|
______________________________________________
Visitors' Comments:
The Concerned Citizens of Ottawa Group invite your comments.
Those who wish to come forward with information, (civic employees, and
others in vulnerable positions), who require anonymity,
However, to ensure the veracity of the information we
receive, all email correspondence must have contact information,
This is YOUR chance to help change things for the better. INDEX PAGE | PAGE #2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | NEXT | BACK | HOME
-
Page 2 -
CONGRATULATIONS
Your Group has to be congratulated for speaking out. I
hope the City decides to do the right thing ---as it was requested, from the
very beginning--- that is, to install the newer alternative option, a
high-technology treatment system, on site. DISGUSTED
I'm thoroughly disgusted, with the 'mismanagement',
(for want of a more accurate term), at the City of Ottawa.
LEADERSHIP ISSUE
Our elected representatives should not be paid the 'big bucks', to be mere
'Rubber Stamps', for staff-driven agendas and boondoggle schemes! Last month, it was
'Taj Mahal-Bus-Bathrooms', now, this. The Mayor and Council should
get a grip on staff, and quit whining about, out-of-control, infrastructure
costs.
COMMON SENSE When you consider what Munster residents wanted MOST: getting rid of the lagoons, and when you apply common-sense rationalizations to the CRA, (F-1) Matrix: the pipeline ---with its obligatory lagoon, and other associated problems— doesn’t even come close to filling the bill. The Snowfluent process looks great as a technology, but NOT for Munster: mainly because of the need for lagoons, and their incompatibility with the soil conditions, fractured rock, and drainage characteristics of the Munster area, plus the site’s proximity to homes and heavily traveled roads. The process that stands out as the CLEAR WINNER is the proposed, Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC), Mechanical Treatment Technology, discharging to the Jock River. I firmly believe the Regional engineers realized this, prior to the Request for Proposals (RFP), when they forced CRA to add the pipeline-lagoon combination as a SOLICITED, NON-COMPLIANT, ILLEGITIMATE, late-comer to the RFP —completely skewing the process. If the Mechanical Treatment process had been installed, and operational by 1999, for the proposed, $3.12 million —as should have been the case: think of the millions of dollars and years of time that would have been saved. For anyone who takes the trouble to logically follow through all the rationales of the three alternatives, it becomes readily apparent that the public interest, the environment, and the tax-payers have been seriously short-changed by City officials. Gerd Lohmann, Munster area resident
DISGRUNTLED INDIVIDUAL OR ?
I am inclined to post comments on this problem, however until I know who is
behind this website or who chairs the committee, I will consider it a rant
by an individual with his own ax to grind.
Rick Hopkins- Munster REPLY TO RICK HOPKINS Dear Mr. Hopkins, The group of Concerned Citizens, who have authored the Website: www.OttawaSewergateFiasco.com, started with about 12 individuals and other civic-minded groups spread mostly across Ottawa. Many of the names are already known to you from the media and posting of the OMB Decision, etc. Obviously, the OMB appellants had a part. The Munster Lagoon Watchdog Committee had a part. Some of the people involved in the Trail Road leachate issue are involved. And, now, even some of the King City (Region of York) people have become involved, (because of the alliances that have been formed between the City of Ottawa, the Region of York, and the same consulting engineering firms: mainly CRA and R.V. Anderson, have been collaborating on both fiascos. The Concerned Citizens group has been attracting many good engineers, and a few others, who work, or have worked for the City, and hope to work for the City in the future. They would like to see this whole mess get cleaned up, and the City exposed and held accountable for its underhanded and wasteful way of doing business. We are obviously unable to disclose their names. The same goes for some of the other contributors, who want to help, but are linked with the City through contracts or grants. Some of the people who fit these categories live right in Munster, and we do not want to put their jobs or family security at risk. The list of names of people involved with us is growing all the time, and while we do not have a chair person, per se, we work very effectively through group telephone conferencing and emails, on the many tasks. I agreed to be the one to respond to your request, because I was the PLC member who was served with the SLAPP action from CRA, simply to suppress what I heard at the ROPEC Meeting, on August 5, 1998, which is being used as evidence against the City and CRA in pending litigation. The City is apparently doing everything in its power to delay the litigation. This whole matter could be cleared up tomorrow, by the courts. On behalf of the group, we appreciate your interest, and hope that you will see fit to write a comment for our posting that may help facilitate a quick and proper solution to this ghastly business. Sincerely, Richard Bendall UNEDITED
Please be advised that the information contained in
your website reflects the views of a minority (2 people) and in no way
represents that of the many citizens who support democracy in the City of
Ottawa through the honest and transparent approvals process. (Editor's Note: The following link puts a further perspective on the above letter, with respect to process intervention, high cost and time delays: CLICK HERE) REPLY TO BRIAN GRAY Sir,
ONE MUNSTER RESIDENT'S ANALYSIS It is frightening to contemplate such blind adherence to the party line in the post Walkerton reality of Ontario's new political landscape. Why is there such resistance to treating Munster's effluent in Munster? Since when does it make more economic and environmental sense to ship your problems elsewhere? I was appalled to learn at the OMB hearing that the current plan was to keep at least one of these lagoons open to handle peak periods. Thus, the current pipeline option is, by the planner's own admission, designed to handle less than the current combined maximum volume of waste stemming from the two communities in question. It seems folly to gamble that both Munster AND Richmond do not grow and increase their volumes? Now we learn that more than one "holding tank" may be needed on a continuous basis in Richmond. Why are we settling for shortsighted, piecemeal solutions? Munster deserves a process that has the capability of dealing with tomorrow, not something that can barely handle today! The other question to ask ourselves, is: What will be the environmental and economic impact of a pipeline on the already low water levels in the Jock River? Taking liquid away to be treated elsewhere and dumped into the Ottawa River, several kilometers down-stream, would seem to exacerbate an already precarious situation. Assurances that the export of vast quantities of effluent would not have a detrimental impact are certainly unsatisfactory unless they can be backed by credible and impartial environmental assessments. And what about our communal wells, and individual rural wells? Walkerton clearly speaks to our rights to litigate against public officials who do not respect the sanctity of our clean water supply. Knowing the ramifications of "rebuilding" the current lagoons clearly puts the onus of responsibility on those who approve and carry out the plan, but do we really need to have someone in our family fall ill (or worse) before the risk is assessed to be greater than the benefits? It is unfortunate that, instead of searching out the best solution and getting on with it, Municipal officials have opted to dig in their heels and waste money fighting for a plan that has been called into question by just about everyone who has taken the time to examine it with any modicum of attention (including Provincial Officials!). If it smells bad, looks bad and taste bad...it's probably bad. You don't need to be an engineer to see the flaws in the current City position; common sense would appear to be sufficient. I thank you for the site and hope that it will somehow encourage answers from our officials. I for one, would like to get the whole story, from both sides of the debate, in an effort to make an informed stand...although, I must admit, the opacity of our decision making process and the inability to get straight answers to simple questions that concern ordinary citizens has not given me confidence. Rather than attempt to educate us on the logic behind their position, our municipal officials seem more interested in squashing the right to free speech of those actively calling into question the "official" plan; like a bully with no better defense, when they get questioned on their position, they yell "shut-up" and use coercion as their weapon of choice! It is of little comfort to know that our revisionist officials are capable of rewriting the definition of "Democracy" so easily? Do we dare let them have a similar go at the word "Accountability"? JWP, Munster (YOUR COMMENT HERE)
INDEX PAGE | PAGE #2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | NEXT | BACK | HOME
|