Dear editor,

I was at the public meeting last night (June 27th) in Cumberland that was looking at the Trilogy Cayet development and what to do in relation to the upcoming municipal election in November as far as voting in a council that is more accountable in terms of development and reflects the true needs of the people of the village.
First let me say that it was encouraging to see a healthy turnout of multi-generational concerned citizens and good points were raised all around with a lot of questioning of the actual impact of Cayet and Trilogy’s relation with the Village of Cumberland. I grew up just down the road in Royston and spent a lot of time in Cumberland throughout my youth into adulthood but never lived here until my partner and myself moved back to the Valley in May, after almost three years in Vancouver. We landed in Cumberland and I must say we love it here. We have a good number of close friends here and our experience is that of a healthy supportive community that exercises not just tolerance but acceptance. I have seen Cumberland go through many waves of ups and downs, yet over the last 7 or 8 years there seems to be new energy and pride of place that people share in being from Cumberland. That being said there is the very real threat looming on the horizon of uncontrolled development dragging the village into a downward spiral that will be very difficult if not impossible to reverse. We have already seen this happen to a degree with the clear cutting of adjacent forests to be replaced by generic suburbs that alter the character and ecological vitality of this “Village in the Forest”. I did not stand up and say anything during the meeting. Rather, as I am ‘new’ to town I was content to listen to other’s comments so as to achieve some further understanding of the historical context of Trilogy, the role of Cumberland Council and the concerns of the people.

One of the major issues in relation to development is that of Cumberland’s existing water supply and infrastructure. The point was raised that there is a moratorium on development due to these water concerns and this has in fact stalled Cayet. Another point was raised that in order for the Village of Cumberland to upgrade the water supply it would cost something in the neighbourhood of 10-12 million dollars and that there’s no way the village can afford that kind of money to go it alone to upgrade. In order for Cumberland to upgrade the water system the village will have to tap into (pun partially intended) the regional water system as part of a deep water intake at Comox Lake which will allow for a more affordable water system upgrade for Cumberland due to potential federal and regional funding which will also provide plenty of water for the Cayet development. It was further added that because of the water issue and Cumberland’s general lack of funds to operate village infrastructure, that “We need Trilogy” because of the potential property tax revenues generated from the project, not on residential taxes as that would provide relatively little tax revenue (contrary to miss-leading information) but from commercial property tax revenue. There was also talk of attempting to create dialogue with Trilogy as a means to try to appeal to their “humanistic” side. My response to the above comments is to point out that just because mass development has arrived at the gates with one and a half feet in the door, chomping at the bit to move full steam ahead, doesn’t necessarily mean we have to be deterministic about it’s inevitability. The water issue has held Cayet up to this point so perhaps we can use the this issue as a means to be a real thorn in their side, if not by stopping it all together which is very difficult to achieve at this point (one can dream however), then perhaps through the suggestion of dialogue with Trilogy either directly or via the means of an elected socially responsible village council to force Trilogy to radically change the nature of the development in a truly (non green-washing) sustainable way. Personally I don’t think we need Trilogy. If Trilogy or another large development wasn’t trying to seduce us, we would have to figure out another way to generate money and resources for infrastructure and upgrading of the water and sewage system. The same goes for joining up with the regional water system. What would Cumberland do if that option wasn’t there? If the Village does join the regional system, Cumberland’s status as an independent community will be greatly compromised by evidence of the Regional Growth Strategy’s policy that Cumberland’s Official Community Plan must be in compliance with the Regional Growth Strategy, which in my opinion allows for uncontrolled large -scale development, regardless of any technical language that claims to regulate certain aspects and details of development (from what I’ve been told by long -term residents of Cumberland, the OCP was much more geared toward sustainability before council amended it to allow the entrance of Trilogy). These mechanisms are put in place to reduce communities’ autonomy, thus making the process favourable to these mass developments. By saying “We need Trilogy” we allow ourselves to fall in to the position of victim and leave ourselves vulnerable to their manipulations with the hope they will listen to us if we can only appeal to their potential “humanity”. As was stated in the meeting, they are sharks, who only identify with Capital’s ideology of the bottom line to achieve maximum profit at all costs and ultimately they don’t give a damn about Cumberland. There was a lot of talk at the meeting that leaned in the direction of making concessions with Trilogy but little to no mention of resistance. Why? Resistance needn’t be militant or thought of as offensive but we surely needn’t be overly polite about it. If we fall in to the trap of making concessions the result will be much the same as settling for ‘mitigations’ in the process of approving a coal mine. My critique is not aimed to debate over semantics, but rather to foster further discussion in order to build solidarity. Our options are only limited to the extent of our imaginations, lest we allow Trilogy and the current village council to walk all over us through divide and conquer. As many of us have experienced with the anger and opposition to the proposed Raven Coal mine, resistance is creative, incredibly varied and a hell of a lot of fun. If the village council fails to properly represent these needs then we needn’t be limited to public meetings and petitions to effect change. So weather by ourselves as citizens or via a non-corrupted council that actually represents our needs, the message must be clear and succinct – no compromise.

Jesse Gentes, Cumberland