Jump to content

      



























Photo
- - - - -

Linda McGrew [Open Victoria] | Council


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 07:26 AM

I'll be voting for you Linda based on your support for sewage treatment.


So you're also in favour of wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars building completely unecessary secondary treatment plants?

Scientists are unanimous on the subject.

WTF G-Man? :confused:
In chains by Keynes

#22 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 08:21 AM

You may want to double check that statement as in fact a lot of the current deregulation started in the Carter Administration, accelerated under Reagan and Clinton due mainly to the influence of people like Allan Greenspan.


Yes, and it was during the Reagan Administration that the tax cuts for the upper class ramped up.

Coincidentally in Canada during that same period plans were put into motion to clean up our financial house. This is why we were hurting in the 1990's but we fared so much better than the American's did in the late '00's (we essentially took the tea and cookies approach to our finances, as lame as it was for us at the time, while the US just loaded up on beer and ammo and tried to muscle through).

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#23 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 09:54 AM

So you're also in favour of wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars building completely unecessary secondary treatment plants?

Scientists are unanimous on the subject.

WTF G-Man? :confused:


I am not in favour of wasting anything. I just happen to think that we should clean our crap before it goes into the ocean. I think this is a good use of my taxpayer dollars. Scientists are not unanimous on the subject. Also it is good for tourism which suffers because of the image that pumping raw sewage into the strait.

But I digress as this is off topic.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#24 R0ark

R0ark
  • Member
  • 319 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 12:06 PM

I am not in favour of wasting anything. I just happen to think that we should clean our crap before it goes into the ocean. I think this is a good use of my taxpayer dollars. Scientists are not unanimous on the subject. Also it is good for tourism which suffers because of the image that pumping raw sewage into the strait.

But I digress as this is off topic.


You would really prefer to each and every property tax payer in the CRD to have to pay an extra $500 a year for 50 years to add a tertiary layer of sewage treatment to clean our output which is 99.97% H2O anyway? $1.2 billion dollars to treat 0.03% of the effluent (which is still mostly just the waste chemicals in urine and excrement) that gets passed our source control and screening processes?

Really? It boggles the mind that we can't find the cash to fix our storm drain overflow problem, but we all have the money to replace a working sewage system with one that will produce no improvement in any measurement you care to name.

Also, I don't buy the argument that anyone is avoiding Victoria because we don't have a land-based sewage treatment system. No-one drills down on their travel plans that much that they make where they visit dependent on how the treat sewage.

#25 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 November 2011 - 04:14 PM

I am not in favour of wasting anything. I just happen to think that we should clean our crap before it goes into the ocean. I think this is a good use of my taxpayer dollars. Scientists are not unanimous on the subject. Also it is good for tourism which suffers because of the image that pumping raw sewage into the strait.

But I digress as this is off topic.


I have never seen an ounce of proof that our tourism suffers because of our sewage system.

And when you say scientists don't agree, you are right. 95% say our system is good, 5% say it's not. That is good enough for me.

Anyway, as I've said with LRT and sewage, do not worry as it'll never get built, nobody has any money to fund it.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#26 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:31 PM

I am not in favour of wasting anything. I just happen to think that we should clean our crap before it goes into the ocean. I think this is a good use of my taxpayer dollars. Scientists are not unanimous on the subject. Also it is good for tourism which suffers because of the image that pumping raw sewage into the strait.

But I digress as this is off topic.


It's not really off topic because it was this topic that drove Linda McGrew from this forum. Well, that and her arrogance.

If you're so convinced that tourism is hurting because of our lack of (totally unecessary) secondary sewage treatment, then you are obviously more interested in the way things appear, rather than the way they really are, which seems both illogical and narcissistic to me.
In chains by Keynes

#27 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:34 PM

Appearances are everything in tourism. Not sure how narcissism plays into your comment, though few people have dictionaries on their desks anymore.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#28 Phil McAvity

Phil McAvity
  • Member
  • 1,238 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 11:24 AM

^Narcississm is the appearance of something, rather than the way it really is. For example, Victorians could waste hundreds of millions of dollars on secondary sewage treatment all because they want to make it look like they care about the environment when the facts show it is completely unnecessary. In fact, I have heard that our primary treatment is actually good for the environment.
In chains by Keynes

#29 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:46 PM

Re: appearances, if the city proper were to start doing secondary treatment while Saanich and the rest continued with the status quo, it would nevertheless kill the whole controversy. Victoria would now be treating its sewage, end of story.

Nobody outside of southwestern BC knows where/what Saanich is, and nobody outside of southwestern BC cares whether or not Saanich is doing secondary treatment.

We like to gripe about how the municipal mess hurts Victoria, but it could easily be manipulated in this instance to address a longstanding image issue.

#30 Barra

Barra
  • Member
  • 592 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:59 PM

Sounds like Linda has taken a position in favour of land-based sewage treatment. I side with the many scientists on record who report that the unique conditions in the Juan de Fuca result in a greater dilution (aka treatment) of sewage than is possible in a land based system.

So, sorry, Linda, I won't be voting for you.
Pieta VanDyke

#31 lindamcgrew

lindamcgrew
  • Member
  • 11 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:39 PM

I am not in favour of wasting anything. I just happen to think that we should clean our crap before it goes into the ocean. I think this is a good use of my taxpayer dollars. Scientists are not unanimous on the subject. Also it is good for tourism which suffers because of the image that pumping raw sewage into the strait.

But I digress as this is off topic.



Hi Gman. I agree with you. It is a question of sustainability - this is an overused word no doubt, but it encompasses both financial and environmental long term goals and visions. We can't expect to be the only city in North America to be allowed to flush our sewage into the ocean, regardless of what some scientists might say. I hope in the near future we can find a balance between the economic and environmental impacts of this decision and then actually do something. This could mean putting smaller treatment facilities inside sewer drains; it could involve new technology where we generate energy and in turn money from the raw sewage collected; or any number of other options that have not been considered.

#32 lindamcgrew

lindamcgrew
  • Member
  • 11 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:46 PM

Hi Pieta,
Thank you for the consideration anyways. Like my father has been saying to me for many years: we all agree on 99.9% of things -we all want a better life for our families, access to education, clean water, healthy food and air, we would all jump in front of a train to save our child's lives, and we all want a shot an opportunities that other's have. I think you and I would agree on 99.9% of things. Especially in speaking with some of your friends about you. It is OK if you want to focus on the 0.1%. Just know that there will always be that 0.1% with whomever you vote for.

#33 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,172 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:02 PM

$1-billion per 0.1%?

Yikes! ;)

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#34 R0ark

R0ark
  • Member
  • 319 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:08 PM

We can't expect to be the only city in North America to be allowed to flush our sewage into the ocean, regardless of what some scientists might say.


I think you mean regardless of what the overwhelming majority of scientists say.

You can't have it both ways. When we ask people who don't believe in Global Warming to respect the findings of a majority of scientists on Climate Change, we are asking them to be swayed by logic and reason. Yet on this issue, you are telling people to ignore the findings of the majority of scientists and to instead give in to policy driven solutions that don't take into account the unique characteristics of the region we live in and the existing source control procedures in place.

It's like requiring drivers in the CRD to put snow chains on their cars all winter because there's a blizzard in Nunavut.

And you still haven't answered my question as to where your MBA is from. If it's not from UVic or Royal Roads, what other university in Victoria is it from?

#35 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:22 PM

We can't expect to be the only city in North America to be allowed to flush our sewage into the ocean, regardless of what some scientists might say.


Except we aren't the only city. San Diego dumps raw sewage into the ocean because they have a narrow shelf and are able to get the nutrients deep and out to sea relatively cheaply. Not co-incidentally, San Diego has a large concentration of oceanographers who effectively argued for this exemption from the one-size-fits-all EPA rules.

Sorry to be a pain about this, but it irks me that we as a society support scientists to help us understand complicated problems, but then we don't listen to them if they say something we don't want to hear.

#36 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:06 AM

I hope in the near future we can find a balance between the economic and environmental impacts of this decision and then actually do something. This could mean putting smaller treatment facilities inside sewer drains; it could involve new technology where we generate energy and in turn money from the raw sewage collected; or any number of other options that have not been considered.


Hang on, now we're no longer talking about the CRD's plan, McGrew is contemplating state-of-the-art treatment, perhaps ones that haven't been fully developed yet. Then McGrew should loudly call for a halt to the CRD's march towards a giant billion dollar plant using old technology.

I support the idea of researching ideas for treatment that have a smaller physical and environmental footprint, lower cost and better treatment outcomes.

My god, can you imagine committing a billion for this massive plant then finding out mini "in pipe" treatment units all over the city could do the job better for far less?

McGrew must clarify if she wholeheartedly endorses the current CRD plan or if she wants to put the brakes on and pursue better options.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users