Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
Reply with quote  #26 
Just Wondering.... Since, as I understand, All bodies of water fall under the authority of the Federal Govt. I'm just wondering.... Did the City have the legal authority or jurisdiction to treat the Erin Ridge Pond with toxic chemicals to eradicate the gold fish that has been flourishing there? I am thinking a similar circumstance where the old dump grounds (Today's Rodeo Grounds) was leaching toxic juice into the old sewage lagoon right next to it. (BTW Ray Gibbon Drive goes right through the middle of it).

Also on that note, is there any monitoring of the old sewage lagoon as to it potentially leaking into the Sturgeon River and Big Lake that are both right beside said sewage lagoon?
0
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #27 
@Willy: I'm pretty sure stormwater ponds are under provincial jurisdiction (see: aep.alberta.ca), not federal. The signs posted at Ted Hole park and by Edgewater pond stated that the city was working together with Alberta Environment to deal with the goldfish. I've seen the fish there many times over the past few years and have put in complaints. There had to have been hundreds upon hundreds in Edgewater (and I couldn't keep my kids goldfish alive for more than a couple of months in their bowls!). It's about time they were dealt with. Apparently other cities in Alberta also have this issue. Frankly, I find it hard to believe Big Lake or Sturgeon River don't have goldfish as well. Seems to me if people think nothing of releasing them into the stormwater ponds, they'd dump them anywhere.
0
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #28 
Here's the link:
http://aep.alberta.ca/water/programs-and-services/municipal-wastewater-and-storm-water-management-program/documents/StormwaterManagementGuidelines-1999.pdf
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
Reply with quote  #29 
Just wondering. Cathy Heron sponsored the library movement to the tune of $1000.00 - would her voting against the motion to rescind the funding and so be considered to put her in a conflict of interest as she has invested $$ in supporting the library? For her to vote against what she invested money in would be throwing that $1000 down the drain. IN MY OPINION that seems like it would be a conflict of interest to me. By ignoring the plebiscite wishes of over 60% of the voters and still pursuing the branch library et al she is "protecting" her investment.
Boy this has started early in the term.
0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 292
Reply with quote  #30 
As Willy has said this council is showing its stuff right out of the starting gate. As far as the conflict of interest is concerned, while it can certainly be argued that one exists from a moral or ethical standpoint it does not require a recusal unless a pecuniary interest could be proven. Their hair brained reasoning about respecting the wishes of the losing side on the plebiscite is mind boggling to say the least.
0
who_me

Member
Registered:
Posts: 69
Reply with quote  #31 

Don't be too fast to discredit that train of thought.

If you follow the same logic, I have just as much right to ask Her Honor and a majority of Council to step down in order to appease those of us that didn't vote for them.

Works for me!
0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 292
Reply with quote  #32 
Message to 'who_me': So go for it, preferably in a public forum such as a council meeting, and more power to ya! I for one will certainly show up to provide moral support. [thumb]
0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 746
Reply with quote  #33 
Just Wondering - will El Kabong have to go to the courthouse - with geeeetar in hand and beg to do away with HIS BYLAW? 

"The city said while the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits the manufacturing, promotion or sale of instruments for illegal drug use, difficulties in enforcement has rendered the law ineffective."

“The bylaw is valid and is binding law in St. Albert,” said McAnsh." (nowhere else though...)

“In my view, the amending bylaw has the look and feel of morality legislation,” said Clackson in his decision." (they obviously don't know a whole lot about El Kabong.)


TWO BURNING QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN:
1) Why did we have to go all the way to Quebec to secure a lawyer for this situation?  Aren't the city lawyers good enough?  If not, why are they still here?

2) If the lawyer for Chad 420 does in fact take this to the supreme court - are we still going to be held responsible for Kabong's "morality legislation"?  Don't know about the rest of you, but it really appears that he had quite a grudge going.


0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 292
Reply with quote  #34 
In reference to the item on today's St. Albert's Place front page I very much desire to extend  'Happy Birthday' wishes to Elke Blodgett. Her steadfast devotion to environmental and other issues facing our community is most commendable. I look forward to seeing her whenever I attend council meetings, open houses or other public forums.

Have a great day Elke! ................. Murray. 
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
Reply with quote  #35 
Just wondering..... how is it that just about every news media outlet in the Edmonton area has a story about the incident on Everett Drive that happened yesterday and yet not a peep from the local rag. I'm sure it will mention it in Wednesdays publication but as the local you'ld think they would be all over it. I'm sure it will be regurgitated info that's already been published by the out of towners.
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 227
Reply with quote  #36 
Whelp, as predicted the local paper had a feebly written article regarding the incident on Everett Drive that happened on Sunday. The last one to report on the incident had the most time to investigate and research and get updated info and had the least amount of info. They only had 2-3 days to dig into the situation and get more info. The "out of towners" had hours, print and tv media did a far better job and got the news out in a substantially shorter time.
A person was reported with life threatening injuries. How is this person doing?
2 people were involved. Are there charges or pending charges?
What instigated the altercation.?
What is the relationship of the 2 subjects? Strangers? Friends? Familial relationship? One was reported elsewhere to be a teenager.

RCMP was on scene well past 7:00 pm. Road was closed at least until 10:00pm
What about the "hazardous" product that necessitated the haz-mat team to respond and clean up? Was it drugs? (Car Fentenyl (sp?)) bodily fluids? Gasoline? Acid? WHAT?

Just really disappointed at the lack of effort put into that "news" piece.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.