« Christmas trees getting mulched | Main | More on roll-out of waste bins »

January 17, 2012


Looks like I don't get mine until 2014. If I'm lucky, by then they'll probably have decided the whole exercise is a waste of time and money and I'll never see a cart.

That is assuming that the Compost Plant has not been shut down for Odor violations that cannot be solved, or the City refuses to put in enhancements like the scrubbers and booster to address the odor issue.
Who in their right mind would spend the money to "rough in" changes that seem to be required to fix the problem and then not spend the money to install the fix? Answer -Guelph Council/Administration. Or is it that the price is so high that they do not want to upset the taxpayer? It would be nice to know the price of the booster enhancement as the price of the scrubbers has been quoted. What about the designer/builder/operator? They should eat some of the costs too!
(I know - this will only get rid of 0ne of the three carts, but what the heck - $5 millions is five millions.

I just checked the map,and it says 2012. I don't know when in 2012, but I hope its December so I don't have to smell the dirty suckers after sitting in the heat for 2 weeks in the summer. Nobody wants these carts and I have no idea where to keep them, so I'll just leave them at the curb.

I'm told the carts are to go into use in early October.

Cynic: Adding support for optional features is standard engineering practice, and almost always a good idea.
I'm not sure what your problem is with the rough-ins. Do you think they shouldn't have been done at all or do you think the extra pieces should have been included from the start? If so, why?

I think we all should just leave them at the curb.That way Guelph will look so much nicer for any vister passing through.This will also show anyone who wants to move here what Guelph homeowners have to deal with.Then they can go elsewhere to live and not put up with the crap we do.All i know is i can't wait to retire and get out of Guelph.

What part of my post did you have trouble with?
See my second paragraph - first sentence. Then see also the last sentence in the second paragraph. To make it easier for you -Yes the total fix should be installed. After all the $32 million is already spent, and I would not like to see a twin for the SUBBOR initiative.
Composting is at the early stages of witchcraft - No Science behind it that I can see. Just another feel goog pipedream by the Mayor and the other PHD on staff. They have finally discovered the difference between homogenous infeed, non-homogenous infeed and the lack of monitoring technology to moderate the process.

I guess thst we can thank God that they are not proposing a nuclear solution!!

Steve - I have a bit of trouble with this wording as well. "Optional"??
What happened to the "tried, tested and proven" comment. The only optional equipment I might think of, is expansion capabilities. In my view, this was not optional equipment, but rather, "ya let's take a chance on it working to reduce costs. If it doesn't then we can simply add it later". City Hall is playing word games in desperate attempts to cover up this boondoggle.

I would also submit that they are looking at time or some other project to take away the focus of this system and cost.

Serious has it right in, thank God we are not trying to build a nuclear plant.

On December 2, 2011, Mayor Farbridge wrote:

"As you know, the City has recently received complaints of odours related to the new organic waste facility on Dunlop Drive. We want to apologize to residents for the unpleasant odours and ASSURE YOU WE ARE TAKING EVERY PRACTICAL STEP TO INVESTIGATE AND ADDRESS THEM with the design-builder and operator of the facility." [emphasis added]

Recent information about the technical modifications falling short of optimal response sure would seem to suggest that the City is not taking "every practical step" to address the odours.

"ya let's take a chance on it working to reduce costs. If it doesn't then we can simply add it later"

Sounds like a prudent decision to me, depending on how much of a chance you're taking.
If your options are spending $x to have a 90% chance of success, or $10x to have a 99% chance (you probably can't get 100), I'd choose the former, especially if you can still upgrade later if necessary.

LOL, great idea Steve.

I mean, why would people waste money and buy all four lugnuts when a wheel will probably stay on with just two? People who actually do a job right are just suckers, eh?

So in your way of thinking if you go into a
car dealership and purchase a car and as you
drive out of the lot you notice you have no brakes so you go back and and the sales person
says well if you want to upgrade that is going to cost you more that would be okay.
Wow,you must be the one writing the mayors
press releases.

Those are some of the worst analogies i've ever seen.

LIken this more to a family building a new home and roughing in a bathroom in the basement. The two upstairs should suffice, but in case not, the small cosst for the rough in allows for ease of future expansion.

Nice try with safety features on a car...

Exactly, T.M.
If you want a car analogy, this is more like the manufacturer installing a trailer hitch mounting bracket, but not installing the hitch as standard equipment.

Perhaps not relevant Steve but this is actually common practice. Trailer wiring is actually in the back of most cars, just needs to be completed by adding about 2 ft and the clip. Want heated seats... if it was an option available but not purchased, the wiring is already there, you just need to plug into them. Satellite radio, DVD player, all the "rough ins" are there for simple future "plug and play"

Anyways the point being, rough in in any industry is not unusual, nor is it a bad thing in my mind

Not sure about your analogies, T.M. and Steve... your analogies do not involve forgoing adding to something you have roughed in for and as a result the "system" does not work as planned as a result. Your analogies are similar to the "rough-ins" required to expand the facility.

A closer analogy would be to forgo the vent stack regarding the toilet or forgo the muffler from the vehicle's exhaust pipe assembly.

Jim has it right -- this is about a "tried and true" design with "rough-ins" failing.


Rough in or not, I hope they have the odour problem solved by the time we all start using these bins because the smell coming off these city wide will cover up any problem...............ooohhhh wait a minute!!!

Do you know if the money is already spent for these carts or can the purchase be postponed until there is irrefutable proof that this giant compostor is going to function properly.

Somehow we got off the beaten track here. The roughins for the most part were for equipment that could have prevented the odour releases (So they think now). The equipment was not installed. The builder and the city stated tried and proven. If it is tried and proven and these roughins are not for expansion, but now required to stop odour releases, then what are we missing here. Either the system as installed was tried and proven or it wasn't. The fact we had odour releases shutting down the $33Mil facility tells me someone is blowing the proverbial smoke up someone's ___. Your car anologies aren't in the game as far as I am concerned.

Jim, the technology was referred to as tried and proven, not this particular implementation of it. The goal of system design isn't perfection, the goal is to meet the requirements...usually just barely. So designers often add the capability to tweak the system in case they fall a little short of their mark.
The exception is any system where failure would cause death or injury, but that doesn't apply here. We just get temporary unpleasant odours.
I really don't think this issue is the public policy failure many of you are making it out to be.

Steve said, "I really don't think this issue is the public policy failure many of you are making it out to be."

Try telling that to the neighbours who were promised an odour-free plant. The effect of these problems is clearly associated by proximity to the plant. You may not think its a problem Steve, but those closeby certainly do, and with all due respect, your opinion doesn't mean much to me because you are not personally affected.

Look, when you speak about public policy failure, the basic issue is that the residents of Guelph been forced to assume an enormous debt to subsidize a massive service to our neighbours because our Mayor wants to hug a few trees - and have us pay for it. And on top of that, we are also having to deal with problems we were promised would not exist. And now we learn that the "fixes" to the problems were known, but just not installed during initial construction. Some here call that prudent and responsible fiscal constraint. Others here call that irresponsible and ignorant governance.

This is indeed a public policy failure - technologically and more importantly, financially. And only time will tell if it is an environmental failure as well.

And really, who actually knows what is going on? We have been misled during much of this process. Personally, I don't have a lot of faith in the City's Chief Garbage Officer when she tries to tell people the smell is rotting leaves. I mean, come on. This is the person leading this project?! Janet Laird should have been fired already.

Steve's making a lot of sense here.

Rough-ins are a very good idea. If the emphasis was completely on cost saving, they would have simply skipped the rough-ins.

And if they had, there would have been a legitimate complaint.

As it is, the rough ins are there and hopefully the fix will be effective.

DC: Your shrill whining isn't carring a lot of weight. Aren't you the same person who's dead set against the student housing on Gordon St. because it blocks your sunshine and doesn't "transition" to the neighbourhood? You're ignoring Steve's concise, correct, and legitimate explanation of standard engineering practice. Steve's right: odours aren't going to kill you, and neither will noise. Nor having your afternoon sunshine blocked. I think you fall squarely into the category familiar to city staff everywhere: "That person will never be happy no matter what you do."

We have to do something with organic waste in the same way as we have to do something with students. There are no perfect solutions, and while I have an objection to the cost of the wet plant, I have to grudgingly admit that it's an attempt at a solution -- a solution to a problem that's only going to grow with time.

In my experience, one NIMBY is much like another.

Steve - I don't disagree so much with what you are saying here. What really gets me is what is said and what is real. I know your background as you know mine. Where I see the failure to communicate is when in the planning stage it had to be discussed that we are going to put these roughins in as you, the tax payer are going to pay for them. I would have said fine, but what are these for and why. That's when the discovering should have been made. I am saying that those who were involved are smart enough to ask those very questions and probably did and then responded with a risk to cost assessment. The builder who is saying tried and proven were no longer tried and proven without this equipment, as there were odour releases. This is no chicken feed of a building at $33Mil and it is still shut down. As you know in private business heads would have rolled, but not so with city hall. The worst of this is not the odour release as I see it, it was temporary, it is who is going to pay for the fixes. Seems to me every time we go into a major project we generously over shoot budgets. How is Council supposed to have credibility if we can't budget, ever, properly.

Just to put in my two cents worth - Steve and GOC come across as supporters of the Mayor in her environmental agenda, on which in their opinion she can do no wrong.
But lets look at the record. Plant #1 a complete failure on many counts. Built on the cheap with Galvanized iron, against the advice of the Guelph company who did the galvanizing, Many odor complaints resulted and on top of that a series of health complaints by the immediate residents which were well above "normal" statistics. Add to that the modelling showed that putting a booster in the stack would help to disperse the odors.
It was omitted from the design. WHY? - I suspect to save quite a few bucks and hope that the "current and proven" design would work. To check out the statistics on the health problems talk to the Head of the local neighborhood association. So GOC the odors "may not kill you" but thay can make you very sick. Do you know what toxins the odors contain? No, of course not, so why put out such an unfounded statement?
To quote my Scottish Grandmother - "We are not so rich that we can afford to buy cheap!
Yet that is what the City did or maybe it was the builder? I don't care, it is just another monumental piece of Stupidity by the Gang of Eight and the Administrative Head of this Operation. And $32 million is not cheap for what we got!
So here we are again with a problem Compost Plant and instead of facing up to the problem the perpetrators of this mistake are avoiding the extra expense - that expense must be embarrassingly high. Let's get the truth out.
So you see Steve and GOC you are taking a Newfy Shower on behalf of the Mayor, the gang of Eight and the Lady on staff responsible for this mess. Your credibility is fast approaching a negative number.
By the way several of the plants referred to as "odorless" have had odor problems particularly the Hamilton one, and the designer/builder was hoping that the Stack on the Guelph plant would solve the problem. Well it looks like it is time to go back to the drawing board.
There is no Science in Composting, just the delusion of Treehuggers.
OK that is more than two cents worth,, but think about it.

Serious Cynic has a point, one which undeniable: Guelph is run by a class of people who have a penchant for greenwashing and pseudoscience.

Cynic, I promised myself I wouldn't get into arguments with kooks on the Internet, so let me just say there isn't a single part of your post that is correct.
Really? GoC a Farbridge supporter?

Easy to point fingers here, yet i've not heard even one reasonable solution to the problem of Waste Management from this and I quote "highly educated, intelligent" group here at 59.

So what do you want to do here guys?
Truck it to Eastview? Truck it to another City? Truck it to another Country?
It's their problem now, not ours!

Here's news. Waste management, recycling, composting and all of the other processes that accompany GARBAGE is a growing challenge in all developed nations worldwide.

While I don't advocate spending tax money recklessly, I also don't advocate sitting idle and doing nothing about a growing problem facing much of the world.

Easy to be an arm chair Politician, of which there are many here at 59. Asked to come up with a solution and lets see where you land


Cut the BS.
What did the modelling show? Do you know? Well the people i know in the City staff indicate that it showed the booster would avoid the problem.
So you can see ehy i point you out as a mindless supporter of the Mayor and the in my opinion incompetent Senior Administrator of this expensive waste of money. She should be fired.
And as for being a kook, at least I am not a mindless A--Kissing supporter of this freespending Mayor who has with her gang of eight put the City on the brink of financial disaster.
You are pathetic and what exactly have i written that is off the mark? State your argument not your unfounded insinuations. Then i can rebut them. But you will not do that because you cannot!
I like to debate facts with idiots like you because you do not have any. Ready to rise to the chllenge? I doubt so.

And Back at you TM - You complain about us and yet offer nothing yourself. We have all said the facility or better yet the idea of composting is good. You only complain with no substance. This facility is bogus to start with, we know that. Even GOC says now that we are into it let's fix it. Steve, GOC, Jim, Serious, DC and others all agree. Where do you stand other than blowing your horn. Getting tired of your comments with no substance. Stand up and be counted. Sit back and say all is good, then go away, because you are not living in the real world.

Re your post, we have made suggestions that mean nothing to the pathetic treehuggers in this town including the Mayor who has never had a real job in her life.
Does the phrase "Energy from Waste" mean anything to you?
If so then get off your soapbox and tell us why you do, or do not support it.
We live in the most wastefull society (North America) in the history of mankind and those of us who fight for intelligent solutions for disposal of our excessive consumption are shat upon by the faux-environmentalists of the world, who do not in my opinion have a friggin clue.

Can someone answer a couple of simple questions for me?

Will the booster and scrubbers solve the odour problem? Were they part of the original design?

and fwiw grumpy, for the umpteenth time, I have never said "No" to the student apartment, I have always said the proposed structures are "Too Big". I'm not sure why you consistently get that wrong.

Th booster was/is a rough in...in goes at the top of the stack. The original plan was not to include the acid scrubbers but the MInstry of Environment required them to put it in at a cost of about $395,000.00

Thanks Laura. You seem to be knowledgeable ... so if I may ... did the MOE require the scrubbers after the complaints were filed last Fall? Was/is there an MOE requirement concerning the booster? Thanks.

The modelling indicated that the booster would help diffuse the odors into the atmosphere above the top of the stack.
So what this junk science solution does is disperse the odors in the upper airstream and HOPE that no resident can smell anything. So the same amount of odor is sent out the stack but is "diluted" thus providing a solution - but how cheap is that solution? Since the modelling indicated it would work, then why was/is the booster not being installed? A rough in is not an install.
Remember the 70s Mantra - The solution to Polution is DILUTION!
The same amount of toxins just diluted. See what I mean about junk science?
I trust that the neighbors are amassing a legal fund as I do not see this solution working in that particular location, and the residents were there first.

Serious Cynic, you are right- the rough in is just a space that they allotted at the top of the stack in case they need to install a booster. But obviously, the thought crossed their mind that they may need this type of equipment to try and help with diluting the odours. In my opinion the only reason they have not install this is because they need it as a buffer so when it stinks again they will have another item to put on their action plan to try and eliminate the odours and obviously money ( you should have seen their face at the PLC meeting when it was suggested that this be installed ).
DC - the acid scrubbers were already in place at the commencement of the new facility , it was something that the MOE added as they were negotiating with the City in regards to their C of A. There is no MOE requirement to have the booster. The only requirement by the MOE is that they meet their C of A- no odour s over 1.0 odour unit at the most sensitive receptor site ( Stone Road) . However, according to the Environmental Protection Act - no facility can have an adverse effect on he environment or member of a community i.e. odours for residence. They have already breached their C of A numerous times and the fines for this can be up to a million dollars. Considering they are in the commissioning phase ( residence are reasonable here they are starting up ) but how long do they get a by for being in the commissioning phase...that is the question.

Serious - Energy from waste, thanks. Yes i'm aware of and in fact a big supporter of garbage incinerators and power generation as a result. Challenge is, they are extremely difficult to get approved and horribly expensive. I've oft wondered why North America wasn't bigger into this method of waste disposal.

Jim - I complain about complainers that simply point fingers and blame but never move beyond. Namely ones on here who just say repeatedly "it's the mayors fault". You want my solution, First stop complaining about EVERYTHING that the Mayor does, and start having productive, logical discussions about solutions, not a finger pointing blame game. If i've learned one thing over my years in business, and through my parents and mentors, complaining and pointing fingers does not solve anything. Once a problem is identified, get your "complaints" out of your system quickly and go right for options to solve the problem. Quite frankly that's the exact reason I believe North America has stopped making progress...Both Canada and the USA politicians spend more time in office trying to discredit the other party, that we've stopped making stuff happen.


An interesting article from The Record regarding waste management challenges.
$100-250 million to build an incinerator and almost impossible to get a new landfill site approved in Ontario. What are the options these days?

You want a solution, TM? Here's a solution ...


Several of us have been calling for that for months, TM, so don't try to say that none of us are offering solutions!

Well T.M., you are starting to say something. The only thing you miss is, of course, my discussions with not only the Mayor, but Janet and her staff as well. Having lived in the industrial world for better than 30 years, working design and operation of many facilities and industries it seems as though I have no credibility with these people though, as my experience and thoughts just fall on deaf ears. So what more would you like me to do? To complain about all things, no, you can find that I am in support of many things this city does. It is when they get into major projects that they royally mess up. Each and everytime it costs us, the tax payer, multiple times more than it should have. Check the records.

DC - I wouldn't be as harsh on Janet in that way, as she is good people and tries to the best of her abilities. I would put someone more competent above her though, who could control and make sense of things with proper and logical justifications. I also recommend that next election we find a competent soul to be Mayor. We need to fire up the residents of this city to the point that they will actually get out and vote. Farbridge is in power because of approx 15% of the voting population of Guelph. And she speaks for the majority, as she put's it?

Okay so we fire Janet Laird, and vote out the Mayor. great
Waste Disposal where do we proceed with someone who is "competent" in each role.
Looking for a new landfill site?
Spend a quarter billion on an incenerator?
Attempt modern composting as we are?
truck it to someone else's region so we don't have to worry?

I don't like this situation anymore then you do but rolling heads doesn't necessarily put us in a better position.
Waste Management is a huge problem across North America.

You are right on that notion T.M. That's why we must continue with what we have to make it work. Bottom line is what we all have been advocating. Doesn't mean though that we just accept with no backlash. We've done that too many times and in each case we cost more money. When then do we stop the bleeding? You can't keep sweeping this dirt under the carpet and say accept and fix. History has shown us in Guelph that we keep going back to the same thing. Different project, circumstance etc but same sh_.

Yes itis a huge problem. And one that is compounded by a lack of leadership by the Provincial and other levels of Government.
They should be fullfilling a Leadership role by encouraging Regional Solutions. You are right in that they are good at saying "no" to once-popular disposal solutions - mainly landfill.
Saying no is easy, but it does not deal with an exponentially growing waste disposal problem.
Regional "Energy from Waste" solutions are capital intensive. Municipalities like Guelph cannot afford to finance them. But if the province were to facilitate the building of a Regional facility serving several Municipalities like exist in the Golden Triangle, then not allowing landfill sites to be opened would be acceptable. As it stands, landfill sites are cheap short term solutions, but Environmentally expensive in the long run. Instead the Provincial Gov't. wastes its time on Green Energy initiatives which are poorly understood and serve to do nothing but become very expensive partial solutions.
I have tried this approach at the political level but it falls on deaf ears. Inexperience, incompetence, lack of knowledge and stupidity are not restricted to Guelph planners, it is a Universal problem.
If the Eco-enthusiasts really want to achieve something, then this is an issue worth fighting for. Demand some Leadership from the three levels of Government.

The old approaches no longer are effective, it is time for fresh thinking.

Hey now we're talking!!
Jim - The challenges of the capital projects and the implications financially aren't pretty I concur. I suppose where we differ is in the scope of the problem. I have in the past posted links and lists of projects all over Ontario from hospitals to road building that have either stalled, gone over time or over budget, financing debacles etc......or all of the above. It would be just as easy to find the same in the private sector. As a tax payer it sucks. In reality, it's well...reality. The construction industry as a whole has cost over runs and timing over runs in major projects everywhere. See anything nuclear related for our worst track records.

Serious is on the money. This is a problem that extends beyond KF and crew. It's easy to use them as the scapegoat, but it's not necessarily the best approach. As a province and country we are poor at finding collective solutions to waste management. Regional solutions aren't working. I've long said pop a couple of monster sized incinerators in no mans lands between KW & London + Guelph & Hamilton + London & Windsor and lets manage waste on a massive scale collectively. Easier said then done I know.

Among KF haters that it's easy to see her standing in the new, empty facility playing the enviro card all day long to look good...let's blame her. At the end of the day her and Janet Laird aren't to blame in my opinion. They chose a somewhat logical solution given limited or no options. we can't open a new landfill. we can't build an incinerator. Compost it or truck it elsewhere are the options.
The design and/or lack of optional features...that's really the discussion that should be had.

Roll all the heads you want, it'll just necessitate finger pointing from one administration to the next, one position holder to the next and citizens to whatever the flavour of the month is. It will not solve the problems

You are all over the place here, TM. Do you wish to debate waste management in general? Current methodologies? Social ills that result in garbage? Sure, fair enough. But Im concerned about this plant. This one here in Guelph. Yes, it is certainly too late to discuss the philosophical merits of building a composting plant that puts one city and its residents in debt in order to serve another city. That ship has sailed. And it stinks.

But on this plant, this one here in our town right now ... it is pretty clear that Janet Laird is in way over her head here. Rotting leaves, anyone? Maybe Cargill? Hmmmm. And our Mayor, as much as she wants us all to plant trees and eat local produce is failing us miserably by allowing Laird to remain in this position of decision. And yes, I do blame the Mayor for both initiating an experimental and very expensive approach to our waste problem and more importantly right now, for also not having the sense to get someone in who knows what they are doing.

not sure where i've lost you. As Serious stated, waste management is not supported well at a provincial or federal level. I add that as a result, at the Municipal level, including Guelph, strong waste management strategies are difficult if not impossible to develop and implement, leaving a City like Guelph to have very few options if any. So what gets done? A composter is built.

It's the design that needs improving clearly.

So again DC i'll state what I mean about Laird and rolling heads and being in over hers... if it's not Janet in charge of Waste Management it's person X. What options would person X have in that position to explore for waste management in Guelph?
Compost it. Build a new landfill. build an incinerator. truck it elsewhere.

How would they fair? and would you be any happier then current? i speculate not

Again TM, there is no more exploring. There are no "options". The plant is here.

So it is up to Janet Laird to ensure that it works as promised.

For starters, don't treat us like idiots and tell us the odours are rotting leaves. Or worse, blame it on an innocent local company. With that sort of response, one has to seriously question the competency to move forward and not only solve this issue but more importantly ensure this entire exercise does not become another Subbor.

T.M. - I believe what I am saying and possibly DC, however I can't speak for him, is that yes the options are limited in today's scenario's. That is not what is at issue. What is, is the decision to build such a large facility that may cater to our needs but will cost again and again to look after someone else's problems. We can barely afford our own needs, so why are we paying for some one else's. The treatment we get from our city leaders which is like DC says "idiots" is inexcusable. Composting is not the issue, again. It is the promises made and broken, the size, the extra's after the fact, the hardships we put our residents under, the financial strain that is put on us via the taxes. Need I go on?
Go back to, yes we need the facility and need it fixed as we have $34mil invested in it now. As another major project that has failed to start as predicted, get rid of those that can't predict and get some one who can. Stop trying to protect those that control as there is no more credibility there.

T.M. - Here's some questions one of my associates has asked. Interesting...Care to answer?

Under exactly what conditions would you consider it to be appropriate to let a senior staff go?! What do they need to do to merit being fired? Same for the Mayor - what exactly in your books has to happen for a change in Mayor be justified? Or more basically, do you have a line in the sand? If so, where is it?

The Mayor and council can hire and fire the CAO. Everyone else is supposed to be off limits to their interference...including Janet Laird. If you want Janet fired you need to take your case to CAO Ann Pappert, since she is the only one with authority to do so.

As for the Mayor...what has to happen for a change in Mayor to be justified? That one's easy - an election. Personally, I'd like to see an sweeping change across the horseshoe next term...hopefully some good people will run that can earn my vote and even my campaign support. Because, despite what Cynic wrongly thinks, I don't support any politician at City Hall and never have.

With this composter issue, my interest is in making this facility work, not in second-guessing how it should have been designed and calling for people to be fired.

I've been on enough construction sites to know that cost and time overruns happen for many reasons, good, bad, and ugly.

There are technical problems, supply problems, and just plain screwups. There are permit problems, zoning issues, and too-bright (or too dumb) regulators. And there are design changes, schedule changes, and cost changes.

Of the possible problems, the easiest to avoid are the changes. Whether the wet plant is a construction success or not depends on whether it eventually works and what it eventually costs.

The biggest factor may well be how much waste we accept from outside the city and what we can charge for it.

Does anyone seriously thing that the cost of waste disposal is going to go down in the short-to-medium term? No? Good bet.

If we can get the thing working, if it lasts as long as it's supposed to, and if we can accept enough waste at a high enough price--big ifs--then this may turn out to be a pretty good project after all.

The worst kind of construction change is to quit before generating any revenue. Let's try and get some use out of the thing.

If. We'll see.

HI Grumpy Old Corporal
Quick question for you G.O.C.
You once said on 59 Carden st how you can't wait for the plant to open and show all us
nay sayers how wrong we were.

So the doubts and questions the residents of Guelph
had have come true.
But in saying that now all the money has been
spent i do hope that somebody can figure out a solution.
My finger is getting pretty tired of plugging the whole in the dam and hoping that somebody has a brain fart and comes up with a solution.

@GrumpyOldCorporal, thank you for your analyses of the construction industry. After hold-ups and complications at other infrastructure projects across the city, someone is dropping the ball in city hall indeed. That being said, a (working) organics plants is a great benefit and has the possibility to generate review (under some private/public partnership).

Hi Jim
The question of the point when senior city
staff should be fired.
The answer is easy when the person disagrees
with the mayor or when the mayor screws up really bad and the mayor needs a scape goat.
The Mayor being changed is when all the free
spirited forward thinking people in a city
(like Guelph)open up their tax bills and realize how high the bills have grown over the last number of years and how the services in the city have diminished to the point of being a shameful prospect.

Don't recall saying that, Frosty. Do remember saying I'd be laughing if it did work out, and the naysayers would look like idi-- silly. Which remains to be seen. See you in a year or two.

Jim - If you've been in business as long as you say, you'd know there is no way one could sit here and list the merits for firing a Mayor or a Councilor. It could be one factor, it could be 10 factors, a combination of x, y and z or something stand alone.

To your second message;
Yes there is burden and tax increases and debt etc... and if Guelph was alone in what's giong on, i'd say lets look seriously at making major changes. Have you read the news in the last 156 weeks? How about the report I posted showing debts of major Ontario cities. Everything and everywhere financially right now struggling, save for a few. Debt loads are high, taxes are increasing and cities bankrolls are shrinking. It's not an excuse to spend more, it's an understanding of reality.

I'm surely not trying to protect anyone and the flip side is i'm surely not thinking rolling heads is the solution either.
We agree, it's a $34million necessity, lets fix it and get it working, because the $250million incinerator isn't coming!
I'm all about looking at situations bg and small objectively and deciding which battles to fight.

diarihfdvcir i spelled victims incorrect =o -Cheap Marc Jacobs tsk tsk tsk... Cheap Marc Jacobs yboujltfdc

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Joanne Shuttleworth is the newsroom lead in municipal affairs coverage for the Guelph Mercury. She is a former Guelph YWCA Woman of Distinction honouree and a past winner of an Ontario Newspapers Award for her work as an editor. You can reach her at jshuttleworth@guelphmercury.com

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

January 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30