Posts Tagged ‘NIMBYism’
Wait a Minute – Smitherman DEFENDS Energy NIMBYism now?
So let me get this straight… Residents of Scarborough and their three Ontario Liberal lap dogs ’representatives’ (this is in quotations because I hear this is what they’re supposed to do, but fail to see any evidence of it happening) are told to sit down and shut up when they legitimately oppose environmental concerns and breaches of law committed by Toronto Hydro as part of their plan to install turbines, but Minister and MPP Bartolucci of Sudbury can get away with totally supporting nuclear power, but opposing waste being stored in his constituency? Isn’t that the essence of NIMBY? ‘Sure it’s a great idea, but not in my constituency’ – that’s NIMBY right?
He’s even allowed to cite ‘landscape’ – read aesthetics in opposing this plan and gets away with saying, he thinks its a great idea to build nuclear plants, so long as Sudbury does not have to deal with spent nuclear fuel. What a totally ridiculous proposition. Meanwhile in Scarborough there isn’t enough wind to create energy, and yet we’re still expected to live with the health and environmental impacts without proper review and tolerate a law breaking, totally ignorant proponent that doesn’t have a clue what it’s doing.
The opposition of Guildwood residents to Toronto Hydro’s breaches of law, and total disregard for health and environmental impacts saw us insulted by the Premier and his Deputy and a law passed with a clause the Premier said was designed to block communities like mine from participating in democratic decision making.
What’s more – that Nuclear power Bartolucci so willingly supports being built on the shores of Lake Ontario – hundreds of miles from his precious home, kilometres from mine, and with legitimate impacts on the Lake my community lives on, and receives its drinking water from. Could anyone be a more irresponsible in pushing public policy than this?
Liberal friends in Scarborough Guildwood, including those very close to Minister Best – who was publicly silent on our community’s behalf and failed to even attempt to publicly represent our views – tried to convince me that she couldn’t because she was in Cabinet and didn’t have the ability to speak out against the government. I said I thought she could, and offered to help her and her office develop the messaging that would allow her to stand between government and community to see our issues heard publicly, without getting her thrown out of Cabinet. They didn’t disagree, they just never took me up on it. Liberals were afraid big bad George would get her if she did.
Smitherman has come out in defense of Bartolucci’s blatant NIMBYism – even though Smitherman doesn’t believe Bartolucci has valid points.
‘Energy Minister George Smitherman said he doesn’t share Bartolucci’s reservations, but defended the comments, saying his colleague “is allowed to be a local MPP” as well as a cabinet minister.‘ Critics question Liberal’s energy plan – CTV May 26 2009
It was made quite clear to me that under this Liberal government Scarborough Guildwood is not entitled to a local MPP who also serves as a Cabinet Minister. My Liberal friends in Scarborough Guildwood can continue to get upset when I raise this point privately, and now very publicly in the face of total hypocrisy, but voters don’t care of their MPP gets a car with a driver, a bigger staff and more money – they want a voice and if the incumbent won’t provide it, elections will change who that representative is, and the perks of Cabinet will be lost anyways.
If the opposition parties get candidate selection and fundraising right, this will be the case in Scarborough Guildwood – and George Smitherman’s ‘playing to the crowd’ approach to public speaking will continue to serve up gems to seal the fate of those who cowered when it came time to vote for or against the Green Energy Act, a vote Margarett Best, Lorezno Berardinetti and Wayne Arthurs – spent hiding in the hall so they didn’t have to go on record either way.
I’ll never understand how it feels to hop into bed with folks whose ethical backbone is so weak they are OK knowingly killing family pets because it would be inconvienant to solve the crux of the problem, and so ignorant of their own equipment they assure parents children are safe – a couple days before electrucuting a dozen small children. Ladies and Gentleman this is the corporate mentality at Toronto Hydro Energy Services (THES Legal Department – again feel free to fact check and request any inaccuracies be corrected. Naturally we know these things are provable… so same deal as before? you read, you fume, and don’t reply?) vampire Personally, I couldn’t do it literally or figuratively – yet I know quite well there are folks in Dalton McGuinty’s government who are quite comfortable with this, including George Smitherman, Toronto Hydro’s prime defender and ‘knee capper’ (George, your swipes at mine didn’t take).
Toronto Hydro’s illegal application, lies and attempt at scientific review that would probably not meet the rigor of a primary school science fair is now under review of the Ontario Minister of Environment and the officials at the Ministry of Natural Resources. They have the opportunity to end it here and force Toronto Hydro to do a real review and recognize they are going to cause significant environmental damage and regardless of how dense Joyce McLean and Jack Simpson are – something will have to be done to address it.
I’ll start making bets that come 2011 – Toronto Hydro Energy Services will be no closer to putting turbines in the Lake off the Scarborough Bluffs, and the three swing ridings that are currently in envy of the people of Sudbury’s representation, will be changing hands, proving that bad public policy is also bad politics. Hey if George Smitherman can just keep talking, he’ll practically write the flyers for opposition parties.
2 Comments »Chatham This Week: It's David versus the Jolly Green Goliath
I’ve read articles in the National Post, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Hamilton Spectator, Peterborough Examiner and a number of community papers slamming the Premier and Minister Smitherman on the Green Energy Act. I’m glad people are listening to why this is a bad idea. Most of these articles have focused on the economic arguments, which I basically agree with, but to me the environmental damage is the most important impact the government chooses to ignore. My take is there are enough folks covering the ground on the economics that I will focus on the environment until more folks step up and give it traction.
Chatham This Week has written an article that focuses on the anti democratic nature of the reverse onus, the power grab involved in taking power from local municipalities and the lack of environmental protection. Good on them.
Below is their article:
Chatham This Week: It’s David versus the Jolly Green Goliath
Premier Dalton McGuinty wasn’t kidding earlier this year when he vowed that he wouldn’t tolerate NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) when it comes to the province’s green energy polices.
His government’s Green Energy Act, introduced last week, contains a section that would make it extraordinarily difficult for average citizens to challenge green energy developments, such as wind farms, solar farms or other projects.
The act would effectively place the burden of environmental assessment or proof on anyone who challenges a proposed “green” development. Environment assessments wouldn’t be automatically required.
That’s not the way it should be, and historically that’s not the way it’s been done in Ontario, at least not in the last several decades.
With few exceptions, the proponents of major developments — new highways, shopping malls, livestock operations… whatever — have always had to defend their projects by automatically enlisting the work of consultants and other advocates.
In fact, there have been cases where landowners have challenged utility companies that wanted to use private land for hydro transmission lines or natural gas pipelines, and were provided the necessary funding by the province to ensure their collective voices were given an equitable hearing.
But the Green Energy Act apparently changes all that.
Section 145.2.1 (3) of the proposed legislation says: “The person who required the hearing has the onus of proving that engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, human health or safety or the natural environment.”
In other words, if you object to a wind or solar farm being built next to your property, you can call for a hearing, but it’s up to you to defend your opposition.
This is wrong. The burden of proof shouldn’t be on a private citizen; it should be on the developer. How can any citizen of average means effectively mount an intelligent and carefully researched challenge that delineates their opposition to a wind or solar farm?
It’s not that wind farms or solar farms are bad. That’s not even the issue. But shouldn’t landowners and neighbours have a fighting chance in mounting an effective opposition, if indeed that is their desire?
Continued After Advertisement Below
Advertisement
Isn’t that the way things are done in a democracy?
Apparently not in the Green Energy Act — which, by the way, has many redeeming features, but Section 145.2.1 (3) isn’t one of them.
Indeed, the proposed legislation would have a large impact in Chatham-Kent, which is quickly becoming the location for dozens and dozens of wind turbines. Again, these projects are ostensibly being developed to provide a renewable form of electricity, something most of us would agree is a good thing.
But if a neighbour or a group of neighbours believes that their health is endangered, or that the value of their property would be compromised, shouldn’t their concerns be addressed within a forum that provides them with a standing that’s balanced against the interests of the developer?
The clause within the Green Energy Act has made more than a few people nervous. Maureen Anderson of Amherstburg writes: “What is very frightening is the anti-democratic ‘reverse onus’ clause tucked into this bill. In the past, the onus would be on a developer to provide proper study and evidence that a project would do no harm to the environment or humans. No more. Bill 150 would place the onus on the ‘victim’ to prove any damages.”
Toronto-area blogger John Laforet notes that even members of McGuinty’s caucus are acknowledging this fundamental change.
Laforet quotes MPP Laurel Broten, no less, the assistant to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure and the former environment minister. Broten told the Ontario Legislature: “Most significantly, green energy projects would no longer be subject to the requirements under the Planning Act or, in most cases, the Environmental Assessment Act.”
What? Aren’t we trying to protect the environment by using green energy?
Why would the regulations set out by the Environmental Assessment Act be sidestepped for any development?
Laforet says the McGuinty government has, through the Green Energy Act, followed through on its promise “to strip municipalities of their rights to control the land use planning issues around renewable energy projects and the promise to strip citizens’ democratic rights of dissent.”
That’s troubling, and an issue that needs to be more carefully examined.
It’s hoped that will happen as the proposed legislation is studied and discussed at the committee level.
And remember, NIMBYism isn’t necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing is when ordinary citizens aren’t given a fighting chance to challenge what’s being built in their back yards.
2 Comments »
