Agenda - 05-19-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A statement to the Orange County Commissioners, May 19, 1992 from the Citizens Against Site Eleven We are here again to demonstrate how very dissatisfied we are with the search process for Orange County's next landfill. We would first like to remind you of our statement of May 4, and then add the following comments: 1. We are very displeased that after our demonstration two weeks ago you have failed to put discussion of an LSC revote on the agenda, particularly given that you stated last time that you would do so. This is a breach of public faith. We are calling for an investigation of the voting process that led to the selection of landfill sites 11, 2, 9 and 17 for geotechnical drilling. We trust that your sound judgment will guide you to the conclusion that the selection process for these 4 sites was flawed. Clearly the intention of the Landfill Search Committee (LSC) was to drill only sites 17 and 3, before the LSC was overridden by political coercion. 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. 17 sites were initially identified by using maps and flyovers, thereby obviously missing sites that are as good as or better than those that were chosen. It is easy to spend taxpayers' money, but harder and more expensive to cover or clean up mistakes. The public has never been shown that anyone involved in the search process has a scientific knowledge that qualifies them to make a site choice. Furthermore it is critical that a sound solid waste management policy should be formulated prior to the choice of a site. In addition there appears to be a conflict of interest in that Joyce Engineering is clearly influencing the choice of a land fill site that they will ultimately be running. Another example of conflict of interest has already been manifested by the action of the County Commissioners to reduce UNC's ash tipping fees, and perhaps this is only the tip of the misguided iceberg. 4. The four sites to be drilled were clearly chosen by a process heavily influenced by an angry public and not by sound public policy and scientific reasoning. Why is it that the top sites early on that were also defended by the most vocal populaces, are no longer under consideration? Is it really because all of these sites are unsuitable for a landfill ? Evaluation by flyovers and arbitrary statistical compilations are an insult to Orange County citizens. 5. With the provided information, we simply do not understand why site 3 or even part of site 3 was eliminated. We demand a plausible explanation that will satisfy us, the LOG and the LSC. We trust that the LOG and the LSC have sufficient imagination to come up with a site that is within a reasonable distance of an existing landfill. 6. Citizens Against Site 11 are clearly angry. Of course we are angry that the County landfill could end up in our backyards. But wherever the landfill ends up, the citizens of Orange County, and not just those in Chapel Hill, must be satisfied that the selection process was scientifically sound and politically just. Otherwise, your mistakes today will continue to haunt you and the County for many years to come. Please do not approve the drilling of the four sites and waste $60,000 of our hard -earned money. Drill site 17 as this has the unanimous support of the LSC, and if that is not suitable, then, and only then, drill one more.