The bottled water debate is coming to city hall.
Tomorrow, council will vote on a report calling for an awareness campaign to encourage Hamiltonians to drink tap water. This issue stems from back in 2008, when Mayor Eisenberger called for a staff report asking whether the city should ban the sale of water bottles in municipal buildings. However, tomorrow's recommendations shy away from a full-out ban. (Click here to read the report).
The city of Hamilton isn't the first organization to deal with this issue.
In April, Hamilton trustees voted to ban the sale of bottled water in high school vending machines and cafeterias by September. Other municipalities, like Toronto and London, have also banned the bottle.
What do you think? Do these recommendations go far enough? Should council push for a total ban on bottled water? Or are you satisfied with the staff recommendations?
UPDATE: Council accepted staff reccommendations - no ban, but they'll embark on a public education campaign.
All this is about is an attempt to sell more water. Remember when the city told us meters would save us money, lie...remember when they said conserving water would save us money, another lie.
The more we conserve water, gas or any other utility, they'll just raise the price so all the little ceo's can still have their bonuses.
Note how council says their "stars on ice" because they limited our property tax to 2%.
Too funny, water rates going up, new surcharge for roads, 1 bag of garbage at the curb and raise the dump fee, etc etc.
Just more lies, make the tax hike seem low and then just raise all the service rates and dream up new surcharges.
..see you all at the voting booth...
Posted by: ed | 04/12/2010 at 12:50 PM
I think council and staff has more important issues to deal with and spend money on. Could this be an opportunity to hand out contracts to to the companies that will be handling contracts for the mayor's and councillor's re-election campaigns?
Posted by: Tom Robertson | 04/12/2010 at 02:03 PM
this is such a non topic its getting out of hand.if you ca still buy pop why is water so environmentally unfriendly.
is it because we are using less water and the tax base is down,
i dont get it they tell us to conserve then hit us with water or gas increases because their profit margin is down.
this is just like everything this council does worry about the really small things and push all the big important decisions on the back burner.
for instance,letting the realtors decide that stadium should be built down by the industrial zone. i'm sure they have quite a bit of land they want unload on the taxpayers
Posted by: kevv | 04/12/2010 at 02:14 PM
Bottled water? Really?
I don't want to hear about it, much less comment on it. Please don't mention bottled water unless one or more of the following happens:
-Sam Merulla tries to sue a bottle of water
-Bob Bratina suggests building a useless train to Stoney Creek Mountain to get to the bottled water
-Lloyd Ferguson puts ugly siding on the bottled water factory, then brags about it
-Terry Whitehead starts griping again about not having a personal fridge for his bottled water
-City Council asks the provincial government for millions of dollars in funding because of the bottled water crisis
-Michael Baldisaro tries to run for Mayor of bottled water (and somehow still loses)
-Margaret McCarthy blames the water for taking Flamborough's money
-Larry DiIanni is exposed for accepting bottles of water as illegal campaign donations
-Harry Stinson tries to build a 1000 foot tower downtown made of water bottles
-Somebody from the Cal DiFalco fan club posts off topic about how much bottled water Cal drinks and why it would make him a swell mayor
-The Ticats post some lame, irresponsible hoax about a giant bottle of water rolling over people downtown
-Jim Balsillie tries to buy all the water in the Arizona desert so he can move it here
-Graham Crawford gets threatened with a libel suit for his poster exposé about bottled water
-Brad Clark files a report with the integrity commissioner about bottled water
-Bob Bratina throws a bottle of water at a council meeting
Posted by: Dan Jelly | 04/13/2010 at 02:33 AM
Does that mean the city will re-install the water fountains at Copps??? What a bunch of hypocrites
Posted by: Allan Taylor | 04/13/2010 at 01:50 PM
Will the city put back the drinking water fountains in the core. There used to be a "Shorty Green" at every major intersection downtown and in every park in the city. How many drinking and refilling stations have been incorporated in the new city hall design? Will installation of drinking and refilling stations become part of the building code for any building accessible to the public? If you check this motion on the cities website you will see that staff has priced each drinking fountain/refilling station at three thousand dollars per unit. Will the city be installing them in suitable numbers at all city owned facilities?
Posted by: Tom Robertson | 04/13/2010 at 05:56 PM
Tom and Allan why don't find out the answers to your questions and post the answers here? Why don't you suggest it or request instead moaning about these things here? Or at least be smart and entertaining about it like Dan Jelly.
It's a great idea to get rid of plastic water bottles in city owned buildings hopefully it will be all of them, city hall is a great start. I'll be in touch with my councilor to request it's extended to all city owned facilities.
Posted by: Anny | 04/13/2010 at 08:39 PM
@Dan Jelly: hilarious, just add one more:
Dan Jelly arrested for smoking plastic bottles!!
Posted by: grandmamoses | 04/14/2010 at 08:46 AM
Anne...Questions can be asked to stimulate peoples minds and get them thinking of the possible consequences to an action taken.
We cannot all be entertainers.
Posted by: Tom Robertson | 04/14/2010 at 11:08 AM
Questions can be asked to stimulate peoples minds. Or questions can be asked like a troll.
Posted by: Anny | 04/14/2010 at 04:50 PM
I think Anny (not Anne) is on to something. Tom and a few others are on several Hamilton blogs making inflammatory comments, often off topic with the intent of hijacking for their own agendas.
Look at Tom's first comment about handing out contracts. How does that add to the discussion? Tom do you have proof for this thinly veiled accusation?
Tone down the hate.
That being said, the question was did they go far enough? It's a good start. Hopefully the city expands it and other organizations and businesses follow suit.
Posted by: Phill | 04/14/2010 at 05:14 PM
Especially with an election coming upon us and contracts will be handed out to run this campaign questions should be asked. Have people forgot about ADSCAM already? It is better to ask questions rather than sitting on ones hands under a bridge accepting every word coming out of City Hall?
Posted by: Tom Robertson | 04/15/2010 at 11:05 AM