At some point, we’re going to have to do something with that water treatment plant. Not the one currently in operation under the auspices of OCWA — Ontario Clean Water Agency — but rather the older one, the one replaced by the newer one maybe twenty years ago.
Until we do, we’re going to have ourselves a problem, which is a way of saying that we may see several problems emerge from an abandoned building situated between two strands of the Bonnechere River.
First is the legal liability issue, something Councillor John McDonald asked about as he requested the town seek legal advice as to the current situation of the plant and the municipality’s legal responsibilities involving keeping it in place unmolested, or knocking the thing down and carting it away.
Second is the site security issue, as in can the site be secured in such a manner as to prevent the town from being liable for any injury suffered on site, whether the presence of the individuals hurt was authorized or unauthorized.
Third is the possibility that the site may, and I say may, be part of a network that area homeless people use as a shelter.
And fourth is the cost, as in how much will it cost to demolish the whole thing and truck it off the premises, something that probably should have been done back when it was closed back in 2006 or thereabouts.
As to liability, I don’t know why, but back in school I always found Tort Law to be an area of great interest, but as well an area of great complexity. Which means that I had a high degree of interest, but it wasn’t matched by any corresponding marks that would indicate success. And I can’t figure out a way to discuss this issue within the context of criminal law, constitutional law, or civil liberties and human rights, areas of keen interest but backed up by keen numbers. But nevertheless, I bash on.
Sometimes, in law, it doesn’t matter what you do to secure a property from encroachment by unauthorized outsiders.
You can put up a fence, even two or three fences. Hell, top those fences with barbed wire, and even electrify the fence if you feel up for the additional cost. Install a watchtower with a full roster of security guards, all packing lethal weapons and night-vision gear. Supply them with motion detectors and heat sensors. For good measure, throw in a couple of F-35s flying combat air patrols over the site. You don’t have the sight locked down, but rather, you have the site LOCKED DOWN.
But then some little dweeb manages to slither through all of that one night, enter the grounds of the property, and fall through a 4’x8’ sheet of plywood that somebody thought would make a great cover for an open hole that once had some function back when the plant was in operation. Although unauthorized and strictly prohibited, our little visitor goes into the hole and suffers grievous injury, perhaps even death.
And despite the precautions, the abundance of safe and prudent thinking, and despite the F-35s, a Canadian court may still find you guilty of negligence because you had a hazard that existed within your layers of defence. That despite your over-the-top security, somebody still got in, meaning, ipso facto — that’s Latin law talk meaning that the facts basically speak for themselves — that it’s still your fault because, well, you didn’t do enough to keep the site secure. And the guy breeching your perimeter and falling in a hole and killing himself is proof in its own right that you didn’t do enough.
So, as long as this abandoned place is left standing, there’s always going to be that potential for some form or some interpretation of liability. A legal opinion is therefore valuable but by no means absolute. Lawyers offer interpretive services, and advise based upon their interpretation of the facts on hand and how they mesh with the laws of the land and the precedents set by courts in past decisions. But such advice is not absolute, nor is it ironclad. Lawyers are infallible nor are they incapable of giving bad advice. Still, notwithstanding all that, getting a legal opinion shows good faith and due diligence, something that may be advantageous as you defend against a personal injury or negligent death lawsuit. The legal advice sought may well be considered a mitigating factor in your favour. Perhaps not a get-out-of-trouble free card, but the dollar amount in the settlement might be reduced as a result of that good faith.
As to the homeless and their possible involvement? Everything I just said concerning civil liability applies, so it needn’t be said again. Some form of on-site security would be helpful here, in that you can at least ask them to leave and have the police help with that if needed, which is another example of good faith and due diligence. And yes, security costs money, so perhaps this security function can be handed to a municipal employee who makes the rounds ascertaining the security of many, or even all municipally-owned sites.
And never underestimate the value of simple security cameras, even if they happen to be simple trail cameras that activate upon motion detection and don’t break the bank financially. There are plenty of camera options where the cameras don’t cost a boat-load of money and the footage can be accessed in real time or recorded to be viewed upon most phones as well as desktops.
Tearing the place down should have been the order of business back when it was taken out of service, but that’s a moot point, because it wasn’t. And when you punt things down the road often enough, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that economic conditions might be even worse when that future eventually arrives.
And economic conditions couldn’t possibly be worse than they are right now for Renfrew and the residents that pay the taxes that keep the trains running on time, a tough metaphor since the last train went through these parts twenty years or so ago.
An argument can be made that it’s just not economically feasible to undertake such a costly venture, one that doesn’t have any curb appeal because nobody ever gets to see the result of it, or benefit from it, since the place is tucked away at the end of Mutual Street, a place where I’d guess most of Renfrew’s residents know nothing about. In these times, it may be more tempting to spend scarce dollars on things people can see, use, and benefit from, like a newly-paved street that doesn’t dump coffee on you as you drive along it, or throw you through your windshield.
There are projects seemingly beyond numbering that could sorely use those precious tax dollars that the town doesn’t have, or if they do, they have fleetingly, since most of it is spoken-for before before they even get it into their coffers. So an abandoned water treatment facility would rank well down the list.
It’s tempting to say that the plant is in an out-of-the-way spot, protected by three fences, only one of which is ever open, that being during the work day to allow access for OCWA employees. The fences are barb-wired. And nobody, as in the government, is clamouring for the place to be demolished. So with that in mind, it’s been sitting there for almost twenty years, so it can sit there for twenty more. Spend the money elsewhere, places more visible, places that matter more to people. Places that can be pointed to as examples of the fine work council is doing in the community.
An abandoned and out-of-the-way water treatment plant doesn’t check those boxes.
In the meantime, might I suggest replacing the plywood with a more concrete solution?
Like maybe concrete?
NEWSMAGRENFREW 