Dissent
I have just returned from a meeting at SFU addressed by Babara Pettit, Ned Jacobs and Betty Krawzyk. The intent was to discuss the tactics used to protest the destruction of the Eagleridge Bluffs as part of the Sea to Sky Highway project. The meeting was moderated by Frances Bula of the Vancouver Sun.
As we know, the protests did not stop the construction of the highway. Betty and Ned went to jail – as did Harriet Nahane, an elder of the First Nations who died of the pneumonia she caught there. So the discussion was about what had been learned, and what parallels there might be for continuing and more effective dissent against the Gateway.
I tried making notes but I got too caught up in what was being said, so I am not going to be a very effective reporter. However the meeting was filmed – both for SFU and an ongoing project by George Orr. So in some way the record of the meeting will probably get to you somehow. I am going to try to see what I can synthesize. When I got home my neighbour told me that he had seen me speaking on tv about Bill 43 – and apparently I spoke for quite a while. Well the clip that I have linked to at YouTube is quite short. What my neighbour said does show that the cameras were rolling and though it may not have made the news that evening or even the next day, somehow the message is getting out. (My neighbour did not recall which channel he had been watching.)
Betty pointed out that schools do not teach passive civil disobedience any more. I remember being taught about Gandhi, and Mrs Pankhurst. I also learned a lot at university about civil rights and how Rosa Parks became the person who started a movement with one simple decision to break the law. And in my life I have seen many protest movements – and even a couple of revolutions. Betty also said that the only way we have achieved any of the things that are now enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was because somebody went to jail for each of them at some time.
Up to now we have been following the process on Gateway – but with a growing recognition that the process is deeply flawed. I was reminded this evening that it was Kevin Falcon, who was then Minister of Deregulation, who ensured that the Environmental Assessment process was gutted, paving the way for the Eagleridge Buffs and what was to follow. I recalled when Barbara Pettit spoke about the transportation plan for the Olympics, that the sham that it was supposed to be for the two weeks of the Winter Games was revealed. For the transportation requirements for two weeks of spectators travelling to Whistler every day could have been managed easily using trains, coaches and ferries that could have been rented or borrowed. So that original “mulitmodal” plan was deliberately sabotaged in order for the developers to get the road improvements they wanted for their real estate plans. The Sea to Sky upgrade went into the bid book. The route across the bluffs does not make much sense as the tunnel option would have been cheaper, and the road faster.
We have been arguing that the demand forecast used in the EA for Highway #1 expansion is flawed, because the total number of trips in future years is constrained to be the same in both scenarios – with and without the highway. Kevin Falcon says that is because the development “will occur anyway”. He knows that this is not true, because he signed up the real estate developers and realtors at a breakfast some years ago – identifying for them the opportunities to get on board and make money from the new opportunities that twinning the Port Mann and widening the freeway would produce. One of those realtors was there this evening. It is not that the modellers were sloppy or unprofessional, or that the model itself is inadequate. It is because Kevin Falcon caused the assessment to be skewed by a false assumption. In exactly the same way that he misrepresented the arguments about the need for the Sea to Sky “improvements” and for the alignment in West Vancouver that eliminated exactly the sort of irreplaceable miniature ecosystem that the Environmental Assessment process was supposed to defend. Of course, once the Ministry of the Environment was halved, it was all going to be academic anyway. No government project, however bad, has been stopped by this process. (I must admit that before this evening I had put more weight on Gordon’s plan to sell BC Rail, but that does not explain the route through the bluffs.)
There was a lot of frustration expressed at the role of media – especially the Vancouver Sun – and how it either ignores or twists the issues. At Eagleridge the protesters were ridiculed as rich NIMBYs taking their $5 lattes to the protest camp. I do not recall the red legged frog even being mentioned, let alone the unique arbutus woodland.
What was missing was any decisive voice on how to organise in future, and Ms Bula tried to close the meeting before we could. So I took over the mike anyway. I pointed out that we do not need the mainstream media as we have the internet – and cell phones, laptops, backberries. As Carmen Mills pointed out we did get a crowd of 300 together against Bill 43 in 8 days using just those media. The network of community groups opposed to the Gateway keeps on growing. And I wonder if the BC Liberals will be able to hold on to seats like West Vancouver or Delta if this keeps up. And neither of those seats would have been promising territory for the NDP or the Green Party before now. What we do need to do is pick the place – or places – where our peaceful acts of civil disobedience will be – and make sure we get as many people as possible to them. Several orders of magnitude greater than were seen at Eagleridge. Enough so that arrests are not going to be an easy option achieved with a couple of small vans. And all kinds of people. As Eric Doherty pointed out the unifying concern for all of us can be climate change and the strategy to reduce greenhouse gas. This is common to all the groups which otherwise can be divided up into a wide variety of local concerns. But the loss of the farmland, and of the habitats, and of the green space and clean water while all of immediate local concern are part of the same issue. Is it business as usual in BC or we going to change?
And how important is that question to each of us individually?
And what are we prepared to give up to make sure that the Gateway doesn’t happen?
“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”
Hmm…. I’m beginning to think similar thoughts with the airport and road expansion here: I don’t know what it would do to my long term visa prospects. Personally I’d argue that if I’m prepared to go as far as peaceful civil disobedience and possibly jail for this environment, it proves I’m committed to the country, but I don’t know how the authorities will see this. Thanks for the encouragement though.
Andy in Germany
December 4, 2007 at 2:30 am
A thought keeps occurring to me as we see highway expansion after highway expansion in BC. What if the premise the BC government is working on is that time is running out to build new freeways? That in another 5-10 years, it will be unconscionable to even consider building road infrastructure? That this is their last real chance to build road infrastructure while the public (both domestic and international) sleeps and that they’ll push it forward at any cost because this is their one big chance? There will always be public money for mass transit, but not necessarily for the road builders of this world.
I am beginning to see Canada’s response to climate change in the same light. Push the oil sands as fast and as hard as we can until someone stops us. Throw in a coal plant if we can get away with it. We will then have the infrastructure in place to at least maintain our extraction habits, habits that rely on Canadian oil and coal. $$$
Just something to think about.
Sue Rowan
December 4, 2007 at 9:53 am
Sue – I think you may be right. I think it is unconscionable now to be considering these projects. Last night Eric quoted Al Gore as saying he did not understand why young people were not chaining themselves to the construction equipment of the new coal fired power stations. These highways are our “coal fired power stations”.
As someone else said, the largest contributors to BC Liberal candidates for office are the car dealers and reators/property developers. The same people also buy most of the advertising space in newspapers. All nearly all of the media in this province are owned by conglomerates.
Andy – I suggest you check carefully on what impact criminal proceedings could have on your ability to stay before taking any action. Canada may have been different then – but our political scene has never been the same since American activists fleeing the draft for the Vietnam war came here in the sixties. Betty was one of them.
Stephen Rees
December 4, 2007 at 10:10 am
Stephen,
A couple of comments about side themes in your post.
1) Olympic transportation to Whistler.
I was on the board that won the national bid. Highway 99 was always seen as a ‘choke point’. Rail was impractical to move up to 20,000+ people a day back and forth. Whistler does not have enough housing for those numbers. North America has allowed its passenger rolling stock car numbers to decline so that was an issue. At best rail could have moved maybe 1000 people. Buses would have still been needed at either end to move people to the sites. Ferry infrastructure is not designed to carry those numbers in the time frame necessary either. If I remember correctly, those numbers require a bus every 15 or so seconds travelling up the Highway. Should a lane become blocked for any reason that is a lot of people to have stranded on the highway.
2) Development Plans north of Horseshoe Bay.
Try buying a block of land north of Horseshoe Bay and applying for development rights.
A quick check with the various planning departments would have shown that there is very little new development being allowed. Squamish has had huge numbers in its Official Community plans for years prior to the Games bid. In spite of any credit a politician may try to claim. Perhaps what has changed is the value that can be realized from those plans, and the timing of the development.
3) Further to the Highway 99 upgrading. In the mid 80’s the provincial Highway department identified that shortly after the turn of the century, with the then development plans, the 2 lane highway would be at and beyond capacity. Upgrading was supposed to start back then. Unfortunately the provincial premier of the day decided that getting back to his home in Kelowna quicker was a higher provincial priority so the Coquihalla (sp?) was built instead. I believe it is only very recently that that highway has exceeded the trafiic volume on Hwy 99. So no significant upgrading was done for years. As a side note going for a mix of 3 and 4 lanes means that upgrades will be needed by the middle to end of the next decade
Craig
December 4, 2007 at 10:38 am
1) The transportation study that I referred to determined that rail could be made to work at very low cost for the Olympic Games. A requirement for service to and from downtown Vancouver was then inserted – not the North Van BC Rail terminal. Despite the potential to use the second narrows swingbridge, a very costly tunnel under the Burrard Inlet was said to be required. That made rail too expensive. Of course, since Gordon Campbell had determined then that BC Rail would be sold despite his pre-election promise the rail issue had to be made to go away.
2) A number of new developments between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish are now underway – it is simply too late now to acquire the developable land – which, on the steep banks of the fjord of Howe Sound, was in very limited supply.
3) Alternate, safer, more direct and gently graded routes are available inland. None was examined objectively.
The major issue on the Sea to Sky was not capacity but excessive speed. Too many drivers regard the twisting, steeply graded road as a challenge: and far too many have died as a result. The withdrawal of regular passenger train service on BC Rail was a cynical ploy that no responsible government would have taken.
Stephen Rees
December 4, 2007 at 11:01 am
In the early eighties M-Creek Bridge on the Sea to Sky Hwy was torn out by a mud slide. That event and several other landslides in the Hwy galvanized the powers that be to improve the Hwy. They did and they have now done so, but at unbelievable expense. Back in the early eighties, many of us who lived in the area can recall the comments by some rock stabilization experts who flew over the area from Horseshoe Bay to just past Porteau Cove. “The slopes and cliffs above the Hwy are so unstable, that whole sections of this road could disappear in a blink of the eye”. Next time you drive this road, while someone drives, look up at the section between Lions Bay and Porteau Cove. Overhanging cliffs, hundreds of feet above the road are everywhere. If the road goes so does the railway below. Maybe next time they’ll put in some tunnels instead?
NicS
December 4, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Cyclingmama has also posted her view of the meeting at
http://www.livableregion.ca/blog/blogs/index.php/2007/12/04/p327
Stephen Rees
December 4, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Craig wrote:
“Should a lane become blocked for any reason that is a lot of people to have stranded on the highway.”
The logical way to reduce the chance of a lot of people becoming stranded and pissed off would be use multiple modes. Trains, ferries and buses – maybe cruise ships too (providing overnight accommodation and transportation). That way any one incident would be unlikely to block all modes. That is what I and many others proposed at the time. Wider highways do not eliminate the chance of an incident that blocks all lanes.
Maybe it would be difficult to move the numbers of people by train alone, but with three modes there would be ample capacity.
But the fix was in, the Sea-to-Sky expansion is about fueling suburban sprawl. The Olympics are only a thin excuse.
As for the idea that an ‘upgrade’ (read expansion) will be needed in the future; ever heard of climate change or peak oil? Ever notice that traffic volumes are declining in the City of Vancouver? Ever notice that people like train and boat travel through spectacular scenic areas?
Eric Doherty
December 4, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Hello Stephen,
The broadcast with your comments (and in fact the entire rally, as far as I know) was on Shaw Cable.
And of course rail is impractical if you don’t invest in it. The same could be said of highways if the public purse wasn’t open in that direction.
Andrew
December 4, 2007 at 10:56 pm
“is very little new development ”
There seems to be plenty around Squamish.
I was in a meeting recently with developer building in Squamish. He was bragging that the commute from Squamish to downtown Vancouver would be shorter than from Richmond to downtown.
It seems pretty clear what is going on…………….
rob_
December 4, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I find it hard to believe that you can drive from Squamish to downtown faster than 24 minutes (Richmond-Brighouse station to City Centre station).
Sungsu
December 5, 2007 at 9:20 am
Being a resident of Squamish…I can tell you that much of the development seems to be absentee owners.
Also, the highway is as twisty as it ever was and besides, the speed limit is 80KM but most vehicles are travelling well beyond that…and I believe, that if there was ever an earthquake in the area that all that new éxtended’ builtup highway would be gone so I predict more accidents and mayhem.
You are right about the ‘development’ which is giving huge blocks of crown land above the highway to these developers all the way from Horseshoe Bay to Squamish and beyond as in Garibaldi @ Squamish.
BevinBC
December 5, 2007 at 9:31 am
Sungsu – but that does not stop many drivers from trying
Stephen Rees
December 5, 2007 at 9:44 am
The following is the text of a message sent to the LRC list by Ned Jacobs summarising the meeting
The object of the public forum was not developing a master strategy, but rather, “reflecting on citizen activism at Eagleridge Bluffs”. Regarding strategy, points on which I think there was general consensus include:
1: we cannot allow ourselves to be conquered by division; all of these highway and port expansion plans are retrograde and should be stopped (or in some cases significantly modified). Local groups concentrating on specific projects must support one another and coordinate our efforts.
2: We have limited opportunities to attract media attention, and we cannot assume that the media will present our messages in a fairly, let alone favourably. Therefore we have to do a better job of developing our own media, and availing it to those who normally depend on mainstream media for information..
3: We must raise awareness throughout the region of the threats to sustainability and livability posed by these plans and develop a broad-based non-partisan movement sufficient to pose an electoral threat to the government.
4: We must raise awareness throughout the region to the sustainable solutions that this government ignores, dismisses, or pays lip service to.
5: We must draw attention to the hypocrisy of this government’s position on highway and port expansion in regard to climate change.
6: We must expose the distortions and lies perpetrated by this government, and their contempt for democracy and the well-being of local communities and ecosystems.
7: No-one ever said it was going to be easy.
8: But it will be fun, with opportunities to learn all sorts of fascinating things and develop wonderful friendships!
In regard to point 6, I suggested a specific initiative—calling for a public inquiry into Kevin Falcon’s lies re the tunnel option at Eagleridge. You will find it in my attached remarks from Monday’s panel presentation.
In addition, there was discussion on the pros and cons of civil disobedience. I think there was general consensus that it was morally justified at Eagleridge, and would be morally justified as a response to current expansion plans.
All told, an amazing amount of ground was covered in two hours of discussion. That said,. more discussion and strategic planning is needed in a variety of venues and contexts.
Stephen Rees
December 5, 2007 at 12:48 pm
[...] 12th, 2007 I have added pdfs of the comments made by Barbara Pettit and Ned Jacobs at the Dissent meeting – just click on their names in the [...]
Updates « Stephen Rees’s blog
December 12, 2007 at 4:11 pm
The following is the text of an email from Frances Bula I received this morning
Stephen Rees
December 18, 2007 at 9:54 am
I must admit I was a bit taken aback by the vehemence and extent of this comment.
So I carefully reread what I wrote – and if I may I will repeat myself “I got too caught up in what was being said, so I am not going to be a very effective reporter”
“There was a lot of frustration expressed at the role of media – especially the Vancouver Sun – and how it either ignores or twists the issues. ” That is not me being critical of the media – that this me trying to capture what was being said by others. BUT I do share their frustration. I had been part of a Press Conference organized by the Livable Region Coalition on our response to the EA of the Highway #1 expansion and Twinning the Port Mann Bridge. By and large the media ignored it. The CBC and CityTV both sent a cameraman, and Jeff Nagel listened in on a conference call, and did ask a few questions. If he wrote anything I did not see it. Yet the issues – the provincial government producing sloppy, inaccurate and in some cases deliberately misleading information – I think deserved some coverage. It didn’t get any. The Sun and Province ignored it completely.
I was unaware at the time that Ms Bula had been asked to close the meeting at 9. I was also unaware that it was decided to allow the last two people to speak and that the meeting was to continue. I was surprised when someone spoke to me rather sharply that she wanted to speak too – as I was still under the (false) impression that the meeting was over and I was defying the moderator.
I do not have a record of what I said – but there are at least two recordings. As a blogger I depend on the media. Outside of my own knowledge and experience – and increasingly people sending me stuff – what inspires most of this blog is what I find in the media on line. Plus my continued addiction to print in all its forms. But it is much easier to stick in a URL or cut and paste some electronic text than laboriously hunt and peck the text from a printed source into a web page.
The point I was trying to make is that we – the opponents of the Gateway – need to organise ourselves. And that by now there are enough of us – if we act in concert – to be effective. In the language of communications we are less in need of “outreach” now.
The Vancouver Sun does employ some very distinguished and effective journalists – and Frances is one of them. I hold their work in high regard and a model for others. People who write blogs do so for all kinds of reasons – some of which, quite legitimately, include a desire to supplement or provide an alternative view to that of the mainstream media. I grew up with British newspapers – and especially the Guardian and The Economist. And the Sun does not compare well to either. The Sun is also part of a media empire, and there is far too much media concentration in Canada – and far too much of the owners’ views obtrude into reporting. Deciding what to report on and how much space to allocate to it are important editorial decisions – but they are driven mainly by a commercial agenda (selling papers) and a political agenda (usually very conservative and business friendly).
I am grateful that Frances allowed me to publish her thoughts, and if I offended her I apologise. That was not my intention. I wrote my initial blog entry as soon as I got back from the meeting – so my blood was still up. Bloggers do not have editors to save them from themselves
Stephen Rees
December 18, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] is reason to be concerned about the process, if not the merits of the outcome. But in the case of Eagleridge Bluffs I feel on firmer [...]
The Price We Pay for a Free Society « Stephen Rees’s blog
April 3, 2008 at 5:49 pm