City of Kingston Town Hall Meeting on Pesticide use, October 17, 2007

[keoadmin]

City of Kingston
Town Hall Meeting on Pesticide use

City of Kingston is undertaking a "town hall" meeting to consult the public about its proposed bylaw to restrict the non-essential use of pesticides. You are welcome to attend the following meeting:

Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Time: 7:00 pm

Place: Portsmouth Olympic Harbour, Sail Room

This will be the only opportunity for the public to provide feedback to the City in a public meeting format. Whatever your feelings on this important issue, you will have the opportunity to make them heard by the Environment, Infrastructure, and Transportation Standing Committee. The feedback will then be considered when finalizing a draft by-law to present to City Council to consider for adoption.

[posting]

Pestcide Draft

CKWS-TV October 18 2007


BOTH SIDES ARE DIGGING IN THEIR HEELS OVER KINGSTON'S ATTEMPT TO BAN THE COSMETIC USE OF PESTICIDES.

ABOUT 150 PEOPLE SHOWED UP AT THIS PUBLIC MEETING LAST NIGHT.
FOR MANY, IT WAS THEIR FIRST CHANCE TO GET A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED BYLAW THAT WOULD BAN THE SPRAYING OF CHEMICALS ON PRIVATE LAWNS.


THERE ARE SOME EXEMPTIONS, LIKE GOLF COURSES, BUSHES AND SHRUBS...AND FOR WEED AND BUG INFESTATIONS.

SOME RESIDENTS SAY THE BYLAW IS STILL TOO LENIENT.

BUT MEMBERS OF THE LAWN CARE INDUSTRY SAY IT'S FAR TOO STRICT -- AND ARE THREATENING TO LAUNCH LEGAL ACTION TO STAMP OUT THE BYLAW BEFORE CITY COUNCIL HAS A CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT.

NABIL

"OVER THE LAST 7 YEARS THE PEOPLE OF KINGSTON HAVE COME TO SEE THAT IT'S SOMETHING POSITIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY IT'S POSITIVE FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT AND IT'S POSITIVE FOR THE HEALTH OF OUR CHILDREN AND IT'S ALSO POSITIVE FOR BUSINESS."

JEFF

"UNFORTUNATELY IT'S GOT TO THE POINT THAT WE'RE PROCEEDING WITH A DEFAMATION LAW SUIT AND SLANDER OF GOODS SUIT AGAINST A COUPLE OF ACTIVIST GROUPS AND A FEW INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WE'RE CURRENTLY WAITING ON AN OPINION WHETHER WE CAN PROCEED AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE AT THIS POINT."

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT BYLAW WILL BE ACCEPTED UNTIL THE END OF THE MONTH.

IF THE BYLAW IS APPROVED, IT WOULD COME INTO FORCE IN JANUARY.

[Karen]

In the Globe and Mail, 14May2005, Peter Cheney's article included quote by Rich Whate ("a public health consultant for the city [Toronto]"): "We don't want to put lawn-care companies out of business...we want to change the way they operate. If their business model is based on showing up and spending five minutes spraying the lawn, they need to change it." I concur.

[Dogma]

What a crock of fertilizer.

If you think this consultant is your "guru" of pesticides use.. you are just to "ideological about everything wrong with this world" and should hang yourself before you reach 40/50 years old.

Give me a break and at LEAST read more than one (1) article or two before speewing out such "sound bite" nonsense.

get a life or at least a job!

[Lydia]

:mad: Watch it Dogma, you are getting too hot under the collar on this topic. Let me tell you that I for one am totally against a Ban on Pesticides. I also am totally against using pesticides like the 5 MINUTE JOBS THAT I HAVE SEEN COMPANIES DO IN TORONTO, IN BRAMPTON AND IN KINGSTON AS WELL. Trust me they ONLY spend 5 minutes at the most.

How I realize that these a fly by night companies and should not be lumped in with the ones that actually do care about their environment and actually use chemicals only for the problems that they consider need to be done.

Karen, has a GREAT LIFE and You should apologize for being so upset with her posting.

Why are you so ticked off with her anyway. All she has done is posting what she read. You and I might agree or disagree with her but don't think WE are the only ones who are RIGHT. Remember a Lady is NEVER WRONG, incorrect maybe but never ever wrong.

Besides you Pd in your bonnet anyway?? Geez lol lol

[Lydia]

I am having a real hard time with this issue, Karen. I realize that chemicals are a very bad thing to use just for the sake of using them.

Recently, I am hearing things about the problems the environment is having because of pesticides having been banned in areas. Take a look at the California and British Columbia. On a radio problem that i listen to late at night i heard that they blame the extent of damage done to California was due to pesticides not being used. Apparently the bugs there had weakened or even killed the forests around the state. Because these trees are now like kinling due to being dead or dried up and that is a reason for the extent of damage that was done.

In BC there is that beetle that has created extensive damage to their forest and has actually now went past the other side of the Rockies and is now heading for the rest of Canada.

This scares me because I believe that chemicals are needed to protect the environment that we have.

I don't believe chemicals should be used to get rid of (MY FAVORITE not) A Dandelion OR EVEN TWO. Thousands yes, one or two no. LOL LOL. They should be used to get rid of grubs. YES.

So I ask you for your opinion on this. Keep in mind Karen, I am a naturist but not an environmentalist. lol lol

[Karen]

Dogma is guilty of using a pathetic style of argument. It's called "shoot the messenger".
Lydia, integrated pest management may be a way of opening the door to designing better control of harmful pest infestations.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/forestry/fh/exotics/exotic-alb.htm may be a source of info for you re: Asian Longhorned Beetle.

[Lydia]

Thanks Karen, for that link. It is very good to read and understand. In this global economy, we benefit and we also are under attack with various diseases and pests. Again it is a concern and another reason to understand PROPER PESTICIDE use. (Not bans).

Don't worry about Dogma shooting messenager, he shot me many times but he isn't as bad as he sounds. Yes a pest but there isn't any pesticide i can use on him. Actually he is like the Bee, Big Stinger but necessary. RIGHT DOGMA?? lol

[Dogma]

Don't say shooting blanks to a man!

Lydia - I barely know ya !

Sorry Karen - I get a little hot under the collar when Lydia's in the room. And I don't me the the "mad" pissed off type - the good "hot".

I'm to old for this anyways. Karen please .....ban all you want - especially me.

[Lydia]

You are a HOOT, Dogma, Karen, isn't a person who wants bans just for the sake of having one. She is very passionate about the environment and is will actually get of her butt and work towards making this city a much better place.

Now I don't necessarily agree with the stuff she gives me however, she does present excellent websites that are worth considering and I have actually learned better ways of dealing with the environment.

Karen is the type of person who doesn't just give out advise on stuff, she actually works to accomplish change.

How i am getting really ticked off here. I HATE giving praise. See what you did Dogma, Geez. By the way I have not yet gotten that book but I will.

Dogma, you are a good person at heart. I told you from the start that YOU ARE SOOOO MEAN that you must be a kitten at heart lol lol.

[Dogma]

Yikes - I think I may have been a bit lude - and I apologies. But, I agree with Lydia you maybe a doer - and thats great I have only one suggestion you need to be a little less "locomotive" - in terms of your personal passions verses selling it to your needed "new army" of environmental lobbists.

Karen - bye the way- I do alot of that here! (I mean apologies...so sorry if I was to blunt for even you)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lydia -

Re: The Myth that Canadian Companies (are Canadian to begin with...)

AND that they are being bought/sold like a used car.


I picked up the book at Indigo the other day and there was one left (downtown) in the business section upstairs.

http://www.andreamandelcampbell.com/book.htm

I just started it - although in the first chapter - there are some points "such as" -

Corporate Buyouts: (INCO, BLODELL, ALCAN)

- ideas like - head offices and relocation of employees - are effected by all these buyouts in the past few years ....


The author claims will "eliminating corporate Canada" - and as a result the control Canadians have of their corporate business "destiny".


BUT - I just read something yesturday that contradicts this statement - in the Toronto Star:

Stats Can Study:

- during the 1950's and again through the 1980's, we went through the same amount of buyouts, i.e with head office takeover threats - BUT, resulting in NO real threat of laying off people or breaking the company up and selling the piece for more return.

Not to say that does happen.

But, as STATCAN suggests people or other large companies are interested in a market "share" or to own it outright.

For the market, product or service that said takeover targeted company provides: Because...

- they basically do not want to reinvent the wheel - and put their right to a share and sometimes their name on the brand, or company.

- they just want to buy it - and the name - and may in many cases - just be marketed the same or jointly.

They are into strategic procurement - for long term growth.

In fact; Stats Canada says - it is somewhat a good thing to have foreign companies buy Canadian home grown companies, because it tends to inject needed cash and R&D - into the companies in most cases.

Especially Global reach type of companies -

- which in turn do better for the stakeholders, - i.e employment growth domestically, or foreign reach to new markets.

It also keeps Canadian companies somewhat on their toes, or more innovative, with more invest opportunities to sell their products and services.

Sure there are enviromental and foreign, local community concerns...and they are serious issues that should be protected by law, or by Government policy.

But not allowing company takeovers, or investments would be economic disaster for Canada.

Bye the way,, the book also reveals - that Alcan, Roots, Magna and Inco, Blodell ARE NOT CANADIAN COMPANIES.

THEY WERE ALL STARTED BY NON CANADIAN CITIZENS!