FOCUS
Focus_2016-02_February
Focus_2016-02_February
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ANY COMMUNITY—its citizens, its elected leaders, its managers—unable<br />
to understand the real public benefits money at that scale can deliver, and unable<br />
to impose and sustain a culture of judicious investment and spending, is insane.<br />
Ottawa will never offer us another dime for<br />
capital works; the wastewater treatment plant<br />
site selection’s a done deal and Greater Victoria<br />
taxpayers are going to pay $70 million for<br />
the Rock Bay dirt alone; city streets and other<br />
arteries are going to be torn up for years,<br />
financially damaging nearby businesses without<br />
recompense; and, saving perhaps the worst<br />
for last, whatever “they” say it’ll cost—$800<br />
million or $1.2 billion—think “times two.”<br />
Concerning this last point, Eric Jaffe writes<br />
in The Atlantic: “The only thing we can confidently<br />
expect from a big infrastructure project<br />
is that it will cost way more than expected.<br />
The people who predict the cost of urban<br />
mega-projects do a terrible job. Nine in ten<br />
projects exceed their cost estimates. The overruns<br />
average 28 percent across the board.”<br />
So, let’s play loose and call 28 percent a<br />
third. One-third of consultant Urban System’s<br />
$1.1-1.3 billion estimate, rounded, comes<br />
to $400 million, making possible a total<br />
project cost of $1.6 billion.<br />
I’m not the sharpest spreadsheet on the<br />
block, but my napkin math suggests that<br />
regional taxpayers will be forking over $500-<br />
$800 or more a year for 50 years to deal with<br />
the capital and operating costs of this one.<br />
A link to a video of a CRD board meeting<br />
is quietly making the rounds these days. It<br />
features now ex-CRD Chair, Oak Bay Mayor<br />
Nils Jensen, quizzing a Stantec Engineering<br />
wastewater expert in a Q&A which conveniently<br />
permits the expert to draw the foregone<br />
conclusion that only conventional wastewater<br />
handling technologies are appropriate,<br />
other technologies being “risky” and<br />
“unproven.” If you tend toward fury over<br />
insane public spending protocols, you will<br />
find Jensen’s witness-leading performance<br />
surreal and vomitous, a strangely dreamlike<br />
piece of public theatre, and a revelatory<br />
example of inter-municipal aversion to innovation<br />
and enterprise clumsily dressed up as<br />
risk-avoidance.<br />
And this is central to the problem we’re<br />
facing: that the CRD mandate, or letters<br />
patent or charter nowhere states: “The CRD<br />
will treat the public’s money as a precious<br />
resource. It will not waste a dime. It will<br />
operate with a leadership model that makes<br />
it morally and operationally impossible to<br />
justify spending $76 million on wastewater<br />
treatment studies.” The CRD’s passions, character<br />
and esprit de corps may exist but are<br />
diffuse, and the problem is structural: No<br />
one had to raise his or her right hand at the<br />
moment of their appointment and state, cleareyed,<br />
“The buck absolutely stops here.”<br />
The stakes and implications of wastewater<br />
treatment decision-making are enormous.<br />
Wrong and costly choices will impact both<br />
taxpayers and public wealth. That is, this<br />
potentially multi-billion-dollar undertaking<br />
could for years make the taxpaying electorate<br />
gun-shy and hobble (or foreclose) other municipal<br />
spending on housing, public realm<br />
beautification, parks services, supports for<br />
culture and recreation, investment in economic<br />
development, other needed public works,<br />
and God knows what else on various municipal<br />
to-do lists.<br />
Helps, new to the CALWMC chair, is, in<br />
my opinion, staring system failure in the eye<br />
here—not evil, but a professional disregard<br />
for the limits of community wealth combined<br />
with insufficient recognition of the crucial<br />
need for thrifty, innovative thinking and<br />
doing. It’s difficult to understand exactly<br />
which public and/or professional bodies to<br />
hold to account, but I actually worry it’s the<br />
operating governance culture, a form of soft<br />
social rot. Like ash-raking an exhausted relationship:<br />
“Where did we go wrong?” and<br />
never coming up with an answer better than:<br />
“Oh, well, shit happens.”<br />
In a rangy Atlantic Magazine piece, “What<br />
Was Volkswagen Thinking,” writer Jerry Useem<br />
describes a landmark study of damage to the<br />
O-rings on the doomed space shuttle Challenger:<br />
“Engineers and managers developed a definition<br />
of the situation, a ‘script,’ that allowed<br />
them to carry on as if nothing was wrong.<br />
To clarify: They were not merely acting as if<br />
nothing was wrong. They believed it.”<br />
Quick, think of a synonym for optimism bias.<br />
Gene Miller is a founder of<br />
Open Space Cultural Centre,<br />
Monday Magazine and the<br />
Gaining Ground Conferences.<br />
He currently serves on the<br />
Mayor’s Task Force on<br />
Housing Affordability.<br />
JUNGIAN ANALYSIS is<br />
insight-oriented<br />
psychotherapy toward<br />
relief, authenticity,<br />
meaning, balance,<br />
and wholeness.<br />
Parenting Coach<br />
makes house calls,<br />
changes lives<br />
Catheryn Rogers<br />
250-686-4452 • touchinglives.ca<br />
touchinglives@shaw.ca<br />
STRUGGLING WITH LIFE?<br />
MARLENE BROUWER<br />
Jungian Psychoanalyst, I.A.A.P.<br />
D. Analytical Psych., C.G. Jung Institute-Zurich<br />
www.jungianconsultant.com<br />
Inquiries welcome: 778-679-5199<br />
www.focusonline.ca • February 2016<br />
43