Will Commissioners see the light?

I agree with him too! Really an amazing night here!

We should have a state-of-the-art landfill right here in OC, one that exceeds federal standards, that mitigates to every possible extent any adverse conditions foisted on the area around the landfill by its presence, combined with an agressive recycling /waste reduction campaign. We already do more than most, but we could do a lot more.

But let's not kid ourselves, that will mean far higher dumping fees and the cost of trash pickup will rise sharply.

And then folks will complain about that.....

Neloa, don't bother will Paul. Unlike Terri who understands the depth of the injustice but is equally committed to the environment and speaks with integrity where rational disagreement is possible, Paul acts more like a political spin doctor, seems loyal to a fault and a apologist for the democratic incumbents candidates much like Bush is for his politico's.

We have all tried to provide the facts, the history the pointers to the definitions of environmental injustice and appropriate ways and processes to avoid it. The actions of the BOCC and the SWAB are much like the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. Manslaughter is usually an act of passion or negligence, unplanned and unintended while 1st degree murder is intended and premeditated. The choice of Eubanks was planned and premeditated as the minutes of the SWAB so clearly spell out. It is an open and shut case of 1st degree environmental injustice.

And still you see that there are those who try to push off their responsibility on others. Mike Nelson tried that ploy with Sharon Cook and Katrina Ryan at the Carrboro Farmer's Market and Paul just tried it with Katrina, asking them to find the site or fix the problem. But the how has already been spelled out and a shining example of the execution of that process is only sitting to our west in Greensboro. The blue print and map is there. Only the will use it is required.

So don't bother. It is not worth it. Those arguments are disingenuous at best. You were fabulous last night. Call it a grand slam, a touch down or a slam dunk. Nobody could have said it better and only in 5 minutes. It is going to be a tough fight but you will prevail.

Paul,

I actually agree with you. The best overall solution would be to put our trash right here in Orange County. I have no doubt that our local leaders will dodge that bullet.

The first phone call I'd make is to UNC. They are the biggest trash producer and the biggest land owner in the county. It seems to me that they are a major stakeholder and should be asked to come to the table with either a big pile of cash or some ideas, or better yet, both.

They do have a big ol' brown field right in the middle of the Horace Williams property which is right beside the train tracks. Doesn't that sound like a good idea ?

One of my neighbors actually suggested a trash tax to create a local " Superfund" to fund the improvements in the Rogers rd neighborhood, and then future waste handling facility impact mitigation. Another neighbor suggested that landowners within a prescribed distance ( say 1/2 mile) of the solid waste facilities pay no property tax.

The first thing to do is get out of the " All roads lead to Eubanks" mentality, to quote Moses Carey.

You're absolutely right, Dave, and I won't bother again--such a waste of time although it really is hard to believe . . . . that there are people whose minds can do no better . . . And frankly, I usually do not have a problem with disagreement--I sort of like a good argument, but I do need it to be logical or somewhat close to logical . . . . but anyway I do thank you for your continued support.

Neola, Dave, Katrina, whoever, your coalition says it wants close the landfill by Nov, 2009 and put the transfer station anywhere but the Rogers/Eubanks area.

But none of you has yet to explain if is even possible to have a transfer station operating by Nov 2009 and if not, what she proposes to do with the trash generated by 125000 people.

Whoever did or didn't "drop the ball" or "failed to plan", whoever you want to blame, the fact is we need a place to put our trash and if your coalition could put up an alternative, perhaps it would help your case.

Katrina, those are some good thoughts. Have you communicated them to the BOCC?

Interesting, Katrina. Perhaps Orange County citizens should be forming their own committee to brainstorm for ideas to help these commissioners and to research ways to solve these solid waste issues and certainly UNC should be sitting at the table.

I've already suggested your backyard.

Paul,

As soon as the BOCC commits to reopening the site search, I promise to work to find a solution. We haven't been able to open their minds to any ideas other than Eubanks.

I'm not sure it's feasible to expect the BOCC to reopen the site search. They have a responsibility for providing waste disposal for the entire county, and they know the current landfill is nearly full. If they reopen the site search, they would have to postpone constructing the transfer station, and run the very real and serious risk of having no way to process trash in the near future.

But who says the BOCC have to authorize the new search?

Paul, forget 2009 for a moment. Clearly if there is the will, the search can start for real and Eubanks taken off the table. It can certainly be resolved prior to the landfill final closing date which seems to move to continually move to the right. There needs to be real commitment, real progress and an end in sight. Right now none of that exists.

As I keep repeating there is a defined process, blue print and shinning example as well as suggestions by Katrina. But at the moment the powers are intransigent. NO suggestions are being heard or desired. Bring pressure to bear where the power exists to right this wrong, the BOCC.

As I understand it,

1) The BOCC is the only Orange County governmental body with the authority.
2) The SWAB is the staff that is suppose to have the expertise to set up a set of search criteria and execute a search for a transfer station or any solid waste facility.
3) A real search requires funding and the SWAB as already stated that they have not been authorized or funded to conduct a search.

If the BOCC wisely uses the next year to conduct a site search (and Gayle Wilson has already stated that a formal site search would take approximately one year), Orange County could conceivably complete the building of a transfer station the following year (as Greensboro completed theirs in one year).

If the BOCC and others would do as Katrina stated, "get out of the 'all roads lead to Eubanks mentality,' " and stop squandering the time and pretending they have no choices, they could accomplished something. At any rate, if in fact the landfill reached capacity before a new transfer station was completed, the BOCC and SWAB would certainly be prepared to implement a contingency plan (they have mentioned as much). It is naive to think that Orange County could not be prepared for such a possibility.

Finally, if more people knew the facts of this transfer station issue (the facts which date back several years) and the knew the facts about what has occurred over a period of many years with regard to the Rogers-Eubanks Road Community, the Democratic Party would have been hardpressed to water down the proposed resolution. Those who want to participate in this dialogue or who want to offer real solutions should do their homework instead of simply dismissing facts as allegations. This is exactly why we cannot move forward with a solution.

Actually, I forgot about the long permitting process (and possibly rezoning) for a transfer station. So, yes, the Orange County needs more than two years to situate a transfer station. So, oh well, the Orange will need to implement a contingency plan . . . .

Will--not only is your post ungainly formatting, but to me, it is also incredibly inappropriate for you to be copying anyone else's contact information into this space.

Will, on thing I understand is this: the Rogers Road folks have demanded both a new site for the transfer station AND to have the landfill closed by Nov. 2009. Neola says "no compromise" on either.

But is it possible to have a new transfer station up and running by nov. 2009? We don't care, says Neola, the county will just have to develop a contingency plan for waste disposal, she says, and her plan is to put it in my backyard, it appears.

Do you feel her plan is workable, Will?

Well- since I post here anyway, you might as well add anything you want to say to me right here. As for the others on the list, Jan Sassaman has served over two terms, and I can't comment beyond that on the status of his continued invovlement with SWAB because I don't know what decisions are invovled. Karen Thomas is a new rep, and although it is fine to write to her with whatever you want to say to move forward, she has had no hand in this decision, and it would be wrong to attack her for it. Jan, Remus, Bonnie, Al and I were all involved, as the minutes indicate. I'm willing to discuss the issue, here or in emails. Obviously, I do not speak for anyone but myself.

In most cases, quotations marks are intended to indicate a direct quote. Since you appear to be quoting me, I can only assume, Paul, that you have imagined hearing or reading my having said, "no compromise," perhaps in the same fashion that you've imagined the "allegations" this community has made. I have said, however, that "we all have a lot of work to do."

But, yes, since Orange County has squandered the many years it has had to find land, rezone if necessary, permit, and build a transfer station elsewhere, then, yes, at this point, the county should suffer the consequences, not this community. As most people have probably realized by now, Orange County squandered the time b/c it never truly intended to consider, at least not seriously, any other location other than Eubanks Road for a transfer station.

And, yes, I truly wish it were possible to locate the solid waste facilities--all of them--in your backyard, Paul.

Do you feel this plan is workable, Paul?

Neola, you are correct, you did not say "no comprise" but you certainly do not indicate at all that you are willing to compromise your 11/09 date even if the transfer station, wherever it is sited is open. You seem to feel that is not at all your problem, when it is in fact all citizens' problem if there is no place for our trash to go.

Let me also add i calculated that a 10 million bond issue for Rogers Road improvements would cost about $1.33 million a year for 10 years (at 6%).

Can a bond be floated that is not general obligation (that is, not paid back through increased property taxes) but instead paid back by higher tip fees at the transfer station?

Sorry, my last post should have read "even if the transfer station, wherever it is sited, is *not* open...."

I didn't say it was private information--it isn't. But is posting someone's personal information really a practice you want to perpetuate? You could have simply put in a link to where to find that information and let anyone who wanted it badly enough go there to find it. In case you are wondering why I think this is an issue, it's my experience that many individuals who see an email address are more prone to send off quick, poorly thought out messages. But if they have to go find the address, they are more likely to think through what they want to say. If we want people in this community to volunteer to serve on advisory boards, we should be hoping that public communication with those individuals is thoughtful and not reactionary.

The county should suffer the consequences (of its inaction), not this community. The county deserves to be burdened with this garbage dilemma, not this community. As far as the garbage is concerned, there are indeed alternatives though Orange County does not want to consider them nor do many of its citizens. You yourself have stated one such alternative as well as the objections to it:
"We should have a state-of-the-art landfill right here in OC, one that exceeds federal standards, that mitigates to every possible extent any adverse conditions foisted on the area around the landfill by its presence, combined with an aggressive recycling/waste reduction campaign. We already do more than most, but we could do a lot more.
But let's not kid ourselves, that will mean far higher dumping fees and the cost of trash pickup will rise sharply."

To be honest, I have never known real solutions to be anything other than the result of compromise.

And Will is absolutely right. This community was compelled to give a deadline in order to focus and move the discussion toward a practical solution that people can accept but one that also excludes Eubanks Road from further consideration for additional solid waste facilities.

On this particular point--not locating a transfer station on Eubanks Road, no, there is no compromise, but given the history, this is hardly an unreasonable request or expectation.

Building our own landfill (or two) would likely increase cost in the beginning.

Dumping our waste on some other community via a transfer station and contract with a large corporate waste firm, would likely be cheaper in the beginning.

I suspect that - if we looked at life-cycle costs - that building our own landfills would be less expensive. It certainly would be a situation that we would have the most control over. It also is the situation that would result in the least amount of waste.