No one should have been surprised that there was dissent over the secret city council vote last week to buy a landfill site near London, Ont., for an undisclosed sum that some estimate will top $500 million over maybe 20 years.The vote was called on one day's notice. Councillors had not been discussing a purchase plan well ahead of time, as is the norm. And the whole matter was done in private. Mere hours after the vote, some critics argued that the city could have done better. A deal was there for the making back in 2005 that could have saved the city money, but the mayor sat on the offer, they said.Mayor David Miller went ballistic. The mayor had "no offer. No report. No deal. Nothing to report. Nothing to act on," he said, adding that a Toronto Star article was knowingly false.But in politics, it's never quite that simple. Before the day was out the mayor's office had to find a way of explaining that there was a report and a proposal, though not a formal offer, as they maintained. And that the mayor had, indeed, acted on it. There's no dispute that a private firm approached city officials in 2004 about taking the city's trash to Green Lane landfill near London, Ont. and relieving the contentious garbage shipments to Michigan.Depending on who you talk to, a price was definitely offered (though only some officials may have known exactly what it was) to the point of being $1 a tonne more than the Michigan price.No matter, both sides knew on Feb. 1, 2005 the price range it would take to do a deal and all that remained was for the city to officially show a real interest and for the province to grant the needed environmental approvals. The approvals never came — until this summer. And Star sources say the city, through the mayor's office, didn't show the urgency and interest required to push the province and get a deal done — no matter how slim the chance.So, when a new deal to buy the site was done last week, the sources say a better deal to dump, but not buy, was left on the table in 2005.Miller remains steadfast on this: The deal wasn't done because the elements were not present for one. Specifically, the landfill site didn't have the approvals in place to handle Toronto's garbage, so, even if the city wanted to in 2005, it could not have signed on to send its waste to the Green Lane landfill. That's true — to a point. As usual, it is not the entire story.Here's why there's credence to claims by Star sources that Miller "sat on" an offer to take Toronto's trash to London — even as Michigan lawmakers were stirring up opposition to the city's waste entering their state.

    • The city staffer doing the negotiations to get the Green Lane site was Angelos Bacopoulos, not a favourite of Miller's or of his anti-incineration councillors, because he favoured burning garbage as one of the options the city must consider. The Millerites had been urging Miller to get rid of Bacopoulos — and the mayor was to do so shortly. Although Bacopoulos, as general manager of waste management, was responsible for a most advantageous contract to ship waste to Michigan, he was summarily let go when his contract was up — 23 years with the city, notwithstanding.

    • One of the consultants working for the firm offering Toronto the Green Lane dump was Chris Hodgson, municipal affairs minister under Mike Harris. His presence on the team didn't help endear the firm to the McGuinty Liberals at Queen's Park.For the deal to work, the province had to approve an expanded Green Lane landfill and allow it to take Toronto's waste. That's why the staff briefing note to Miller in February 2005 recommending a "senior level meeting with the province of Ontario to discuss the opportunity, next steps and time line."Interestingly, the mayor's office continues to suggest such a meeting took place — an awkward claim after insisting there was nothing to act on and no report recommending action. Neither city staff, Pitfield, nor Queen's Park can recall such a meeting. The environmental assessment languished and was not approved until this year.

    • During the 2003 campaign, and during most of his tenure as mayor, Miller has steadfastly maintained the city has an airtight contract to send its trash to Michigan and so he had no concerns. So when Michigan lawmakers started fomenting trouble, Miller wasn't about to rush in and acknowledge it.

    • It was left to Councillor Jane Pitfield, chair of council's works committee, to handle the concerns of the Michigan dissenters. She traveled to Michigan to assuage the concerns there and promise Toronto would be out of Michigan as soon as possible.So, when staff told Pitfield that an option existed to send Toronto's trash to London, Ont., she was naturally motivated to pursue any leads. She says she went to Miller three times, urging him to move on the Green Lane offer.

    • But Pitfield was not a Miller favourite. Millerites on council objected to her pro-incineration stance, especially as the city was drafting its long-term waste management plan. In fact, Miller and his supporters were just waiting out Pitfield's term as committee chair, which was to end in June, four months away.If there was going to be a solution to Toronto's garbage woes, it would not happen under Pitfield's leadership.

    • The third element of the politics of garbage, circa February 2005, was the province of Ontario and its environment minister Leona Dombrowsky. The minister refused to acknowledge the province's role in finding a solution for municipal waste. Pitfield kept insisting Ontario had to help. That, plus Dombrowsky's anti-incineration views, meant Pitfield wasn't among her favourite people. Second-guessing is a favourite political sport. Opposition parties exist in a democracy to do just that. Opponents use the strategy to shed light on the way a decision was made, if not the decision itself. And a good government quickly learns how to deal with the questions posed by pundits, citizens and the losers of a vote.On this file, the system broke down, the game got nasty. And one can safely blame the many hidden agendas.