Consider this scenario if you will. On a warm summer weekend, you are lounging in the shade on your patio sipping on a lemonade, lulled by the calming rustle of leaves and the singsong of kids playing in the yard.
Without warning, as if struck by lightning, your back stiffens as you sit upright with ears scanning the air like radar trying to pick up on an unusual vibration in the ground. This rumble becomes louder and louder until you notice shrubs and trees being pulled down at the edge of your property. No amount of rubbing your eyes will restore your sight back to normal because the earth moving equipment is laying waste to the land directly next to where your kids were just playing.
Why is this happening? It is happening because a Yukon gold miner is exercising his right to work a placer claim even though it is next to some residential properties.
Now, imagine this nightmarish scenario persisting in your back yard year after year for ten more years! Unthinkable in a civilized society.
Where else but in the Yukon and some third world countries would this even be contemplated as a possibility?
The Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Board is receiving comments regarding the proponent’s application to mine in this residential area. They are accepting comments until the end of February. Please send in yours.
Also please petition Dawson Council to take a stand on this issue.
The following is my letter to them.
Dear Mayor and Council,
I understand that there is an application before YESAB from Slinky Mines attempting to clear the way to mine the Dome Road and other claims in the area.
The previous Dawson council was approached by Schmidt Mining to do the same. Even though that company eventually lost interest in the project, Town Council was sympathetic to the project based on a number of factors; Schmidt Mining had a good track record along with the required resources to finish the work promptly with minimal disruption to area residents. Even so, many Dome residents expressed serious concerns about the presence of placer mining activity at their doorstep.
Today, Slinky Mines has come forward with a proposal to do the same, with an important difference; they are applying for a ten year period of uninterrupted industrial activity during the mining season. And the scope of the proposed mining activity will take in much more ground than before. This includes stripping earth directly beside some existing homes.
Frankly, this can only be defined as an unfair and unacceptable disruption to the lives of Dome residents. Especially for property owners living next to ten years of industrial noise, dust and heavy equipment traffic, not to mention unsafe road conditions and destruction of the surrounding environment.
Notwithstanding the apparent lapse in common sense by those who support mining activity directly next to resident families for a span of ten years, council should consider Part 1, Section 6 of the Yukon Human Rights Act – “Every individual has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of their property, except to the extent provided by law, and no one shall be deprived of that right except with just compensation.”
No matter how one might interpret the nuances within this Act, clearly the intent of this section is to protect a citizen’s quiet enjoyment of their property. Therefore, City Council should be unambiguous in their resolve to uphold this statute by protecting the rights of their citizens. You have an obligation to do so.
I am asking you to demonstrate this obligation by sending a submission to YESAB on City letterhead expressing the municipality’s concern regarding the proponent’s ambition to mine the Dome Road and other claims in the area in the interests of protecting the citizens you represent.
Furthermore, any development permit applications brought forward to advance mining activity within the boundaries of Dawson should be considered in the context of the health and safety of citizens.
I trust that most councillors will take the correct path and recognize that a Dawson City citizen does have a right to peaceful enjoyment of their home without annual persistent heavy industrial activity on their doorstep.
Further, I urge Town Council to encourage Lands Branch to continue moving forward with the proposed new Dome subdivision and do whatever it takes to remove the existing mining claims from the equation.
Sincerely,
John Steins
Like
John, thank you for your comments which are right on target. i am in delegations for the next council meeting on the 24th. I have just finished my submission to YESA and before I send it off I want several friends to read through it for grammar, spelling and how well I expressed my concerns. Then I’ll pass it along to Glenda, who shared hers with me. We’re both on the same track but worded differently.
Thanks Shirley, This nonsense has gone far enough regarding mining on top of people’s homes. Hopefully we can gain enough momentum to get it resolved.
John
To all those Dawson City residents opposed to mining on the dome road and elsewhere in city limits.
If you object to mining activity in your back yard the why did you choose to make your home in an area next to active mining claims?
Why do you choose to make your home in a town where gold mining is the only non-goverment subsidized industry?
Whether you like it or not,every moment of every day of your life is compleltely dependant upon products that came from a mine,and those products had to be mined in somebody’s back yard.
I just returned from touring Cambodia’s battlefeilds,a desperate war torn poverty striken disese ridden third world country.
I would much rather live next to somebody’s goldfield than somebody’s battlefield.Every Cambodian I talked to over there feels the same.We in the Yukon forget how lucky we are untill we visit a country that has not been so lucky.To all those Dawson City residents who opose mining the gold deposits within city limits I suggest you go for a tour of a war torn third world country like I just did.Upon your return you might find that there are much greater concerns in your life than pepole digging for gold in residential areas.
Jon Wilkie,
Dawson City resident,proud supporter if the Yukon Placer Industry
No one is objecting to gold mining. Obviously the mining industry feeds all of our needs from laptops to airplanes. That’s a no-brainer.
Objections are only being raised regarding ten years of open pit mining directly on people’s doorsteps within a residential area.
Here’s another question; did the City and YTG disclose to the purchasers of Dome lots that there are grandfathered placer claims adjacent with the potential for being worked in the future, so that everyone could make an informed decision?
You can’t just hang people out to dry like that.
1. ‘Buyer beware’ applies to private property purchases. This is what lawyers and surveyors are for. These aren’t new lots.
2. No subsidies or incentives in mining? Come on.
http://www.emr.gov.yk.ca/mining/programs.html
Let’s add the extra road building and maintenance. Let’s talk about the royalty rate set off a gold price of $15/oz, 37.5c/oz with gold at $1100. Let’s talk taxpayer funded reclamation – $500 million at Faro alone. Let’s talk promotional trips to China, Roundup and others, government funded exploration research.
All fine, but it’s nonsense to say the mining industry receives any more or less government attention and investment/subsidy than tourism or any other industry.
What I am EXTREMELY tired of is our political leadership, particularly territorial, that seems hell-bent on splitting this town up again and scoring wins for their constituencies at the expense of all others. That’s not leadership, that’s the road to ruin my friends. It doesn’t have to be this way. Our leaders need to find ways to bring this community together and build a common future in which we can all live and prosper. We are being failed and I, for one, am running out of patience with this divisive approach.
Would you rather some of us just left? It’s feeling that way.
Read the material at YESAB. Several compromises have been offered from both sides. Council and the MLA need to step up and facilitate a deal that respects all the laws and rights in place before this gets out of hand and causes yet more unnecessary collateral damage to the cohesion and future of this town and it’s people.
“buyer beware” is a red herring in this debate.
Government proceeded with the development of the Dome lots fully aware of the active claims and potential for conflict in the future.
The solution is for YTG to bite the bullet and purchase the offending claims. What’s another couple of million, here and there, in this town?
People can’t blame government for everything. If the claims were already on the map isn’t that forewarning enough? Did nobody get a lawyer when they bought in? Sue them if they didn’t tell you about it.
However, government should be expected to step in and mediate to the best effect for ALL concerned in a land use conflict such as this.
And, by the way, why are you so repeatedly bitter about the money being invested in this town? Why is that not a good thing?
Money invested in this town?
Bona fide investment usually comes from the private sector along with an expectation of profit and an element of risk.
Our Government is a not a “for profit” entity, it should be run in a business like manner but certainly not as a business. The exception being that some government departments have been transformed into agencies with an eye to profit, a movement within government I don’t agree with.
Canadian’s money is viewed by many people as some kind of endless sparkling fountain with little regard whether our money is well spent, sometimes. Why? Because we all have come to learn that more free cash is always available around the next corner, so why sweat it. We’re entitled, right? This is especially true in the Yukon.
In 2007 when we were attempting to satisfy the court order by constructing an aerated lagoon by Crocus Bluff, millions of our dollars were spent developing this perfectly viable solution until the public held up their collective hand and said, “Nyah, we don’t want it there, put it somewhere else”, without any regard or recognition of the immense expense in people hours or the massive funds that went down the Proverbial toilet as a consequence. Because… we all know there is more of that ready cash right around the corner.
If I am bitter, it’s not because of well spent infrastructure money in our town, of course that is always welcome. It’s because too many of us tend to take these millions for granted with the attitude that we are entitled to receive as much as we can get and forget about the wasted multiple millions, after all, it’s just government money, right?
It’s about the disrespect we sometimes show toward Canadian’s money while at the trough. That’s what upsets me.
As for not blaming government for everything regarding the Dome controversy, certainly they can be held to account for not showing due diligence when carrying out the task of planning a subdivision. Especially when every Tom, Dick and Harry knows we are a mining town.
Thanks John for speaking up.
Mining is a legitimate and viable way to make a living in this region.
I support responsible and respectful approaches to mining, that take into consideration the social, economic and environmental impact to community and its surrounding eco-systems.
The current proposal submitted to YESAB regarding the Slinky mine site does not take into account the significant impacts that will be imposed upon residents and the surrounding urban eco-system and recreational areas that all lay within the City of Dawson municipal boundries.
This operation has been allowed to remain within the City limits for well over a decade in a “grandfathered” arrangement. It is time to address the issue that the expansion and growth of the community has now enveloped that mine site.
The existing mine and proposed expansion all along the base of the hillside that supports the houses on Pierre Berton road has significant impacts and creates cause for concern not only for the community of Dawson but also for all the communities in Yukon that find themselves in a similar situation.
It is my opinion that its time for YTG and the City of Dawson to step up and address the issue that allows mining to take precedent within municipal boundaries and by doing so they will provide certainty to the mining industry and home owners and protect the integrity of community.
Just like me, this mining family from Whitehorse want to be happy, make a living, and enjoy life in peace. I think there is a solution and I hope our MLA, YTG and the City will act quickly so we can get on with it.
To Dawson activist,
Government does not subsidize the Dawson Placer industry.
The $500 million dollar Faro cleanup,trips to China,roundups and government funded exploration work are all for hard rock mines,not placer mines.
Placer mining is the only non government subsidized industry in Dawson City.
The government spends far more on subsidizing tourism in this town and the rest of the Yukon than Placer mining.
And now the Yukon’s latest much heralded tourism business (Great River Journeys)is asking for a government bailout.
When was the last(or the first)time you have ever heard of a Yukon placer miner getting a government bailout?
How much has the taxpayer had to spend on placer mining cleanup?
The government does not send placer miners to China,nor do they bring Chinese to Dawson City to try invest in Klondike Placer mining.
I do agree with you however,buyer beware.
The fact that there were legitimate mining claims in city limits should be warning enough to anyone who buys a house in this community.
Who are you by the way?
Jon Wilkie
I will restrict my comment to the “buyer beware” references. Where was the OCP? If mining claims were grandfathered, how is it that an OCP and subsequent zoning were adopted to facilitate residential development.
Look at the dispute over the OCP in Whitehorse. An OCP is supposed to be a long-term planning document. In Whitehorse council wants to pepper the plan with “council may” this and that. A short-sighted fluffy OCP facilitates short-term profits, but the costs associated with long-term consequences will not be denied.
I have no idea about what the OCP had to say about the Dome Road lands at the time it was subdivided. But I am sure that if you take a look at it you will find the culprit.
That could well provide the “missing link” within this conflict. A little more homework is required!
I can jump in and add a little to your discussion here as I have probably read that OCP more than anyone else ever.
First up, it was passed in 1990 which, in my humble professional opinion, is at the root of many of the community’s conflicts and problems from lagoons to mining, through hospitals, road paving and bridges all of which one would expect to be addressed in that document in a coherent manner with appropriate community involvement. Such a key document really should be revised more often than every 20 years to be relevant and useful. I believe that also makes it actually the same OCP as was in place when that subdivision went in.
Here are a few clauses:
“Major Heavy industrial uses such as mining shall be separated from residential uses.”
“Placer mining shall be encouraged south of the Callison Industrial subdivision in the Klondike Hills east of Bonanza Creek Road. Dawson City will request that YTG approach the federal government to:
(i) introduce through regulations under the Placer Mining Act reclamation and revegetation requirements within city limits which will allow these and other lands to be considered for other uses, and
(ii) withdraw all areas within the city limits (particularly the floor of the Klondike Valley) from future staking, other than the Klondike Hills area noted above.”
“Dawson City should form a Task Force with Placer Miners that includes representation from the Tr’ondek Hwech’in, Federal and Territorial governments to address and resolve land tenure, reclamation and future land use issues in the Klondike Valley.”
“The Dome Country residential area should be developed to its full potential as soon as possible. This will include preparing a comprehensive plan to fully develop the remaining lands between the Ski Hill and the top of the bank to the Klondike Valley. This should involve working with the placer miners on the bench lands to reclaim their lands to the point where they can be redeveloped into revegetated open space or perhaps country residential lots.”
“The area between the southern city limits and the Callison Industrial area east of the Bonanza Creek Road shall be designated for placer mining.”
“Existing property uses are protected, as any change in present land use would require changes to either the Plan, or the Zoning Bylaw, or both – all of which require that public hearings be held.”
I finished with the last for a reason. Despite all the other clauses in there, if the placer mining use has been ongoing all that time there is likely an excellent case to be made that it is an existing legally non-conforming use along with many, many others in the town and has a protected right to continue.
That said, many would argue that the OCP and Zoning Bylaws are surface land use documents and do not apply to placer mining and that the Placer Mining Act stands above the Municipal Act. This was well understood to be the case pre-devolution when mining activity was under a federal Act and has not, to my knowledge, been legally tested since it became a Territorial Act and therefore parallel to the Municipal Act.
Hope that saves you all a little ‘homework’! Do please ask for a prioritized review of that OCP. A well crafted plan would save an awful lot of heartache.
Mark, Thanks for that, it’s very helpful archival info.
Regretfully the issue of open pit mining next to a residential area still persists and as you point out there is not much for the affected residents to hang their hat on, especially in view of the provision for non-conforming use and the existing precedents.
Trying to remember who mayor and council were when this was adopted.
I get the feeling that the Yukon Human Rights Act is not taken very seriously by some, but it seems to me that a remedy might be found there based on the right to quite enjoyment of property.
Thanks for the OCP review and summary. The key to it all is the supremacy of the Placer Mining Act over the Municipal Act. That, and the non-conforming rule which applies to landuse issues across the country, are critical to the debate in question.
It may be that these two factors were presumed to be self-evident as the text quoted by Mark suggests (to me at any rate).
The non-conforming rule is ignored, omitted, or downplayed in many OCPs I have seen in my years, not only in small towns, but in big cities as well.
That rule, and the supremacy of the Placer Mining Act in communities where Placer Mining is a reality, require to be given prominance in an OCP for a community such as Dawson City. A policy to not proceed with residential subdivision and development until issues relating to placer mining are resolved, or dealt with in some fashion, could ensure that the difficult negotiations involved in such matters are not side-stepped, overlooked, or ignored by councils blinded by the lure and promise of expanding the community’s tax base with residential development.
Please do not take that as a criticism of the council(s) involved when the Dome Road properties were opened for residential development, may comments are intended only as a contribution to lessons to be learned from the experience.
Mr Wilkie,
Apologies, I stand corrected. You are of course right that most, if not all, of that support is for hard rock. Got ahead of myself.
And do please be assured that myself and nearly everybody in this town values placer mining highly. But despite your apparent distaste for tourism and any other form of living here, it is my belief that we all need each other to make living here pleasant. A little more cooperation and respect and a little less of the ‘us and them’ would go a long way.
Our leaders need to step in here and mediate a reasonable solution for all outside of the courts and outside of the taxpayer dollar so we can all go back to living in happy harmony instead of fighting. This town is not so big that people can’t talk and figure out their issues.
Mr Activist,
I apologize for coming across as having an “apparent distaste for tourism,”
I am fully pro-tourism for the Yukon,we need more of it,I will never object to people coming from other places to visit our world famous town.
I very much enjoy being a tourist when I travel,so when I meet travelers in the Yukon I often try to make them enjoy their stay here,and have been told that by many visitors who have come to the Yukon.
If I had an “apparent distaste for tourism”then I would not be such an avid tourist myself.
During my recent travels to Thailand and Cambodia (as a tourist of course)I was treated with such astounding warmth and hospitality by the local population that it only reinforced my belief to be kind and hospitable to the foreign visitor when they chose to travel long distances and spend large amounts of money to come here.I have also been treated with world class hospitality in the U.S.,Mexico,Honduras,El Salvador and New Zealand.
But tourism has never put food on my plate,never made my loan payment and never put clothes on my back.The Yukon mining industry has fed and clothed me since birth,which makes me an unconditional supporter of placer mining where ever there is gold to be mined.
I think that it is a naive belief that some Yukoner’s have when I hear them speak of tourism replacing mining the Yukon’s biggest private sector employer.
Our Yukon tourism industry has taken a big hit with the world economic downturn, but our mining industry certainly has not.
Mining jobs grew in the Yukon in the last year while tourism jobs shrank lets not forget.Tourism revenue plummeted, while mining revenue was way way up.
As long as I can still be a strip miner I still don’t want to be a tour guide.
And tourism will never replace government as the Yukon’s largest employer.
I am the first person to admit my opinionated stubbornness,it is a flaw that I freely admit to having,but I am always open to discussion,but unlike you Mr.(or is it Ms)Dawson Activist,I am not afraid to sign my name next to my written opinions.
Jon Wilkie,placer miner,tourist,proud Yukoner.
Whoa there, relax. Glad to hear all of that and we agree on everything but for my belief that there is a compromise to be found in this circumstance.
As for names, it’s a small town and I’d lose my job if I put mine up here so maybe I am a little afraid. What does it matter who someone is anyway, can’t you just read the words on their merit and not need to attach a face? It is the very anonymity of the internet that has given the oppressed in many of the so-called ‘developing’ countries you referred to earlier the freedom to organize and fight for their rights.
Best wishes to you but this is obviously going nowhere. EOM.
Dear Dawson activist,
You must work for the government in some form don’t you?It’s a sad day in our democratic society when a public servant cannot put his or her name next to an opinion for fear of loss of employment.In Canada we shouldn’t have to fear for our livelihood by standing by our written words,only oppressed people in developing countries should have to worry about becoming jobless by signing their name on the internet.I very much believe in freedom of speech,but if you cant sign your name next to your words without fear of loss of employment then what kind of freedom of speech do our public servants actually have?Isn’t getting fired for voicing your opinion more of a third world policy than a Canadian one?Isn’t that oppressing our public servants?How Third world and undemocratic I think.Is that not unconstitutional?Does terminating employment of a public servant for signing his or her name next to his or her personal opinion violate our charter of rights?Do please tell Dawson activist,you are a very knowledgeable, well informed well written kind of person and I am interested in your thoughts on this matter,whoever who you may be.
Jon Wilkie
Jon Wilkie:
You do not need to work for the government to lose one’s job by speaking truth to power in this territory!
Self censorship is a terrible thing, not least because it shows how we have become brainwashed and terrorised to the extent we dare not speak out. Our government, especialy this incarnation, is particularly prone to use this tactic: When I worked for the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, a non-government entity created under the Umbrella Final Agreement, I was commanded to be silent on the Yukon Queen issue after our Premier was embarrassed by my pointing out the effects the boat had on fish, despite my job being to serve the interests of fish. Had I continued to speak out, I would have lost my job. This would not have been for speaking out but for disobeying a direct order. At least ostensibly.
Jon,
You are making a valuable point in your last posting; there are ways in which our dear Canada is not that different from the rest of the world, developing country or not. Freedom of speech doesn’t always exist without repercussions. Unfortunately so, that is reality.
You speak of traveling in developing countries, as well have I. Specific to this conversation, last year I was in Guatemala on a nursing practicum. I spent time in a region where the Canadian company Gold Corp. is currently mining and doing so even with literally 99% vote of the local population against it. We had many conversations with the locals regarding the negative health, environmental, social and economic consequences they are experiencing due to this mining. I could go on about this experience and would be glad to share more with you one day.
My purpose of sharing this is NOT to put down mining. The lessons we learned were about the necessity of community involvement, listening to voices, collaboration and as such the destruction that can happen within a community when participation is not allowed. Communities are healthy when the people can partake. Participation and involvement give people meaning and thus feel the need to care about their communities more. Dawson Activist is on the mark regarding conversation leading to a successful compromise. Mindset needs to change though for true community development to happen.
Anyways. I love dawson and miss it everyday. Hopefully I’ll be back in the not too distant future and can partake in positive ways!!
Marieke.
In my view participation and involvement are effective only when used in the PLANNING process which has been pretty much nonexistent in the last 30 or so years. When the dome subdivision was first roughed out I’m assuming the city council of the day had some say in what they were getting. If there were existing placer claims obviously they did the ostrich move, what rots my socks is if the average lot owner tried to develope their property in such a reactive manner they would be tarred and feathered, but it’s one level of gov. or another so the average pay thru the nose citizen gets a mine in their back yard. It’s not just the dome subdivision, its the whole town, huge ugly SOCIAL housing in our only large serviced public use lot, big unneccessary “hospital” in our park, deralict, decrepid buildings lining our main streets. We’re a model town alright, for what not to do! Bet your bottom dollar I’m pissed at the short-sighted leaders of our community and I don’t blame people for leaving. We’ve lost sight of what Dawson is, a gold rush town that had a fantastic history that we are turning into “small town anywhere”.