folc.ca's comment on HAZCO's answer to FAQ #39
Note: The background text in the following was copied from the Frequently-asked Questions page at HAZCO's website, Nov. 2, 2005. HAZCO's answers to "frequently asked questions" deserve further comments. Those comments are inserted where required in HAZCO's text and are shown on yellow background.
From HAZCO's FAQ web page (quoted verbatim):
FAQ #39. The flyer maintains that the storage facility is a waste of prime industrial land with very little tax return. What’s your response to that?
Hazco maintains that the proposed facility is a good fit for the property due to the surrounding area.
|What does that answer mean, in objective terms? What sort of answer would anyone expect from HAZCO in response to that question?|
Of course HAZCO will provide that answer. It cannot do otherwise. HAZCO will not shoot down it's own proposal and plans for making it rich at a considerable cost to Lamont County residents. It is up to the Lamont County Council to look after the best interests of the people the Council represents.
However, it appears that our Council prefers to sit on the fence until it is too late. They are apt to say then, "Sorry, but we did the best we could." Fence-sitting is not good enough and not the best that the Council can do!
At any rate, to locate HAZCO on that section of land for about $65,000 a year in tax revenue when that property could bring in a million dollars or more per year to the County would be a dumb mistake that should get any Councillor who even dares think about removed from office.
Back to index page to HAZCO's FAQs
Back to index page for Hazco sulphur storage site pages
Back to Bruderheim Main Page
Created Nov. 4, 2005