Loading...
Lakeshore Advance, 2013-03-13, Page 5Wednesda , March 13, 2013 t Lakeshore Advance 5 Community Davis-Dagg shares observations regarding Rupke letter (Editor's note: These are the opinions of the writer and not neces- sarily endorsed by the Council or Municipality of Lambton Shores) 1 read Gerry Rupke's letter to the editor in the February 27th edition of the Lakeshore Advance and 1 feel compelled to share a few observations. Although Mr. Rupke admits that Lambton Shores will need to upgrade the lagoons due to the fed- eral legislation passed last summer, states that, in his opinion, Lamb - Shores will not need to upgrade until 2040. 'Three individuals with engineering and \vast(' -water exper- tise informed me that municipali- ties needed to anticipate upgrading by 2020. As a result, is it not better to upgrade the lagoon now when the 'Building Canada' funds are available to pay for 2/3 of the cost rather than wait until later and pay for all of the costs using only munic- ipal tax dollars? This is the key point. Also, Mr. Rupke cannot state for certain that the Grand Bend lagoons will not require upgrading by 2020. Although Mr. Rupke is right that the online table states that Lamb - ton Shores currently has 1,497 m13/ day, the only amount of sewage capacity that Lambton Shores can be certain it owns is 1,2731113 / day because this is all that South 1 luron will recognize. if Lambton Shores were certain we had the additional 224 1113 more (or a total of 1,497 1113), we would have had plenty of capacity to give to Oasis for the new retirement home in (rand Bend. But \ve couldn't. Everyone agrees that Lambton Shores has 1,600 1113 capacity when the new plant is built. It is on these figures that my development capacity demands are built. Every home that is built in (rand Bend was granted sufficient capac- ity for full -tithe residency in the lagoons or has a septic system. This is no increased demand of lagoon capacity when a resident settles permanently into a home that was previously a summer home. Increased capacity would only he necessary if the home is significantly expanded. [\1r. Rupke's argument is a logical fallacy. In light of (1) the population pro- jections, (2) the number of resi- dences that can be accommodated in the proposed plant and (3) land available to develop in (rand Bend, it is likely that the plant \%ill only he expanded lithe municipal- ity of Itluewater decides it \\'ill con- nect their sewer system into the plant. If anti when they connect, Bluewater will be paying a great deal toward upgrade costs. This investment combined with the col- lected development charges 1 men- tioned earlier will enable this project. Mr. Rupke's assertion that the septic systems in Zones 3 and 4 are contributing significantly to nitro- gen loading has been disputed. Sewage treatment facilities do not completely remove nitrogen either. Mr. Rupke (must not forget that the proposed plant is the only approach that our partner, Sot111) Huron, has accepted and they jointly own the land where the treatment facility will be built. The unmanageable cost of the Zone 3 and Zone 4 sewer system and the reduced cost of the plant as well as the changes to the Pinery` s capacity allocation were probably the most important issues in my earlier Letter to the Editor. 1 look forward to Mr. Rupke's com- ments on these platters in the future as he has indicated. Saving $8.2 million on a plant makes a very big difference to the 2,355 people paying sewer charges in Lambton Shores. Even if we have government assistance with 2/31rds of the initial cost, we have no assurance of financial assist- ance when the white elephant is on our hands and we have to pay higher life -cycle, repair and main- tenance costs. Let's size it properly for our needs. It is unfair to accuse anyone of intentionally deceiving \Vhell even experienced engineers have differ- ent opinions on these platters Elizabeth F.C. Davis-Dagg, J.D. Approximately 83 weeks until the next municipal election. After reading Mr. Rupke's reveal- ing and devastating dissection of the Deputy Mayor's assessment of the proposed Grand Bend Sewage Treatment facility I thought it might also be revealing to dissect the Dep- uty Mayor's statements concerning the recent Communications Survey (Please check the January 28 Coun- cil Agenda and the attached report from the Treasurer (Acting (:AO). 'Ihe Deputy Mayor's use of "half- truths" seems to be a bit of a stand- ard pattern of communicating. She seems to be basing her conclusions on a survey that is almost irrelevant since only 105 of the municipality's 1200 residents responded to it (an agitlrepresentative less than 1% of the 4''pulation). The issue here is not 'Communications" per se (which most can agree can always he improved). 'she issue is the use and misuse of data. In establishing poi icy or practice by the council, over simplification, or misrepresentation of the data will not lean to good or better policies or practices. A few excerpts may clarify my point. Number One: 'the Deputy Mayor claims that 71% of people respond- ing to the survey want more infor- mation about municipal business by e-mail. fact is that the survey did not ask if residents wanted to get "more information via e-mail." It asked: "what is your preferred source of receiving information'?" The Deputy mayor seems to imply that 71',4 of residents are seeking more information when the survey sloes not support her point. Is this not a 11 example of misrepresenta- tion oldie (lata? Number two: Me Deputy (Mayor seems to suggest that people aren't happy with communications now, citing the survey that says 28 feel communications is poor and 36% indicated it is neither poor nor good. 'Ihe survey actually says that over 37% rated communications as Good to Very Good. if those who indicated communications as nei- ther Good nor Poor are added (as the Deputy Mayor dot's) then it could he construed that over 72'4. are not even concerned with com- munications. Why is the Deputy Mayor implying that there is a prob- lem here? Hats off to Julian Falconer Driven by a sense of urgency to guard our quality of life in rural Ontario I headed up the highway to Goderich along with people from as far away as Niagara Falls and Meaford on Friday March 1, 2013. '?'here approximately 100 con- cerned citizens filled the Goderich courtroom and all listened intently. Some presently live near Wind Tur- bines who had no idea until the turbines arrived that they would become ill as no one had informed then( of that factor. Our common purpose was to support the Dren- nan family in their fight for a Char- ter of Rights Injunction to protect their rural property. Without inter- vention there will be 12 - 590 foot Wind Turbines within 2 kilometers of their generational farm in l luron County with the construc- tion of a 140 turbine wind farm. 'their reasonable argument is that if renewable energy is good, then we should slake it safe. Do independ- ent scientific studies to know the effect of Wind Turbines to protect the citizen and to have proper rea- sonable standard setbacks before proceeding. It became quickly apparent that their lawyer Julian Falconer was a courageous honourable man with convictions of the importance of his case in pleading for state inter- vention in protecting public inter- est. 1 le argued his client wants to show the reasonable connection between Now and the 490 Foot Structures and Reasonable Harm. The province stated you cannot claim nuisance and a client has to be victimized before they can act. Julian Falconer responded that it is applicable based on specific evi- dence, loss of enjoyment of prop- erty and the loss of property value. 'This is a Charter of Rights issue and that the court should guard and protect the powerless members of Number 'three: Next, the I )eptlty Mayor suggests that residents are having problems "finding; things on line" and that therefore the website requires a major upgrade. 111 fact, the survey says that 36"ci can easily find what they are looking for on the website and an additional 39.11' . usually find \what they are searching for. That means that over 76 are doing fine with the website and only 23.7'4, found that the website was not as easy to navigate as they would like. Does the Deputy Mayor really believe that the website requires a major overhaul? Number Four: "I he Deputy Nlavor failed to note that most of the resi- dents who completed the survey agreed that they did not want to increase funding for the society. The recently released Grey - Bruce Board of health Report results were mentioned. It found that All health problems present in the study were found to he related to the wind turbines. Among oth- ers was the fact that the 11.K. has put Wind Turbines on 1101(1 until further study. Sitting in the courtroom I felt a strange sad resemblance between Julian Falconer and our politicians in the 1800's who fought for local rural autonomy and sought a responsible democratic society. I cannot believe we are there again. It was definitely an honour to wit- ness. My hat off to you Julian Fal- coner and a genuine thank you. Julie buncombe Grand Bend communications. Why, why, why is the Deputy ?Major advocating for larger ads in the papers (5555) and a further $15, 000.00 for upgrades to the website? Again the pattern of "half-truths" and misrepresentations, or misun- derstanding of the facts is observa- ble. If Council is to make decisions based on this kind of analysis can the tax payer's of Lambton Shores feel confident that not only is good policy being made but that their tax dollars are being wisely spent? Why (foes the Deputy Mayor not feel the necessity of correctly informing her- self if she is the "de facto" spokes- person for Lampoon Shores? Sincerely Yours Eric Shafer South Huron Hospital Association Reaching Out to Our Community CONTINUED FROM > PAGE 4 Smoking Cessation, Diabetes/ Weight Management, a Physician's Perspective, or other current health related topics that you may suggest. 'I here is no charge for this service. Advance notice is appreciated to ensure your request can be met. If you need it speaker, contact: South Huron Hospital Association Phone: 519-235-2700 X 5169 Fax: 519-235-3405