BFI Donates $1.75M to Suburb for Permit Extension

[Bigtime]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Calgary...#ixzz24kkxX078

A private southeast landfill’s promise to give $1.75 million to a neighbouring suburb in exchange for supporting its permit extension from the city is paying off.

BFI struck the deal with the community before its permit was set to expire in 2010.


Amid ongoing complaints from residents about issues and problems that some residents believed were the result of the company’s operations in the community, the landfill was struggling with the city’s subdivision and development appeal board to keep from closing.


It offered to enact a seagull mitigation plan, among other goodwill gestures, and to pay the Chaparral Community Association $1.75 million in royalties if area residents agreed to back the landfill’s extension bid.


BFI had also donated $3,000 to become the main sponsor at a postelection fundraiser for then-rookie Ward 14 Ald. Peter Demong.

Curious as to peoples thoughts about this.

Personally I think it sets an ugly precedent. Even though it happened in the public record I can't view it as anything other than the equivalent of a bribe to get what BFI wanted. I wonder what kind of monetary concessions the residents of Ramsay could get out of Lillydale to keep the plant in their community?

So what say you forumers of CP? Am I out to lunch, or is has this just set an ugly standard that other communities can now leverage to extort money out of companies looking to conduct their business in the city.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

So what say you forumers of CP? Am I out to lunch, or is has this just set an ugly standard that other communities can now leverage to extort money out of companies looking to conduct their business in the city.

Wait, a corporation resorts to bribery to quiet its critics and we're supposed to worry about the "ugly standard" of extortion from communities?

[Sliver]

I don't know how these things typically work, but I always assumed it was with bribes and pay-offs. If all the stakeholders are content with the arrangement, I don't see an issue.

[Boblobla]

I live in Chaparral and IIRC most of the money went to replacing the water in the lake as the bird #### had messed everything up and people were getting sick.

I also get to dump for free which is nice.

[para transit fellow]

It can be seen as a bribe. It can also be seen as BFI contributing to the help the neighbours. It might be even seen as BFI trying to address some of the impacts of their operation.

Myself, I need more info to determine which category BFI's action falls under.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by jammies

Wait, a corporation resorts to bribery to quiet its critics and we're supposed to worry about the "ugly standard" of extortion from communities?

Why not? Other communities with business that they may not care for (Ramsay and Lillydale as a prime example) could see this as an opportunity to leverage this example for their own benefit, making it a form of extortion.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Why not? Other communities with business that they may not care for (Ramsay and Lillydale as a prime example) could see this as an opportunity to leverage this example for their own benefit, making it a form of extortion.

You are more concerned with the businesses potentially losing negligible amounts of money than the potential that concerns could be swept under the carpet by the company cutting a cheque?

[TorqueDog]

I don't see a problem with this.

Residents: "We're not happy about this as it impacts us directly."
BFI: "What if we did something for you, would that mitigating benefit be enough to allow us to do what we want?"
Residents: "What?"
BFI: "We'll donate $1.75 million dollars to your community to be used however you want."
Residents: "That sounds reasonable, deal."


That's very much an abridged version, but the point is that this is a deal between a company and a community for mutual benefit. Why is it 'bribery' or 'extortion', one way or the other? The community wasn't demanding cash, and the company wasn't trying to get away with something illegal or unethical. Would we even be discussing this if BFI had donated the construction of a park or a community center instead of just giving them the money?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Why not? Other communities with business that they may not care for (Ramsay and Lillydale as a prime example) could see this as an opportunity to leverage this example for their own benefit, making it a form of extortion.

Where in the story did it say that the community made some kind of threat to get the money so that their "example" would inspire others to acts of skulduggery? As far as I can tell, the company made the offer to the community, not vice versa, so the characterization of this as a bribe is much more in line with the facts.

Not that I really care, as bribery by corporations is the way business is done everywhere. Like fotze said, problems go away when you just write a bigger cheque.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by fotze

More importantly, what does BFI stand for?

Brute Force and Ignorance.

[JD]

Originally Posted by fotze

In the oilpatch, 99% of all 'environmental concerns' are resolved by cutting a bigger check.

So from the other side's perspective, raise an environmental concern, get a bigger cheque?

Slippery slope.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by JD

So from the other side's perspective, raise an environmental concern, get a bigger cheque?

Slippery slope.

Theoretically, your elected government has established a regulatory environment that catches anyone or anything sliding down that slippery slope.

BFI is actively seeking out and targeting influential community associations/boards or groups with cash in exchange for support of its projects, which includes this one and the potential project proposed in the Blackie area. It doesn't even have to be directly impacted, just in the nearby area and potentially influential with members.

There is a very organized and somewhat militant anti-BFI group out there, so if you're taking cash you should get a lot of it to compensate for having to deal with the blowback. Which is what Chaparrel did.

Compensating affected user groups for unpopular projects isn't unusual. A bribe infers something illegal.

Landfills are a necessary feature in any modern society. They have to go somewhere. BFI provides that service. We all need them, but none of us, quite wisely, would want one next door.

Cowperson

[sevenarms]

What's unfortunate is that Walden, the community to the south of Chaparral and west of the landfill, received zero compensation. So it goes.