Dear Editor:
The saga of the Bailey bridge is a prelude to a future of increasing commuter traffic through New Westminster via the new Pattullo Bridge. That traffic is going to further congest McBride Boulevard, 10th Avenue, Royal Avenue, East Columbia Street, Brunette Avenue, Braid Street and other neighbourhood streets.
The Bailey bridge dispute has been resolved through mandatory binding arbitration imposed by Section 286 of the Community Charter.
The Charter was adopted into law by the B.C. Liberals in 2003. I question the wisdom of the arbitrator’s decision.
Coquitlam believes it has licence to route its commuter traffic through New West. That traffic is going nowhere fast. It will just increase the wait-times and safety issues at the Braid/Brunette intersection. Hopefully, New West will put in place safety measures in response to the increased congestion in that part of the city.
I also question the arbitration process under the Charter. “Final proposal arbitration” under Section 287(e) of the Charter expressly forbids the arbitrator from providing written reasons for his decision. “Full arbitration” under Section 288(d) mandates written reasons. Under Section 286(4), New West and Coquitlam could have agreed to full arbitration, but it’s my understanding that Coquitlam wanted a fast decision with no hearing and no written reasons.
The provincially appointed dispute resolution officer sided with Coquitlam and imposed Section 287 arbitration. Did the dispute resolution officer also impose the arbitrator under Section 287(b)? Shouldn’t decision-makers be accountable? Aren’t evidence and sound reasoning the necessary antidotes for deceitful, exaggerated claims?
The fact that we don’t have the arbitrator’s reasons has simply increased the suspicion and rancour between the leaders of the two cities.
Mike Divine, New Westminster
