Angry North Salt Lake residents to ask Gov. Herbert to shut down Stericycle

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Clifton Palmer McLendon Gilmer, Texas
    Sept. 11, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    "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 unhealthful ..."

  • Rusty Nail Sandy, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 11, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    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?

  • bricha lehi, ut
    Sept. 11, 2013 10:03 a.m.


    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!

  • Evets Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    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.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Madden Herriman, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    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).

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 2:16 a.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    "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 beginning.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 10, 2013 10:14 p.m.

    This is Utah, where the legislators believe pollution equals good business.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    Sept. 10, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    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 sympathetic.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 10, 2013 9:33 p.m.

    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.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Sept. 10, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    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.