Mining more salt...
City staff give thumbs up to what would be Guelph's tallest building
14
How unfortunate!
21
22
The actual cost is $3541 per household or $1222 per resident, plus interest on federal, provincial and municipal debt. At the end of the day, we are the ones paying for this overbuilt infrastructure.
9
13
This is great news! Energy equity is a health issue. We have minimum heat requirements in the winter because we understand the risks of extreme cold. As temperatures continue to rise, we need maximum heat standards in the summer too. No senior, person living with lung disease, or vulnerable renter should be forced to suffer in unsafe indoor temperatures simply because they don’t own their home. Safe housing should protect people in every season.
17
14
My point is that they can tout all they want that the feds and the province are contributing - but at the end of the day they're still wasting the taxpayer's money on something that wasn't necessary (or at the very least is being overbuilt) in the first place.
15
19
Prime example of council, specifically Caron and Alt , opting for the most expensive choice. “The cost of that work is pegged at nearly 3 million” which means it will run closer to 5 million. Again this council thinking that taxpayers have endless amounts of extra cash laying around. The end of your time spending our money with wanton disregard cannot come soon enough.Guelph taxpayers; please, please, please remember examples like this when casting your vote.
10
20
What? Now Energy has rights? Can it vote? lol...hilarious - the City is going to monitor air temperature...lol. Its gotta end eventually doesn't it?
9
14
Don't know how these people sleep at night allowing this horrific mismanagement of city resources. When is this city council going to learn the difference between WANTS and NEEDS. Our elite City Hall has always been fantastic at spending TAX paid money for there sometimes pet project's and this is another one added to [ the multi million dollar Wet Dry fiasco, the EATON CENTRE , THE River Run Centre [ still paying for it 40 years later] City Hall and Police Station [ millions over budget and extended court cases ] I could go on and on but the majority of Guelph tax payers already know the mess were in. AND by the way all the people in this picture have a shovel in hand for one main reason [ TO HELP BURY ALL THE WASTED TAX MONEY]
13
18
This is a joke right.
9
15
Bridges are functional infrastructure. They aren’t meant to last forever. This is not the Golden Gate. Replace it with something low cost, safe, and functional and move on. Thank you councillors for finally listening to the electorate.
11
19
24 stories, that's cute, Guelph council should take a visit to Waterloo or Kitchener.Anyways, enough with the hand wringing, just approve and build.
7
14
So what’s your actual point? Anything the city builds is paid for by municipal taxes. The cost per household (or per citizen), needs to be spread over the service life of the building but only after deducting the savings attributable to consolidating multiple currently occupied properties.
11
19
It wasn't a good idea in 2024 at $170 mil, and certainly not today at $200 mil...From 2024:"Building new transit admin facilities at any cost ($170 Mil is still a BIG number) without improvements in rider service is not a good look at all for Council - especially when Transit has deferred a public washroom at Central Station until 2029!"
6
14
Most citizens respect the need to preserve our heritage buildings and architecture. However, at a time when people are seriously struggling, this decision shows a lack of respect for those who can least afford it. We need more on council who have lived a more frugal lifestyle out of necessity. Take a look at the votes and let that inform who you vote for next election.
11
8
The city has made the right choice. The spend is worth it to preserve such a beautiful and important piece of our heritage. That's what tax money is for!
17
10
One heat wave killed over 250 people in London last year. The heat dome over Europe last week likely killed dozens more.Now watch all the commenters behind their comfortable air-conditioned keyboards call it a joke and tell us that renters deserve it.
14
13
As a rate payer, I would rather they do the cheaper option. It's functional and faster.I personally don't see anything about the current structure that demand's it's preservation. It was a functional structure, not art. This is not the West Montrose Covered bridge that serves as a tourist attraction. It's a way to cross the river. It used to be for cars as well and it was downgraded to just pedestrians. It doesn't need to do more than that.
10
10
Goller is one of my councillors - and I definitely emailed him about how unnecessary it is to rehabilitate this bridge. Glad he is listening.As someone who uses the trails and this bridge on a semi regular basis, I don't care if it's old concrete or new steel. Just because something is old doesn't mean it has historical importance.
13
15
This administration seems to think every taxpayer is just an ATM and has unlimited money to spend on pet projects. I'm going to be voting for people who actually care about fiscal responsibility in the upcoming election.
8
6
I think this should include every resident not just renters. They are lots of homeowners that don’t have air conditioning because they simply can’t afford it. The City should force them too. I certainly wouldn’t have an indoor visit with them in July. Now that I think back about my childhood, I wonder what my parents were thinking. I didn’t have air conditioning and I believe it has affected me. I’m really glad the city is raising this issue. Maybe they could mandate pools next. I can’t afford that either
17
11
... and nobody bothers to ask why Canada needs to perpetually increase its populatiion, rip apart its cities, increase the demands upon its infrastructure, and thereby drive up the cost of real estate forever into the future.In a rational country, appropriate plans would be in place for citiesto have a certain fixed population level. But in Canada, we take our existing urban areas and then demand that they be able to provide all the necessary accommodations for a doubling and eventual tripling of the contained population. Imagine southern Ontario in 100 years: what will its population be?? What will a residence cost? What will the urban skyline look like? What will we see in our neighbourhoods when we look out our windows? What will the morning commuting time look like on our roads and public transit? What about the amount of open space within and between our cities? What about farmland and agricultural products? And no one asks why.John Hagopian Whitby
11
Mining more salt...