Will the new waste-transfer search be any different than the last?

I was inadvertently "Anonymous" on 1/17 at 4:49.

David Richter

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

A friend of mine, who knows the area's history pretty well, pointed out to me that the original landfill (I wrote "the original landfill"), which is north of Eubanks, is as close to Mill House Road as it is to Rogers Road. It looks that way to me. They also told me that the ground water in the area flows to the NE, away from Rogers Road.

In today's CHN there was a guest column by Neloa Jones that was a great response to what was a guest column by Barry Katz and a letter to the editor Nancy Parks. Both Katz's coloumn and Parks' letter were accusatory without being substantive and revealed a basic lack of understanding of the problem and the underlying issues and history. Neloa does a great job of getting to the core issues. Instead of getting defensive and going into denial, we need to face and solve this very real problem that has been allowed to fester for so long. The following are pointers to the columns and the letter.

Ruby, Let me say -- Please get straight on this. The unlined landfill north of Eubanks is huge compared to the lined landfill to the south, and the bulk of it is not construction and demolition waste as you say. It is in fact the sanitary landfill used by Orange County for a quarter century. Check Googlemaps to appreciate the size and proximity of this landfill that you mention.

I have got to say that your dismissive attitude of folks to the north side of the landfill is disheartening, even appalling. The landfill affects us as much as it does the folks towards Rogers Road, and your opinion that it doesn't shows the problem that we face every day. Even if there are fewer of us out here, it doesn't mean that we should lose every time, victims of "Stick it to them because we can" mentality.

Folks in the county don't count to townfolks, considered less than human, and because of that, we get stuck with all of your collective crap, or whatever you wish to call it. In addition to the landfill, we get the town public works site, transportation depot, impound lot, park and ride lot, industrial park, animal shelter, and maybe the homeless shelter if Mayor Foy has his way. To make the contrast complete, and different Rogers Road, we do not have Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools.

I would like to believe that everyone in a community shares in the responsibilities, but around here it is just not so. In this town famous for bragging about its progressive mindset, talk is cheap, plentiful, but not much use to those of us who carry the burden and live with the hypocrisy while others entertain themselves debating what is right and wrong.

I would be happy to show you around this part of the county that you need to know better. Give me a call if you are interested - 942-0791.

Rick Kennedy

Mark, I take it you are in favor of virgin sacrifices. The choice to keep dumping on disenfranchised folks here versus elsewhere is not much of a choice. Can't I choose a location in a community that is well-off and responsible for two-thirds of the problem? Wouldn't you say that is the preferred option?

Since the landfill question came up years ago, Chapel Hill proceeded with two huge developments -- Southern Village and Meadowmont, but gee, no room for a landfill anywhere. Neither Chapel Hill nor Carrboro could find room in town for their public works sites either, but they managed to find plenty of land for a high school site, and apparently they had no problem invoking eminent domain to get it.

It is maddening to hear progressive talking heads blabber on about keeping "our trash" or whatever in "our community" when they never include us as part of their community except when it comes these things. Is it justice of any sort for one part of the county to carry such a disproportionate share of the load? If you had the power, would you create such an arrangement yourself and say that is was a just one?

Do we share schools? No. Do we share water? No. Do we share police/fire. No. Do we have any say in land management issues? No. Can we vote in town elections? No. Do we get stuck with all the crap of a community? Yes. It is an abusive and arrogant attitude worthy of a Republican enclave, which is what Chapel Hill seems to have become, judging from the way they treat the folks around it. I wonder who will be more offended with that, Chapel Hillians or Republicans. I guess we'll see.

Rick

A large part of the problem with siting a landfill is that it is rarely done properly. Therefore we are forced into choosing between two very narrow, poor alternatives (not unlike our elections). I am convinced that, if we did it right, we could deal with our own solid waste in the county. If we can't, we are failures. 

I made a proposal several years ago that any housing development of a certain size must contain a construction waste landfill for the waste generated during construction. This accomplishes several things 1) construction waste would be reduced to save land 2) construction waste would need to be certified as non-toxic or less people would want to live there 3) it would keep waste out of a community landfill thus not burdening the taxpayer and helping make development pay for it itself.

Another proposal I'm considering to reduce teen pregnancy - virgins are exempt from tip fees at the landfill.

and brilliantly stated.  He has said it all.

nbj

My solution is to site one or two landfills designed for minimal impact, in conjunction with a very aggressive and creative waste reduction plan. Also, we should expect to work very closely with those who may be affected by the sites to mitigate problems, offer just compensation, etc. I also think that we could have several smaller waste processing sites - maybe one just for restaurant and food waste. Also we should look at helping businesses get started that would process recyclables.

Who's next with a proposal? (remember - we can't wave a magic wand & make the trash disappear...)

I think we can also do more compressing of some of our waste that can't be recycled so that it takes up less space.

But what remains is the fact that we all demand, desire or accept certain services that we don't necessarily want in our backyard. Someone always pays in terms of being the host - whether it is a school, a shelter, a dump, an airport, an operations center, a power line and right of way, a waste treatment plant, and on and on the list goes. Attempts to give all the "opportunity" to host their fair share is always defeated by market forces and elected leaders who respond to political as well as market forces.

Until we discover a new model to embrace and actually embrace it, these battles will continue. What will stem the tide?

Mark, Your solution is not that different from mine, but I would first create two distinct counties using the city boundary as the demarcation line. Orange County could find its own solution for waste, and I would be content to take my chances on this side of the line finding a responsible solution. Chapel Hill-Carrboro would be responsible for finding its own equitable solution, which it wouldn't do. Instead, we would see all sorts of moral contortions to assuage the collective town conscience while shipping out garbage to anywhere that would take it.

This two-county solution raises all sorts of interesting possibilities for folks out in the county, the fundamental one being real chance for self-determination. It would also create some interesting circumstances for town folks, forcing them to realize what they take for granted from their county neighbors.

Looking to the past, Alamance/Caswell/Chatham/Durham/Guilford and Wake County have all been birthed from the borders of Orange County. Would one more time matter?

For the testosterone-challenged anonymous posters out there, sounds like somebody is grumpy about tax time in northern Carrboro, but just a guess on my part. The issue for me is not so much the landfill itself, although it justifiably is for others, but everything that has come since and continues to come, and Chapel Hill-Carrboro's absolute abrogation of responsibility for the burdens of its community. The hypocrisy is astounding. In regards to hyperbole, isn't that the essence of anonymous OP postings?

Hugs and kisses, Rick

in their refusal to acknowledge more responsibility for waste.  Yes, if the county were split at the current city/county boundaries, we would see an amazing shift in attitudes, not to mention an amazing shift in the so-called "center of waste."

nbj

Given the multitude of environmental impacts (which include producing garbage, construction debris, and hazardous waste), given the at least 900 acres of land (is that correct?), and given that the University and local governments should share in the responsibility to help resolve OC's waste problem, the great Carolina North offers an opportunity to do just that: the area is large enough to site state-of-the-art solid waste facilities.

Even the smallest of such facilities (e.g., transfer station) would demand only a very small fraction of this land, thus also allowing Chapel Hill and Orange County to create the much-needed appropriately sized buffers that would serve to protect nearby communities along with UNC's research centers, offices, etc., buffers sadly missing from its current Eubanks Road facilities.

Thus far, Rick Kennedy's suggestion that Carolina North be considered as a location has not been thoughtfully discussed.  So, I end this post with my most oft-used question: I wonder why?

Of course, we all KNOW why, don't we?

nbj

Yes, I thought this area was (in part at least) once a brownfield.  In my previous post, I listed a transfer station as a possibility (which only needs 15 acres). However, a small landfield would be even better, again, this time--state-of-art, as low impact as humanly possible, "real" finely-constructed brick barrier walls (not chain-link), very large buffers, etc.  The original OC purchase of property on the south side of Eubanks was only 80 acres, and the current landfield does not use 80 acres as some of this land houses other facilities.  Of course, over the years, OC has increased its property ownership--the Neville tract, for example, adjacent to Mrs. West's property, and the Deng property, I believe. 

Thanks for raising this issue, Ruby.

nbj