Letters to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on Municipal Governance issues

To send a short pre-written letter re: Poor Governance by Durham Council - Please click here!

To send a longer personalized letter, follow the instructions below:

Step 1.  CLICK HERE to open your email composer. It will already contain the full list of recipients and a subject line but you can add, remove or change any of these.

Step 2.  Below are a series of text elements which you can copy and paste to create your custom letter. When created this way there is no limit on how long the letters can be. If you like you can can combine all the pieces below into a single letter but you would probably want to do some editing.

Step 3.  Add your full name and address at the end.

Step 4.  Click SEND

Durham Region Council, the decision making body for the main proponent, has consciously decided that it will not review the long term contract with the preferred vendor prior to execution. This clearly indicates a lack of fiscal due diligence and appropriate oversight. This will expose Durham residents to unnecessary financial risks.

Fundamental flaws in the 2008 business case were not rectified and therefore negate claims of economic benefits in the EA study.

When Durham Region began this project, it claimed firstly that it did not want any more landfill, and secondly that it wanted a "made in Durham" solution. As it turns out, neither of these goals remain intact.

They failed to consider that incineration leaves 30% ash which must be landfilled. Five percent is highly toxic and requires special treatment. And since since Durham doesn't want landfills it will be trucked to New York State.

Furthermore the rush to build this incinerator was because the border to Michigan was going to close to our garbage. So instead of Michigan, we're going to truck waste to New York. And apparently until the incinerator is built, we will truck the raw waste there too.

So instead of "made in Durham", we have an American company using technology from Europe and ash being trucked to the USA. The only thing that is happening in Durham is the burning - and the air pollution it leaves behind.

Recently the Town of Markham went to a 'Zero Waste (10% residual)' program.  All trash bags must be clear to demonstrate the person is participating.  It will take this sort approach to ensure we meet our goals.  It is a small price to pay to make our Region's air cleaner.
 
The proposed incineration project is very short-sighted.  In absence of a simple solution to our waste woes the Region has opted to travel a treacherous path.  Any option with identifiable and demonstrable negative impacts should not even be considered an option.  Please stop this project before Courtice becomes Durham's dumping ground.  The people downwind will appreciate it.

Councillors were drawn early into a series of decisions which severely limited the scope of later decisions. The implications of those early decisions were not clear at the time. The Terms of Reference limited consideration of increased diversion as an “alternative to”, and also consideration of ash disposal.

Partly as a result of the ToR, financial considerations have never been adequately addressed. The price (as of last fall) has risen to $272 million, almost double the original estimate, but no parallel financial comparisons with alternatives have been undertaken.

In comparison, Durham Region has a consultants report in hand (Golder Associates) which gives a capital cost of only $7.5 million to achieve a diversion rate of 72.7% by 2015. Nothing has been done to implement this plan because the incinerator needs the garbage.

Numbers which did not support the incinerator were either ignored or massaged

Councillors were persuaded early that there was a looming mountain of trash that needed to dealt with, and that diversion couldn’t possibly handle it. Indeed they were persuaded that even with the most aggressive diversion programs, the incinerator would need to be expanded to 250,000 and then to 400,000 tonnes. In fact there is barely enough garbage being produced currently to fuel the proposed 140,000 tonne incinerator, and with even modest increases in diversion, Durham Region will fall below its commitment to provide 100,000 tonnes to the incinerator.

The EA failed to capture the true attitudes of both the councillors and the residents. One-on one interviews with councillors indicated a strong preference for recycling but these options had been removed from consideration. An ongoing questionnaire sent to councillors offers similar conclusions.