Just when you thought you’d had enough!


I just don’t know what to say… except maybe

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

TheChronicleHerald

NINE years ago, we paid what seemed like a king’s ransom to corral la crème de la crème of the continent in Quebec City. The security bill for protecting 34 international delegations at the Summit of the Americas cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million. No one remembers if the tête à tête was a smashing success — except perhaps the hooligans who took the opportunity to trash the city.

If only Canada could still protect modern-day summiteers for that kind of coin — give or take $20 million in inflation costs. Apparently not. It was revealed last week that the pricetag for providing security for the G8 and G20 summits in Ontario next month is estimated at a mind-boggling — perhaps even boondoggling — $833 million. It could climb to almost $1 billion.

In 72 hours, Canada will spend roughly as much on security for world leaders as it did during the 17-day Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

The cost of summit security does vary widely depending on location. A year ago, the G20 get-together in London apparently came in at $30 million; two years ago, the Japanese spent 10 times as much to ensure the safety of the G8. But $833 million, or more, is unheard of.

The cost began ballooning after the G20 crashed the party. The original plan was for Canada to host the G8 in rural Muskoka, but world leaders recently decided the G20 — comprising top developing countries like India, Brazil and China as well as the richest economies — is the new G8 for all intents and purposes.

In an unprecedented move, Canada offered to piggyback the G20 on the G8. But the logistics of accommodating 12 more delegations no longer worked for Muskoka. So it stuck with the G8, while Toronto is now hosting the G20.

Security costs skyrocketed when the latter moved within range of skyscrapers. Sealing off a cityscape is a much more expensive proposition. Vast sums are now being poured into this operation, although no breakdown in costs has yet been presented. The opposition rightly wants federal spending watchdogs to investigate. The secrecy around security bills must change.

So must the way in which these pre-cooked, glorified photo-ops are arranged. If world leaders want to meet in person and in peace, let them choose sites that already have secure perimeters, like military bases. Citizens’ lives need not be disrupted, nor their wallets depleted.

Sounds like Council has everything under control -not!!!!!!!


Doug Gammie and his friends have taken the bull by the horn in Sauble!  www.saublesewer.com 

This group has set up a web page to deal with thier concerns on the Sauble Sewer project. Something that Council should have done but I guess they  forgot with all the confusion over the 2% I mean 9.7%  Tax ncrease.

“Marky Malarky” has a great way to deal with concerned taxpayers  “Sue the Bastards!” Good one Mark. I am sure your point will assist greatly with local concerns.

Now Ana the Pit Bull formerly (Bananna) is starting to shine. There is still fire in that girl!

Good old     “Phil Givem a Pill”  Dwyer has hit panick mode! I wonder if he is the one that calculated the tax increase number of 2%????

Dougie you and the group  get “a Bruce ATTA Boy” for at the very least you are doing something!! Now only if the rest of the Sheep can get their act together!

Join me as I sing….

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

From the Sun Times

South Bruce Peninsula will mail letters to Sauble-area property owners in response to flyers delivered Friday advertising a website that “purports to be” an official site for information about a proposed sewage treatment system for Sauble Beach.

“The wording of the site leads one to believe it is sanctioned by the municipality . . . and it is not,” Phil Dwyer, the town’s public works manager, told a council meeting Tuesday.

Dwyer said in a later interview that while the http://www.saublesewer.comwebsite does not claim to be an official source of municipal information “it purports to be the site for ‘Sauble Sewer Project Information’.” He also said the one-page flyer contains a number of inaccuracies and errors.

Dwyer brought the flyer to the council meeting, saying it was “a matter I consider urgent.” Asked by Coun. Betty Hall what the urgency was, he said “because this reads like everything is wrong (with the sewage system proposal), everything is going to collapse.”

I don’t know how that can get out in the public forum and circulate,” said Coun. Mark Wunderlich, who suggested the town “sue the bastards” who produced the flyer and website.

“I don’t seeanything that is misleading,” countered Coun. Ana Vukovic, who also noted that the website points people to council minutes posted online that carry reports about debates and decisions concerning the controversial project.

Vukovic and Hall were the only council members who voted against a mailing by the town that is to point out the group that sent the flyer “is private and is not affiliated with the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.” The letter also says the flyer “includes inaccurate information” and directs people to the town’s own website.

Doug Gammie, a spokesman for the group that produced the flyer and created saublesewer.com,said many people in the Sauble area, especially cottagers, are still in the dark about the sanitary sewer proposal. The town’s last public meeting about it was in October 2009 and that meeting outlined information, including the system’s design and capacity, that was already outdated, he said.

“We’re kind of doing the right thing as far as keeping people informed,” Gammie said. “We’re not trying to be biased. We’re trying to keep the (web)site as an information site going forward. As public meetings come up . . . we’ll send out a note” informing people where and when it will be held.

“We’ve been kind of short of information for quite a while in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula,” he said.

Gammie said he does not have property in the area that the sewer system would serve or near the proposed treatment plant site.

A sanitary sewer system for Sauble Beach has been debated for years. The latest proposal — which is limited to approximately 300 properties in the downtown core and a treatment plant that would discharge its effluent into the Sauble River — has run into a series of challenges from people opposed to various aspects of it and what they see as council’s lack of transparency in proceeding with the project.

Council agreed in April to reopen the class environmental assessment for the system on the suggestion of Jeff Graham of Genivar, the town’s consulting engineers, who said the province might otherwise not approve it. Everything from the design of the system to its size, alternative locations for discharge of treated effluent and a site for the wastewater treatment plant “may be reviewed,” the town website says.

Council has already rezoned a 80-acre property on Municipal Rd. to allow for a treatment plant to be built there. That decision has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by Tim Cosstick, whose Winding River Campground abuts the site.