Sunday, June 22, 2008
Bribery or complex errors - The Plot Thickens.
The Plot thickens – Bribery or complex error?
The situation concerning the property at the corner of Sumas Way and 4th Avenue by the border, its underground tanks and oil contaminated soil has taken an interesting twist.
The neighbour across the road and the neighbour whose commercial property runs along two sides of the contaminated property are both interested in purchasing it. When the underground tanks and oil contamination was disclosed, the neighbour’s replies revealed a fascinating development.
The neighbour across the road was told approximately twenty years ago, by an environmentalist she asked, that the underground tanks had been removed and the property cleaned up.
The owner of the bordering property said that as part of the approval process to develop and build on his property an environmental assessment had to be done that included the contaminated property. The environmental assessment, which was done by looking at the records not at the property, showed that the tanks had been removed and the property cleaned up.
This certainly answers the question as to why neither neighbour was screaming about flooding rainwater contaminating their property and the surrounding environment. As far as they knew the underground tanks had been removed and the property decontaminated. It also explains why the title does not show the existence of underground tanks.
If this was true why are the pipes that connected to the underground tanks still in the ground? It does not seem a rational action to dig up and remove the underground tanks then to put the contaminated access pipes back into the ground leading nowhere. You can run a long dip pole down the pipes into a cavity in the ground and the dipstick comes up contaminated.
What are these cavities, if not underground tanks, and why do the soil not collapse and fill the empty space? Better yet, would the holes not have been filled in when the tanks were removed? As opposed to all the work required to remove the underground tanks and leave the empty hole behind.
If the tanks have been removed and the property cleaned up why does the property stink of oil to the point you can taste it when you breathe? Why, when the property floods during rain, does the water have an oil sheen, a sheen it leaves on everything when the water dries up?
It would seem that the records are incorrect and the underground tanks have not been removed; that the property has not been properly decontaminated.
Raising the question of why the records show the tanks removed and the property decontaminated when those actions never occurred?
Did a complex series of clerical errors occur just the way required for the records to incorrectly show the property as cleaned up? Or, as reputation for the way municipal business is done in this region would have it, did some one know the right someone or make a payment ( a cheaper alternative) to the right someone, to have the records show an underground tank removal and property decontamination that never occurred?
The situation concerning the property at the corner of Sumas Way and 4th Avenue by the border, its underground tanks and oil contaminated soil has taken an interesting twist.
The neighbour across the road and the neighbour whose commercial property runs along two sides of the contaminated property are both interested in purchasing it. When the underground tanks and oil contamination was disclosed, the neighbour’s replies revealed a fascinating development.
The neighbour across the road was told approximately twenty years ago, by an environmentalist she asked, that the underground tanks had been removed and the property cleaned up.
The owner of the bordering property said that as part of the approval process to develop and build on his property an environmental assessment had to be done that included the contaminated property. The environmental assessment, which was done by looking at the records not at the property, showed that the tanks had been removed and the property cleaned up.
This certainly answers the question as to why neither neighbour was screaming about flooding rainwater contaminating their property and the surrounding environment. As far as they knew the underground tanks had been removed and the property decontaminated. It also explains why the title does not show the existence of underground tanks.
If this was true why are the pipes that connected to the underground tanks still in the ground? It does not seem a rational action to dig up and remove the underground tanks then to put the contaminated access pipes back into the ground leading nowhere. You can run a long dip pole down the pipes into a cavity in the ground and the dipstick comes up contaminated.
What are these cavities, if not underground tanks, and why do the soil not collapse and fill the empty space? Better yet, would the holes not have been filled in when the tanks were removed? As opposed to all the work required to remove the underground tanks and leave the empty hole behind.
If the tanks have been removed and the property cleaned up why does the property stink of oil to the point you can taste it when you breathe? Why, when the property floods during rain, does the water have an oil sheen, a sheen it leaves on everything when the water dries up?
It would seem that the records are incorrect and the underground tanks have not been removed; that the property has not been properly decontaminated.
Raising the question of why the records show the tanks removed and the property decontaminated when those actions never occurred?
Did a complex series of clerical errors occur just the way required for the records to incorrectly show the property as cleaned up? Or, as reputation for the way municipal business is done in this region would have it, did some one know the right someone or make a payment ( a cheaper alternative) to the right someone, to have the records show an underground tank removal and property decontamination that never occurred?
# posted by James W Breckenridge : 11:39 PM
