"How much potential firewood is in those piles?" is a question that needs to be answered. If that percentage exceeds fifty, would it not be in everyone's interest to pay for firewood salvage by charging locals a fair price to have access to, what now must be, decently dry wood for woodstoves? Surely our collective thinking-caps can solve this community problem. A burn that does not utilize the heat and wastes that wood must be considered out-of-the-question.
Millions of tourists a year and Blanchette is worried about a few trucks ??
Agree with councillor McMaster, a precedent will obviously be set. What will be the argument used to refuse others, that does not seem arbitrary and hence political. Also removing the large woody debris is only a start. In addition, every time construction of a road or structure begins, large amounts of organics, the often two foot deep mat, also needs to be removed, to excavate to mineral ground. What do these developers expect to do with that. Trucking of this material is the only option. These developers here are looking for the cheap way out.The reported argument of councillor Anderson sickens me. Looking for amenities to offset the health, safety and right of the public to clean air. What further evidence do we need that council's obsession with amenities has "clouded" their thinking and corrupted the decision making process.There is only one wind direction that will not affect developed areas, once the fires are set, and that is North North east. Statistically the most infrequent wind we get. Expect large amounts of the town center and residential areas to receive ash.A generation ago, many in this town, fought hard to eliminate slash burning by the logging companies as a noxious, unsavoury and unhealthy practise. Shame on Councillor Blanchette, the karmic carbon bean counter. He seems to have missed the point or should I say, can't see the forest for the trees. I am all in favour of affordable housing and cooperating with developers to get something going, but nobody in there right mind wants to see this burn, nobody should be allowed to spew these contaminants into the air in an urban environment, nor will this be the kind of tourist attraction that benefits the town. Yes, when the stuff is buried it will break down, but we won't be breathing carcinogenic particlulates. Get your minds right boys.
Could be ground up on site and piled up for composting. Pile the chips on the last lots planned to be developedEveryone knows this town needs topsoil and people regularly buy it.As for the firewood idea that is what it all should have been turned into before being dragged through mud and piled in burn piles. The resulting burn piles would have been tiny in comparison.
I would like to believe this is something that the "Community Sustainability" department of the District of Tofino is there to provide a solution to. Community sustainability needs to consider climate sustainability, not tourism sustainability.
How about community sustainability consider the health of the people living here. Not 40 years from now, but right now....BAN THE BURNCommunity sustainability should also consider a ban on council meetings while we are at it, until they get the sewer system built. Too much unfiltered excrement being spewed about.
Lol, there's like 500 daily fire pits in campgrounds burning nightly promoted by tourism tofino. You can't walk 10 meter without witnessing a leftover bonfire on any beaches, give me a break.
The owners should have put a sign up reading "Free Firewood". If this had been done at the beginning of the summer tourist season they would have gotten rid of a pile of wood.I see the tourists buying bundles of fire wood at the Tofino Co-op all summer long.Maybe one of the local organizations could have a work bee, saw up the logs and package it for next summer's tourist season = they'd make a mint. There are still a lot of locals that burn wood all winter long in their auxilary stoves or fireplaces - they may be interested in free firewood too.
Someone, one of us(?), is going to need to take the lead on this. #1. Approach the land 'owners' or District in relation to liability issues. #2 Determine if there is enough fire wood to proceed with the idea of dismantling the piles. #3. Find the person and the machine(s) who could do the job... paid or volunteer #4. Community event chainsawing, splitting and stacking wood for purchase...(CBT Neighborhood Small Grant?). Whom of us is a leader? We need you NOW!
Good thinking 8:57. Care to take the Lead? Shall we organize a 'meet 'n greet' on the property to take a good look at those piles? Maybe our local tree-falling expert could join us.
Firewood for local woodstoves or beach fires, YES. Mulch, ABSOLUTELY! Yes please! I'll take some of both, as much as I can. Burning a swath of land to make it less expensive for developers, HELL NO!!! It's shocking to me that DoT staff brought this to council with their recommendation that it go forward. This massive burn would be in no way "sustainable".
What I don't like about this conversation between developer and council is the apparent desire on the part of the town and council to get involved with the developers issues. Council needs to stay out of this end of the business. Just ban the burn... The developer has tied himself to a course of action and a particular contractor and limited his options and choices and now wants the town to pay it forward.... Anyone could see that the cost of trucking out wood debris would be off set by the trucking in of gravel on the back haul. Crush gravel for back fill of construction sites and road base for road development.....by deciding to clear the whole site, ahead of developing it, the developer has caused his own costs to escalate and double the amount of trucking use of the highway. This is their issue. Let them figure it out.
Post a Comment