Friends and Neighbours:

The new Goldstream Gazette is out.  We are on the front page, in
an article entitled "Amid protests, Metchosin cell tower going
up."

In the article Telus spokesperson Shawn Hall points out that
Telus wants to build the tower "to meet demand" and that Telus
receives "dozens of calls every year from people asking for
improved wireless coverage in Metchosin."

The implication in the quotation, that people in Metchosin want
a tower at 4537 Rocky Point Road, is misleading at best, factually
incorrect at the worst. We must recognize, first of all, that
there is a difference between the opinion of a person living near
the tower and being constantly exposed to its health and visual
effects and the opinion of someone not living near the tower
who wants another bar or two on his/her Telus phone. Second,
we must recognize that the numbers for and against the
proposed tower can't be compared in an absolute way. The
numbers are relative to the size of the sampled population.

On the first point, the issue of counting all votes as equal:
When I was studying ethics, we learned that a little good
for a large number of people does not cancel out great harm
done to a few. Suppose, for example, that people in Canada
voted on whether a certain millionaire should be forced to
give away all of his money to the 30 million residents of Canada.
If everyone in Canada except the millionaire voted in favor of
such a law and only the millionaire voted against it, the vote
would be 29,999,999 to 1.  But the strength of mere numbers
wouldn't make this law reasonable or ethical. The millionaire
has a much greater stake in the outcome of the legislation than
the other people. It is the millionaire's money, after all, and the
harm he/she would suffer would be immensely greater than the
small benefit other Canadians would receive (3 cents each).
In the same way, the opinions of the two dozen people living
within 100 meters of the proposed tower, who would suffer
greatly from its presence, are much more significant than the
opinions of two dozen Metchosin residents not living near the
tower who would lose only a small benefit (if anything) should the
tower not be built at that spot.

Second, the numbers can't be compared as absolute numbers.
They are percentages.  We have shown, via our petition work,
that 100% of the 21 adults who would find themselves living on
properties within 100 meters of the tower do not want the tower
at that site. We have also shown that at least 90% of the people
who are living on properties within 500 meters of the proposed
tower do not want it at that site. How does this compare
to the "dozens" that Mr. Hall say want the tower?  Let's be
generous and suppose that, over the last five years, Telus has
received 200 calls from Metchosin asking for better reception.
Metchosin has nearly 5000 residents.  That means that only 4% of
the people in Metchosin are requesting a tower. Note, however,
that this 4% are requesting a tower, not a tower at a specific site.
How in the world can a request by a few percent of the people
for a nonspecific site be compared to the overwhelming per-
centages of people who would live near a proposed tower
rejecting a specific site?

In the Goldstream Gazette article the Telus spokesperson goes on
to say that Telus has received "almost three dozen emails and letters
from people before the deadline--some of whom are supportive,
some of whom expressed health concerns, and three or four
with general questions."

Really?  Let's do some math. Suppose that Telus has received
30 emails/letters.  Subtract from this the four letters that
just wanted information.  Telus appears to have received
26 responses with definite opinions one way or the other.
In his statement in the Gazette, Shawn Hall implies that
the 26 are rather evenly divided (some this/some that, he
says) between ones who are "supportive" and ones "expressing
health concerns."

This claim is easy enough to check.  Many of those who
submitted letters to Telus also sent them to me and
gave me permission to put them on a web site.  At the web site
(http://s158336089.onlinehome.us/TelusDocs/) you can
see 15 of the letters that came in before the deadline.  These
letters would all be classed in Mr. Hall's "expressing
health concerns" category.  Most of these letters do
indeed mention health concerns. But they also mention
visual impact ("eyesore"), bad public consultation
with short notices, ethical issues, lack of consideration
of alternate sites, failure to provide rationales and technical
information, and arrogant corporate attitudes. And the letters,
I should point out, were not copies of a template that we
distributed. Each of the letters--and some of them are
extensive--represent many hours of labor.

Taking these 15 letters from the 26 opinioned letters leaves 11.
Mr Hall seems to be saying that he has in hand 11 letters
that are "supportive" (That's assuming, of course, that
the authors of all of the non-supportive letters sent me
a copy when they sent their letter to Telus.). When these
"supportive" letters are finally delivered to the District
of Metchosin we will get to see how many of these
letters Mr. Hall has in hand. We will also be looking at
what they say: in order to count as "supportive," the authors
of the letters must declare that they want a tower at the
proposed site, not just that they want a tower or better cell
reception. As we have often said, we do not differ with Telus
on the issue of a tower to serve Metchosin residents--we only
disagree about whether the proposed site is suitable. My guess
is that we will find, when the day of revelation comes, that
Mr. Hall can produce no more than a handful of short emails
that fit his "supportive" category. I know for certain that none
of these emails come from anyone within a 100-meter radius
of the proposed tower. If even one of these emails comes from
someone within a 500-meter radius of the proposed tower,
I would be surprised.  I believe, in short, that the Telus
spokesperson is playing fast and loose with numbers
to make Telus's proposal look less offensive than it really is.

What I find most disappointing about the Telus statements
that are quoted in the Goldstream Gazette is not that
Mr. Hall takes liberties with the facts. It is rather that the
statements he makes are official edicts from a company
whose job it is to decide, ultimately, the facts of the
case. If these were just slanted public relations hype
coming from an opponent that we could hale before
a neutral third party and prove wrong, we would do it.
Instead, we are left with the prospect of a company deciding
our future that is already, we can see, building up a public
case for ignoring the plain facts.  Even though it is
abundantly clear that (1) Telus has lost the hearts and
minds battle with residents in the vicinity of the proposed
tower and that (2) Telus will never get from the Metchosin
Council the "concurrence of the land-use authority" for
a tower at the proposed site, we are faced with another
three grueling months of back-and-forth arguments before
Telus sets its imprimatur on its own hype and declares that
the facts are on its side. Telus would show better faith with
the residents of Metchosin if it would end this public consultation
game now and begin to work with the District of Metchosin
to find a site that would have a large impact on residents
and that would have a chance of receiving the concurrence
of the Council.

                                   Kem Luther