By Jared Nyberg - June 25, 2011

The Bear Mountain Interchange is Langford’s “Bridge to Nowhere”. Popular sentiment on the issue would seem to encourage the “rewilding” of the space and protection of the damaged million year old karst caves and Salish cultural sites.

June 2009 was the last time there was noticeable movement in the area, with Langford City Council passing a bylaw that set in motion another 2800 condos to be built on the south of Spaet/Skirt Mountain, right next to Bear Mountain Resort, one of the most heavily fought and unilaterally opposed developments in Western Canada. It also saw the Mayor yelling at city council meetings, an appeal to overturn the bylaw (still being fought), and even more recently saw an important financier, the now defunct LGB9 corporation, spiral into bankruptcy.

The project was initially presented to the public by the City of Langford as for the public good, alleviating traffic problems and providing more in terms of infrastructure. Activists argue it is merely a private drive for the development’s future homeowners. They argue it would have been much more sensible to build an overpass at Mackenzie and Highway 1 to alleviate traffic congestion during rush hour that locals refer to as the “Colwood Crawl”.

The Interchange and its cousin the Bear Mountain development have treaded rocky waters from their inceptions. In 2008, hundreds of RCMP officers raided a peaceful tree sitter camp, the area was clear cut against the public’s wishes, and sacred First Nations’ burial and shamanic sites were desecrated. Glowing toxic sludge caused by the development has contaminated local water systems and protected Garry oak trees and red-legged frogs, considered an at risk species, have been decimated.

A report released by the Rainforest Action Network in August 2008 detailed just how enormous the public outcry against this development has been. CFAX surveys, the Goldstream Gazette editor and opinion comments, the Times Colonist and various online news sources; all had an unprecedented number of local people against the project. Steven Hurdle, a two time Green Party candidate in the Western Communities, canvassed 2,000 signatures from area residents against the project, enough to hold a referendum for or against the Bear Mountain Interchange if city bylaws allowed for it.

On a technicality, a referendum did not and will not take place. Two days after Christmas 2007, Langford City Council met at an under publicised meeting to complete the first, second, and third readings of a bylaw that made the Interchange area into a Local Service Area. This bylaw means that the area would be for the benefit of landowners in the area (the Bear Mountain development complex) and be paid for by them. No referendum need take place on Local Service Area land because it is ostensibly only for the interests of a local area group, not really affecting the larger community. This act angered many residents and activists, even many who had supported the project until this point. Its creation could easily be argued as a way for the city to avoid a referendum on the issue. One resident pointed out how paradoxical it was that the City would argue the project was for the public interest, then make it a Local Service Area and argue it only concerns those in the immediate area. Now the Interchange will service the new development, another project with no referendum despite the opposition. Langford City deputy mayor Denise Blackwell stated during public forums that the Interchange was not going to service the new development and could not be brought up for discussion, but maps at the meeting portrayed the opposite. It is unclear whether Blackwell was confused or lying to prevent discussion of the Bear Mountain Interchange.

When a project is on the record as being so heavily opposed by the general public, how does it continue? From its earliest days, the project has pushed through protest by employing well placed contacts in government, millions of dollars in investment, and strategic manipulations of process.

In December of 2001, Bob Flitton, at the time a Western Forest Products (WFP) employee, wrote his contacts in the Campbell government to release land for the Bear Mountain project from the Forest Land Reserve (FLR). He wrote Forestry Minister Stan Hagen that WFP stood to lose a $7.5 million business deal [with Bear Mountain] and needed a “comfort” letter fast from the Province that stated the land would be removed from the FLR to allow for a road to the development. He received his letter inside of 2 days. Bob Flitton preceded his post at WFP as Forestry Minister during Social Credit’s era in BC and worked closely with Hagen at the time. This information was retrieved via the Freedom of Information Act.

Bob Flitton now works as official spokesperson for Bear Mountain. Stan Hagen was the Minister of Tourism, Sports and the Arts until recently, the Ministry that houses the Archaeology Branch. A lot of maneuvering between the Province of BC, the City of Langford, LGB9 and WFP has provided the financial and political ability to move ahead with this highly unpopular development. WFP sold the land to LGB9 (Len Barrie’s now defunct Bear Mountain development company) and were only able to do so after receiving the comfort letter. LGB9 was only able to move forward after Langford City Council steamrolled over public opposition to allow for constantly increasing concentrations of development and golf courses.

Another example of conflicts of interest is Langford Deputy Mayor Denise Blackwell. Ben Isitt writes in a 2006 report that “Connections run deep … CRD chairperson Denise Blackwell, a Langford city councilor and chairperson of the CRD Planning committee, works for the BC Archaeology Branch, which approved the bulldozing of the cave site in November 2006”. Blackwell was on the CRD, Langford City Council, and the BC Archaeology Branch when the desecration of the Tsartlip Nation’s cave occurred in 2006 with full approval.

As mentioned earlier n the article, the local chapter of the Forest Action Network (VIC FAN) filed a petition in BC Supreme Court to overturn the most recent development bylaw, the part of the mountain that has been allocated for 2800 new condos. VIC FAN argues that in their haste to approve this next stage, Langford City Council has sacrificed due process.

An example of manipulation of process is a common feature of important Spaet/Skirt Mountain related council meetings in 2009: the doors officially open at 7pm but attendees enter a room already filled with those on favourable terms with the projects and these people who have arrived before the doors are unlocked take up most of the seating and the local community and activists sit far in the back with no sound or choose to stand up front. Although many attendees are unaware that they need to clearly state they are opposed to the development, those in favour are very well informed and make sure that for every note of opposition, they follow with support. Despite the palpable opposition to the new South Skirt Mountain project, Denise Blackwell, in a Feb 2009 meeting, stated there would be no referendum and that it was her reading from the meeting that the majority of the Langford public supports the project. Her demeanour was a lot less antagonistic than Mayor Stuart Young the previous week, which had him yelling at speakers.

VIC FAN representative Zoe Blunt has often commented on how amazing it is that the public still shows up to the meetings, despite the verbal abuse, interruptions and harassment.

Many hope the current economic downfall will stop the Bear Mountain project. In an email interview, Dr. Ben Isitt wrote in answer to how he hopes this project will end: “All undeveloped land on Spaet/Skirt Mountain will be protected as parkland, with restoration of areas already damaged but not yet built. The Bear Mountain Interchange project will be cancelled and the Bear Mountain Parkway extension never built. The logged areas will be rehabilitated to a natural state to sustain biodiversity and provide for the enjoyment of the general public.”

Where the project is headed is uncertain. However, what is certain is that the general public is against the project, First Nations are losing vital cultural sites, pollution from the development is destroying the local ecosystem, there has been a serious breach of the public trust, and the conflicts of interest and complex roles being played by developers and politicians would do well to be investigated and accounted for. From the evidence gathered in writing this article, communication between the public, government, developers and First Nations has been severely lacking, and a possible reconciliation strategy would be to hold a number of general forums to discuss Bear Mountain, its interchange, and the will of those involved. If government is for and by the people, then the project should end, reconciliation and rehabilitation of the lands should take place, and those involved in criminal activity or abuse of power should be held accountable.