As a former proud Conistonian, it is with great interest that I have read the story of Sudbury's bid for the ferrochrome plant and learned of Coniston as the preferred site being presented.
Some questions do come to mind and one has to wonder why this location information was not put out there prior to our delegation going to Tornio, Finland.
Let's look at one very important issue which has me really perplexed.
Why was the councillor who represents the proposed ward not part of the delegation? Is this not part of the openness and accountability we keep hearing about? I'm sure that such an important decision which will have a huge impact on, health, economic growth and positive or negative real estate value is of concern to an area representative.
If anyone would have done their homework and taken one hour of their time to read up on Coniston's history, would they not have anticipated some of the apprehension, fear and mistrust now being demonstrated?
This has little to do with the NIMBY syndrome as yes we should get behind projects that can benefit our communities, but shouldn't the transparency openness and accountability factors we keep talking about be front and centre?
How long ago did city officials proposing this development invitation know of this site proposal? Would it have been that hard to have community input?
When a developer wants to build a complex that will put stress on the environment or have any variance to codes, he must include opportunity for anyone who will be affected by his development to have their say prior to his being granted the green light.
Without a doubt, questions by concerned citizens could have been brought forth and answers to those important questions could have been answered by citizens from Tornio, but to know what those questions are we should have the courtesy of asking those who will be impacted.
Jean-Yves Bujold
Sudbury