"Residents say the air in their neighborhood is unhealthy ..."The adjective "unhealthy" means "not enjoying good health." It
applies only to living organisms.The adjective meaning "not
tending to promote good health" is "unhealthful."The
phrase should read "Residents say the air in their neighborhood is
The area is zoned for heavy industrial. My goodness, just a few blocks from
residential. That may be the fault of the city, but totally legal. And no, the
real estate agent does not have to disclose anything about that. A quick 2
minute search on Google showed me that. They will say anything for you to buy.
That is why the price is so low out there. If they are forced to
move, I feel that the residents should have to pay for them to move somehow.
This issue isn't new. There was a Kuhni animal rendering plant in Provo
many years ago, and homes crept and crept up and they were forced out. Like it or not there are industrial areas along the Wasatch Front. Those
refineries are sickening every time I drive by on the way into SLC but they were
there first. You couldn't pay me to live in Foxboro.
It is interesting to see the two political views being played out here.On one side you have the conservatives saying that the people chose to build
houses and live there without looking at what was in the area. They say that
they should feel the consequences of their decisions.On the other
side you have liberals saying that they want to remove the consequences of the
home-owner's actions by punishing the business. People shouldn't
suffer for their bad choices.Tell me, which is most beneficial for a
society, allowing people to feel the pain of their bad choices or covering up
their bad choices so that they never feel pain?
@toosmartforyou While that may be true, that the home buyer should
be held responsible, the business should also. Especially if they are fudging
the books to appear less hazardous than they actually are. And the city should
also retain some responsibility for zoning that land as residential. And if we
are going to continue to dole out blame, the builder should also be held partly
responsible for building there.But once again lets look at the fact
that this company might be producing more pollution than they are allotted. If
that is the case then they should be shut down. PERIOD!
Working in the medical community I am happy there are companies like this to
incinerate medical waste. I really don't want to see that waste in our
landfills even if was autoclaved first. Does the company need to be monitored
more? Maybe. Does it need to upgrade it's equipment? Maybe. but to drive
it out of the state is a disservice to us all.
@ Marxist...the City is not responsible for protecting you when you decide to
buy a home next to an incinerator. The land owners decided to sell to a
developer that wanted to make a lot of money by constructing cheap starter
homes. That is why it is located where it is. (Try and buy in Eaglewood and
you'll see the difference immediately.) The City zoned the property for
residential use and the houses were built. My whole point is that if buyers
were smart enough to refuse to buy the houses due to their location next to an
incinerator, the developer would obtain a real education about where to buy
cheap land and build starter homes. Don't ever expect a city to police or
restrict where a developer may apply for a subdivision. In Herriman they are
right against the military test range---remember the gun fire a few years ago or
the dump fire that soon turned into a mudslide area in northern Utah County
after a huge rain? Consumers need to be careful with their 30-year investment
choices. Period. NSL has NO responsibility where you buy a home in their city.
Apparently people missed the fact that this company has lied and fraudulently
changed their logs to try and sneak one past environmental regulations. That
alone loses you the right of even making the weak argument of "I was here
first."While I personally would not move near a facility like
this, if I did move in only to find out later that the facility was not
operating under regulations, I would be furious. How many posters on this board
even understand how far reaching the impact of the pollutants are? In a few
decades, we may find health anomalies not just in the nearest neighborhoods but
further out as well. You would think more people in Utah would be very skeptical
of this kind of action after our history being nuclear down-winders (when
regulators and government officials also said everything was just fine).
What I don't understand is why this facility wasn't put further west,
in an area zoned for industry only.A compromise should be reached.
The anti pollution measures should be improved.
"Why did they buy a new home in that neighborhood if it was such a poor
place to live? The facility was there long before the houses." Typical
Utahn response, and ENTIRELY beside the point. Does the city of North Salt Lake
have a public health responsibility? Yes, absolutely. So it should take action
to protect public health - NOW! BTW, the city should never have allowed Foxboro
to be built next door. Moreover, the incinerator should not have been built in
the first place. I, along with a number of other NSL residents, tried to stop
the dang thing, but you know, money talks and our efforts were doomed from the
This is Utah, where the legislators believe pollution equals good business.
Agree with 'toosmartforyou.' I used to live near that area and
couldn't believe that people would buy houses in that area. You can see all
of the industrial fire and other matter with your bare eyes. I just plain am not
I hope people read the article and don't just get outraged by the picture.
The picture is outraging, but it was an anomaly. Sounds like it's a rare
incident, if this kind of thing happened all the time it would be different.We can get outraged that this 5 minute incident happened, or... we could
be happy that they had a backup plan. It sounds like something went wrong and
they had an emergency. It's probably better for the neighbors that they
had this emergency vent than that they just let things blow up.
Why did they buy a new home in that neighborhood if it was such a poor place to
live? The facility was there long before the houses. Don't realtors, by
law, have to disclose such conditions in an area where the new home is being
sold? Imagine the message that would send to developers and builders if they
built a large subdivision of cheaper starter homes and no one would buy one? Or
if suddenly the realtor/broker had to pay a massive claim for not disclosing
pertinent information about the location of the property. For sure the City
will never care. Wow, consumers, do your homework. It's not
right to buy next to the airport and then complain about the noisy airplanes.