Dear Editor,
Re: “Inspector Recycle to be hired by city,” News, Oct. 28.
“Hallelujah! It’s about time,” I thought as I read the News’ story about the city hiring an inspector to curb demolition waste.
Hopefully, I raced through the article, only to come to a screeching halt…. “a $250 non-refundable fee ...” (Is that a typo?) “... and $2 per square-foot of demolished floor space that will be refunded if builder meets the 70 per cent threshold.”
This bylaw, “a compromise with builders,” will pay for one new inspector.
The hallelujah went from a crescendo to a diminuendo as I thought about the enforcement, or lack of enforcement, of the tree bylaw.
Reuse, reduce, recycle, sustainable, reduced ecological footprint… all empty words unless they serve as impetus to leap into action. And this is a small leap.
There seems to be nothing with any teeth to slow this tsunami of waste. Better late than never and better a small leap than none at all, I pacified myself.
Is the refundable $5,000 fee (for an average 2,500 square-foot house) going to be incentive enough when at the other end the developer/builder considers mechanical demolition costs, low landfill fees and more time and labour costs. Perhaps coordination with increased landfill dumping fees and dumping restrictions should be part of the solution.
If we must destroy every standing house, ageing or not, at the very least council acknowledged that something must be done about demolition waste and the city has now taken a step that can be perceived as something is being done (at least on paper).
N. McDonald
Richmond
