Factory farms find it cheaper and more profitable to raise chickens like this
Government says that it is cheaper and more cost effective to provide infrastructure when people are grouped together.
Why is one acceptable and not the other?
When you close rural schools, post offices, banks and over regulate the farming industry to the point of collapse, people move to the urban areas to find work.
Leaving rural ontario available for gravel pits and mines, wind turbines and garbage dumps.
Anyone see a pattern?
Where would you suggest "gravel pits and mines, wind turbines and garbage dumps." be located?
ReplyDeletePlease be specific.
Minebuster here and I suggest locations for: Gravel pits and mines should be located anywhere that is not prime ag land and where it does not jeapordize water (and it should not be exported out of Ontario)
DeleteWind turbines should be located "close to market" meaning 6 miles in Lake Ontario so it can service the GTA
Garbage dumps should be legislated to be "close to market" located within 5 miles of where it is generated and you would see an immediate and significant reduction in waste.
Good answers, but incomplete. "Not close to market" is not a land use and neither is "exporting out of Ontario". These may help reduce the need, but don't answer the question.
ReplyDeleteSo they are not to be located in prime agricultural lands?
Then where?
Please provide an existing land use when answering the question.
Gravel pits and mines, wind turbines and garbage dumps
should be located in (pick one or more as you feel appropriate)rural residential, urban residential (city and towns), industrial lands, commercial lands, wetlands, woodlands, non-prime farm lands? I do believe non-prime farm lands provide essential services for prime farm lands, ie growing hay, distributing goods, raising live stoke... so why protect one and not the other? If I have missed an existing land use please include it.
Please also keep in mind, aggregates and mines can only be located where the resource exists and I would believe wind turbines also need "windy areas".
Your question was where should these be located, be specific. You didn't ask for land uses. I don't think I could be more specific that aggregate should be anywhere that is not on prime land and where it impacts source water. There is lots of wind on lake ontario for turbines. And if you want to know where the aggregate resources are, check with the municipalities, they have been forced to "map" this crap for the aggregate industry, at the expense of taxpayers. And if you really have to ask why you would protect soil and water and not aggregate, you really have no fucking clue.
DeleteGood answer Mindbuster, just what I expected from you....
ReplyDelete"forced to "map" this crap for the aggregate industry, at the expense of taxpayer" that's funny too
you really dont have a clue, other then to say, stay the "f%CK" out of my township....wha wha wha
you really should go work with the liberal government, as they are just like you.... clue less
Aggregate resources were mapped in the 1980's.... the cost to do so has long been absorbed, as was the mapping of prime farm lands (class 1 to ...).
ReplyDeleteYou people really have small closed minds, so sad.
What you gloss over is who "absorbed" the cost? That would be taxpayers, NOT the aggregate industry.
Delete"aggregate should be anywhere that is not on prime land and where it impacts source water."
ReplyDelete"Anywhere" that's a good answer Mindbuster, you must have excelled in school with well, thought out answers!
HAHAH
your a joke
I would have to say everyone is welcome in the township, if they can add to the community, not just take...take....take....aggregate and oh yeah, leave...leave....leave their garbage.
Delete