Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #51 
All I know of this issue is what has been posted here and the little bit of news it has generated pertaining to the Mayors pecuniary conflict of interest litigation. 

Tuclimit has provided supporting documentation that an operation was shut down in its early existence. The previous owner may have continued to operate illegally. I am not sure as Craig has provided no evidence that it did continue to operate other than he says it has.  All I have seen so far is Craigs fear and speculation.  Right from the beginning that a big ugly brick garage was built. Albeit all with in the Citys permitted regulations. IT sucks and you don't have to like it - You made that well known from day one.
Craig, you claim that several trees on your property have died and you strongly suspect due to soil contamination from your previous neighbor.  Why not take samples from the ground around where the trees were or along your property line and have that analyzed? You don't need to do a $20K phase 2 inspection to do that much. I speculate that it shouldn't cost you more than a few hundred dollars. I would consider that money well spent. If contamination is found then I suspect that you may have substantive grounds to pursue this further.  As I see it - its a put up or shut up situation now. 

Craig you state " I only want to ensure my family and I are safe from any form of contamination."
At this point its a case of closing the gate after the horses have got out.  If there was any contamination it would have happened by now or it never will.  This, to me, seems like you are too enmeshed in this situation to see the forest for the trees.  If I had felt my family's health was being compromised and it appeared I was getting no where fast I would have moved my family, at any cost, away from there a long time ago. 
IF the results come back negative for any contamination, would you, could you - accept that finding?  Some how, now, I don't think you would because for 30+/- years you are so convinced that it was happening.

Please don't take this as me attacking you.  You do what you need to do and I hope you get some satisfactory resolution to this but either way it plays out; I don't think you will.
1
Kevin

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 274
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnoughAllready
@Kevin, Do you think people don't support this person? Of course, by asking questions, they are being attacked, right Kevin? Kevin, the most impartial man in the room. Everyone has an agenda but Kevin. You get upset when people are being attacked, but when simple questions are being asked so people can understand someone's rationale, it's attacking as well. Can't win!


Tim,

I believe that there a number of people who support Mr. Tuclimit. However, Steve Stone isn't one of them. Steve has an agenda. Steve has a pecuniary lawsuit in play.

I simply let Mr. Tuclimit know that there are some who support his actions (some may say inactions) and his right to be left alone.

Willy gave a great synopsis.

__________________
 
1
PrairieFire

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #53 


Steve has an agenda, but it is entirely unrelated to potential contamination on 80 Salisbury. Steves agenda is public accountability of elected representatives and I am certain that this objective is not shared by all of the posters here, even though it should be. Mayor Crouse voting on this complex environmental issue while owning property nearby is not ethical whether the property is contaminated or not.

It seems to me the only way to resolve the issue of potential contamination is to have an expert come in and test the soil.
I'm not sure why this has not already been done and why the new homeowner would not welcome such a test especially if they are confident that there is no contamination? Conversely for whatever reason if this offer has been refused its incumbent on those affected to get testing done. I hope the city works with the affected landowners in this process.


1
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #54 
The recent posts on this thread raises the following questions;

Given Mr. Skarupa is asking for a Phase 2 to be done on his OWN PROPERTY, why are people alleging that he is invading Mr. Tuclimit's privacy?

Given that the facts establish that 80 Salisbury has had an area of potential environmental concern  (an APEC) and a history of contaminants of potential concern (COPCS) why are people saying that there is no evidence and this is pure speculation on Skarupa’s part?

Since the potential environmental concerns affects the value of both 80 Salisbury and Skarupa’s land, negatively, why are these two landowners in an adversarial position?

If as Mr. Tuclimit seems to suggest, there is no environmental problem, why does he not support Mr. Skarupa’s bid for a phase 2 study which would resolve the problems for the entire neighbourhood?

0
Ted Durham

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 371
Reply with quote  #55 
There is a simple solution to all of this.  First, find out what it would cost to get three samples taken and analyzed.  Second, Take the samples from 6 inches within the property line of the Skarupa property, all next to the garage in question.  Third, get the analysis done.  If there is contamination, the city will have a huge problem because they will have covered this up.  The people who own the property in question will have no choice but allow their property to be examined as someone is going to be held responsible by Alberta Environment and they have eminent domain and "will" make sure it is cleaned up if it is reported to them.  Simple answer to get it done.  Forget the Phase 2 survey, do some simple tests.  Certainly someone can come in and do some core samples to get examined.  When we know the cost, do a crowdfund page to get the money to do the testing.  All I see here right now is a bunch of people talking about a problem.  It is time to put up or shut up.  The City of St. Albert is going to do absolutely nothing about this and the suspect property owners have no interest at all in their property being tested.  So start on the Skarupa property.  I will donate to the crowdfund page if it happens.
1
Steve Stone

Member
Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #56 

Original Post by Kevin 17.02.25    post#52

“I believe that there a number of people who support Mr. Tuclimit. However, Steve Stone isn't one of them. Steve has an agenda. Steve has a pecuniary lawsuit in play”.

 Kevin, with all due respect to you, I must correct you on your comment. You are right – I do not support Tuclimit, but in stating I have an “agenda”, you are dead wrong. You cast a negative and deceptive light on my contribution as what you judge to be an “agenda”.

My lawsuit against Nolan Crouse for his alleged actions of Pecuniary Interest has no bearing in any comments in this thread – whether the comments were posted by me, you, or any other person for that matter.

Your statement was out-of-line and has no place in a reasoned discussion. An apology from you would be appropriate.

1
Steve Stone

Member
Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #57 
 

Quote:  Originally Posted by Steve Stone
tuclimit...
... why are you simply not prepared to have
the tests done so that everything can be put to
bed one way or another?
Simple question...give me a simple answer,
without any tangents.

 Quote: Posted by tuclimit     post#47

“Because no one - not Mr. Skarupa, not you, has ever
produced concrete evidence that there is contamination..”
____________________________________________________________________

 Tuclimit, your comment above defies logic. The City’s
Administration, after 30 years of delaying and avoiding
facing the matter has finally come to the conclusion that
there is sufficient evidence to undertake a Phase 2
Environmental Assessment test
. T
hey are prepared and
willing to do it, at their costs, but you have blocked
them from proceeding.

I suppose they elected to do the assessment at where the
evidence points - “ground zero” – your property, instead
of Mr. Skarupa’s since that would be the most realistic
and appropriate point of testing.

As responsible and honourable residents, you, me and
each and every one of us has the duty as members of the
community, to cooperate by whatever means or capacity
we have, to contribute in securing and protecting the
common good of all.

Again tuclimit, I ask you to reconsider and allow
the City to proceed, without further delay.

Thank you for your consideration

 
2
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #58 
Steve,
Correct me if I am wrong.  I believe the City offered $5000.00 not the full $20,000.00 towards a Phase 2 Environmental study. I suspect the City has conceded to offer the $5k as a meager offer knowing that, likely, no body would (for what ever reason) come up with the $15k balance.

As I stated previously-  no one has (that I am aware of) provided any actual proof of the previous owner disposing of used oil or other fluids in his yard.  I would think that had he been disposing of used automotive fluids in his yard some one would have seen him over the previous 30+/- years doing just that.  Many repair shops have used oil storage tanks that are not buried. They are steel tanks that are ULC/CSA certified. They come in many sizes from 500L up to several thousand liters. Some today still use old oil drums, used totes etc. Just because his sump system was sealed off does not mean he automatically was dumping his waste fluids in the yard. That is IF he was operating a repair shop.
Also no one has yet to proven that he was actually running a commercial operation out of his garage. Where are his customers?  IF he was in business that long surely someone would or could come forward confirming that they had their vehicle serviced there. You would think he would have a rather large list of customers. SOMEBODY could vouch taking their vehicle there.  If I was trying to prove he was running a commercial operation I would have had some one I know take their vehicle there. Hell I would have taken my own vehicle there just to get to see the inside of the shop and see exactly what is going on in there.  I would have gathered irrefutable evidence. 
People have commented that he ran the shop where the old the Texaco operated and that the ground there is contaminated.  I would bet a dozen donuts and a flat of beer the ground is contaminated by leaking under ground fuel tanks and not from waste fluids.
If you remember back in the late '80's  early '90's the govt started a push to replace and re-mediate leaking under ground storage tanks.  Be it old heating oil tanks on long forgotten farms to service station fuel tanks.  Many 1000's of underground storage tanks over the years have been long since forgotten as no one kept records of what company had under ground tanks and where they were.  Many service stations have come and gone.  Clean up of these contaminated grounds can cost into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Does anyone remember where Jasper Auto Parts used to be?  About where the Tourist Info - Chamber of Commerce building and Super Store are now?  That yard would have been seriously contaminated from all the vehicles that had come and gone out of that yard the 40 or so years Jasper Jack had that business.  There was never any soil re-mediation done at that site.  It was leveled out and construction started right away.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #59 
Willy: Do you think that 80 Salisbury would pass a Phase 1?
0
tuclimit

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #60 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Willy: Do you think that 80 Salisbury would pass a Phase 1?


A phase 1 has already been completed:

A letter to Skarupa from former city manager Chris Jardine dated June 20, 2016, indicates the city reviewed documents and files as part of a Phase 1 assessment, determined “the potential risks of environmental contamination were low and did not warrant moving to a Phase 2 assessment.”
http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/Resident-asks-city-to-fund-environmental-assessment-20170211

0
Craig

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Willy: Do you think that 80 Salisbury would pass a Phase 1?


A phase 1 has already been completed:

A letter to Skarupa from former city manager Chris Jardine dated June 20, 2016, indicates the city reviewed documents and files as part of a Phase 1 assessment, determined “the potential risks of environmental contamination were low and did not warrant moving to a Phase 2 assessment.”
http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/Resident-asks-city-to-fund-environmental-assessment-20170211


Tuclimit - read my post #30. In a letter from C Jardine dated June 20,2016, he stated a Phase 1 was completed.
In a letter from C Belke, Chief Legislative Officer, dated November 23,2016, he stated no record exist for a Phase 1. Belke's letter is 6 months after Jardines letter. My question, Who do we believe? I want answers.
What's going on at city hall, regarding this matter.
0
Steve Stone

Member
Registered:
Posts: 39
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally posted by Willy post #58
"Steve,
Correct me if I am wrong.  I believe the City offered $5000.00 not the full $20,000.00 towards a Phase 2 Environmental study. I suspect the City has conceded to offer the $5k as a meager offer knowing that, likely, no body would (for what ever reason) come up with the $15k balance."_____________________________________________________________________

Hi Willy. As far as I know, the City did offer to do a full Phase 2 at their FULL cost, but it was blocked by Mr. Tuclimit. Subsequent to that rejection, $5000 was offered to Craig. This is the impression I have; Craig can you comment on this? Am I mistaken?
Re the rest of your comments, there is no need to prove anything before conducting a Phase 2 assessment. That is exactly why the assessment needs to be done. - to test once and for all, to determine whether or not there is contamination. Remember ...if I'm correct (I believe I am) the City has seen a need to do it and offered to do it but was blocked by the current owner, Mr. Tuclimit.
Why blocked? That's a mystery. It certainly raises a "red flag" for me. We are dealing here with a situation that could possibly have long-term and serious life and deadly health issues. If it is the case, I fear to think of the consequences if it continues to be blocked. 

Let us clear the air and get this thing addressed quickly and in a sober and responsible manner. Hopefully, there is no dangerous environmental  contamination - that would be a very happy outcome for all. Conversely, if there is hazardous contamination, we better fix it now - and fast! Irresponsible and negligent delay in this matter  will surely have the consequence of a very nasty fallout. 

Once again Tuclimit, for the peace of mind and the good of all your neighbours,  please reconsider and have the Phase 2 Assessment ordered immediately.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #63 
The Alberta Environmental Site Assessment Standard (May1, 2016) states as follows:

P.8
"The primary objective of a Phase I ESA (Environmental Site Assessment) is to determine whether a particular site is, or may be, contaminated."  (emphasis added)

So if a Certified Inspector attends upon a Site and discovered a garage which has been used for the commercial purpose of repairing motor vehicles and has an underground storage tank which was used for oil and other M.V. lubricants .... what are the chances he will certify that there is no possibility that this site is contaminated???
0
tuclimit

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #64 

Steve, I will not be allowing heavy machinery onto my property to dig monitoring wells simply because of Mr. Skarupa's campaign of fear and speculation. You do realize a phase 2 is not simply a technician with a shovel and a bucket for soil samples, correct? Please stop harassing me.

If anyone, including Steve Stone, could actually bring forward some evidence I am more than willing to review it and then re consider. I asked Steve Stone several days ago to present the evidence he claims I'm lacking, but he has yet to post it here or reach out to me via private message.

Through the documents I already posted, I have shown with concrete evidence that the city shut down this garage operation in 1986 and sealed the tanks. By his own admission in post # 49 Mr. Skarupa admits that his
“Impact Statement” dated November 27, 2015 was the first time he presented his theory of soil contamination. As such, the true question we should be asking here is why he waited 29 YEARS to present his theories of soil contamination. Why didn't he make these complaints YEARS ago, when the garage was allegedly running?

I hate to say this but the only logical reason that I see is that he waited until the previous owner Mr. Haight had died and as such is unable to defend himself. Truly sad.

0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,169
Reply with quote  #65 
Well, I for one have just about had enough of the verbal assault on tuclimit for now. Too many here are so far removed from an issue that has no real life impact on themselves or their families, that it is absurd. Their involvement is not anything that can be called immediate or even remotely possible as to having any real effect on their personal lives. In other words, they should bow out.

This has turned from an exchange of polite posts between the two proponents ie, Skarupa and tuclimit to something that has outgrown them both.

Through it all, far too many totally unaffected residents have chastised one party or the other for contrived misdeeds.

The only person here who has offered a reasonable solution to the mess is post #55 by Ted Durham, at least in my view. That throws the full obligation on Skarupa to conduct his own tests on his own property to either confirm or put to rest, his concerns and makes nothing but sense. Others have offered financial support to have this done, including my donation if that is what it takes.

It also takes the city out of the matter for now. It does leave the potential to fully involve the city, if such tests determine there is actual contamination.

That is the way I see it and on that note this thread is done.

Thread locked.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.