The big event: Cowichan gearing up for biggest search party ever News: Teachers have mixed feelings about mediated contract
page 5 page 7
For all the news of the Cowichan region as it happens, plus stories from around British Columbia, go to our website www.cowichannewsleader.com Your news leader since 1905
Friday, June 29, 2012
Cowichan joins Canadians from coast to coast Sunday in cloaking themselves in the red-and-white to celebrate the 145th birthday of our country. For a look at the events planned throughout the valley this weekend, check out the Town Crier on page 24. Andrew Leong
Krista Siefken
News Leader Pictorial
A
phonebook-size report says the Cowichan Valley Regional District should have made more effort to communicate and consult with the community early on in what became the disastrous process for the South Cowichan ECO Depot. The failed waste-transfer facility ultimately cost taxpayers $1.3 million. The CVRD staff-written report was released during Wednesday evening’s regional services committee meeting. It suggests opposition to the project partially stemmed from details about it not being released until after the site selection had taken place, as well as from the lack of a comprehensive communications strategy early on, and a perceived lack of transparency around CVRD decision-making. “To be blunt, when we went out and said we were going to be moving forward with this project, a lot of us expected that it would be
$1.3 million ECO Depot Äasco blamed on bad communication Naive approach? Massive report says better community engagement and consultation may lead to more successful siting in the future welcomed in the community, to be very honest,” CVRD administrator Warren Jones admitted, eliciting snickers from the gallery during Wednesday’s meeting. “And it — obviously — wasn’t welcomed everywhere.” The report suggests the district take a more open approach when selecting sites for future facilities. “Adopting an open and public siting process in the future may be more likely to lead to successful facility siting by supporting effective com-
munity engagement and consultation at each step of the siting process,” the report states. That much, Shawnigan Director Bruce Fraser agreed with. “Embedded within the report ... is probably the most essential piece of information, which is that a great deal of time, money and effort was spent after a decision was made to purchase the property and to, in effect, impose that on a particular group of citizens,” he said. “If there’s any key understanding of this report it would come from the absolute necessity to
tell people in advance, and thoroughly, in a way that allows a community to decide for itself as to whether the siting of a facility is in an appropriate location or not.” But Fraser took umbrage with some comments that the problem with the ECO Depot was the CVRD’s failed attempts to convey its necessity to the public. “It would be an error on our part if we were to think the reasons the ECO Depot was opposed was based upon a lack of understanding of what an ECO Depot is, or the desirability of a recycling facility,” he said. “The thing that defeated it was its imposition of location and that is the primary reason why it failed. To assume that people in the south end don’t want it, or the people in Shawnigan misunderstood what it was for, is simply erroneous.” The ECO Depot had been slated for 3224 Cameron Taggart Road in June 2010, but was formally abandoned by the CVRD last December after a 65% majority opposed the project in a referendum on Nov. 19, 2011. more on page 8
Get $7500.00 and Peter Baljet
sell down
6300 Trans Canada Hwy, Duncan
0
%
|
Sales & Service 250-746-7131
|
Financing for 72 months
Bodyshop 250-748 4370 |
Parts 250-746-4466
www.peterbaljetgm.com