Skip to content

Errors of omission

Editor: Why does Mayor Siegers continue to omit significant facts about the Seawatch subdivision? In Coast Reporter’s March 15 article, “Long-term future of Seawatch still uncertain,” Mayor Siegers said provincial staff told the district that “the pr

Editor:

Why does Mayor Siegers continue to omit significant facts about the Seawatch subdivision? In Coast Reporter’s March 15 article, “Long-term future of Seawatch still uncertain,” Mayor Siegers said provincial staff told the district that “the province’s position regarding private property in the Seawatch subdivision remains that it is a private matter and not a matter for the province.” 

However, Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth told Global News in a Feb. 1 broadcast that the province had been involved in the Seawatch development and explained why it is not involved now.

“The province – through Emergency Management BC – provided funding for the District of Sechelt to obtain geotechnical assessments of the factors that have led to sinkhole formation in the development, as well as funding for any measures that may be undertaken to mitigate future sinkholes from forming,” Farnworth was quoted as saying. “During the assessment, the province was made aware that geotechnical reports were previously prepared to determine whether it was appropriate to build on the property. This report identified the formation of sinkholes as an existing risk. The province played no role in assessing the risk or in approving or denying necessary building permits.”

Therefore, it is evident that Mayor Siegers has chosen to omit the following significant facts in her statement to the public: 

1. The province is not involved in supporting or compensating the homeowners for the loss of their homes in Seawatch because the District of Sechelt chose to ignore geotechnical reports that identified the serious risks for sinkholes continuing to form at the site of the development. 

2. The province is not involved in supporting or compensating the families because it was the District of Sechelt that chose to approve the “necessary building permits.”

3. Only the District of Sechelt had the authority to halt the Seawatch development and deny building permits. 

4. In fact, Seawatch is a “matter” for the District of Sechelt. 

I invite Mayor Siegers to respond if any of my information is incorrect.

Larry Belle, Powell River