Editor:
Re: Concordia to pay for sinkhole fix
I read with interest Christine Wood's article regarding the Seawatch development (Coast Reporter, May 10) and felt compelled to ask several questions.
First, is the mayor's description of the sinkhole as a "natural disaster" accurate? According to public documents, both the District's and the developers' experts agree that it was the failure of a drainage blanket that caused the current problem.
My understanding is that council hired Thurber Engineering to complete a study that identified many deficiencies, this prompted council to impose a remedial action requirement on the developers who failed to meet its conditions. Accordingly, council commissioned a second study. Meanwhile, the developers offered council $75,000 and agreed to fix the sinkhole. Council accepted this agreement, but only after spending a great deal of taxpayer's money on lawyers and consultants. Is it not unusual that council didn't even wait to see the study we funded before making an in-camera decision to drop the action?
It is no wonder the mayor is not comfortable using the word "guarantee." Even the agreement, which seems a self-serving document written by the developers' lawyer, acknowledges a risk of additional geotechnical events, and the now-released Thurber study states that there is a "moderate to high risk" of recurrence. Why did council invite the fox back into the hen house to fix the hole in the floor without even specifying how to do it?
The June 1, 2012 sinkhole is one of many failures at Seawatch. Seven "dry seasons" have passed since development was authorized in 2005. In all this time, why has the District not provided oversight and enforced its own bylaws ensuring proper completion of public roads, trails and infrastructure? Who will pay the bills when the developers and this council are long gone and the inadequate infrastructure continues to fail?
J. M. Paddison, Sechelt
