|
March
2000 Newsletter
The
Proposed Referendum on the Expressway
Friends
of Red Hill sent the following letter to Regional Council
regarding the motion by Fred Eisenberger to hold a municipal
referendum concerning the North-South Red Hill Creek Expressway
The
concerns of Friends are numerous, but many can be
covered by discussing part c) of the proposed motion. Part
c) reads: "That the General Manager of Transportation, Operations
and Engineering be directed to compile all known pertinent
facts, as they relate to the construction of the north-south
extension of the Lincoln Alexander Parkway through the Red
Hill Valley and to report back to Council on the most effective
means by which to distribute this information to the public."
Friends notes that although firm dates are assigned
to parts a) and b) of the motion, there is no established
timeframe for "compiling pertinent facts" or "distributing
this information to the public". This calls into question
the region's sincerity on these issues: the "pertinent facts"
should have been "distributed to the public" long ago. The
region's failures in the area of public disclosure are simply
too numerous to cover here, but a few representative errors
are outlined below.
The
first area of concern is the region's veil of secrecy regarding
this public works project. The bulk of the decisions, if
they come to council at all, are made behind closed doors
("in camera") by the Transportation Services Committee.
Even after these closed door decisions are made, the supporting
documentation is frequently not made available to the public.
For example, Friends of Red Hill Valley has been made aware
that the region currently is withholding the following reports
from the public:
- a
report on fish habitat (withheld as an "internal" document)
-
a report on creek re-alignment (withheld as an "internal"
document)
-
a report on traffic in the east end (withheld as an "internal"
document)
- a
report on southern flying squirrels, a nationally listed
vulnerable species, found in Red Hill Valley (withheld
under "solicitor-client privilege").
A
second area of concern is the region's refusal to even gather
the "facts" surrounding this project. The most recent study
of the effects of the East-West Expressway (i.e., the "Linc")
on air quality on the mountain predicted that opening the
Linc would result in levels of particulate air pollution
that exceed provincial standards.
The
consultant recommended that the region set up an air quality
monitoring station near the expressway on the mountain,
so that air quality could be measured before and after opening
of what is now called the Lincoln Alexander Parkway. The
region never set up the facility, which conveniently prevents
residents along the Linc from learning about the magnitude
of air pollution created by the expressway.
Apparently
the region feels that the air pollution caused by expressways
is not a "pertinent fact" for "public distribution".
Despite
the region's usual procedure of suppressing information
about the expressway, occasionally it expresses itself by
releasing what it views are "pertinent facts" about the
expressway.
Unfortunately,
in order to find "pertinent facts" to support the expressway,
the region has found it necessary to misrepresent them.
In one case ("Region's Red Hill news release 'misleading",
Hamilton Spectator June 13, 1998) the region misrepresented
questionnaire results by declaring they showed support for
the expressway was growing. The press release issued by
the region was so unfounded that the polling firm (Decima)
took the unusual step of publicly disavowing the interpretation.
The response rate for the questionnaire was so low that
University of Toronto statistics professor Nancy Reid characterized
the interpretation as: "it's a joke".
McMaster
University political science professor Henry Jacek said:
"From a social science point of view it (the region's interpretation)
is totally unreasonable. ... It's a terrible misuse to use
this as a social science instrument."
In
another case ("Region wrong again on Red Hill; Release claiming
expressway cuts emissions 'misrepresents' research", Hamilton
Spectator June 20, 1998), in order to claim an air quality
benefit for the expressway, the region found it necessary
to misrepresent research. McMaster University professor
Pavlos Kanarglou said: "There is lot of misrepresentation
of what we have done. The misrepresentation keeps proliferating."
The
region's current closed door policy on the expressway indicates
it remains untrustworthy in the areas of "pertinent fact"
compilation and "public information distribution".
In
order to have informed public input into a decisions about
the expressway, a lot more is needed than just "pertinent
facts": there are complex technical issues that require
careful examination by experts.
A
key example is the issue of whether opening the North-South
Red Hill Creek expressway will increase or decrease air
quality both in east Hamilton and on the mountain. Many
factors needs to be considered, such as: sprawl effects,
induced traffic effects, and the diversion of traffic (including
NAFTA truck traffic) off of the 403/QEW. The region has
already shown that it is an untrustworthy judge on this
subject: both by failing to collect data (by not opening
the proposed mountain air quality monitoring station) and
by misrepresenting research results.
What
is really needed to resolve these issues is for an independent
panel of experts to be convened. The panel would be responsible
for gathering public concerns about the project, ensuring
the relevant data to address these concerns is collected,
and then offering expert opinion on the accumulated data.
The reasons for proceeding in this fashion are so obvious
that they have been codified in law: The Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act.
The
work of the Red Hill Creek Expressway Review Panel has already
proceeded to the stage that part c) of the proposed motion
is government duplication: it would be redundant for the
General Manager of Transportation to make a determination
of which are the "pertinent facts" about the expressway.
After
coming to Hamilton and receiving submissions from 275 individuals
and groups, the Red Hill Creek Expressway Review Panel has
issued a listing of the pertinent information needed to
assess the expressway. The listing is contained in "Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines for the Review of the
Proposed Red Hill Creek Expressway North-South Section Project,
October, 15, 1999". This document also outlines the proceedure
for collecting the facts, discussing the facts, and seeking
expert opinion on the facts. There is no need to waste scarce
government resources in duplicating this effort. If the
General Mananger of Transportation issues a list of "pertinent
facts" that does not cover the issues contained in the EIS,
then this would be just another regional government attempt
to limit the public's access to information about the project.
In order for there to be an informed public vote on this
issue, there needs to be full public disclosure of all of
the information relevant to the project. The approved procedure
for accomplishing this task, as stated by Canadian law,
is through the federal environmental assesment.
Councillor
Eisenberger is proposing to have a vote on the expressway
before the facts are in. This is equivalent to asking a
jury to pass judgement before it hears the evidence in the
case. Since this would be a gross distortion of process,
the only reasonable course of action is to postpone this
motion until after the Red Hill Creek Expressway Review
Panel has issued its final report.
Sincerely,
Joe
Minor, PhD., Chairman,
Friends of Red Hill Valley.
|
