Agenda - 05-04-1992 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PRESS RELEASE, May 4, 1992 Citizens Against Site Eleven Orange County citizens who live near site I I have assembled at the Orange County Commissioners meeting to demand attention to the following points: 1. We are calling for a REVOTE on the decision to drill all four land fill sites, as the failure to notify Bryant Walker that his proxy vote would not be accepted at the March 25 LSC meeting resulted in a manipulated and thus unacceptable 6-5 vote. 2.Site 11 has been voted off the list two times by the LSC, and both times pushed back on by a revote heavily influenced by the LOG. In none of the four votes, however, did a majority of the 12- member LSC vote to keep Site 11 on the list. 3. We do not feel that the members of the LOG are making sufficient effort to minimize solid waste production in the county, but rather are focusing on operating the landfill for profit. 4. We are unhappy with the midnight revote by the County Commissioners on the reduction of the tipping fees for UNC's ash, and are suspicious of the influence of County Commissioner Don Wilhoit in this decision, as he is both an LOG member and an employee of UNC. 5. We demand that the County Commissioners pass a resolution that would prohibit the use of Orange County's Landfill for waste from outside the county. We remain unconvinced that solid waste officials have excluded the possibility of a regional landfill in the future, and will not be convinced until we see it in writing. The site selection process for a new Orange County landfill has been flawed from the start. The goal appears to be the identification of the largest tract of land that can accommodate unnecessary amounts of waste, through a process that is not based on a sound solid waste management program. The citizens of rural Orange county have insufficient representation in county government and feel that solid waste policy is being set by the Chapel Hill Public Works Department behind closed doors. The latter's policy reflects the interests of the landfill business rather than those of the public, and does not work toward a reduction of the volume of garbage. The Landfill Owners Group (LOG) intends to drill four sites based on a vote of the Landfill Search Committee (LSC). This vote was, by any reasonable measure, manipulated. The LSC had previously voted to exclude three of the four sites, but that was not the conclusion that the LOG had originally intended. Another meeting was therefore called to reconsider the issue. An LSC member who was publicly known to oppose the LOG's plan was misled into believing that he could vote by proxy, and then the proxy was disallowed after it was too late for him to attend. The remaining LSC members met under thinly veiled threats that they would be disbanded if they did not change their recommendation, and they were then redirected by Wilhoit as to what vote outcome would be acceptable. The resulting 6 to 5 vote adopted the LOG's directive. This decision to drill four sites was not approved by a majority of the 12 member LSC. In at least four separate votes a majority of the LSC have never recommended site 11 for a final list. In essence, two years of LSC work was ignored because their decision was not liked.