Re: Pacific Insight’s objections to transfer station move
Pacific Insight says it feels “insulted” by not being consulted prior to the RDCK planning the move of the transfer station. Insult definition: meant to hurt the feelings or pride.
The new transfer station will be totally “out of sight and sound” from their main buildings. Pacific Insight is also quoted as saying that “there was no discussion prior and that’s really our big beef.” May I ask how Pacific Insight would have reacted, if they were informed and consulted? (No one consulted our 10,000 plus community if we wanted the $6 million highway lane expansion last summer.)
The RDCK has explained why they needed to negotiate in camera. It seems like Pacific Insight would have balked at this location no matter if they were consulted or not.
Their concerns: 1) Safety hazard and traffic. That can easily be dealt with through good signage and a very clear time access. 2) “Not a good business image” to have a transfer station nearby. That argument seems so petty since one will be totally unable to see the transfer station from Pacific Insight’s location (unless one flies over the property) other than a sign— it’s very difficult to reason that their customers will consider not ordering their electronics because of a sign that will say “Transfer Station.”
And that Pacific Insight was able to get 160 company employees to sign a petition against the transfer station is a no brainer. Of course the employees signed, if management is strongly against it. They’re quoted as saying: “The message is the employees are not supportive of this project.” Curious as to how they worded their own internal petition.
Much time and effort has gone into the potential relocation of the transfer station and its future home and concept. It’s time Pacific Insight accepts the fact and sits down with the RDCK and work together to alleviate their beefs, traffic and image concerns. Let’s strive for a win/win solution.
John Vanden Heuvel
Blewett Conservation Society