case-in-point 2010 Confronting Our Environmental Responsibility:

case-in-point 2010
Confronting Our Environmental Responsibility:
Facing Planning Dilemmas in the SISTARS project, Winnipeg
Scott McCullough
MCP (candidate)
University of Manitoba
In collaboration with:
Glen Doney
MCP, MCIP
Senior Planner, City of Winnipeg
Abstract
This Case-In-Point looks at some of
the challenges and ethical conflicts
that arise when planners and
developers seek to address sites
with a history of significant underlying
environmental degradation. The
specific case is the development
of a child-care facility adjacent
to the historic Barber House in
Winnipeg’s North Point Douglas
by the community group known
as Sisters Initiating Steps Toward
A Renewed Society (SISTARS).
Although the site has always been
residential, it is impacted with
metals and petroleum hydrocarbons
associated with migration and backfill
from neighbouring properties. The
development has exposed some
of the problems commonly
encountered when redeveloping
industrial areas in Winnipeg,
problems that are becoming
increasingly common as older
industrial areas such as Point
Douglas undergo renewal. These
problems are typical of the
redevelopment of industrial lands
across Canada. Encountered
problems include areas of
responsibility shared between the
Province and Municipality, the
lack of funds for remediation, and
the limits of CIP’s Code of Ethics
in guiding planners in addressing
environmental problems. We
attempt to unpack some of
these problems and conclude
1
by pointing towards two possible
lines of response. Regarding poorly
delineated jurisdictions and lack of
funding, a possible precedent solution
exists in the recent Water Protection
Act (2006). The important component
of this bill is that it clearly designates
water-planning authority and provides
funding. All environmental regulation
requires both legal teeth and the
necessary funding to be effective. We
argue for legislation similar to The
Water Protection Act to accomplish
smoother and smarter brownfield
redevelopment.
of the site from industrial use.
A Phase II Environmental
Assessment has found latent
heavy metal and petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination over
the entire 45,000 sq.ft. of the
site. It is listed on the Manitoba
Contaminated Sites List. The
local community was unaware
of the contamination. Provincial
law requires the remediation of
the site before development to a
level appropriate to its use. The
legal principle of ‘polluter pays’
is useless on a century-old site
where original owners are long
The second line of response for
absent, and the provenance of
dealing with the underlying dilemmas
pollution untraceable. Neither the
The Site:
calls for enhanced clarity for planners Province, nor the City has regular
Sutherland Ave runs on the left
regarding environmental ethics in
provision of funds for remediation.
Arrow indicates Barber House
practice. It is insufficient for CIP’s
Responsibility has defaulted to
Square indicates site for new daycare
Code of Ethics to require that planners the current owner, a non-profit
acknowledge the needs of future
organization, which is having
generations balanced against current
serious difficulties fundraising
development, when the tools and
to pay for the proposed dayresources necessary to mediate
care, never mind the additional
such sites are lacking. This can place burden of site remediation. During
planners in difficult ethical dilemmas.
community meetings, residents
A more ecologically-based code of
were informed that the site is
ethics seems essential, that seeks
contaminated and that private
to draw practice well beyond the
residences bordering the site are
status quo, especially with regard to
also likely contaminated. There is
‘operationalising’ inter-generational
poor understanding of the impact
equity.
of these conditions among local
residents. Many are willing to
ignore the problem or bury the
contamination in favor of building
The Case BACKGROUND
For more than five years, SISTARS
the much-needed daycare.
Economic Development Co-op has
been attempting to build a daycare
OUTCOME
and other community services at the
The City of Winnipeg donated
site of the historical Barber House
enough money to remediate a
at 99 Euclid, in Point Douglas,
tiny portion of the site (about
Winnipeg. Their efforts have been
1650 sq.ft.), which will be made
repeatedly stymied by difficulties in
into a play area for children. The
fundraising, bureaucracy, and hidden
remainder of the site contamination
costs resulting from contamination
will be sealed and local residents
informed of the importance of not
disturbing the soil. Construction of
the daycare is scheduled to begin
This innoccuous residential field behind Barber House is also impacted
in the spring of 2010.
2
Point Douglas
One of the oldest neighbourhoods in Winnipeg.
Initial use as farmland and residential preceded
a hundred years of industrial activity. Many
remnant impacted sites exist on the Point.
Context
Many North American cities are
dealing with the remnants of early
industrial development and Modernist
freeway construction. Historically,
cities tended to grow around
industries and the requirements of
those industries. These early industrial
activities usually required the
concentrated central transportation
hubs of ports and rail yards. Often
located at the water’s edge in the
centre of cities, these obsolete
transportation hubs have left a
legacy of disused rail yards, industrial
brownfields, abandoned industrial
properties, and declining economic
prospects for future generations
(Gillham 293-300 passim). Adding
to this burden, Modernist road
construction espoused the creation
of major highways and arterials to
connect the growing suburbs to
city centres without regard for the
effects on local communities. These
expressways have also tended to be
located along existing transportation
corridors, that is, the existing rail lines
and port areas. Expressways not
only impact the areas they are built
through, but also encourage the
desertion of these inner industrial
areas for the edges of cities.
All of these conditions are evident
in Point Douglas. The result has
been large areas of underused
waterfront, rail yards, and
industrial brownfield sites These
disused areas have become
prime areas of redevelopment in
recent decades, not only in Point
Douglas, but also across North
America. To do so though, has
meant addressing the remnants
of this industrial history. As urban
areas continue to grow, and old
industrial areas become soughtafter places for redevelopment, the
problems associated with their use
become increasingly common and
increasingly fall under planners’
purview.
3
The Dilemmas
There appears to be several dilemmas
for planners in these situations. These
include: to what degree should a
site be remediated, is remediation
sufficient or is restoration desireable
or even achievable; to whom does
responsibility fall when original
owners/polluters cannot be held
responsible; and in such cases, where
do the resources for remediation come
from?
foresight, planning, cooperation,
and commitment from multiple
levels of government.
Jurisdictional Issues
The control, monitoring, and
regulation of adversely-impacted
environments falls under the
jurisdiction of the Province.
However, almost all of these
sites fall within City of Winnipeg
boundaries, and it is city planners
Degrees of responsibility
who administer the development
It can be argued that our society
of the sites. Problems result from
has a moral obligation to remedy the
differing interests. The Province
impacts of the earlier development
has jurisdiction and strong powers
from which it benefited, and that the
of taxation, but little incentive to
future will inherit. However, complete
remedy any particular site. The
remediation is often prohibitively
City has the incentive of fostering
expensive or even impossible
development and increasing
to achieve. So, to what level of
property tax revenues, but has
completeness should remediation
neither the jurisdiction, nor the
be considered? In a residential area
resources, for major remediation
such as the Barber House site, such
projects. There are different
remediation should allow for continued motivations between the levels of
use as residential property that
government. The Contaminated
calls for a high level of remediation.
Sites Act does not directly work
The recent announcement of the
with municipalities. Herein lies a
continuation of the Riverfront park
disconnect in decision-making,
system, as well as the use of this site
resulting in the potential lack of
as a daycare play area, suggest the
holistic planning for the future.
highest level of remediation possible.
How do we justify the costs of such
Remediation Funding
Point Douglas
remediation? Existing minimum
At the SISTARS site, the lack of
standards suggest remediation should funding strongly drove what was
Remnant Industrial: Gateway Industries provide only for the new use of the
achievable. Presently, there is no
site, in this case a Commercial Use.
dedicated government funding
Full disclosure of the conditions as
earmarked for site remediation. In
an informal caveat would also seem
the case where original polluters
to meet minimum requirements.
cannot be held accountable or
Yet, a more substantial remediation
where impacts exist on publicly
that looked to the future can also
held land; appropriate funding
be justified. Extensive remediation
seems a necessary component for
can be considered an investment
long-range planning and to meet
that will provide future returns. The
our ethical responsibilities.
redevelopment of this site, and others
in Point Douglas, will have long-term
positive impacts for the City and
Province. Too little remediation may
save money now, but end up costing
more in the future. So clearly, levels of
remediation can be tied to long-range
Point Douglas
planning for the area, probably beyond
the thirty-year range. This requires
Remnant Autoworks & Junkyard
4
Ethics and Responsibility
Barber House
Constructed as early as 1865.
This Red River Frame building will
be rebuilt as part of the new daycare
project, and is to be used as a
community space.
Who’s responsibility?
The Contaminated Sites Remediation
Act is based on a principle of “polluter
pays”. However, a century-old site
where original owners are long gone,
and the provenance of pollution
is untraceable, this principle is
unworkable. It can be argued that the
state should look to cleaning these
sites as both a public health issue
and as a strategic public investment
to create growth in older industrial
areas. However, at present there is
no obligation to do so. In an area
widely-impacted like Point Douglas, it
is also difficult to know where to stop
remediation. Contaminants can flow
from one site to the next, both above
and below ground.
and lack of provincial funding
resources.
A planner’s (or anyone’s) first
responsibility is clearly to the
living. Yet, the Case reveals a
conflict between the needs of the
present and our responsibility
to the future. Current needs are
for conventional development,
and in this neighbourhood the
need is acute. Our responsibility
to the future demands that the
site be remediated, and possibly
the surrounding properties.
In this case, a compromise
solution of sorts was reached;
but the experience underscores
a dilemma that is incompletely
addressed in the Codes of Ethics.
Given the current state, the minimal
Does a planner have an ethical
ethical requirement is full-disclosure;
responsibility to defend the future,
informing not only the land owner
even at a cost to the present?
but adjacent properties. It may be
This is an inter-generational equity
necessary to place caveats on all
issue. It is insufficient for CIPs
surrounding properties. This would at
Code of Ethics to require that
least ensure full disclosure at property planners consider the environment
sale and prevent the case of SISTARS as something to be ‘balanced’ with
obtaining land without knowledge
development, when there is often
of the full environmental cost. But
an intricate trade-off between the
information does not solve the
two, with development affecting
problem, does not remediate the site. future generations. Building from
the Case-In-Point, it is possible to
Planners’ Ethics
imagine scenarios where a planner
In the case outlined, the planner
is placed in an ethical dilemma
has a responsibility to the public.
even more pronounced.
The Code of Ethics of the CIP,
MPPI, and OPPI all make clear this
With increasing pressure for
responsibility. But which public? The
development of brownfields, we
people who live there now, or future
argue that these conflicts will only
generations who will be exposed to
become more prevalent, more
the pollution? These same Codes
difficult, and more sustained, in
also state the planner’s responsibility
the years to come. It is incumbent
to the environment and “To respect
upon the profession to seek to
and integrate the needs of future
provide members with better tools
generations” and that planners
and direction to more adequately
“assume roles as stewards of these
address these conflicts. We need
environments, balancing preservation to more vigorously confront our
with sustainable development”.
environmental responsibility, and to
Planners appear to be in an ethical
become more proactive.
dilemma in such cases. Between
responsibility to the long-term safety of
the community and that community’s
desire to develop a new service,
between provincial law requirements
5
Possible Responses
Two possible lines of response
present themselves in the present
context. Regarding jurisdictional
issues and resultant lack of funds,
a precedent model may exist in the
recent Bill 22: The Water Protection
Act (2006). The important aspects
of this bill are to clearly designate
water-planning authority and to
provide funding for planning. The
Act permits the designation of an
authority for a watershed (usually the
Conservation District) and requires
that municipalities take into account
an approved watershed plan when
preparing or amending their own
development plan. As such, the
Act appears to transcend municipal
boundaries. The Act also provides
funding to prepare watershed
plans, for research and for water
management. Water policy can also
now be enforced, as it exists in law.
Inspired by The Water Protection
Act, we recommend consideration
of changes to The Contaminated
Sites Remediation Act. These would
address the different motivations
between the provincial and municipal
levels of government allowing for
more ecologically-based, long-term
planning for areas such as Point
Douglas as well as individual sites.
There would be long-term benefits
not only for the public but also for
both levels of government. This Act
would also provide funding where
necessary to further the planning
of the two levels of government.
Precedent for such funding exists in
the U.S. federal Superfund program
(Correctly titled ‘Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act’).
There are two important aspects
of Superfund Act. It designates
responsibility to the EPA for sites
where responsibility cannot be
determined; and it recognizes that
many environmentally degraded
sites require remediation far
beyond the resources of local
governments. Only the federal
and provincial governments have
the taxation powers necessary to
address severely impacted sites.
In situations where longrange plans call for extensive
remediation of privately-held
property, a possible solution would
allow private owners to fulfill the
minimum remediation necessary
for current development with the
province/city conducting further
remediation as an investment
in the future. Environmental
regulation requires both the legal
teeth and the necessary funding
to be effective. Present legislation
appears to be lacking, as does
targeted funding.
The second line of response calls
for enhanced clarity for planners
regarding environmental ethics. It is
insufficient for CIP’s Code of Ethics
to require that planners consider
the environment as something to
be ‘balanced’ with development,
when there is often a trade-off
between the two, with development
affecting future generations. This
can place planners in perplexing
ethical dilemmas.
SOURCES
Canadian Institute of Planners (2004). CIP Code of Practice. Accessed 8 April, 2010 from
http://www.cip-icu.ca/_CMS/Files/Code%20of%20Professional%20Practice.pdf
Ontario Professional Planners Institute (2009). Professional Code of Practice (By-law 1-86
The General By-law of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute: Appendix I). Assessed
8 April, 2010 from http://www.ontarioplanners.on.ca/pdf/oppi_bylaw_and_schedulesseptember2009.pdf
Gillham, O. (2007[2002]). “What is Sprawl?” The Urban Design Reader. Larice, Michael
and Elizabeth Macdonald, eds. London: Routledge.
Province of Manitoba (1997). The Contaminated Sites Remediation Act. Accessed 15 April,
2010 from http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/c205e.php
6