Public participation in Guelph landfill search process Essay

Public participation in Guelph landfill search process - Essay Example Anyone can play a role in rebuilding the environment† (par. 7). This sounds like a lovely idea, and a very creative way to turn what is essentially a controversial garbage dump into something more positive†¦something the public can enjoy and be proud of. The City’s choice not to relocate the landfill and go with a more environmentally sound decision was a wise one, helped enormously by public input. The Implication: Social Risk vs Economics The City of Guelph had for some time known it would have to deal with the issue of a needed landfill. In fact from 1987 discussions had been sporadically on-going with little progress, the reality being that no one wants a landfill in their backyard for all of the obvious reasons. In January of 1993 a proposed dump site north of Guelp was eliminated from further consideration after opponents managed to convince city council to throw out almost three years of work that had cost nearly $3 million. It was the beginning of a back and forth battle that would discourage county involvement and place the onus of burden on the city of Guelph. The search, beginning in 1994, would be controversial, intense and difficult. Based on records the intension of including public opinion and that and of others was, at least at first, well meaning. Ali (1999) in his study of the project writes, â€Å"In order to avoid the pitting of the public against the technical consultants that had occurred in a previously unsuccessful search, Guelph City Council wished to adopt a more inclusive process in which all members of the community could voluntarily participate† (p. 1). To this end the Landfill Search Group (LSG), a Community Advisory Subcommittee of varied professionals and the (CASC), or Neighbourhood Liaison Groups made up of volunteers from all walks of life from the community and ostensibly representing the public. It would seem that things would go smoothly, but that was not the case and the public, suspicious of how t he groups were selected and would perform, formed their own counter groups who, at the outset, were set against the landfill. After the LSG announcement of five potential sites, other neighbourhood groups were formed against the landfill for environmental reasons and surprisingly, on the basis that the sites which were being considered were all in lower economic areas. In essence, the latter complaints were â€Å"primarily on the basis of social equity† (Ali, 1999, p. 1) and the fact that the area was already home of a good share of the industry of the city. All of the groups came up with a list of 48 criteria on which the selection would be based, prioritized by the public which, in the end, promoted a site considerate of public health and the environment. From the beginning much of the controversy centered upon the components of priority ranking of the various aspects of the decision making process concern acceptable tradeoffs â€Å"between economic and environmental impac ts†¦to both the community and to the City† (Ali, 1999, p. 1). The business community favored sacrificing environmental concerns [groundwater contamination] for business interests, while other groups set on protecting the environment held fast. In the end, site selection was placed in the precarious position of a quid pro quo. As Ali (1999) quoting officials