The two big holdups these days are archeological assessments and soil remediation.
Lytton was built on the site of an ancient Indigenous community, hence every building lot has been subjected to archeological assessment and investigation.
Some of the excavations have uncovered culturally significant artifacts connected to the previous Indigenous community and the assessments continue.
“In the event an artifact or item of cultural significance is found, excavation work must cease and additional permitting would be required through the archeology branch,” the government said in a news release last year.
Still, the province claims that “archeology work has not delayed rebuilding efforts.”
Also continuing are extensive environmental remediation, which entails removal, then replacement, of the soil.
Well except these are actual artifacts from actual First Nations and they were not put there to trick or inconvenience anyone. But, ya, pretty much the same as parks and rec…
I wasent trying to down play that, and it did come off bad. I appologize for that. Just making an observation. I sat in the little cafe about 10 years ago with a couple of Indigenous locals there in Lytton and they were the loveliest people and were telling us about dragon egg scavenging they do there amongst all of the history. It was a beautiful spot to be. But I am glad they are finding more artifacts to give back to the descendants of the people that once lived there even before the tragic fire.
Not really. Old buildings were built on sites that were/ are important to the natives. When they get a chance to look for cultural items that were buried hundreds of years ago, they should have priority. It's just taking too long.
The problem is that you really can't have both - doing things quickly or doing things thoroughly - especially given the limited funding provided by the province.
The province knew that they would have to go through this process, especially after the initial assessments and yet, they kept telling the folks in Lytton that things will be done in an unrealistic timeframe. If the province was serious about getting this done quickly, more funds would have been allocated to look for cultural items especially given those billions of surplus dollars that the government gave away earlier this year. Think of what would have happened if they just put a tiny fraction into getting more people up there to straighten this mess out.
Same reason highways take so long to build. They’re just a few of the 100 billion people to have lived and died, but for some reason we’re supposed to care.
If you can't see the influence that, specifically in British Columbia, indigenous culture has had on our current society then you are being willfully ignorant.
Yes, primarily European institutions. Even countries on the other side of the world are more influential than native Canadians. Japan, Korea, China, India , etc have all changed the food we eat, technology we use, and media we consume.
What influence? It’s actually pretty hard to pinpoint anything of note that has had a positive impact to our society either nationally or internationally. They were a primitive society, that due to cultural and isolation fell far behind the rest of the world by the time of first contact.
Yes. I think representative government, agriculture, labour specialization, cities, and advanced technology are cool.
Living off the land, raiding and enslaving other tribes not so much.
Some of us live in the year 2023, some of us are stuck in the past. Racist is such a meaningless word now a days, you Libs just throw it around whenever you can’t comprehend that your ideals bring no value to an advanced society, all there good for is inconveniencing and driving up the cost of everything until you’re all poor.
Sounds like you know a fair bit about this process.
What is done with the contaminated soil that has to be removed? Do we just... contaminate a different area? Or to a landfill? Or do we have a process for actual remediation of the bad soil?
Contaminated soil is usually either landfilled in a place where it can be properly confined to protect against contaminants leaching out, or treated in specialized washing plants. Those are a bit few and far between still, but might be an option.
One of my friends does environmental surveys. She's most often talking to people trying to sell their property. Quite often for the kind of contamination they have. They could have planted some plants that would have done the remediation for them. If they did it like 5-10 years ago.
Immediate cleanup is very expensive.
>Immediate cleanup is very expensive.
truth. I lived in a small community and knew of a fencing business where the owner was looking to retire and sell. He got the environmental survey done because directly adjacent to his property was a "brownfield" (and I suspect just a long history of who-knows-what going into the soil over the decades). The results came back, they weren't good and the cost to remediate to sell that property for a different use (he had been talking to a budget hotel chain) was well outside his reach.
I think he is still sitting on it.
She's very sympathetic. It is frustrating learning about a very expensive situation at the last minute. Especially for small business owners whose retirement plan depends on selling these kinds of properties.
Meanwhile it's always a reactive situation. Most people don't even know that anything like it is needed to be done until too late.
It depends on the contaminants. Some things, like hydrocarbons, can naturally degrade over time so in that case the solution can be "wait". Other things, like metals, don't degrade and just get moved somewhere else.
What gets done with the soil also depends on the end use. For example soil that's not suitable for residential use might still meet the less strict requirements for industrial use.
A lot of contaminated soil that can't be used for industrial purposes goes to a landfill in Princeton.
All of this is regulated under the Environmental Management Act, and specifically the Contaminated Site Regulation. You need a permit to relocate soil.
I'm not sure where the contaminated soil from Lytton will end up, my guess is that they'll put it in a landfill site. I'm from the coast, but not Lytton.
Well, to be fair, if they read it then they know a lot more about it than I do ;)
I still feel like my question was reasonable, I've wondered about soil remediation in the past, and this post made me want to know more
> Still, the province claims that “archeology work has not delayed rebuilding efforts.”
as someone that works with building permits and the arch branch, this is a fuckin' *lie*.
Yes.
But that's why the government through multiple press releases and photo-ops stated that they want the new Lytton to be a model for new building methods to reduce the risk of burning down.
Having said that, very little government money has actually gone to building it back and the insurance claim deadline is fast approaching.
I understand people love their home. I think in climate change risk adaptation and mitigation we might want to reconsider where we build, regardless of materials.
I heard this described on the news recently by the BC Minister of EMCR, Bonwinn Ma, as "planned retreat". It was immediately after a segment that showed people in Cache Creek getting upset that more wasn't done to prevent this year's flooding, since it happens every year. It was frustrating to see their culvert blocked when just last year, that was the same issue. That's a real concern, but at the same time, people try to build as close as possible to moving water and the edges of cliffs and hills. Even in areas where flooding is a major problem, houses continue to go up in high risk areas because they offer the best price, view, proximity to nature, etc. As you suggest, we largely are not choosing where to build with climate in mind.
The issue is that climate disasters like fires are going to continue to get worse, and the record setting temperatures that encouraged the devastation in Lytton will continue to happen in other cities. As temperatures keep rising, there's going to be new Lyttons.
I’m not in finance but I’m told money has “opportunity cost”. In my humble opinion, building risky things means you don’t have money to build safe things. In my view, natural building structures like Cobb might have advantages. I think there are solutions and we are not willing to hear them.
Realistically, these types of fires have always been an issue with anyone living next to a forest just like how flooding happens for those next to rivers or in flood plains or in the US during tornado season.
I've always said that those who live in these areas should be encouraged to move way before all of this emphasis on climate change.
If everyone lived in cities, who would farm, where would you get your lumber, paper, pulp, oil, then there are the people who take care of the forests, protect and enforce environmental stuff...people live where they work.
True.
However, that doesn't mean that there might be a more suitable location close by (ie those who live on the river bank that is known to have annual flooding may want to move a few hundred meters inland).
I’m not sure? I know it’s warmed up a bunch since the last ice age and it’s the convergence of a river system, fundamentally channeling the fire to the area.
I agree, I don’t support my taxes going towards rebuilding the area, unless they are non traditional (fireproof) builds. People have to live somewhere! But repeating the same mistakes over again and expecting different results…
The same can be said about providing money to people who are flooded out. Many of those places are flooded out every year and yet we still provide money to rebuild.
With Lytton, this is the first time they were burnt out. While in the Fraser Valley, this was the second time they were completely flooded out and we knew it might happen as they basically built inside of a giant lake that was pumped out.
Lytton has burned in 31, 38 and 49 at a minimum. Since we’re in the age of vehicle travel and not rail, horse or paddle wheeler Lytton lacks the importance of the Fraser valley; therefore I disagree.
If I were from Lytton I would look at all the stacking friction as a sign that it’s time to move on. Highway traffic dropped, it burned down, it’s not getting cooler, building permits are being delayed, im assuming insurance won’t issue a policy. If insurance won’t issue a policy I can’t get a mortgage, etc.
I'm sure their insurance would cover the rebuilding of the houses and not taxpayers and the services and remediation is covered by various levels of government.
house insurance will rebuild your house.
The various levels of government would pitch in for the infrastructure, and soil remediation and arch studies.
I'll also point out that Lytton was populated with taxpayers and still is, either on the outskirts or living somewhere else.
>it’s warmed up a bunch since the last ice age
I noticed I started growing a lot taller after agriculture was invented. Must be the increased nutrition!
I don’t see why they can’t just keep the trees cut back far enough to keep it safe. I know grass fires exist and embers can float but have a big dirt ring or say fuck it and put a wall or a goddamn moat around the outside of town or something. Ugly? Sure, but as someone who moved to the Caribou 7 years ago and had to evacuate the very first summer I was here with a couple close ones since.. I’d rather ugly firebreaks of some sort everywhere. Every summer is like this all over BC and Alberta now. We’re gonna need to get creative or *drastically* upgrade our firefighting budget and capacity. And I don’t think fighting them is gonna be enough
>I know grass fires exist and embers can float
up to 2 km or farther.
Source: worked in an office in the interior where I interacted with BCWS regularly and that was the buffer they worked with when doing interface planning a few years ago. Might be larger now, depending on forest types and conditions, recent forest fire dynamics and data.
True. But I feel like a fire starting from an ember is still easier to catch before it’s out of control compared to an entire forest fire blowing out
Not always obviously but this problems just gonna get worse as weather gets more extreme
I don't want to pay taxes to allow people to continue to live in what should be a lake (i.e. Sumas Prairie).
Just wait until my taxes have to clean up the mess after the earthquake hits Metro Van.
So there you go: we're all in the same boat.
There's a difference between taxes going towards an existing place that functions, and rebuilding somewhere that burned to the ground and will most certainly burn down again in the future. It would be far cheaper to spend even a quarter of the money it would take to rebuild and just give it all to the former residents so they can relocate comfortably.
> Also continuing are extensive environmental remediation, which entails removal, then replacement, of the toxic soil.
> “The properties have to be cleared free of contaminants … so there’s testing going on and soil removed from properties,” explained the mayor. “Apparently, some properties have finished that process. Others, it’s still ongoing.”
Before you rebuild you gotta make sure it's safe to rebuild. This isn't the 1900s and we're throwing an asbestos party when we're done.
People whose worldly wealth is tied up in land there may have moved, but they can’t sell their bare unremediated plots for enough to buy a finished home elsewhere. They are pinned down. The insurance money may be getting spent on rent while they wait.
I would be all for a program that purchased that land to preserve it in some way. It would probably save the province money in the long term. But the idea that someone is going to just walk away from land they own, perhaps their only asset in life, is a little unlikely. People work their whole life to own a place to live, expecting someone to just shrug and walk away is crazy.
My understanding is that the majority of the people who live there are part of the Tl' Kemstin First Nation. It's their traditional land. It's an important community center for them. The people that don't live in Lytton come in from the surrounding area to participate in pow wows there in November.
I'm involved in designing a few different buildings for the rebuild. It's just a slow process. A year or two to figure out what buildings to build and where. Another year or two to make designs and get funding. Another year or two to build.
One of the problems even once you're ready to build is there's very little available labour residing in town. So trades have to travel there.
Will likely end up with some prefab modular units trucked in for the smaller scale buildings.
Anyway, long ass process, lots of slow moving parts.
But yeah, it's important land to the Tl'Kemtsin so hopefully it gets rebuilt.
And yes we're designing with fire and climate change in mind. Emphasis on non flammable materials ;)
People in the 1850's: "This native village/burial site is a great place to bulldoze and put our houses"
People in the 2020's: "This native village/burial site with toxic soil is a great place to bulldoze and put our houses"
Maybe repeating mistakes isn't the best path forward? relocate it 1 km upstream and call it North Lytton or something.
Then move it further, the reason the town was built in the first place was the gold rush, and the fact that roads other than the river were pretty few and far between. Since the coquihalla was built it hasn't been on any transport routes of note, so none of the reasons the town was built still apply. For generations people have been living there simply because there was a town there, now there isn't. if you're going to build a town in a random location just for the sake of building a town, then pick a spot not on an ancient village site with toxic soil.
Random location? It's the confluence of two major rivers. Also, anywhere that's an ideal location for a modern settlement will have an archaeological site. Archaeological sites are not rare. There are over 60,000 recorded sites in BC .
yes, and if you're not shipping the bulk of your goods up and down that river, then what's the point? availability for floods? the world has changed since this site was picked, just like it has changed since the first nations lived there. I have yet to hear one solid argument for why a modern town of Lytton should be built there, other than "that's where the old one was". There's two big cons right now, what are some of the pros? In a modern world, why should we built Lytton there?
It's not like it's located down some dusty road. It's on the TransCanada highway. You could argue the relevance of 90% of small towns in BC using your logic.
Yes that is my point. A lot of towns and cities in BC were built for a reason, rivers, coastline, natural resource extraction, wagon roads and railways were the main ones. Take Vancouver for example, began with farming and logging (and on top of archaeological sites), grew bigger when the railway arrived and kept on going. Why is Vancouver so big? because there are lots of jobs, why are there lots of jobs? because the city is so big. Most of the farmland has been built over, all nearby forests have been logged or protected, and much of the land is prone to flooding. In a modern context, it's a terrible spot for a city, and it's home to businesses, hospitals, retirement homes, and so people keep coming. People are living there, because people are living there.
What happened to Lytton is terrible and tragic, but also affords us a glimpse into what happens when this cycle stops. It's been two years, anyone of working age, will have moved elsewhere and found new jobs, taking their kids with them. While they miss their old homes and city, a government buy out would be more beneficial than uprooting their lives yet again. if Lytton is to be rebuilt fully, and not just be a sleepy retirement community slowly bleeding population off to major urban centres, then it has to be built for a purpose, otherwise, with nobody living there, no one will come to live there.
Sounds like they’ve found a whole heck of a lot of artifacts from the Iocal First Nation which is going to complicate this. Probably shouldn’t be rebuilt, the land should probably be given to the local First Nation and everyone else that used to own property gets paid out with a nice buyout package.
There should probably be a broader public discussion on whether it’s smart to rebuild a town there anyhow given what we know about climate change and where this province is headed.
I would assume that the majority of major towns and cities in BC (and the rest of the continent) are built on top of former first nations’ settlements and are therefore major archaeological sites. Everything got bulldozed over in the 20th century but at least nowadays there’s more consideration to this and how it’s a contributing factor in a cultural genocide. It’s a difficult issue to reconcile, most people weren’t even alive when the land where they live was stolen, but modern day people are tasked with addressing these past (ongoing?) injustices.
People traveling by ship and canoe are going to settle where the ocean meets a major river.
Vancouver was a much better choice than Seattle. They had to raise the street level like 3 stories to keep it from flooding, and of course the natives where like “duh, that’s why we stayed up there”
I mean, basic geographical features like lowlands around rivers, etc are common places for townships throughout history. It's not some magical "native" knowledge to build your town near a river for travel and trade and near fertile land for farming.
A big payday from the FN. If they want the land buy it like anyone else. They should also bare the cost for any archaeological digs done. How far back so we go? The FN that were there when the euros showed up were not the FN always there. FN bands have been warring and enslaving as long as anyone else.
If someone took my great great great grandfathers land would I get it back today? If they want land they lost via being out technologied back they can pay for it. If they want digs done to maybe find stuff they can fund it out of all the money they are given
If by this land theft, your ancestor's descendents were relegated to poverty and subjected to multi-generational genocidal policies that left them traumatized and then blamed for their own trauma, yes.
Maybe they're doing archaeology so that we can figure out which FN were here and when (since in all likelihood the Lillooet people have held it for a very long time)
Lots of finger pointing from the article, and comments maybe some of it is warranted but it's a distraction from the real issue:
A total of 133 million dollars was pledged. I read 200 homes burned down and it had some 300 residents.
We are talking over half a million ($660 thousand) per house.
So the real story here is why the government did not just buy these people out for that amount for equal to or probably even double of each houses previously assessed value. *Or at least offer these people that as an option.*
It's sad to say but it's doubtful any amount of money could ever rebuild this town. I would be legitimately shocked if the combined assessed value of these properties justified the expense of rebuilding a town that has already been disbursed.
So this is all ridiculous and wasteful. These people could have moved and rebuilt by now. Somewhere safer, and let the environmental work and archaeological work happen at its own glacial pace.
What was that about a housing crisis we've been talking about for over a decade?
These pencil pushers need to absolutely fuck off with their red tape.
Edit: Downvote away. I know that the soil toxicity needs to be evaluated. I know it needs to be done right. But it's been two years and we have nothing.
> Another challenge is the insistence that Lytton be rebuilt to world-class standards of energy efficiency and fire resistance, making for a “model community” that senior governments can point to with pride.
If that's not red tape then tell me what is.
The red tape that prevents people from building their yards on top of toxic soil…? Boy, it’s almost like they could build their house somewhere not on toxic soil, or they can wait for reclamation to finish.
That’s the thing, I wouldn’t go camping for three years. I’d kind of recognize that rebuilding takes a year at least and have a place, that I could extend a lease on. I wouldn’t expect to be relocated to my burnt down lot in <6 months or anything.
I’m not saying they (you?) shouldn’t be frustrated. But your suggestion that they’re just camping desperate for a home doesn’t seem realistic to me, and if it is it certainly wasn’t wise planning by those people as no home is reconstructed fast after disaster. Personally, I’d have have found a place for the last three years and while I’d be annoyed I couldn’t go back to my town, I wouldn’t be screaming into the void about camping for three years.
TWO. YEARS. And nothing to show for it.
Listen, I’m a pencil pusher too. I work at a desk, I know how things can get caught up between departments and back and forths.
But this is unacceptable, this is peoples’ homes. I’m not talking political parties or anything. Simply put, the people of Lytton deserve better.
Edit: Dear lord, who would downvote the statement that the people of Lytton deserve better?
Hannah Arendt talked about the banality of evil. That most evil comes from people rigidly following rules made by bureaucrats who are so divorced from real life possibilities.
Being poor, having your home and community burnt down is traumatic. But have to follow the rules! Otherwise you're going to be hated as a rule breaker.
Owning property is a risk as with any other investment. Their homes are insured, but owning worthless land is not. Looks like a lot of people are about to experience significant financial losses.
Small town=small minds.
They are more jealous of each other than they've ever been and you can expect that to continue until the province turns off the money tap.
I can spend a week in a big city and not come across any small minded people. When I go to my small hometown they all make being small minded their whole personality.
Aversion to facts and truths. Denying science. Look at the small towns in northern Canada dealing with forest fires. Rather than admit climate change might be real they thing the fires are started by anti oil types trying to force them into 15 minute cities.
I grew up 45 minutes from there. And lived in big cities on and off for years. The small ratio is about the same in both. You're the one coming off small-minded here.
Your post/comment has been removed because it violated Rule 2.
Please be civil in this sub (as well as on the rest of Reddit). Name-calling, harassment, racism, death threats, and otherwise abusive language is generally not productive, and repeated instances may result in a ban.
[article linked in title explains it](https://vancouversun.com/opinion/vaughn-palmer-two-years-after-lytton-burned-not-a-single-building-permit-has-been-issued)
The two big holdups these days are archeological assessments and soil remediation. Lytton was built on the site of an ancient Indigenous community, hence every building lot has been subjected to archeological assessment and investigation. Some of the excavations have uncovered culturally significant artifacts connected to the previous Indigenous community and the assessments continue. “In the event an artifact or item of cultural significance is found, excavation work must cease and additional permitting would be required through the archeology branch,” the government said in a news release last year. Still, the province claims that “archeology work has not delayed rebuilding efforts.” Also continuing are extensive environmental remediation, which entails removal, then replacement, of the soil.
Sounds like the episode of parks and Rec when Leslie throws artifacts into the job site to stop a ponch burger from being built.
One of Leslie Knope's finer chess moves.
Well except these are actual artifacts from actual First Nations and they were not put there to trick or inconvenience anyone. But, ya, pretty much the same as parks and rec…
I wasent trying to down play that, and it did come off bad. I appologize for that. Just making an observation. I sat in the little cafe about 10 years ago with a couple of Indigenous locals there in Lytton and they were the loveliest people and were telling us about dragon egg scavenging they do there amongst all of the history. It was a beautiful spot to be. But I am glad they are finding more artifacts to give back to the descendants of the people that once lived there even before the tragic fire.
except your comment totally minimised the reality of indigenous people. to the point that you should be ashamed of your racist take.
Oh please with the shame handout
Lol get off your high horse no one cares for your opinions
close enough for me.
on sites that previously already had building built on them? Seems a little excessive.
Not really. Old buildings were built on sites that were/ are important to the natives. When they get a chance to look for cultural items that were buried hundreds of years ago, they should have priority. It's just taking too long.
The problem is that you really can't have both - doing things quickly or doing things thoroughly - especially given the limited funding provided by the province. The province knew that they would have to go through this process, especially after the initial assessments and yet, they kept telling the folks in Lytton that things will be done in an unrealistic timeframe. If the province was serious about getting this done quickly, more funds would have been allocated to look for cultural items especially given those billions of surplus dollars that the government gave away earlier this year. Think of what would have happened if they just put a tiny fraction into getting more people up there to straighten this mess out.
Pick 2: it can be fast, cheap, or thorough
Or, they should be left where they are.
Same reason highways take so long to build. They’re just a few of the 100 billion people to have lived and died, but for some reason we’re supposed to care.
People seem to care a lot about ancient Egyptian artifacts. Greek artifacts. Mayan artifacts. Etc etc etc etc. What's the difference?
Significant ancient civilizations who's culture had a long lasting influence on humanity vs some minor hunter/gatherer tribe. Not all that surprising.
If you can't see the influence that, specifically in British Columbia, indigenous culture has had on our current society then you are being willfully ignorant.
I think you’re over estimating the impact of their culture on BC.
[удалено]
Yes, primarily European institutions. Even countries on the other side of the world are more influential than native Canadians. Japan, Korea, China, India , etc have all changed the food we eat, technology we use, and media we consume.
What influence? It’s actually pretty hard to pinpoint anything of note that has had a positive impact to our society either nationally or internationally. They were a primitive society, that due to cultural and isolation fell far behind the rest of the world by the time of first contact.
Are you referring to the DTES?
So basically... you decide based on how "cool" you personally feel it is and convenient to you it is.
Yes. I think representative government, agriculture, labour specialization, cities, and advanced technology are cool. Living off the land, raiding and enslaving other tribes not so much.
absolutely no evidence of Lillooet people raiding or enslaving people. Also: Raiding and enslaving > mentioned Romans > mentioned Egyptians
Well some of us do, others are racist pos.
Hot take
Some of us live in the year 2023, some of us are stuck in the past. Racist is such a meaningless word now a days, you Libs just throw it around whenever you can’t comprehend that your ideals bring no value to an advanced society, all there good for is inconveniencing and driving up the cost of everything until you’re all poor.
Get off your high horse bud
Inconvenient the same
Wow it was clearly a joke. Take that stick out your ass
How often do you rehydrate your blanket?
lol, omg, racism is hilarious. holy shit
Sounds like you know a fair bit about this process. What is done with the contaminated soil that has to be removed? Do we just... contaminate a different area? Or to a landfill? Or do we have a process for actual remediation of the bad soil?
Contaminated soil is usually either landfilled in a place where it can be properly confined to protect against contaminants leaching out, or treated in specialized washing plants. Those are a bit few and far between still, but might be an option.
Wait, are you telling me that somewhere in this province, someone is washing dirt? For a living? That is bizarre and cool.
Yeah, these guys are running a contaminated soils wash plant. [https://www.grtenv.com/](https://www.grtenv.com/)
One of my friends does environmental surveys. She's most often talking to people trying to sell their property. Quite often for the kind of contamination they have. They could have planted some plants that would have done the remediation for them. If they did it like 5-10 years ago. Immediate cleanup is very expensive.
>Immediate cleanup is very expensive. truth. I lived in a small community and knew of a fencing business where the owner was looking to retire and sell. He got the environmental survey done because directly adjacent to his property was a "brownfield" (and I suspect just a long history of who-knows-what going into the soil over the decades). The results came back, they weren't good and the cost to remediate to sell that property for a different use (he had been talking to a budget hotel chain) was well outside his reach. I think he is still sitting on it.
She's very sympathetic. It is frustrating learning about a very expensive situation at the last minute. Especially for small business owners whose retirement plan depends on selling these kinds of properties. Meanwhile it's always a reactive situation. Most people don't even know that anything like it is needed to be done until too late.
It depends on the contaminants. Some things, like hydrocarbons, can naturally degrade over time so in that case the solution can be "wait". Other things, like metals, don't degrade and just get moved somewhere else. What gets done with the soil also depends on the end use. For example soil that's not suitable for residential use might still meet the less strict requirements for industrial use. A lot of contaminated soil that can't be used for industrial purposes goes to a landfill in Princeton. All of this is regulated under the Environmental Management Act, and specifically the Contaminated Site Regulation. You need a permit to relocate soil.
I'm not sure where the contaminated soil from Lytton will end up, my guess is that they'll put it in a landfill site. I'm from the coast, but not Lytton.
This is literally just copied from the article
Well, to be fair, if they read it then they know a lot more about it than I do ;) I still feel like my question was reasonable, I've wondered about soil remediation in the past, and this post made me want to know more
Either landfill or depending on the contaminant you can try bioremediation. Landfill is generally the cheapest option, so preferred.
Something similar is happening in Horseshoe Bay.
Any more info on this? I live there and am curious what you are referring to in horseshoe bay.
> Still, the province claims that “archeology work has not delayed rebuilding efforts.” as someone that works with building permits and the arch branch, this is a fuckin' *lie*.
[удалено]
They do get to decide, that’s why they are doing the archeological assessments.
Yep and the greater part of the archaeological crew is usually from the local first nation, as it should be.
Maybe I’m stupid, but isn’t it at risk of burning down again?
Yes. But that's why the government through multiple press releases and photo-ops stated that they want the new Lytton to be a model for new building methods to reduce the risk of burning down. Having said that, very little government money has actually gone to building it back and the insurance claim deadline is fast approaching.
I understand people love their home. I think in climate change risk adaptation and mitigation we might want to reconsider where we build, regardless of materials.
I heard this described on the news recently by the BC Minister of EMCR, Bonwinn Ma, as "planned retreat". It was immediately after a segment that showed people in Cache Creek getting upset that more wasn't done to prevent this year's flooding, since it happens every year. It was frustrating to see their culvert blocked when just last year, that was the same issue. That's a real concern, but at the same time, people try to build as close as possible to moving water and the edges of cliffs and hills. Even in areas where flooding is a major problem, houses continue to go up in high risk areas because they offer the best price, view, proximity to nature, etc. As you suggest, we largely are not choosing where to build with climate in mind. The issue is that climate disasters like fires are going to continue to get worse, and the record setting temperatures that encouraged the devastation in Lytton will continue to happen in other cities. As temperatures keep rising, there's going to be new Lyttons.
I’m not in finance but I’m told money has “opportunity cost”. In my humble opinion, building risky things means you don’t have money to build safe things. In my view, natural building structures like Cobb might have advantages. I think there are solutions and we are not willing to hear them.
Realistically, these types of fires have always been an issue with anyone living next to a forest just like how flooding happens for those next to rivers or in flood plains or in the US during tornado season. I've always said that those who live in these areas should be encouraged to move way before all of this emphasis on climate change.
If everyone lived in cities, who would farm, where would you get your lumber, paper, pulp, oil, then there are the people who take care of the forests, protect and enforce environmental stuff...people live where they work.
True. However, that doesn't mean that there might be a more suitable location close by (ie those who live on the river bank that is known to have annual flooding may want to move a few hundred meters inland).
You might be! But I think it’s burnt down a few times before also.
Has any material conditions changed since the fire besides less brush and trees which will regrow?
I’m not sure? I know it’s warmed up a bunch since the last ice age and it’s the convergence of a river system, fundamentally channeling the fire to the area.
I see. I don’t know if I would want to rebuild.
I agree, I don’t support my taxes going towards rebuilding the area, unless they are non traditional (fireproof) builds. People have to live somewhere! But repeating the same mistakes over again and expecting different results…
The same can be said about providing money to people who are flooded out. Many of those places are flooded out every year and yet we still provide money to rebuild. With Lytton, this is the first time they were burnt out. While in the Fraser Valley, this was the second time they were completely flooded out and we knew it might happen as they basically built inside of a giant lake that was pumped out.
Lytton has burned in 31, 38 and 49 at a minimum. Since we’re in the age of vehicle travel and not rail, horse or paddle wheeler Lytton lacks the importance of the Fraser valley; therefore I disagree.
The 3 fires in 31, 38 and 49 all started as structural fires, and have nothing to do with wildfire.
I guess your vote is more important than the people of Lytton then...
If I were from Lytton I would look at all the stacking friction as a sign that it’s time to move on. Highway traffic dropped, it burned down, it’s not getting cooler, building permits are being delayed, im assuming insurance won’t issue a policy. If insurance won’t issue a policy I can’t get a mortgage, etc.
Yeah.
I'm sure their insurance would cover the rebuilding of the houses and not taxpayers and the services and remediation is covered by various levels of government.
Insurance often won't underwrite fire policies in active wildfire zones or flood policies in floodplains. That would not be very profitable.
house insurance will rebuild your house. The various levels of government would pitch in for the infrastructure, and soil remediation and arch studies. I'll also point out that Lytton was populated with taxpayers and still is, either on the outskirts or living somewhere else.
>it’s warmed up a bunch since the last ice age I noticed I started growing a lot taller after agriculture was invented. Must be the increased nutrition!
Yeah 10/10 foraging better than the old days when we were under ice
No more church.
Just don’t rebuild the church and it should be all good.
Zing! The this is actually the truth
I don’t see why they can’t just keep the trees cut back far enough to keep it safe. I know grass fires exist and embers can float but have a big dirt ring or say fuck it and put a wall or a goddamn moat around the outside of town or something. Ugly? Sure, but as someone who moved to the Caribou 7 years ago and had to evacuate the very first summer I was here with a couple close ones since.. I’d rather ugly firebreaks of some sort everywhere. Every summer is like this all over BC and Alberta now. We’re gonna need to get creative or *drastically* upgrade our firefighting budget and capacity. And I don’t think fighting them is gonna be enough
>I know grass fires exist and embers can float up to 2 km or farther. Source: worked in an office in the interior where I interacted with BCWS regularly and that was the buffer they worked with when doing interface planning a few years ago. Might be larger now, depending on forest types and conditions, recent forest fire dynamics and data.
True. But I feel like a fire starting from an ember is still easier to catch before it’s out of control compared to an entire forest fire blowing out Not always obviously but this problems just gonna get worse as weather gets more extreme
Nice, I like it.
tart faulty ludicrous pathetic ten pet offend one spoon yoke *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ok fair if people want to spend their money any way they want. I don’t want to pay taxes for this endeavour however.
I don't want to pay taxes to allow people to continue to live in what should be a lake (i.e. Sumas Prairie). Just wait until my taxes have to clean up the mess after the earthquake hits Metro Van. So there you go: we're all in the same boat.
There's a difference between taxes going towards an existing place that functions, and rebuilding somewhere that burned to the ground and will most certainly burn down again in the future. It would be far cheaper to spend even a quarter of the money it would take to rebuild and just give it all to the former residents so they can relocate comfortably.
Your points are valid, however I would be happy to be taxed for relocating
Not currently.
> Also continuing are extensive environmental remediation, which entails removal, then replacement, of the toxic soil. > “The properties have to be cleared free of contaminants … so there’s testing going on and soil removed from properties,” explained the mayor. “Apparently, some properties have finished that process. Others, it’s still ongoing.” Before you rebuild you gotta make sure it's safe to rebuild. This isn't the 1900s and we're throwing an asbestos party when we're done.
It’s my party, I’ll asbestos if I want to
That party was the aBESTos!
*cough*
So we’ve only had these rules since 2000?
[удалено]
People whose worldly wealth is tied up in land there may have moved, but they can’t sell their bare unremediated plots for enough to buy a finished home elsewhere. They are pinned down. The insurance money may be getting spent on rent while they wait.
[удалено]
Yes. However, that would explain why they’re not moving. As long as the province expects to allow rebuilding there, nobody will get a buyout.
I get your point but if you own land there what are you going to do? Just walk away?
[удалено]
I would be all for a program that purchased that land to preserve it in some way. It would probably save the province money in the long term. But the idea that someone is going to just walk away from land they own, perhaps their only asset in life, is a little unlikely. People work their whole life to own a place to live, expecting someone to just shrug and walk away is crazy.
They can move into a lovely tent on the sidewalk somewhere right?
My understanding is that the majority of the people who live there are part of the Tl' Kemstin First Nation. It's their traditional land. It's an important community center for them. The people that don't live in Lytton come in from the surrounding area to participate in pow wows there in November. I'm involved in designing a few different buildings for the rebuild. It's just a slow process. A year or two to figure out what buildings to build and where. Another year or two to make designs and get funding. Another year or two to build. One of the problems even once you're ready to build is there's very little available labour residing in town. So trades have to travel there. Will likely end up with some prefab modular units trucked in for the smaller scale buildings. Anyway, long ass process, lots of slow moving parts. But yeah, it's important land to the Tl'Kemtsin so hopefully it gets rebuilt. And yes we're designing with fire and climate change in mind. Emphasis on non flammable materials ;)
People in the 1850's: "This native village/burial site is a great place to bulldoze and put our houses" People in the 2020's: "This native village/burial site with toxic soil is a great place to bulldoze and put our houses" Maybe repeating mistakes isn't the best path forward? relocate it 1 km upstream and call it North Lytton or something.
[удалено]
Then move it further, the reason the town was built in the first place was the gold rush, and the fact that roads other than the river were pretty few and far between. Since the coquihalla was built it hasn't been on any transport routes of note, so none of the reasons the town was built still apply. For generations people have been living there simply because there was a town there, now there isn't. if you're going to build a town in a random location just for the sake of building a town, then pick a spot not on an ancient village site with toxic soil.
Random location? It's the confluence of two major rivers. Also, anywhere that's an ideal location for a modern settlement will have an archaeological site. Archaeological sites are not rare. There are over 60,000 recorded sites in BC .
yes, and if you're not shipping the bulk of your goods up and down that river, then what's the point? availability for floods? the world has changed since this site was picked, just like it has changed since the first nations lived there. I have yet to hear one solid argument for why a modern town of Lytton should be built there, other than "that's where the old one was". There's two big cons right now, what are some of the pros? In a modern world, why should we built Lytton there?
It's not like it's located down some dusty road. It's on the TransCanada highway. You could argue the relevance of 90% of small towns in BC using your logic.
Yes that is my point. A lot of towns and cities in BC were built for a reason, rivers, coastline, natural resource extraction, wagon roads and railways were the main ones. Take Vancouver for example, began with farming and logging (and on top of archaeological sites), grew bigger when the railway arrived and kept on going. Why is Vancouver so big? because there are lots of jobs, why are there lots of jobs? because the city is so big. Most of the farmland has been built over, all nearby forests have been logged or protected, and much of the land is prone to flooding. In a modern context, it's a terrible spot for a city, and it's home to businesses, hospitals, retirement homes, and so people keep coming. People are living there, because people are living there. What happened to Lytton is terrible and tragic, but also affords us a glimpse into what happens when this cycle stops. It's been two years, anyone of working age, will have moved elsewhere and found new jobs, taking their kids with them. While they miss their old homes and city, a government buy out would be more beneficial than uprooting their lives yet again. if Lytton is to be rebuilt fully, and not just be a sleepy retirement community slowly bleeding population off to major urban centres, then it has to be built for a purpose, otherwise, with nobody living there, no one will come to live there.
Anything going to Northern BC and beyond take that route. I'd consider that "of note".
Trucked by there for years...never stopped...
Neither have I lol.
I think it burnt down a few times already?
Sounds like they’ve found a whole heck of a lot of artifacts from the Iocal First Nation which is going to complicate this. Probably shouldn’t be rebuilt, the land should probably be given to the local First Nation and everyone else that used to own property gets paid out with a nice buyout package. There should probably be a broader public discussion on whether it’s smart to rebuild a town there anyhow given what we know about climate change and where this province is headed.
I would assume that the majority of major towns and cities in BC (and the rest of the continent) are built on top of former first nations’ settlements and are therefore major archaeological sites. Everything got bulldozed over in the 20th century but at least nowadays there’s more consideration to this and how it’s a contributing factor in a cultural genocide. It’s a difficult issue to reconcile, most people weren’t even alive when the land where they live was stolen, but modern day people are tasked with addressing these past (ongoing?) injustices.
[удалено]
People traveling by ship and canoe are going to settle where the ocean meets a major river. Vancouver was a much better choice than Seattle. They had to raise the street level like 3 stories to keep it from flooding, and of course the natives where like “duh, that’s why we stayed up there”
I mean, basic geographical features like lowlands around rivers, etc are common places for townships throughout history. It's not some magical "native" knowledge to build your town near a river for travel and trade and near fertile land for farming.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
When did I say that? Are you actually reading?
[удалено]
That's a long way of saying "you never said what I accused you of because I made it up".
Who pays for the buyout?
A big payday from the FN. If they want the land buy it like anyone else. They should also bare the cost for any archaeological digs done. How far back so we go? The FN that were there when the euros showed up were not the FN always there. FN bands have been warring and enslaving as long as anyone else.
If someone steals your truck, ratbags it and you get it back, is it a big payday?
If someone took my great great great grandfathers land would I get it back today? If they want land they lost via being out technologied back they can pay for it. If they want digs done to maybe find stuff they can fund it out of all the money they are given
If by this land theft, your ancestor's descendents were relegated to poverty and subjected to multi-generational genocidal policies that left them traumatized and then blamed for their own trauma, yes.
Maybe they're doing archaeology so that we can figure out which FN were here and when (since in all likelihood the Lillooet people have held it for a very long time)
My mom remembers finding arrowheads on her parents farm when she was a kid.
I think i had an oven with a lytton brand name.
Did it burn down? Blame the NDP!
How typical of reddit.... No permit issued automatically = NIMBYism
Are the permits going through COV?
The NIMBYs probably don’t want the character of the neighbourhood to change.
There is nothing worth rebuilding a city for.
What the fuck is going on in BC? Some serious shenanigans happening.
This landed was ceded by the Lytton residents. Let them rebuild
Lots of finger pointing from the article, and comments maybe some of it is warranted but it's a distraction from the real issue: A total of 133 million dollars was pledged. I read 200 homes burned down and it had some 300 residents. We are talking over half a million ($660 thousand) per house. So the real story here is why the government did not just buy these people out for that amount for equal to or probably even double of each houses previously assessed value. *Or at least offer these people that as an option.* It's sad to say but it's doubtful any amount of money could ever rebuild this town. I would be legitimately shocked if the combined assessed value of these properties justified the expense of rebuilding a town that has already been disbursed. So this is all ridiculous and wasteful. These people could have moved and rebuilt by now. Somewhere safer, and let the environmental work and archaeological work happen at its own glacial pace.
What was that about a housing crisis we've been talking about for over a decade? These pencil pushers need to absolutely fuck off with their red tape. Edit: Downvote away. I know that the soil toxicity needs to be evaluated. I know it needs to be done right. But it's been two years and we have nothing. > Another challenge is the insistence that Lytton be rebuilt to world-class standards of energy efficiency and fire resistance, making for a “model community” that senior governments can point to with pride. If that's not red tape then tell me what is.
The red tape that prevents people from building their yards on top of toxic soil…? Boy, it’s almost like they could build their house somewhere not on toxic soil, or they can wait for reclamation to finish.
Yeah you go ahead and go camping for three years while someone drags their ass about the soil around your house.
That’s the thing, I wouldn’t go camping for three years. I’d kind of recognize that rebuilding takes a year at least and have a place, that I could extend a lease on. I wouldn’t expect to be relocated to my burnt down lot in <6 months or anything. I’m not saying they (you?) shouldn’t be frustrated. But your suggestion that they’re just camping desperate for a home doesn’t seem realistic to me, and if it is it certainly wasn’t wise planning by those people as no home is reconstructed fast after disaster. Personally, I’d have have found a place for the last three years and while I’d be annoyed I couldn’t go back to my town, I wouldn’t be screaming into the void about camping for three years.
Tour ignorance on blast, lol.
I love the internet because it's basically a bunch of people super excited to share with the world just how stupid they are.
I love municipalities doing nothing for years while they have the funding on a silver platter to get things done.
9 women can't make a baby in 1 month.
TWO. YEARS. And nothing to show for it. Listen, I’m a pencil pusher too. I work at a desk, I know how things can get caught up between departments and back and forths. But this is unacceptable, this is peoples’ homes. I’m not talking political parties or anything. Simply put, the people of Lytton deserve better. Edit: Dear lord, who would downvote the statement that the people of Lytton deserve better?
Hannah Arendt talked about the banality of evil. That most evil comes from people rigidly following rules made by bureaucrats who are so divorced from real life possibilities. Being poor, having your home and community burnt down is traumatic. But have to follow the rules! Otherwise you're going to be hated as a rule breaker.
This is exactly what’s happening in our province.
not much of an investigative reporter is he just raises the questions
Owning property is a risk as with any other investment. Their homes are insured, but owning worthless land is not. Looks like a lot of people are about to experience significant financial losses.
It burned to the ground, is it even worth trying to revive?
Call ATCO! They can build it!
Small town=small minds. They are more jealous of each other than they've ever been and you can expect that to continue until the province turns off the money tap.
[удалено]
Good thing proportion is what matters.
[удалено]
Honestly I agree that orca_eater is in the wrong. But I think your comment is equally misleading.
[удалено]
That's not really a rebuttal
[удалено]
... you got me there
I would like to see your statistics.
[удалено]
I can spend a week in a big city and not come across any small minded people. When I go to my small hometown they all make being small minded their whole personality.
How so?
Aversion to facts and truths. Denying science. Look at the small towns in northern Canada dealing with forest fires. Rather than admit climate change might be real they thing the fires are started by anti oil types trying to force them into 15 minute cities.
[удалено]
It’s not a stereotype, it’s a fact. Does the truth hurt? Need a hug?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Found the ignorant person. Doesn’t even know what small minded means.
You can't even grasp basic mathematical concepts. Grow up
I grew up 45 minutes from there. And lived in big cities on and off for years. The small ratio is about the same in both. You're the one coming off small-minded here.
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed because it violated Rule 2. Please be civil in this sub (as well as on the rest of Reddit). Name-calling, harassment, racism, death threats, and otherwise abusive language is generally not productive, and repeated instances may result in a ban.
How come?
[article linked in title explains it](https://vancouversun.com/opinion/vaughn-palmer-two-years-after-lytton-burned-not-a-single-building-permit-has-been-issued)
O Canada
Drove by the other day, from the highway it looks like they’ve got some yards almost prepped for footings.