Jan 29, 2007 meeting with Michael Baker to alert him to problems in the Sand Dollar area.
On January 29, 2007, KCC Board members Dee Hilburt & Marion Homer met with Michael Baker to pursue the following topics:
- Discussion of developments in the Sand Dollar Beach area – need for protection.
- Request that the province address the gap between provincial & municipal responsibility.
- Follow-up on 2005 request for legal interpretation of provincial and municipal responsibility for building permits in geologically hazardous areas.
1. The Sand Dollar Beach area
We informed MLA Baker of the attributes that make this beach a favorite for families, namely the warm and shallow waters that make it ideal for children. We spoke of the municipality’s appreciation for the beach, demonstrated by it’s efforts to create a viable parking area, and we described our apprehension about the “for sale” signs along the beach, and the narrowly-averted attempts to infill parts of the adjacent salt marsh. We also relayed the concerns of local residents that the area of open water has diminished greatly over the last 15 years, threatening its conversion to a marsh, rather than a beach. While no one has made a scientific assessment of why the area is filling in, many people suspect that the causeway to Conrad Island has impeded normal tidal flow, causing infill.
We explained that the impact of impending residential development compromises the recreational beach, the pristine tidal salt marsh, and the summer habitat for migratory birds. In order to prevent these problems, KCC asked Michael Baker to nominate Sand Dollar Beach, including the tidal salt marsh extending to the Rose Bay General Store, as a provincial “Protected Beach. ”
2. Provincial/Municipal Responsibility
We spoke to Michael Baker about the difficulties we have encountered because no level of government and no government department is specifically responsible for environmental issues. The law gives various parts of government the authority to address environmental concerns, but it fails to require that anyone be responsible. Under these conditions, it is all too easy for each department to defer/abdicate responsibility to another department. The typical reason/excuse is poverty and the lack of specialist personnel. We asked Michael Baker to arrange multi-level, multi-department, meetings designed to sort out who is responsible for what, and then write the decisions into policy.
3. Legal interpretation of responsibility for building permits in geologically hazardous areas
In 2005, KCC wrote Michael Baker to request his legal expertise and his help, as our MLA, in determining government liability for issuing building permits in geologically hazardous areas. At that time, we provided documentation that courts in NB and BC had already ruled that government has a responsibility to prevent construction on lands it knows to be hazardous. When a BC municipality issued a building permit on lands known to be hazardous, the courts awarded a sizable sum to the victim family. We wanted to know if NS law placed a similar responsibility, and potential financial liability, on NS governments that issue building permits.
Since we had never heard back from Minister Baker in regard to our 2005 question, we presented him with photos illustrating some of the geological hazards found in the Kingsburg area. Geological hazards come in a variety of forms, including land structure, land content, and land vulnerability. Examples include “steep slopes prone to on-going erosion,” “areas prone to repeat flooding,” “areas whose soil/sand base is prone to shifting,” areas with arsenic, and areas with uranium.
When a person builds in an area of geological hazards, and a problem occurs, there is suffering and financial loss to the individual, loss to any insurance company or mortgage lender, loss in provincial health care dollars to treat injured or poisoned people, loss in tax dollars if the government has to clean up the area, and loss in tax dollars if the individual successfully sues the government for wrongful issuance of a building permit. If just 5 homes are affected, and each home is worth $200,000, courts could easily award $1,000,000 in damages. This is a significant potential loss that we should be making every effort to prevent, so KCC restated its concern and its question to Minister Baker.