Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (33927)	11/5/2000 8:36:37 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 436258

Sppeaking of government mismanagement of waste sites - one of my sons just showed me an article about Love Canal - I was not aware that Hooker Chemical did not want to sell the land to the Niagara Falls Board of Education, but the Board threatened to take the property by eminent domain, so Hooker sold them Love Canal for $1, provided that the deed of sale included a prohibition of any construction over the buried toxic wastes. The toxic wastes had been buried in a way to prevent leaks. The school board promised to build playground. The deed with the restrictions is a matter of public record. A year later the school board violated the contract and built a school directly on top of the toxic wastes. Then new homes were built around the site. The construction unsealed the wastes and they leaked out. A consulting company advised resealing the wastes to stop the leakage, but the city government ignored the recommendations. Hooker warned time and again against what was done, but still would up paying $200 million in settlements to residents and government agencies. The entire site was evacuated, of course, and everyone living there had to be relocated. Old newspapers carry reports of public hearings at which Hooker advised against building on the canal.

To: Les H who wrote (33927)	11/6/2000 11:30:58 AM
From: portage	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Yeah Les, but that's a different kettle of fish. Those abuses you mention are bad too, but I bet you don't see any private sector parties rushing in to advocate for those abused by the government in those cases. Funny you should mostly mention military-based abuses, when the defense dept. tends to be dominated by conservative, pro-defense contractor forces. My point is that we need a balance that includes an advocate for the 95% who don't control the resources or political machine. Since it's not in the corporate charters to advocate in this regard, consumer protections only come from certain gov't. regulations or advocacy. The private sector is great, and drives this country, but don't count on them to check their abuses on their own. The fallacy is to tout big business vs. big government as a black and white argument, when both are needed in measured doses. With this country split so closely between the parties, if either one wins all branches of government, there will be a revolt by the opposite side after their extremist elements start taking advantage of their political monopoly. Long live split government and gridlock. Bush wants the same things Gingrich did, he's just more clever by half. At least they finally learned something by watching Clinton operate <g>. With that, I'll stop cluttering the board with politics for awhile.