Joelle Kovach

Meeting adjourns at 8:45 p.m., just shy of 3 hours after it began. Thanks so much for following along - I'm happy to provide you with this free service! G'night.

@alexbierk.bsky.social says he just wants to know the "true level of contamination" - and they had a chance at clarity, "But it's not the will of council to have that clarity."

@alexbierk.bsky.social says "we don't know what is happening, on and off that site... I'm just disappointed" that the city cannot "create some sort of understanding of what's happening on that site" in terms of contamination (quite apart from demolition plans).

Leal says "We already dealt with this." @mattcrowley.bsky.social says he doesn't think his amendment is out of order - but the mayor thinks so.

@joylachica.bsky.social: "I'm arguing it's redundant .... I think this can be read as the ssme motion."

@joylachica.bsky.social says this was her motion, in essence - and it failed. "We can't revisit it."

@mattcrowley.bsky.social now trying to amend it again so that staff is directed to report to council on the contents of the demolition plan once a plan becomes available.

@alexbierk.bsky.social motion - to direct staff to collect everything it can about the contamination of GE, and each agency's role in keeping a demolition safe, among other details - fails. Riel, Crowley, Lachica and Bierk had voted in favour, everyone else voted against (it loses 4-7).

"I don't believe for one minute GE will answer any quesitons they aren't obligated to answer. You can ask until the cows come home," says Haacke.

"Don't trust GE, but you've got the Ministries. And you probably have 3 ministries involved here," says Haacke. And, if Riel is correct and it's the world's most contaminated site, "they aren't just going to rubber stamp it."

Haacke is concerned that if council "goes down this path, proactively" that GE could simply "mothball" the campus and not tear it down.

"I get people don;t trust GE... but you have the ministry involved..., They do not cut corners," says Coun. Dave Haacke. "GE has no obligation to answer any questions... They just do not have that obligation."

"The scale of this is massive... We need to recognize the solemnness, of this responsibility... We can stand together and fight for the health ans safety," says @joylachica.bsky.social

"Maybe they will do it in stages - that would be smart, but why don't they tell us that?.... Why aren't they forthcoming, when Lakelands Public Health asks?.... We need to do what we can, now is the time to ask it," @joylachica.bsky.social says.

@joylachica.bsky.social says Lakelands Public HEalth has already written a letter asking for the safety plan of GE, and they have received no reply.

@joylachica.bsky.social says yes, this is private property, and there is no development plan. But there's an impact on the surrounding area, she says, "And it is our responsibility."

Barber says the debate or motion itself doesn't constitute interference... but some could conclude the city is looking to influence the process.

Council cannot interfere with the chief building official's role, she says - and she asks Barber to repeat that.

She says "if we overstep our jurisdiction we will be putting ourselves in legal jeopardy - in legal liability."

Coun. Lesley Parnell says "this is private company - GE owns this land. They are responsible for the cost... and they are beholden to the province" that oversees the environmental concerns.

"There's no budget attached to this," says @alexbierk.bsky.social

"I don't see what the resistance is.... This is staff coming back to us and saying, 'this is what we know, this is what we don't know,'" says @alexbierk.bsky.social

@alexbierk.bsky.social asks where the equipment went, from the interiors at GE? He says he's asking the city staff to work with its best available knowledge to say "this is what's there - and this is what you should be concerned about"

@alexbierk.bsky.social says he wants to gather all documents they can get through the ministry "and give the public a sense of what the contamination is."

@alexbierk.bsky.social says "The language is dead clear... I did not mention a consultant, or core sampling... I understand we don't have the capacity or funding to do this."

"What about the county that will get all of that, in Bensfort landfill?" asks @joylachica.bsky.social ... "This is the moment for us to make a decision, to be strong, to make demands."

She says some experts from Texas contacted her and said they need a contaminant hydrogeologist to be on this case. And it shouldn't be up to the city to pay: "They should be paying for this - not us. We should be makign demands of them."

"We need to surround this with health and safety," says @joylachica.bsky.social

@joylachica.bsky.social says she supports the motion. She wants "to ensure our constituents are protected.... WE have a right to demand something of a company.... I don;t know why we are so afraid to make demands." We don;t have to be polite or presume "they'll do the right thing," says Lachica.

CAO notes that this is private property. "At the end of the day, there is no land development" - so they aren't bound to offer details about land contamination.