Re: “Clover Point sewage plant push vexes nearby residents,” April 10.
A point made in the article turned a light on for me. One person said that he’d heard of a survey that found “more people visit Clover Point than Beacon Hill Park.” I don’t know if that is true, but perhaps Beacon Hill Park is a better choice than Clover Point for the treatment plant.
I know, Beacon Park is sacrosanct to many people, but let’s think about it. It’s much bigger than Clover Point and several spots in it are under-utilized. The plant could (and should) be made educational so people can learn about treatment and perhaps larger environmental issues, thus becoming a draw to the park.
It’s not far from the current outfall at Clover Point, so diverting existing pipes and building new ones to that location should be easier than other suggestions, such as Rock Bay. It’s not commercial so shouldn’t break the long-existing bylaws banning such things in the park. Depending on where it’s placed and how the building of it is managed, it ought to be less disruptive to neighbours and to the public than Clover Point would be.
I know it’s late in the game and Beacon Hill Park was rejected in the past, but wouldn’t it be a better solution?
Eric Gelling
Victoria
