Canada’s Number One
Suburban Newspape

THE VOICE OF NORTH AND WEST VANCOUVER

August 21,1985 News 985-2131

IN A DRAMATIC show of organized strength up-
per Cypress Creek residents forced West Vancouver
council to back down from ‘‘railroading’’ through

its flood control bylaw.

To a-packed and some-
times boisterous council
chamber, the. aldermen and
mayor put off passing the
controversial bylaw, and,
because of the approaching
rainy season,
action till next spring.

But while the Upper
Cypress
claimed victory, those ‘resi-

delayed any

Creek residents .

dents on the flood plain of
the creek left Monday
night’s meeting facing the
fear that this winter could
mean another season of
disastrous flooding.

’ The: bylaw would. have
allowed. West Van

r..and: Mrs. Clavell, married*Au

Classified 986-6222 Circulation 986-1337 40 pages 25¢ -

Municipality to start work
on the construction of a
debris pit. in the. creek to
catch large boulders which
cause damage downstream
during floods,

However, the construction

‘of the debris pit would mean

the expropriation of portions
of property of four resi-
dences,. and destroy their
views by creating an unsight-

~ ly mess,

“It was a fair and just
move on council’s ‘part,’”
said a delighted Charles

Mayrs. ‘We are very pleased
with the actions of council,
we got a moratorium and
time to figure out a solution
to meet ‘the concerns of the

~ residents downstream.”’

NOT HAPPY

Lower creek resident Joy
Zemel-Long was not as hap-
py with council’s decision,
shouting out that her house
could -be wiped out this
winter.

Zemel-Long had totd

council that her’ house: had
been flooded five times and
that the situation is growing
grave.

“During those times, no-
body came to help.me... I’ve
lost everything, my
photography, my paintings,
I'm always living in’ fear of
the flood,’’ Zemei-Long
said.

Like most of the Lower
Creek residents who spoke,
Zemel-Long was sympathetic
to the concerns of the upper
creek residents, but em-

sattle rages

phasized that ‘something
must be done with the creek
now.”

However, council was
swayed by an impressive
aray of legal and engineering
arguments, including the
threat of an injunction. |

Lawyer Richard Hamilton
‘respectfully’ lambasted
council on seven major
points: Timing, engineering,
aesthetics, value, - irrelevant
consideration, liability and
compensation.

CAME WITH THREAT

“The municipality’s. pro-
posals and requests for
rights of way were thrust
upon the owners in an ex-
tremely narrow time frame. .

' Three requests ‘were accom-

panied by the threat of ex-
propriation without com-.
pensation if cooperation was
not given,’? Hamilton told
council.

Hamilton pointed out that
engineers retained by the
owners ‘‘are not satisfied’.
that the proposals are the
best solution from an
engineering point-of-view.”

He went on to say the
view would be drastically af-
fected and the value of the
property would decrease by
approximately $30,000 per
lat.

Hamilton pvinted out that
because the municipality saw
fit only to construct the
works after Fisheries in-
dicated its willingness to
share costs on the condition
that it secured a water supp-
ly, the courts could rule that
bylaw was invalid on the
basis of irrelevant considera-
tions.

Additional liability could
accrue to the municipality or
to the owners as a result of
the construction or opera-
tion of the proposed works.

Hamilton also said he
believed the municipality’s
intent was to carry these
works out without compen-
sation.

See Citizens
Page 4