Dear Editor:
Richardson International in their report, Proposed Grain Storage Project Alternatives Project: Alternatives Report (Jan. 18) present five different proposed sitings:
- the North West (over rail yard) Annex which is not constructible;
- the South West Annex (land) which has insufficient land to develop;
- the East and West Annex alternatives have view, shade and noise impacts which significantly degrade the local neighbourhoods but significantly favour Richardson on construction feasibility, available land, business interruption and operational efficiency;
- the South West (water) Annex have view, shade and noise impacts that cause the least degradation to the local neighbourhood but significantly affect Richardson on construction feasibility, available land, business interruption and operational efficiency.
The North West (over rail yard) Annex and the South West Annex (land) alternatives should be discounted as red herrings that fill space in Richardson's report. The East and West Annex alternatives merely play west side residents against east side residents. The real alternative to Richardson's East Annex proposal is the South West (water) Annex alternative.
Richardson stands to make millions of dollars per year if its proposal is approved. Richardson should provide a cost/benefit
analysis for the South West (water) Annex to demonstrate why the benefit it is receiving is insufficient to cover the costs associated with the development of the South West (water) alternative. The damage to the property values to either the East or West Annex alternatives should be taken into account for this analysis.
Richardson also raises the spectre of damage to fish habitat should the South West (water) Annex alternative proceed. Richardson has provided no evidence for this damage or the cost associated with the mitigation of this damage.
Port Metro Vancouver should delay the approval of the project until this additional analysis is undertaken.
Charles and Marlene Goodbrand, North Vancouver
