If the Northampton City Council cares what residents think, it will reject the direction taken last week by three of its members in sponsoring a non-binding ballot question about the city's plans to expand its municipal landfill.
A working draft of a possible ballot question sponsored by the Council president, Jim Dostal, and councilors Bob Reckman and Paul Spector emerged late last week, following a decision earlier in the month by the Council to table a proposed question sponsored by councilors Michael Bardsley and Marianne LaBarge. The Bardsley/LeBarge question asked: "Shall the City of Northampton expand the Northampton landfill over the Barnes Aquifer?"
While the City Council effectively rejected that question and left open the door for members to draft an alternative, a group of Northampton residents has been working to get a question with the same exact wording as Bardsley's and LeBarge's on the ballot, requiring a petition signed by 10 percent of the city's registered voters.
Some of those who oppose the wording of the citizens' petition question (likewise the Bardsley/Lebarge question) have described it as "too simplistic," "misleading," and lacking in information. The Daily Hampshire Gazette, in a July 28 editorial, said the question "oversimplifies a complicated and complex question." The Gazette argues that the phrase "over the Barnes Aquifer" is a "red herring," a term defined as a logical fallacy used to intentionally change the subject or divert an argument. "We fully support giving voters an opportunity to be heard on the landfill issue," the Gazette opined, "but councilors should reject the wording of the existing referendum question, which is misleading."
In explaining what he, Reckman and Spector have tried to do in drafting an alternative, Dostal told the Gazette last week, "We are trying to provide a question that gives people an idea of the pros and cons."
Unfortunately, as complicated and controversial as the landfill issue is, attempts by either proponents or opponents of the expansion to make the ballot initiative more informative will be viewed as an effort to massage the question to produce a desired outcome. While the Gazette misused the term red herring in its July 28 editorial—the fact that an aquifer lies under the proposed site of expansion is central to the issue at hand, and mentioning it in no way diverts from the major point of dispute—the request for a straight, unbiased question is perfectly reasonable. That, however, is not what Dostal and his colleagues are likely to end up with.
According to the Gazette, the draft question includes background information and a statement that the Board of Public Works "has received a waiver from the commonwealth to expand the landfill after a rigorous application process." The draft question goes on to outline four arguments in favor of expansion and four arguments against.
The pro arguments, according to the Gazette, make the case that the expansion would: allow the landfill to contribute approximately $750,000 per year to the general fund and generate "additional income to support a wide range of recycling options and programs; [provide] the lowest possible disposal cost for households and businesses; [continue] to mean that waste from our schools, the housing authority, downtown and other city operations will be received at the landfill at no cost." The case in favor of expansion notes that "it is philosophically appealing to deal with our own waste."
The con arguments, as reported in the Gazette, are: that not expanding would "[decrease] traffic, odor and dust for landfill neighbors;" that "although multiple studies have shown there is no new environmental risk for the city, some citizens remain concerned;" that not expanding would "pose zero financial risk for the city relating to a new large public works program;" and "although multiple state and independent studies have shown there is no health risk, some citizens remain concerned."
As drafted, the question appears to tilt in favor of expansion, putting weight on, for example, "multiple state and independent studies [showing] no health risk." Such an assertion—that there is sufficient scientific evidence that expansion poses no health threat—is certain to be rejected by opponents, who believe that the existing studies have been misinterpreted and should be bolstered by further study.
Rather than loading up the ballot question with spin, the City Council should seek to strip the question down to its essence. To do so, it should not try to use the question itself as part of an informational campaign. As important as it may be for the city to keep its citizens informed, that function should not be conflated with asking citizens straightforward yes or no questions.
Given reservations about the citizens' initiative and its question's reference to the Barnes Aquifer, here is the City Council's best alternative: Shall the City of Northampton expand the Northampton landfill?
