With regards to the Northampton city council conducting a series of public FORUMS on the proposed landfill expansion, the esteemed editors of the Daily Hampshire Gazette opine in their May 8 edition that the council should, "cease debate about holding such meetings now." As conservative syndicated columnist George Will might breath-fully respond, "Well!"
Their opinion as disseminated to thousands of readers exemplifies an almost complete misinterpretation of the advice offered the council by Attorneys Michael Pill and Janet Sheppard respectively, the former who was hired by Mayor Higgins to advise the council, the latter the city’s contracted solicitor who was also hired by Higgins. These mouthpieces have ADVISED council members not to ATTEND public forums as might be conducted by the Paradise City Forum or Board of Public Works, because councilors not attending would make the attorneys’ jobs easier. However, the lawyers did not indicate that councilors CANNOT ATTEND or CONDUCT public forums, those are decisions for the council and its individual members to make.
I argue further that by their very nature, exercises in democracy can be tough and tedious, but that the course of those exercises should not, I repeat, should not be dictated by attorneys hired by the chief executive of the city, the chief supporter of the proposed landfill expansion. In short, there is nothing preventing councilors from attending and/or conducting public FORUMS, provided that they document the proceedings. The rest is just clever rhetoric overtly intended to structure and stifle community debate over one of the most important issues of our time. For a community that prides itself on its supposed progressive nature this is appalling. It makes one wonder who is pulling the levers behind Northampton’s curtain of power, so to speak.
While I agree for what it’s worth, that formal public HEARINGS should not commence until relevant reports and studies are concluded and the board of public works applies for a special permit, public FORUMS are another matter entirely. Gazette editors are obfuscating the differences between the two, effectively treating them as though they are one in the same. They are not. Public FORUMS offer a far more liberal exchange of conversation and ideas that often, but not always, contribute to the community discourse. Moreover, documenting public FORUMS is an easily attainable feat, either for the council or other facilitators. Northampton Cable Access Television has easy access to municipal or off-site facilities and could record these meetings on behalf of the public record. In addition, documenting the content of the FORUMS could also encompass written minutes or audio/video recordings, or all of the above. Not a daunting task in this day and age of enhanced technology.
Now I don’t know when Gazette editors last participated in a city sanctioned public HEARING, which is quite different from a public FORUM, but I recall several that I attended. For instance, during the controversial Smith College Educational Use Overlay District deliberations in 2006, I distinctly remember the chairperson of the planning board ending the public HEARING while hands of attendees were still extended in the air. Those hands were attached to people who wished to comment, but once planning board chair Frandy Johnson brought the gavel down, formal public contribution to the deliberations ended abruptly.
It would indeed place us on a "slippery slope" toward fascism should residents allow their government and the mainstream media to set the ground rules for public conversation on matters of public concern. Public FORUMS do not equate to public HEARINGS and any suggestion that the two are the same is specious at best. Let the people speak with their elected representatives and appointed officials, what’s the worst that can happen?
Let’s also get this straight, trucking the trash over longer distances is a matter of logistics. If Northampton stopped taking in trash from other communities, the other communities might truck their trash elsewhere or they could deposit their trash within their own community. This might entail both longer and/or shorter trips, depending upon where and how those communities chose to handle their waste obligations. In effect, no one knows at this time exactly what would happen. If Northampton decided to close the landfill and transport its trash elsewhere, that would require a need to truck the trash of Northampton residents and businesses longer distances. Since Northampton residents account only for about 6% of the trash deposited in the landfill according to the DPW, the reasoning of Gazette editors very likely exemplifies an exaggeration, though the percentage of waste originating from Northampton commercial interests is unclear. The editors’ supposition that in the absence of landfill expansion there would be a need to truck trash longer distances which would raise environmental concerns rests upon a potentially faulty logic. They seem to ignore the probable negative environmental consequences of expanding our landfill over the Barnes Aquifer, a water supply for tens of thousands of people, mentioning water quality studies as a critical issue only in passing. Of the two, which environmental concern would you weight more heavily?
Moreover, the editors and Higgins are out of sync for a change. The editorial mentioned the "loss of significant revenue for Northampton," in the absence of landfill expansion, but Higgins has stated repeatedly that in her view, the landfill expansion proposal is not about revenue for the city. She stated such at her recent Ward Two budget briefing given at the behest of Ward Two’s councilor Paul Spector. A truncated podcast of that performance can be heard at Mary Serreze’s NorthamptonMedia.com. Listen for yourself.
So, depending upon who you believe, if indeed the proposed expansion is not about finances, what is the moral justification for Northampton residents being forced to accept from area communities thousands of tons of waste that could be recycled? Click here to download the March 2005 Dufresne-Henry report of communities in the Northampton landfill waste-shed. According to the report, the average recycling rate of all users of the landfill was listed as 63%. That means a significant portion of the waste deposited in Northampton by our neighbors and commercial interests could have been re-used. Thus by rejecting the proposed landfill expansion, councilors would indeed be forcing other communities and commercial interests to re-examine their waste management practices and policies, which would likely result in an increase overall in recycling rates. Thus rejection of expansion could be a good thing to do, if they had the courage to act in such a way.
Interestingly, the aforementioned 2005 report lists Northampton as having an astounding 93% rate of recycling. However, the May 8 edition of the Springfield Republican is reporting that East Longmeadow ranked third in the state in 2006, with a recycling rate of 63%. The article also mentions the rates of Southampton, at 59%, Longmeadow, at 54%, and Springfield, at 19%. Northampton was not mentioned as a top recycling community for 2006. So what happened with the 2005 Dufresne-Henry report? According to the Department of Environmental Protection, Northampton’s 2005 recycling rate was 45%. The DEP reported Northampton recycling rates from 1995-2006 are as follows:
- Calendar year 2006 47%
- CY 2005 45%
- CY 2004 54%
- CY 2003 53%
- CY 2002 56%
- *
- Fiscal Year 2001 62%
- FY 2000 48%
- FY 1999 44%
- FY 1998 44%
- FY 1997 45%
- FY 1996 34%
- FY 1995 32%
*Beginning in 2002, municipal recycling data reporting switched from fiscal year reporting to calendar year reporting. Fiscal year reporting is based on July 1-June 30. Calendar year reporting is based on January 1-December 31.
In the interest of full disclosure I’ve been involved in various capacities with the Paradise City Forum since its inception in 2001.
