'Absolutely not': Burnaby mayor won't support any future projects that remove parkland

Burnaby’s mayor says he won’t support any projects that propose to remove parkland dedications in any of Burnaby’s green space going forward.

Mike Hurley’s comments come days after council voted unanimously to scrap the idea of building a controversial organic waste facility at a beloved riverfront park.

Hurley told the Beacon in an interview immediately after a special council meeting on Monday that the issue of removing parkland dedication is not one that will ever come up again.

“Not when it comes to parks. Absolutely not. If we can't find the industrial land that we need to put this somewhere, we'll have to work with Metro Vancouver or other municipalities to see what other solutions perhaps we could come up with,” he said.

“It's not going to be easy, though.”

The Green Recycling and Organics (GRO) facility would have removed 21 acres of dedicated parkland at Fraser Foreshore Park.

Opposition to the project from members of the community was swift and outspoken—many residents said that while the facility itself was worth pursuing, it should not be built on parkland.

Under provincial legislation, the city was required to gain the approval of the electorate before moving forward with the project.

Burnaby chose to do so by way of an alternative approval process, where anyone opposed needed to send in a signed form by mail or in person. If fewer than 10% of eligible voters in Burnaby sent in the form, the city could move ahead with the next steps like public consultation and public hearings.

However, members of the community also decried the AAP—saying it put too much onus on those who were opposed to the project to participate, and saying it didn’t adequately engage the public.

Monday’s special council meeting saw councillors acknowledge to a packed city hall that the AAP missed the mark on public engagement.

“Today I would say what I’ve learned is that this council [needs to] commit to not having an AAP to take the land out. It needs to be a full referendum. … We chose to use [the] AAP. All of us did. We didn’t do our homework, none of us did,” Coun. Sav Dhaliwal said at the meeting.

Hurley agreed that in the future, any similar projects requiring the assent of the electorate must be addressed with a full referendum.

“Especially when it comes to issues of parks or removing land, in the future—certainly, as long as I'm around—that will always be the number one way that we do things,” Hurley told the Beacon.

“Hopefully, we never have to consider anything like this ever again. But if we do, then it should definitely go to referendum.”

A referendum would operate under the same rules as a local election, where residents would be asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the issue at hand (rather than only those in opposition to a project needing to take action).

Hurley said he heard from dozens of Burnaby residents since the GRO facility proposal was announced, most of whom opposed the project.

City hall was packed with residents during Monday’s special council meeting, a rarity for Burnaby politics.

Hurley said the last time the electorate in the city was this involved with a local politics issue was during the controversial discussions around the Metrotown Downtown Plan—before he was elected mayor.

And while he said that the AAP would have been the first in a long line of steps before the GRO facility actually went ahead, he said it was a good thing that people were so passionate about the issue.

“I think that's democracy. And that's a good thing. People will come, and they will want to have their say,” he said.

“I think councillors reacted to what the public was saying—that while they support this facility, they don't want to see it in that location, or in a park. So now it's incumbent upon us to see if we can find a different solution.”

Hurley said staff are already working on finding an alternative location for the GRO facility—a tough job, because there is a scarce supply of industrial or agricultural land left in Burnaby.

“Sometimes things come in the market and can surprise you. It’s very unlikely, but we'll keep trying to find the right location. Because I think council is unanimous. And I think the public fully understanding that we do need a facility. It's just, you know, certainly not in that location.”