By Al Lehmann

Most citizens see development as a beneficial process, as it can provide both investment and employment opportunities. But it is worth asking, though, when public authorities (city councils, provincial governments, etc.) make decisions regarding such development, whom do they represent?

Industrial development does not come without risk, both public and private. Private risk usually consists of investment capital, much of it from outside the region. Locals aren’t going to put up $400 million for a power line or $2 billion for a new smelter. Given enough potential return, investors will take on most of this risk, often with assistance from government in the form of loan guarantees, public infrastructure, or tax benefits and subsidies.

Public risk is usually more diffuse. Most industrial developments are large-scale projects, each of which will have some kind of environmental footprint, such as degraded land, accumulated waste, contaminated air or polluted watersheds.

There is often a disconnect between these two versions of risk. Foreign investors could probably care less whether or not the Skeena Valley is polluted, for instance, as long as they don’t have to pay for it.

We may support development because the economic spin-offs look appealing, but we are also in the line of fire for any negative consequences.

How much regional damage are we willing to allow in return for the benefits it might return us? And who gets to decide on the advisability of development proposals when cost-benefit trade-offs, particularly those with mixed public and private risk, are evident?

Locals have managed (so far) to avoid the threat of fisheries collapse that open-net fish farms would create at the mouth of the Skeena, and we’ve made it clear that coalbed methane extraction is unsuitable for the Sacred Headwaters.

Now, Enbridge’s plans to ship oil through the region by pipeline threaten us with the ultimate likelihood of one day poisoning our rivers with thousands of barrels of bitumen or coating the coastline with crude.

More than 20 individuals and organizations have publicly called for an independent public inquiry on the oil issue. Reasonably enough, councillor Bruce Martindale recently proposed that city council support these calls. His motion failed.

During public meetings before the civic elections, candidates for council fell all over themselves trying to portray themselves as “green.” Some of these councillors are colour-blind. Apparently council’s colour preference is rather more oily black.

Councilors who opposed Martindale’s motion rationalized that support for such an inquiry would appear “biased.” Bias? Citizens are happy to have a pro-business council (a bias) as long as council isn’t willing to sell out the commons in order to promote an overwhelmingly private, and too often distant, benefit.

Being opposed to development that may cause enormous damage and provides comparatively little local benefit is a sign of wisdom, not simply some anti-business crusade.

The very purpose of an inquiry is to be as unbiased as possible by allowing all points of view. Any councillor who voted against Martindale’s motion could move to reconsider. If council fails to do so, they are signally failing their trust as elected representatives. We’ll remember either position next election.