Corporate Culture
The following was extracted from the BCTC website by Maureen
Broadfoot on
14 Jan 06.
"BCTC anticipates more media coverage and public attention will be
generated and demonstration events will be designed to maximize media
attention. BCTC will continue to adopt a
prepared, actively pre-emptive approach to media
relations during the time of the
BCUC review"
This has pretty much sums up how BCTC's
approach to this community. At no time have
they ever tried to work
with us or work with anyone in the
community to find a common
solution. They have never tried to find
a way to make things work but always managed
to
find an excuse as to why things would not work. With this
culture it is virtually impossible to work with this corporation. There is not question
in my mind that cost is not a major
consideration for them but
precedent is.
On every route except for the overhead
option they have placed artificial
obstacles in the way.
They were never once challenged by the
Utilities Commission even when it
was obvious that there were falsehoods in
their submissions.
BCTC's infrequent meetings with the
community was nothing more than baiting
and antagonizing an already
distraught group. It was so obvious
that this was even mentioned in
the July decision. How this corporation
can act in this manner is
beyond the pale and I cannot think of any
other group or body acting in such a manner,
private or
public. It leads me to believe that they are
marching to a tune set by the Provincial
government and that, no
matter how unsavoury they act, the results
will not change.
The VITR project, although in the
planning stage years was discovered by
accident in November of 2004 when an
overzealous employee started demanding
that all trees and shrubs were
to be removed from our yards. When queried
as to what had changed he
replied nothing and the new
"rules" where strictly
a measure to reduce costs. When
asked point blank if there were plans
afoot to
increase the voltage on the existing
lines there was no response forthcoming. I immediately called the constituent
office of Val Roddick and was told the
same thing, there was no plan
to increase the voltage and I was directed
to BC Hydro's public
relation department where I received nothing
concrete and merely vague
responses. I contacted Pam Sutherland
who had also spoken to the
same person I had and she went out
to the constituents office.
Val was not in but someone in the office
told
her unofficially that yes there was a plan
to upgrade the existing right
of way through Tsawwassen. Cec Dunn
after searching BCTC's website
finally found the details of
the project. Of
note, BC Hydro's vegetation control at
that time removed several mature trees
from the park adjacent to
the High School. No one from the
school was notified nor any courtesy call made.
With help from neighbours we immediately
started distributing flyers asking for
volunteers to form a
committee. The response was overwhelming
and in January we held a
rally at SDSS. The provincial government
had to respond as there was
an election in the spring. It was
obvious that BCTC had no intention
of voluntarily revealing this project
until after the election.
In March of 2006 we received a letter
from both Minister Neufeld and Val
Roddick. Both letters stated
that the lines would not be going overhead
through Tsawwassen. This
in fact was the biggest lie of all as the
large number of concerned
residents felt it was over and later when
we found out that the letter was
worthless it was very difficult to get
them understand what was
transpiring.
Within a month of the election BCTC
returned to Tsawwassen and laid out their
plan. They placed five
options on the table.
The first one was their original
plan which of course had not
been taken off the table as outlined in
the letter from Neufeld.
The second option which they claimed was
their preferred option was underground in
the ROW. This in
fact was a lie as it was not their preferred
option at all, in fact they
set conditions so difficult to meet as to be virtually impossible. BCTC
insisted that the cable laid
underground in the right of way be 60 feet across but only 1 metre (3 feet)
deep. They would only go 3 feet down due to
cost considerations. Of
course burying it the standard 3 metres was not that much more expensive but
nevertheless was not on the table. They
also insisted that one set of the
existing overhead poles remain in place. Again they said this was due to costs.
Allowing them to carry out this proposal
would make the whole right of
way virtually unuseable and it would
become a no mans land. They
would have virtually Chernobylized
the right of way. They
then said if they did not get at
least 50% of the stakeholders to
agree to this
offer they would go back
overhead. Offering this option in this
manner had many advantages to
BCTC. Firstly, they knew no one of sober
thought would ever agree to such
an offer considering the circumstance so
acquiring a 50%
agreement was not going to happen.
They also knew that by publically
offering to underground along the right of
way those not directly
affected would now be against those
stakeholders living on the right of
way. The result was the
community began to perceive residents in the
right of way as NIMBY's. The
details of this option were never mentioned
in the press and public
opinion was turned against us without all
facts being disclosed.
By burying the cable only one metre in
depth ensured that EMF
immediately above the cables would be extremely
high. At the commission
hearings BCTC then argued the fact
that EMF on the buried system was far
in excess of what it would be if they went
overhead and, considering the costs what
was the point of burying the
cable as there would be no gain. A
few years back BCHydro
installed a similar system in Vancouver
(Cathedral Hornpayne)and had
the system buried 3 metres deep and did it
in the centre line of the
street. If they could bury 3 metres
in
The third option was to underground
through the streets of Tsawwassen. The conditions they set for this option were
again virtually impossible to meet and the
route they proposed was
through the area where they knew they
would receive the most kickback as
the Corporation of Delta can
well testify. As standard practise a high voltage cable
would be buried in the centre line of a street as was done on the Hornepayne
Cathedral project. BCTC here insisted
that they needed two sets of
duct banks 15 metres apart. This
would put the cable under the
sidewalk on both sides of the street. Again, this was proposed not because they
actually wanted to do it but because they knew that this proposal would be
rejected by the city engineers. When the
engineers did reject it BCTC accused
the city of not cooperating and refusing
to "work with
them" on the project. The last thing BCTC wanted
was for the city to actually agree to under
grounding, they wanted to go back
overhead. In fact in the
Utilities Commission decision they told BCTC that the second set of ducts would in all
likelihood never used and should not
be constructed. BCTC to this
day still insists that the second set of
ducts be constructed. Would they would
be willing to waste millions of dollars of taxpayers money on this duct work or is
it just to ensure that the undergrounding
in the streets never is
viable?
The fourth option, down highway 17
was
put on the table but then completely
ignored by BCTC. In
fact, there are many instances where they
totally distorted and
misrepresented details of this proposal. They
even refused to admit that highway 17 was part
of the
Provincial road system. What they did not say was that the Provincial
Government was undertaking treaty negotiations
with Tsawwassen First
Nations and that, in reality, this option was never on the table. By BCTC
never being forthright with this information
many hours were spent trying
to convince the Commission that this was a
viable option when in
fact it was never on the table. BCTC
was more than willing to let the
community spin wheels over this option
thus expending valuable time and
energy which should have been focussed
elsewhere.
The fifth option was down an existing
industrial corridor along a hydro right of
way. Mr Barrett
merely stated that this option was not possible
and no further study of the
option was undertaken. Mr Barrett
insisted that this route not possible due to
seismic
instability. Unfortunately for
him another certification was being
done
for the Port Authority which found the
area not seismically
significant. He then indicated that anchorage
was an issue but was again
proven wrong and he had to retract. Of
note there has been a high
voltage cable in this area for the past 30
years without
incident. This option is in fact the only real
workable solution.
In fact the only option they were
willing to look at was option 1 overhead
through Tsawwassen.
Never once has BCTC offered to work
with
the community in order to resolve this
project in a manner
satisfactory to both. They have always
taken an adversarial approach and
misrepresented both legal and technical
details in order to gain
advantage with the BCUC, the public
and the politicians. Mr. Barrett has admitted to lying under oath
and thus perjuring himself.
BCTC's agenda
is one of precedence and having
this cable strung over schools, nursing
homes, churches, fire
halls, homes, parks and pre schools will
give it a precedence that it will use in the
future.