As predictable as it may be, it is still very odious.
I’m referring to the Territorial Government’s decision to ignore the Yukon Socioeconomic Assessment Board’s recommendation that placer mining not proceed in people’s backyards on the Dome Road.
Apparently the decision body wasn’t able to grasp the full scope of the proponent’s intentions or the recommendations made by YESAB.
I quote excerpts of their rationale here;
“The Decision Body does not accept that this project will reduce property values in the surrounding area given that the project has been in operation for a number of years and property values throughout the Town of the City of Dawson have been on the rise.”
What an outlandish statement! Would you purchase a residential property next to a mine that you know will operate in your back yard for the next ten years? I think not. To say that property values in Dawson have generally increased is small comfort to those who have invested their life savings in a dwelling that will be within 100 meters of an industrial mining operation.
Furthermore, it’s misleading to suggest that the mine has already been in operation for a number of years. That is simply untrue. The claims have been kept in good standing according to the placer mining rules, however the scope of work that is being proposed compared to what has gone on before is a whole new kettle of fish and certainly not status quo. We’re talking about digging up roads and eroding previously untouched land directly beside people’s homes.
“It is the view of the Decision Body that an effect is defined as the difference between a future state with the project versus that without the project, and includes a consideration of the existing baseline. It is important to note that the current baseline in the area includes the operation of this placer mine, which the assessment did not seem to fully account for when considering the manner in which this operation affects those residents in the surrounding area.”
This convoluted statement seems to suggest that because these particular placer claims and potential for a subsequent mining operation constitutes a pre-existing condition it should therefore trump any objections raised by people who happen to live nearby.
This decision also conveniently overlooks the provision within the Yukon Human Rights Act that allows for the quite enjoyment of one’s property and disposition thereof.
Mention is made regarding the rights of the absentee miner but none regarding the rights of the citizens who live here.
It is clear to me that the conflict between the right to the enjoyment of one’s residence and the right to mine a grandfathered claim cannot be mitigated. The decision body has predictably sided with the miner and the Yukon mining culture. Frankly, I think the citizens who have invested their lives in the community should have precedence and should be defended until any potential for mining in residential neighbourhoods is quashed, once and for all.
Perhaps the Dome residents should consider soliciting legal advice on what options are available to them, there are likely unexplored avenues that need to be looked at. I would certainly contribute to a legal fund if it was required.
Links to the decisions:
That’s, among other things, an extremely poor precedent to set. Can you imagine the reaction if copper prices rose dramatically enough to allow the Whitehorse Copper Belt properties to re-open? Not likely, but neither is it inconceivable, and there are a whole lot of well-to-do people living in homes that overlook those properties. But Dawson is a long way from the policy-makers……
Yes, the decision body took the easy way out, encouraged by the remoteness of the issue.
As you point out, a similar situation in Whitehorse would play out much differently, I’m sure.
Yukon political funding reports can be found at:
http://www.electionsyukon.gov.yk.ca/campaign.html
I really don’t know if the decision would be much different in Whse. look at Mclean Lake, over 2000 signatures and lots of public input, mining of a different sort but still extraction of resources. What concerns me is when this bunch of puppets (gov) is gone and I quote ad nauseam “a team of huskies could run in the next election and win” how long will it take to sort out the mess they are leaving? As Ottawa tries to eliminate the deficit and cuts back transfer payments and funding for bodies like YESAB, how will we be able to handle the debt load locally. These decisions made now will become status quo and will take YEARS to sort out and I’ll bet my first (pretty small) pension cheque that we are going to regret every decision this gov. has made. Sad days indeed. and we live in a country where we can claim around 20% of charitable donations and 100% of political donations, enuff said
It’s been a while since I lived in Dawson, and excuse me if I ramble somewhat but ….. when I saw the actual footprint and scope of the mining activity in this proposal and it’s impact on the homeowners …… well the mind boggles. I mean this situation is ludicrous!
I can, to a degree, sympathize with both parties. I definitely do support placer mining, tourism and the rights of a community. Hey, if it was my mining claim I would darned well want to mine it. And conversely, I would sure as heck want to prevent the destruction of my home or it’s value (both monetary & aesthetic).
However …….
What really gets me is that I had always assumed (oh foolish me!) that the City (or YTG) had taken care of any outstanding claims issues before the creation of the subdivision and the expansion of the City boundaries. I mean if you’re going to put land “on the market” wouldn’t it make sense to make sure that it was in fact yours to sell? Well obviously this was not the case, and we now find ourselves with this dilemma.
“Let the buyer beware” is frankly, a cop-out in this instance. My understanding is that none of the lot-buyers were informed of any claimed placer rights as extensive as now laid out. Or advised of the potential destruction to their property involved with the current proposal. Obviously none of the governing bodies were willing to be up front about any entitlement.
So what to do now? Well that’s not an easy question. And I have to admit that knowing some of the residents involved may colour my opinion. But I’m sorry, I think that the mining should not be allowed, at least under the terms of the current proposal. Didn’t the claim owners dispute the development of the subdivision? And if they did, what were they told/promised? And by whom?
I’m afraid that the courts may have to become involved.
While I can understand the potential financial aspect to the mining, I believe that the residents are the biggest stakeholders here, and ultimately have made the biggest investment in the town itself.
just my 2 cents.
jcm
That definition of a baseline is so Clintonesque that it makes me wince. Let’s define the terms in such a way as to make it possible to do, or not do, whatever you want.
The current baseline for the river is that it is frozen, therefore it should stay frozen forever.
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.”
Donald Rumsfeld
When you read the YESAB ruling it’s quite clear (and John and I would confirm this from discussions of the last council) that YTG has mishandled this thing over a four year period. They had that long to figure out how to deal with the miner and if they had been proactive before the price of gold rose, buying out that nearly inactive mine would have been a simple matter. They made no reasonable attempt to compensate the miner for many loss he might have incurred.
Yes, this is one of the elements of what makes it so upsetting.
The last town council worked closely with Brian Ritchie in the lands department reviewing all the different options for a new subdivision both on the mined out area as well as the bench just below the decommissioned dump site.
Whenever the discussion turned to the dormant mining claims, it was dismissed as being only the formality of YTG making a “quick claim” in order to buy out the owner of the claim.
Unfortunately the Lands Dept. within Community Services dragged the planning and consultation process out too long, much to the consternation of the Town Council of the day.
A classic example of bureaucratic procrastination. We had an opportunity but have now lost it.
Hey Mr. Steins,
Agreed, sad situation, feel for those property owners, what a wonderful territory we live in.
Love you forum, you represent the opinions of many and the wonderful thing is you are not afraid to speak up. Never picking favorites and to the point, Dawson needs more folks like you.
Speaking of which, how does our MLA get a free ride on this issue, we need some leadership here and there is none to be found.
Cheers
Thanks for your words of encouragement, sometimes I feel like the proverbial “lone voice in the wilderness.”
I regret to say that our MLA has fallen victim to the puppet strings of the party in power as well as a few local constituency “puppeteers.” I don’t think we can expect much from Mr. Nordick when it comes to the grassroots issues in our beautiful little town.
Its a small operation, everyone with houses in that area should have known they were active claims, Carey is a good person, not out to cause problems, I would think he will do what he can to keep the home owners happy, highly unlikely he will be undercutting there homes!! Have you ever talked to him John! what a comment for you to make when you don’t even know him. Truth is the area will look better when he is done. And those 80 people that oppose it are probably the same ones you had no use for when trying to put the lagoon near the ball park.
This isn’t against Mr. Carey or any other miner, nor is it against mining.
The point being made here is that our governments have exhibited gross incompetency for encouraging residential development in an area that also contains dormant mining claims. Thus, setting up a conflicting situation for its citizens and miners. To make matters worse, there is no indication from government that there is a will to once and for all deal with it.
I don’t doubt that Mr. Carey is a nice and well meaning person, I’m not critical of him or his company, I’m critical of a culture that favours one way over another without just consideration for the families who have invested in the right to a peaceful life without having their surroundings disrupted for the next ten years.
An earlier council, run by the current mayor, made the assumption that the price of gold was never going to be high enough that mining/residential conflicts would be an issue. At the time it probably seemed a safe bet. In fact, at the time, the more pressing issue was how to expand the residential footprint in the face of the impending Land Claim, which wasn’t completed then. They managed to solve that one.
The last really active mining in the gravel pit was nearly a decade ago now. The Careys, with whom I have spoken, seem like nice enough folks, but they don’t like to admit that they really hadn’t been doing that much on the site before last summer. Months would go by (mining season months, that is) when all that would change would be the location of the equipment on the claims. Had the government handled this situation in a timely fashion, it could have been resolved two or three years ago. The Careys themselves, through their agent, offered a buy-out plan as an option. It wasn’t the option they preferred (there were three) but it was one they were willing to talk about. The government didn’t and now they’re simply trying to make it look like the current impasse is the fault of the YESAB recommendations.
There need to be some realistic negotiations. Those so-called decision documents did not seem to contain any wording that would cause that to happen. As it stands, with both projects green-lit, it appears that Community Services could start and finish the subdivision project before the Slinky Mine could get its water license.