Crowsnest Pass residents to vote on Grassy Mountain mine
By Lethbridge Herald on September 13, 2024.
Grassy Mountain is seen looking southwest in an undated handout photo. Residents of the Crowsnest Pass are going to be asked if they support development of proposed coal mine at the site.
- Riversdale Resources handoutAl Beeber – LETHBRIDGE HERALD – abeeber@lethbridgeherald.com
Residents of the Crowsnest Pass are going to be asked if they support development of a coal mine at Grassy Mountain.
The Municipality of Crowsnest council on Tuesday passed a non-binding vote of electors to be held within the next 90 days.
They will be asked on a ballot “Do you support the development and operations of the metallurgical coal mine at Grassy Mountain.”
A press release from the municipality says the Vote of the Electors process is similar to a plebiscite or referendum and will be held in accordance with the Local Authorities Election Act.
Councillor Dean Ward put forward the motion stating “in the last 10 years Northback and its predecessors have been attempting to develop a coal mine to the north of our municipality. Many individuals, organizations and levels of government have expressed an opinion on whether this project should move forward or not. Unfortunately very few of these groups have asked the opinion of the residents of the Crowsnest Pass.”
If this project moves forward, “the Crowsnest Pass will be the location of housing, increased infrastructure needs, the supplier of emergency services and numerous other municipal facilities for the employees of this mine,” adds the motion.
In a phone interview Thursday, Ward told The Herald that the Crowsnest Pass welcomes and supports tourism but that industry doesn’t provide the well-paying jobs that a mine does, jobs that can convince a bank to give a resident a big mortgage.
Since the last mine – Coleman Collieries – shut down in the early 1980s, the population of the Pass dropped from more than 8,000 residents to just more than 5,000, he said. But the population is seeing a resurgence, and that growth requires infrastructure.
Ward and fellow councillor Lisa Sygutek told the Herald that 84 per cent of the tax burden in the CNP is on the residential sector. And that is unsustainable if the community wants to bring in the infrastructure and facilities needed to maintain and grow the region.
Sygutek, who is also a businessperson, said that 52 per cent of the population earns less than $50,000 a year and thanks to people from outside the community buying properties sight unseen for much higher than market value, assessments have risen, putting a bigger tax burden on residents.
Ward says council wants to see the community thrive but it needs an industrial base for that to happen.
Since the COVID pandemic, tourism has grown and real estate prices have also increased.
“Five years ago you could rent a decent apartment in this town for $700 or $800 a month. Well now that’s pushing $2,000 a month” due to supply and demand “but the economy’s got to have those good paying jobs so you can generate the demand then the supply will come,” said Ward.
B.C. mines have been hiring and that’s been attracting residents to the area, he said. And that’s an issue for both Ward and Sygutek since the NDP government in B.C. has just announced approval for the reopening of the Quintette mine at Tumbler Ridge which was shut down for 24 years. Quintette operated for 18 years until its previous owner shut it down because of declining coal prices
“Despite all the horror stories from the Elk Valley (about) selenium and what the environmental groups are telling us, the B.C. government – which is an NDP government – has just approved the reopening of a mine that’s been closed for 24 years at Tumbler Ridge, which interesting enough is going to create the same 400 jobs we’re hoping for here in the Crowsnest Pass,” said Ward.
“Nobody’s asking for the opinion of the people who live here that are going to be faced with this issue. These people aren’t going to build their houses in the MD of Ranchlands, they’re going to build them here. It’s going to affect our services, our infrastructure, our economy, all of those things,” said Ward.
CNP council believes residents are in favour of the mine, that being one of the reasons they called for the vote.
“It is such a controversial, contentious issue but this will allow the public to send a very clear message.”
With municipal elections in Alberta coming next year and a federal vote on the horizon, the CNP wants to send a clear message to all levels of government where it stands “on what’s probably the biggest issue that’s faced this community in the last 30 or 40 years,” said Ward.
Sygutek said “I do believe we’re a coal town, I believe this will pass but I think we did this so the public in the Crowsnest Pass has a voice and we can show that there is support or no support for the coal mine” which will help the community, council specifically, on what it does moving forward.
“If it passes, we know that the mandate from the public in the Crowsnest Pass is to push forward for the mine. If it doesn’t pass, then we change gears and look at tourism. Those are our options right now,” said Sygutek.
She said it’s interesting the CNP is considered a tourism corridor by both the provincial and federal government but there is no funding for that.
“It’s really great to say ‘hey, you’re gonna be a tourist mecca in Canada and in Alberta’ with zero funding to help. And we’re really struggling with the influx of people” with the community lacking everything it needs to make the CNP a tourism community.
“And we don’t have the funds internally to make that happen,” added Sygutek.
With a mine, the community could have the funds to build the tourism industry, she said.
“For us as a council, this is going to tell us the flavour of the community,” added Sygutek.
“We’re doing this so this council understands what the community wants” and from the results of this, council can fight for the mine in court and if it fails, then council doesn’t go down that road anymore and it looks at promoting tourism more.
“That’s the only options we have. We have no industry,” said Sygutek.
“Are we a viable community when our tax base is 84 per cent? It’s really, really hard for the taxpayer.”
She said with the area’s surge in population, infrastructure needs grow and the municipality doesn’t have the money for that.
“Everything that’s paid for in the municipality is paid for on the backs of the taxpayers and they’re struggling,” the councillor added.
“They can’t continue…we need to find a way to lower the taxes.”
The motion passed by council adds “the Crowsnest Pass will also be the recipient of a tremendous economic impact from a greater tax base, hundreds of high paying jobs, and numerous secondary jobs” if the mine is approved.
“In recognition of the above points, and the fact that this is a very controversial issue, it’s time that the opinion of the residents of the Crowsnest Pass were taken into consideration on this issue,” says the motion.
Pass residents who meet criteria including being at least 18 years old and being a Canadian citizen who resides in the pass on voting day will be allowed to vote.
37-36
I do not disagree with a vote , however, it should include all stakeholders . That is, all residents that will feel the results of the mine, not just those looking forward to a paycheque. That would include communities, farmers and businesses downstream from the Crowsnest river.
Voting isn’t science. The science was considered in the Joint Commission review and this mountain top removal coal project was deemed not in the public interest. Done.
As long as you don’t live there of course the vote doesn’t matter to you. Let’s see what they (the residents) have to say rather than dictating from afar.
I don’t think I’m ‘afar’ from the water pollution from this mine, nor the impacts of climate change from the burning of this coal.
And I doubt there is any guarantee of jobs – just the dangling of promises. The penny-stock mining company is probably also promising to clean up the mess when they are done.
No, bucky, a vote doesn’t hold water here.
An exact quote from the Environmental Assessment Decision Statement:
“is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects”
I’d argue that anyone drinking the water downstream is hardly “from afar”.
one does not get to choose to inflict harm on another simply because the victim is “afar.”
Who is the victim is an opinion. I doubt anyone or group from “afar” will be cutting any cheques to assist the town in the non coal commerce department.
lethbridge and many other communities, representing a great number more people than the pass itself will be victimised by the impacts of more coal mining there. if each “community” lived in bubbles, there would be no issue for others outside the pass. but in this case, there will be considerable adverse consequences for far too many. and, of course, seeing as money is the real motivator here, the brunt of the wealth, just as with our gas and oil over the decades, will line the fewest pockets; the most will be left, again, on the hook with the enviro-toxic fallout as the usual parting gift from the likes of these grafters.