Dave McCullough OurVWiEWS Bridging the gap on’t accuse the city of turn- ing a blind eye to its traffic problems. After weeks of silence, the city has decided to take another shot at hav- ing the Castlegar-Robson bridge fast- tracked by our ‘penny-pinching, promise-breaking provincial govern- ment. : This latest effort comes on the heels of criticism by the China Industrial Trust and Investment Corp. — a 50 per cent partner in Castlegar’s Celgar Pulp Co. — who lambasted the province for reneging on its promise to build the span to coincide with the pulp mill expan- sion. Complete with protests from the Castlegar and District Chamber of Commerce, the Robson-Raspberry Ferry Users Ad Hoc Committee and MLA Ed Conroy, this five-pronged attack may be just what this commu- nity needs to help Art Charbonneau realize that he erred when he put the much-needed bridge on hold. The government’s decision to delay construction of this all-important crossing is nothing short of contemp- tuous. How it can ignore this obvious pro- ject at a time when Columbia Avenue accident rates are climbing higher by the day is inexcusable. The government must stop feeding us shallow excuses and start building this bridge immediately. Anything different would be a slap against the very people who helped elect it to office. HANDLE PAY’ Ys INFORMANTS... "a ey” “My Yl Yr GOS eis MA Yjiitde ~V UL NEED YOUR GST Th Growth costs money. Lots one’s book. But that’s not of money. Development Planning Study. The study, prepared’ by Urban Planning Systems — the same consultants who worked on the Downtown” Revitalization Plan — was published last August as the first step in revising Castlegar’s Official Community Plan. And it says that Castlegar taxpayers are facing a bill of $5.5 million over the next 10 years if they want to upgrade municipal services to accommo- date projected growth. Here’s how it shakes out: Roads... . $2.3 million Storm Sewers... . $1 million Water . . . $1.2 million Sanitary Sewers . . . $1 million That’s a large chunk of change in any- That much is made crys- tal clear to anyone reading =a the city’s Comprehensive om & 4S Comments from the Crossroads all. The study says $2.5 million of that will go just to bring existing services up to snuff. The most pressing need il Ne is for road resurfacing — at about $1 million. (As if we needed a study to tell us that). Of course, the city went | to the: voters earlier this | year with a road work ref- | erendum and the proposal ' was rejected. Other items that the study says need immedi- ate attention include $680,000 in improve- ments to the sanitary sewer system in the north end, $530,000 for the water system, and $235,000 for the storm sewers. All before we talk about growth. And we haven’t even mentioned other expenditures such as $1.7 million for a new RCMP building, $875,000 for 'a public works yard and $500,000 for a new firehall. please see NORMAN page 7 Me Circulation Manager Streef TALK Burt C p! Publisher Emeritus L.V. Campbell Aug. 7, 1947- Feb; 15, 1973 Brian Polovnikoff Castlegar “No, to just stop the traffic pager Cesar to back it up.” Tom Carew Castlegar “No, I think it’s just going to make it worse.” Lesa Draper Castlegar “It will back up traffic in the end.” Question: Do you think another signal light on Columbia Avenue will help the flow of traffic? Jamie Heppner “I really don’t think Montrose Castlegar “No.” so, no.” l@ Saturday, May 23, 1992 4The News OtherVIEWS Please address all letters to: Letters to the Editor Castlegar News P.O. Box 3007 Castlegar, B.C. V1N 3H4 or deliver them to 197 Columbia Ave. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not longer than 300 words. Letters MUST be signed and include the writer's first and last names, address and a telephone number at which the writer can be reached between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The writer's name and city or town of residence only will be published. Only in exceptional cases will letters be published anonymously. Even in those cases, the name, address and phone number of the writer MUST be disclosed to the editor. The News reserves the right to edit letters for brevity, clarity, legality, grammar Letters coWHE EDITOR In regard to the unsightly bylaw, No. 923: I wish to propose a positive approach to resolving this issue. Instead of the usual, “this is the law” and “you are in the wrong” attitude, why not set up a method that says, “how can we resolve this problem”. How about a method such as this? When neighbor “A” does not like the view in neighbor “B”s direction he first of all tries to reason with neighbor “B”. If that doesn’t work he takes his complaint to the Regional District of Central Kootenay and the RDCK tries to persuade neighbor “B”. If that doesn’t work the RDCK calls for an informal hearing, preferably at the local school house or hall. The local RDCK director would preside at this hearing. Complainant “A”, defendant “B” and a jury of the 10 closest neighbors to neighbor “B” would attend. These 10 are not the friends of “A” nor “B” but the 10 closest neighbors to “B” as the crow flies. This hearing should be set up to avoid confrontation and strive for consensus. There is no bylaw spelling out what is or is not unsightly. ~~ The jury decides this. Perhaps “jury” is not the best word for the 10 neighbors because their main purpose is to set the standard An easy solution to uneasy dilemma for the immediate neighborhood to bad» a The advantage of this method is that the 10 neighbors know the local situation best and can consider all aspects of the problem with greater familiarity than any outside mediator. They might, as my neighbor Walter Malakoff suggested, even decide that “B” needs help to clean up and be willing to do it. If someone was complaining about . my yard, I know that I would prefer the desires of 10 of my neighbors to the directives that ultimately seem to come from Victoria. : Frank H. Nixon Crescent Valley We miners use very little land — we use it wisely and carefully, however, we need access to vast areas to find the very rare geological occurrences we call commercial ore deposits, These ore deposits contribute immensely to our way of life in British Columbia. As a result of the recent announcement of a park expansion program and the designation of vast areas of B.C. as study areas, the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of, and value of, mineral tenure will continue. Decisions on many. study areas will not be made until the year 2000 and, thus, the uncertainty will continue until at least that time. In recent years, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, we have been mining our identified mineral wealth faster than new reserves have been found and this is the result of: 1) the continued increase in taxes, other government charges and regulatory confusion by governments and 2) the creation of so much uncertainty about the rights to responsible mineral development that companies and investors are turning to other countries for better opportunities and are not developing new mines here. By the year 2000, many of our operating metal mines will have exhausted their ore reserves and will close and replacement mines are not coming on stream. If the taxation climate does not improve, many of our operating coal mines will also be forced out of business by that time. The mining industry could, by the year 2000, be only 25.per cent of its current status. We could well be foreclosing on most of the $4 billion a year that mining contributes to the B.C. economy; the jobs of the 29,000 British Columbians who depend on mining; the half billion dollars in tax revenue contributed by mining companies and their employees to governments each year; the economic base of many interior communities; 22 per cent of British Columbia’s exports. There is already enough uncertainty of miners rights created by native land claims, the regulatory jungle, governments catering to preservationist reactionaries and diminishing rights after expropriation as Province’s resources must be shared indicated by Bill 32 to scare off the funds needed to continue our second largest industry. We certainly do not need the added uncertainty of study areas extending to the year 2000. : By then, it will be too late. The average cost of just finding an ore deposit in Canada is $46 million and if there is not a reasonable expectation that responsible mineral development will be allowed when a deposit is discovered, then” prudent investors will simply go elsewhere. British Columbia has probably the most efficient and environmentally responsible mining industry in the world and it should not discouraged from continuing to contribute to our economy and lifestyle. British Columbia is not infinitely wealthy — we must learn to share the use of our land and our resources. We are heading down a dangerous path. Tom M. Waterland President and Chief Executive Officer Mining Association of British Columbia Norman continued from page 6 The study says all of those items, together with the cost of Twin Rivers Waterfront Park, city hall renovations and an expansion to the library, will total $3.9 mil- lion over the next 10 years. When all the capital projects are tallied up, they come to $10 million over the next 10 years — or — about $1 million a year. See, growth is expensive. Why is it so expansive? Let’s take our water system as an ex- ample. The study says the only exist- ing deficiency with our water sys- tem is “balancing/fire storage” in the north end. The study recom- mends building a reservoir and that the reservoir be designed to and taste. allow expansion to that future de- mands can be serviced economi- cally. Cost: $530,000. To accommodate future growth over the next 10 years the study says three new pumps will be re- quired for booster stations, along with a second reservoir — or ex- pansion of the proposed reservoir for the north end. Cost: $530,000 or so. The total over the next 10 years: $1.2 million. It’s the same story with the sanitary sewers. All of the prob- lems there are in the north end, where the study recommends building a new trunk and upgrad- ing station pumps. Cost: $680,000. These costs are estimates IF the city follows a proposed growth pattern that calls for “infilling” be- fore developing whole areas of land presently not serviced. If, for some reason, the city opt- ed to extended services to all cor- ners of the municipality, costs could skyrocket. But that’s not the recommenda-. tion of the study’s steering com- mittee. The study identified three op- tions for the city’s future develop- ments: emphasis on development in south Castlegar; emphasis on development in north Castlegar; simultaneous development in north and south Castlegar. The steering committee.decided on a fourth option: infilling in both north and south Castlegar. The first stage of the “infilling” option would see residential de- velopment in the area north and south of the Oglow subdivision. It also calls for single-family de- . velopment in the replot areas in the south end and multi-family zoning in the area north of down- town. z Commercial development would be directed to downtown in the north end and to the elliptical site, the property across from the Greyhound depot. and the ‘area around the Sandman Inn and Scotsman Hotel in the south end. The study recommends indus- trial development take place in the industrial park area in this first stage. eee Next week: How to pay for all this and some interesting compar- isons to other Kootenay communi- ties.