far away to smell and do damage. You probably will get some Chemicals imported, to be re-manufactured, say maybe from Asia , would that be a switch.
So if you think that all is a great improvement for Squamish …take a hanky even a white one and write Yes on it, no problem, It will be soon enough dirty from the LNG process.
Place it in your window, hang it on your mailbox anywhere where it can be seen and be counted. You definitely have to do it, if you think you get a Job out of it, if you think your taxes will be lower and that Squamish will be a friendlier and happier place afterwards.
Make sure then when you write Yes that other then a few landlords expedient to have some paying house guest wile the momentary boom would be on for a very short time, I may say and a few supply and food vendors and other businesses would temporary have some additional income…remember traffic brings competition and that brings no stability and good feelings to the existing business owners just like the Olympic had proven, and is very temporary only. So as you write Yes get ready to turn down the thermostat , because you will not be able to afford our own energy, that is now ship right past us, to others that can pay for it.
LNG just the beginning of all Chemical plants to come afterwards to set up shop, that will join that wonderful Chemical Alley away from the people and with the record that the Poly mine disaster is showing us, how well our environmental agencies and watch dogs are prepared and able to protect the public, wile on the leash of the Government in charge. With Yes you also will admit that you like to have a bit higher blood pressure, knowing that 365 days a year you are surrounded with potential 50-70 Hiroshima like atomic bombs, right in front of your doorstep. You also admit that you like to live in a town that has buried mega Gas pipelines going by you, with potential of not being shut off, if an even minor earthquake or slide would rupture it, with some not able to shut of for over 90 minutes in the past and when asked Fortis, not confirmed and guaranteed that this could not happen here.
Also you might consider to sell your property while the price is still high, because a lot of people leaving town with all the potential negative impacts to come, could certainly effect your properties Values. Also make sure you buy a gas mask or if ambitious you might even open a shop selling gas masks and air purification systems for your home. There is probable tax benefit to you to, do to lower house value, possible offset by higher fire and disaster insurance that would be advisable to look into. Also by marking your Yes you are actual one of the 4% majority that is now exercising your Right to dictate to the rest, whether right or wrong, following blindly your leader into destruction.
Now say, set a date and I would certainly drive personally the ~120 KM of roads of Squamish and faithfully report results of such an important undertaking, to record and to put finally an end to such an useless debate and announce the result with the counting being done, by say Labour Day coming and then our council hopefully would take swiftly a stand, where each of the members stands, so we have time to recruit a good counsel coming November.
Jon S. says
Chemical alley? C’mon Jean, even for you that just doesn’t even make sense!
Chris Pilutik says
Another scare tactic from the ney sayers. Really Jean.. 50-70 Hiroshima bombs potentially exploding every year… Comparing the site with the mine tailkings breach, and the masses leaving when (note I said when) the plant opens. I see no basis in fact for any of your arguements. Clearly the opposite tends to occur when industry comes to a town. People come for the high paying jobs and the high paying spinoff jobs. Were it not for the cost of housing in Whistler and The lower mainland Squamish may have gone the way of many ex-industruial towns. That is bankrupt and deserted.
Jean says
So much talk and no action, lets have the referendum, a moral document and a fair judgment who is for and/or against it.. even so not binding. This might put an end to just listening contentiously to all these self proclaimed experts, to get free publicity … if some only would realize how damaging to there ambition to run for a counsel seat all this talk is.
A Yes and/or a No will do it for me, as to who is worthy to make the next council.
In a not openly advertised council meeting yesterday, a decision apparently was to be make about referendum … When… and What the question would be… I bet they where working overtime on that one. And please announce who was for a referendum and who against on the end of it …that is my research I need.
.
By the way, Is Quantum setting up Shop at W-LNG if it comes to be and how many other Chemical plants are sneaking in to set up there, sneaking in unannounced and quietly afterwards ?
I have marked my ballot already from this Blog as to who deserves to be on Council the next time and believe me the heavy talkers are not on it, especially those that create lot of wind and I hate to think how long those council meetings would be with those kind of people on it.
Jon says
The comparison to the Port metro and vancouver’s tourism is not well thought out. The attraction to squamish is the outdoor lifestyle, fresh air and gorgeous views. People come here for this to escape vancouver. This facility is not right for Squamish. Tourism, healthy lifestyle and affordable/fast transportation to and from vancouver are the answer. Have these guys invest their 1.6b into a private rail system instead and create a commuter train.
Brad Hodge says
Fair points, Jon.
My response is twofold.
I know lots of people who come to Vancouver for more or less the same kind of experience people cite coming here. Vancouver’s own tourism guides go on at length about the multitudes of escapes possible, be it Lynn Valley, skiing, Grouse or Stanley Park. I think it is crazy to suggest tourism would dry up because of a plant you’d barely be able to see, and not at all from most of town.
Second is my belief that tourism itself is much more rapacious and much more of an enemy to the ‘escape’ experience than an LNG plant is. The plant will be located 2km across water and is relatively small in size. Since it won’t be putting up giant plumes of vapour or stinking up the place, I think it’d barely be noticed more than what is already there, or Squamish Terminals. By contrast, the effects of tourism (traffic, parking lots, shops, residences, etc) are much more immediately visible and far more detrimental to the experience. The more tourism and migration from Vancouver happens here, the less Squamish resembles the thing that brought them here in the first place. Food for thought.
Glenne C says
“The plant will be located 2km across water”
There is a community of marine businesses and recreationalists who are very concerned about marine regulations and procedures through this unique passage.
Have you found facts on this aspect?
Brad Hodge says
The facts are there are no plans at this time for exclusion zones nor any indication that 3-4 LNG tankers a month will shut down Howe Sound for other uses. 2-3km width is as much or in some cases a lot more than competing users have in Vancouver.
Anne says
Why don’t they build the LNG plant in Vancouver then?
Glenne C says
As one who likes to get outside of the box (read valley) I contacted an internationally reputable investment company in Calgary Alberta (Canada Central for Petroleum Industry movers and shakers) to enquire on their take on Woodfibre LNG potential. You can imagine the business and investment opportunity discussions going on behind the scenes in board rooms, dining rooms, golf courses etc etc. by that community of economists and financial analysts. To my surprise, this particular company did not believe Woodfibre LNG would be a sustainable business model they would support. Reasons stated were due to America and Australia being much further ahead and much bigger in the game, fluctuating prices of gas, off shore countries developing their own service fields, environmental concerns and lack of marine traffic regulation. The interesting term used for a proponent suggesting what it would pay in taxes was “charitable bribery” Ouch.
In conclusion, I pondered the credibility of Woodfibre LNG, and of cap in hand thinkers who see the industrial site used thusly as Squamish’s only hope for the future.
Let’s not turn this into a bun fight, lets get some straight facts from reputable third parties.
Brad Hodge says
“To my surprise, this particular company did not believe Woodfibre LNG would be a sustainable business model they would support. Reasons stated were due to America and Australia being much further ahead and much bigger in the game, fluctuating prices of gas, off shore countries developing their own service fields, environmental concerns and lack of marine traffic regulation”
A fair concern, but probably more applicable to the much larger proposals (north of $10B each) up north than Woodfibre, which would require far greater capital and take much longer to recoup their investments. Woodfibre is a small facility that is basically making a play on excess gas on the market. They don’t own any upstream assets. I think these comments, although recent, are already dated by world events, especially with instability in Russia causing Europe to re-think its energy relationships. Although Europe is a world away from us, gas is a fairly fungible commodity and if Russia becomes a pariah and/or the Middle East continues its descent into chaos, it’s not hard to see prices rising generally. As Germany’s experiment with solar panels and wind again demonstrates their limitations, they may well look for more gas rather than keep relying on coal for backup. Energy is a difficult market to predict. At any rate, isn’t it best left to the proponents to decide how much of their own money they want to risk? What’s the downside to us when we’re already collecting next to nothing on an empty piece of polluted industrial land?
“The interesting term used for a proponent suggesting what it would pay in taxes was “charitable bribery”
A bribe implies quid pro quo. If the taxes are the quid, where/what is the quo? What is it this firm is implying Woodfibre LNG really wants? I’ve met with the proponents a few times — if this is a front operation for some other purpose, it’s extremely elaborate. The proponents could have avoided the whole EA process and much of the attendant noise by just using smaller tankers. The plant design is very specific to its task. I’d like to know what your source thinks the game really is here.
Glenne C says
“I think these comments, although recent, are already dated by world events…..Energy is a difficult market to predict…….What’s the downside to us when we’re already collecting next to nothing on an empty piece of polluted industrial land?”
Soundbite:
Ignore the past, ignore the future, ignore all aspects of EAO process and collect a bit of coin for a short time.
Brad Hodge says
Your words, Glenne. Not mine.
Jp says
Great work again Brad.
Chris Pilutik says
Please do not waste my hard earned and constantly squandered tax dollars on a referndum. It will be meaningless, non binding and simply allow the politicians an escape by tabling opinions until after the election.
Jean says
Did anybody read the comments on… http://www.squamish.ca/yourgovernment/news/community-committee-woodfibrelng/
This process is not efficient and the interest, judging by the Comments, practically non existing . There where many that applied and not chosen, with not even a thank you for applying. This is an indication that the committee was hand picked and will not serve a useful purpose, other then publicity and a town hall, would have done more then all the hip about 13 Squamish people being able to advise the DOS on something they where voted in, to advise us on . A deferral of an immediate referendum this week, even so just a moral statement to the world where Squamish people stand, at a certain time in the process, would be much more suitable but of course against the spin DR,s agenda and quite frankly, anybody that has not made up his mind by now, is eider not interested, on the take and or a sleep. I am not happy as you can tell, about the process and any attempt for direct democracy with input by anybody, whether from the party or not and only as long as they are interested in the subject and not just grandstanding to get there name out for hopeful elections in November .. and I like to say that it is counter productive to them, as much as it is to the present council members, by not stating there personal believes and show collar.
PS. By`Not taking a stand,, Squamish will revert back to the dark and stinky times of the past, of the so called “Squamish/Howe Sound Chemical Alley”