Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 45 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Ex-Fernie councillor Kevin Neish captured in Gaza #18931
    mtnrat
    Participant

    Read the comments to this story. Even many of The Georgia Straight readers think the guy has little credibility.

    http://www.straight.com/article-329969/ … -vancouver

    in reply to: Do you trust BP? #18953
    mtnrat
    Participant

    "governments are paid off" There is some of our problem. Sorry it comes down to compromising or non enforcement of regulations by GOVERNMENT. Here is something I came across that disturbs me.

    Did any of you know that the US has a National Contingency Plan for dealing with very large oil spills? And that EPA has legal responsibility for maintaining readiness for such an eventuality? Who knew? This hasn’t been mentioned anywhere.
    Here is the link: http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/fr/59fr47384.pdf

    The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan Act was signed into law in 1994 (superceding previous legislation that went back to the 1969 Torrey Canyon oil spill.) Laws and regulations are collated here. The EPA has an online book describing the National Continency Plan. See for example http://www.epa.gov/oem/docs/oil/edu/oil … /chap7.pdf (change the number to get other chapters.)
    The EPA manual says:
    WHEN A MAJOR oil spill occurs in the United States, coordinated teams of local, state, and national personnel are called upon to help contain the spill, clean it up, and ensure that damage to human health and the environment is minimized. Without careful planning and clear organization, efforts to deal with large oil spills could be slow, ineffective, and potentially harmful to response personnel and the environment. In the United States, the system for organizing responses to major oil spills is called the National Response System.
    One of the principles of the National Contingency Plan is that an effective and prompt response is a national priority. The chair and vice-chair of the National Response Team are to come from EPA and the Coast Guard. The EPA manual says:
    AFTER THE PLAN is developed, it is important to test it to see if it works as anticipated. Testing usually takes the form of an exercise or drill to practice responding to a spill.
    Also, in a first reading, the presumption of the legislation is that dealing with major problems is a national interest and the government will take charge. The idea behind the plan is that there will be national readiness to deal with oil spills and that EPA will lead the national readiness. Section 3.1.1 (h) states:
    Direct planning and preparedness responsibilities of NRT [national Response team] include: (1) Maintaining national preparedness to respond to a major discharge of oil that is beyond regional capabilities.
    MMS, who have borne the brunt of criticism of government activities, play little to no role in the National Contingency Plan – based on my initial reading – and definitely a very minor role relative to EPA. MMS does not appear to be a member of the National Response Team (though 300.175 notes that MMS may have useful information and can be called on through the Dept of Interior representative).
    I’ve noticed EPA involvement in worrying about dispersant toxicity, but otherwise EPA seems to have been surprisingly invisible given the prominent role assigned to them in the National Contingency Plan.
    I’ve only browsed the legislation and manuals and it’s not an area about which I speak authoritatively. I invite readers to look through the Act, regulations and manuals and comment on the degree to which EPA and other agencies have met their statutory obligations. Please do so in relatively technical terms and avoid the temptation to hyperventilate.

    in reply to: Sustainable de-growth for Fernie? #14100
    mtnrat
    Participant

    Actually I am only letting people in our community know the perception of the investment community. That is all. Take from that what you will. :D

    in reply to: Sustainable de-growth for Fernie? #14096
    mtnrat
    Participant

    earth1st, I don’t think that Fernie needs to subscribe to that dogma. If we keep doing things the way we are now, catastrophic de-growth is a real possibility. If we make a few changes in the way Fernie treats business we can regain our population of 5000 and have a more viable and vibrant community. Fragmentation is now taking place, even in the arts and culture community. Even they don’t seem to be able to get it together, and it is a microcosm of the bigger picture in Fernie.

    in reply to: Sustainable de-growth for Fernie? #14092
    mtnrat
    Participant

    De-growth may work for those who make their living from government agencies, or outside sources. Those that make their living from the local economy must therefore be expendable. Actually our hospital, schools, city works, etc must necessarily shrink. Our population is at the cusp of imploding. What we have, with the help of tourists, barely keeps the doors of many open. It is really tough out there.
    As for condemning the CoF. Nobody is wholly responsible, but investment is overlooking Fernie for the main reason that investors cannot determine if or when they may see a return. There is always risk in investment, but the record of the CoF is such that investors see a much higher risk in Fernie, because of the actions and inactions of the City. Investment follows the path of least resistance and potential success. The line on Fernie is high resistance and very few example of success. This was the case before the most recent economic problems and is now seen as reality.
    Adding the word sustainable to de-growth is an oxymoron. I think some people like to see failure. I am happy for people who succeed and wish those that try the best of luck. Maybe that is because I understand the effort and vision it takes to take a risk, rather than cowardly throw flies into the ointment of others, from the safety of a life that does not depend on the fortunes of our local economy.

    in reply to: Sustainable de-growth for Fernie? #14084
    mtnrat
    Participant

    I have been pondering… and have decided the real reason Fernie is experiencing "de-growth", (which I have decided is a moronic term), is because the powers that be are so business unfriendly that nobody has been able to get anything going here. It is now so bad that new investment is passing Fernie by like it was a hot potato. Until that changes I am afraid the downward spiral will continue. The CoF needs to prove it is open for business. Business that includes resource extraction and tourism, as well as welcomes second home owners. Every delayed application, every denied parking variance, every lets do another study before we move forward has a cumulative effect in discouraging business.
    I take back the last sentence in my previous post. I was tired and fell into the trap set by those who want nothing to happen anywhere, anyplace or anytime.

    in reply to: Sustainable de-growth for Fernie? #14088
    mtnrat
    Participant

    You could be correct and I could be overly optimistic. What you are telling me leads me to think that we should not waste taxpayer money on official community plans, livability/quality of life studies and seriously look at the size of City staff. Since we are already shrinking in population the money being spend is just being wasted. I think that you are correct and the trends will be very difficult to overcome.

    in reply to: Fernie Has Dirty Water #18865
    mtnrat
    Participant

    Great thread. Now we are all up to date. mikes, that was the incident I was referring to. Nasty nasty bug.

    in reply to: Fernie Has Dirty Water #18859
    mtnrat
    Participant

    Hey mikes, thanks for the info. Much of what I know is from the old era. Obviously WAY out of date. 8) Back then much was from surface runoff which resulted in a campylobacter outbreak which one summer (about 1994??) made many people very sick.

    in reply to: Fernie Has Dirty Water #18856
    mtnrat
    Participant

    FAR uses surface runoff that is collected in an underground reservoir, then treated. The CoF is in the midst of a multi million dollar water works upgrade that I believe will alleviate the turbidity problem. For your peace of mind there has been no giardia or outbreaks of other water borne pathogens for over a decade as evidenced by no cases reported to the local hospital or health authorities. The boil water advisories are put into effect as a cover your ass policy just incase somebody gets sick. I believe most citizens ignore the boil water advisories. However that doesn’t mean I condone not boiling, (cya in effect).

    in reply to: Sustainable de-growth for Fernie? #14081
    mtnrat
    Participant

    I get where you are coming from. However I really believe that Fernie has enough to offer to stem that general tide. On another note, I have begun to consider that there is a large movement that is promoting/causing de-growth in the western world. What concerns me is that the movement of the economic drivers to the developing world will cause far more pollution and ecological degradation than the same industry would be allowed to cause in the western world. Yes there are still large problems here, but the developing world has almost no regulation, and in some areas a culture that basically does not care for the environment in any way, shape, or form. Just some food for thought.
    As for urbanization, those people still need resources and places for recreation. We have both. I would rather try to take full advantage of those opportunities, rather than watch more friends and colleagues move away due to lack of opportunity.

    in reply to: Sustainable de-growth for Fernie? #14079
    mtnrat
    Participant

    Why should a place like Fernie necessarily have less people and a smaller local economy? Of any small town, Fernie should be able to at least regain its former population base of about 5000 permanent residents.

    in reply to: Sustainable de-growth for Fernie? #14075
    mtnrat
    Participant

    Nope, not a single condo, house etc, just an observation of the amount of business that seems to not be taking place in town. Yep the mines are growing and yes the homes are more affordable for WORKING people. Most of the growth is taking place up valley. Very little in Fernie. Like I said de-growth is alive and well. What with basically no housing starts, and many businesses just holding on, and those that want to expand or get going, cannot get by totally messed up parking bylaws, etc etc. Not a bad thing if your fortunes do not rely on the fortunes of the town, but if you don’t work for the city, hospital, schools or are retired, things are downright scary at the moment for those trying to scrap a living. I know my spending here has basically stopped. By the way, I do know many who used to build those condos, etc who have had to move away with their families to greener pastures as part of the de-growth scenario. :cry:

    in reply to: Sustainable de-growth for Fernie? #14076
    mtnrat
    Participant

    Don’t worry. Fernie is degrowing now. Actually at the rate of de-growth we are experiencing, nobody will be living here in the not too distant future. That way you won’t have any way to make a living here, and you too can experience de-growth. :lol:

    in reply to: looking for a welder #18882
    mtnrat
    Participant

    Also Randy who has Chris’s Custom Iron’s old location. It is in the alley behind the retail shop.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 45 total)