Ignore the numbers — they’re not important

 Throughout the landfill debate I’ve tried to keep an open mind.

When I first heard about it I kind of liked the poetics of sending our dirty smells to Sechelt. It was like retribution for all those years of getting my ass handed to me in basketball and soccer games. Besides, why would you want to live near garbage anyway?

After a little more thought, I changed my mind.

I went to the meetings and read the report and it’s not as complicated as many would have us believe.

 

And please, if you come across anyone who still does not understand that closing the landfill (which is the big hole in the ground full of garbage you pour dirt on) doesn’t mean closing the site (transfer station dump bins), flick them in the ear for me. Twice.

 

The SCRD was forced by law to commission a report to deal with the inevitable end of the current phase of landfilling at the Pender Harbour site. Naturally the consultants took a look at the option of closing the landfill (the big hole with dirt) and maintaining a transfer station (the dump bins). The Sperling Hansen report is very clear — they say if we close the landfill and maintain an on-site transfer station, we’ll save money. But ignore the cost figures for a second because they’re not important.

 

The arguments for closing the landfill (big hole with dirt) invariably come from residents who live near it or distant regional directors who would rather see a consolidation of services in order to pay for costly upgrades needed at the Sechelt landfill.

 

Too often the discussions have centred around the environmental effects of landfilling. Whatever they are they’re going to be present, at least to some degree, at the Sechelt dump, perched on a hill straddling Sechelt Inlet and Chapman Creek. It’s not a bottomless pit either. They estimate it might only be good for another 20 years and our garbage will reduce its lifespan by 15 per cent.

 

The report predicts at least 60 more years left in the Pender Harbour site. Assuming waste goes down through dedicated recycling services over the next six decades and we continue to expand every 30 years or so, we might have an environmentally reliable landfill for the next 100 years. Or more.

 

It’s a valuable resource to our future community that might benefit the entire Sunshine Coast someday.But once closed it will never be allowed to reopen. What if, in the next 100 years or so,  Area A decides to incorporate? Will we wish we had the flexibility to determine how we deal with our waste? Will 2035 diesel prices ensure it’s still economical to to truck garbage to Sechelt?

 

It seems shortsighted to snuff out a resource like the Pender Harbour Landfill for a purported eight to 13 per cent savings.

It’s a perfect example of budget distractions interfering with long-term local perspectives.

 

Sure it will be more expensive to expand the landfill.

But if short term cost was the only consideration for infrastructure investment, we wouldn’t have highways.