Quantcast
Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter
Richmond Review - Letters to the Editor
TEXT

Jet fuel concerns are all about safety

Editor:

Re: “Planes need fuel to fly,” Letters.

Supporters of the proposed Vancouver Airport Jet Fuel Delivery System are now suggesting that being opposed to the current proposal equates to being opposed to airport growth. This suggestion misses the point.

The City of Richmond understands the airport’s need for ample fuel to support its operations and future growth. But there are ways to achieve this goal without endangering the sensitive environment of the Fraser River estuary or creating undue safety risks for our community.

The Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation supposedly weighed all the options and selected their favourite. That doesn’t mean it’s best for the environment or our community. VAFFC has consistently refused to have an adequate review of all of the options. They insist on pushing forward with a proposal that Richmond city council and most of our community have repeatedly said is unacceptable.

Richmond is supposed to support the current pipeline proposal because it is good for business. Why won’t VAFFC pay the millions of dollars of extra fire emergency costs that will be needed for the city to ensure adequate fire protection? The significant tax increases resulting from the need for more fire protection are definitely bad for business.

The environmental assessment process does not consider all options equally and has given little chance for meaningful public consultation. Richmond city council will continue to insist that the final decision reflects the concerns of all stakeholders and is right for our community.

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Richmond

 
TEXT

COMMENTS

COMMENTING ETIQUETTE: To encourage open exchange of ideas in the BCLocalNews.com community, we ask that you follow our guidelines and respect standards. Personal attacks, offensive language and unsubstantiated allegations are not allowed. More on etiquette...