Comment 43725

By BobInnes (registered) - website | Posted July 20, 2010 at 21:23:08

If the city can't go after the people who left the hazardous stuff behind, then i guess we'll have to suck it up, literally. But we all (city, province, feds) should learn a lesson and remove protections of corporate bankruptcy and go after prior owner's estates when barrels of hazmat are left behind (tho i'd hate to think someone would pour it into the soil to avoid the expense). Which then leads to the thought that all this hazmat, remediation and safety stuff has become a bit of a boondoggle. 30 years of trying to make the system bulletproof and Nimbyproof has made for an expensive system full of red tape and white suits. Which makes people hide stuff instead of taking responsibility. So to some degree, we bring this stuff on ourselves, so logically, its up to us to pay and i hope, to try to loosen up the system so its not quite so expensive. This is one case where greenies should adopt more reasonable/realistic attitudes.

So the logical use of the Future Fund, which itself was extracted from legacy assets, is to FIRST pay for legacy remediation before any is directed to future infrastructure (which should pay for itself on its own merits). But 100 million burning a hole in our pockets should not just be blown away, at least until the bloated bureaucratic boondoggle of hazmat makework is itself remediated.

Also, while not generally being a supporter of Matt's Clipboard Cops idea, (I'm more live and let live) I have to admit that this a great piece of work. Kudos Matt.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools