Valerie Foushee, chairwoman of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, responded to our transfer station question (about whether the county might revisit the Eubanks Road landfill as a possible site.)
"At present, the county has not changed its course of action regarding the siting of the transfer station," she writes. "That is not to say that during the course of budget discussions for FY 2009-10, the costs for the siting, construction, and the cost of transporting solid waste out of the county will not lead to a revisiting of sites that were previously ruled out."
About 50 residents attended a meeting with solid waste director Gayle Wilson Sunday night in White Cross. Read a report on the meeting in tomorrow's Chapel Hill News.
Comments
Lets be clear
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 11:55 — TBlakeOCV does not support the WTF at Eubanks and no one I know out here does either. I do not speak for PRO, but the Mark Shultz article today was *very* misleading about the tone and content of the meeting.
Comments were made, however I think they were made by one misinformed individual. Anyone who examines the history of the Eubanks road landfill will understand that the county and the trash producing municipalities have had numerous and ample opportunities to solve the problem and address the Rogers Road community concerns. The county and municipalities have *failed* to do so over a long history, repeatedly painting themselves into a corner and now it is too late.
OCV has meet with CEER and Minister Campbell and we completely support their notion that no neighborhood should be forced to have this facility. The facility should be located in an industrial area near I-85 as it is in Greensboro. This has been the OVC position from the beginning and has been stated at every meeting.
Finally; Mark, I am frankly disappointed in your story. Why don't you take on the lack of participation from the municipalities and their repeated veto of industrial sites? Why don't you take on the BoCCs lack of resolve in making the municipalities take responsibility for the trash they produce? Instead we get this naked attempt to drive a wedge where there is none and a play to the divisive politics of least resistance that plagues this issue.
You can do better than this.
No wedge
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 16:22 — mschultz (author)The story never said Orange County Voice or Preserve Rural Orange supported Eubanks Road. In fact Laura Streitfeld is quoted as saying she opposes Eubanks and that there is a diversity of opinion among PRO committee members.
The fact is Tom Schopler, a member of the PRO steering committee, raised an issue more people are asking about. The county picked Eubanks Road, the taxpayers already own Eubanks Road, and staff say it's an ideal site.
I did get two calls on today's article, one in support of Schopler's position and another asking why we called Rogers Road mostly black. (As you know one of the arguments against putting the transfer station there had to do with arguments of environmental racism.)
The county put social justice above sustainability when it decided not to build another landfill off Eubanks Road and again when it decided not to put the transfer station there. Gayle said it, and for those who have not followed the story as closely as you, I think the story's focusing on that helps readers understand some of the choices that led to where we are today.
Anyone
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 19:13 — elvisboy77Who thinks that Rogers Road is not "mostly black" as it is offensively put, has never been down that road.
The closer you get to the landfill, the more African American homes there are.
Whoever the idiot is that said that, is probably on the
"advisory/planning" board that thinks connecting Colleton Crossings to Highlands or Tallyho Trail is a good idea, too.
What a piker.
To me
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 17:19 — TBlake...you still miss the bigger story in favor of the cheap old tired one. No wonder we never move the discussion forward.
Why were sites under 25 acres excluded?
Why are the municipalities who produce most of the trash allowed to veto sites that ranked higher in the counties own skewed criteria?
Why has the county conveniently excluded itself from environmental regulations?
Why has the presence of wetlands on the Howell property been ignored by the consultant Olver?
Why did the county permit a driveway on the Howell property against the wishes of DoT?
Why has the county not made every effort to consider alternatives to building redundant and expensive capacity such as private cartage?
How come with schools, water, transportation and the like it is always "a municipal function" but when it comes to trash suddenly it's a county problem?
With the landfill closed the interlocal agreement does not make much sense anymore. They *need* this Waste Transfer Dinosaur to stay in business.
Blaming
Tue, 03/17/2009 - 18:31 — elvisboy77Blaming their inability to fund this properly on the recession etc would be a very bad political move. Many people are watching this very carefully.
All roads lead to Eubanks, if you want to get thrown out of office.