The possibility of again extending the 40-year life of the landfill on Eubanks Road filled the room at the Orange County Board of Commissioners meeting last night.
About ten people spoke about the landfill and criticized the board for not following-up on past promises to provide water and sewer and address environmental concerns in the historically black communtiy.
" For too long, the putrid smell of racism has billowed into the Rogers Road community," said Allison Norman, co-chair of the Rogers Road Commission student group at UNC-CH.
"It's about promises made and promises never kept," said Robert Campbell, of the Roger-Eubanks Coalition. "It's about promises made but promises never kept."
And the commissioners were contrite.
"I am so appalled that we are at this same point that we were when we established task forces to begin working in this neighborhood," said Commissioner Valerie Foushee. If the landfill is extended another five or six years, the board would essentially be saying that it's okay that it never did what it said it would do, she said.
"As Commissioner Foushee was talking, I felt a sense of shame," said Board Chairwoman Bernadette Pellissier.
As for comments about the landfill from county staff, Commissioner Barry Jacobs said he was offended by Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson's comment in a memo that he wouldn't "relish the required brief public process" because of the "small number" of residents opposed to the extension.
"Quite frankly, I'm offended, I don't ever think that's how we should ever regard the public process," he said. "I think we should treat citizen concerns with respect."
Check out my piece, in the N&O today, for more on the commissioners' discussion to possibly extend the Orange County landfill and their new promise to create a mitigation plan and status report of past initiatives in the Rogers-Road Eubanks community.

Katelyn Ferral covers Orange County for The News & Observer and The Chapel Hill News.

Comments
typo in the piece
Wed, 04/06/2011 - 15:39 — jcbarrThe version I just read online says the 1st 2 options require public process. It is actually option 2 and 3 which require that process. Option 1 (the smallest expansion) can be done without permit change.
Typo
Thu, 04/07/2011 - 16:16 — kferral (author)You're right. Thanks for letting us know. We'll fix that.