INC NEWS - New yard waste proposal

Wed Apr 19 13:30:48 EDT 2006

Hi -- is there someplace online I can read exactly what the new proposed plan for yard waste is? (And regular trash too, if that's also changing.) When I checked the city's yard waste management site all I found was information about the new warnings/fine system. 

Many thanks.

Nancy Grandjean
Northgate Park

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Newman Aguiar [mailto:newman at nc.rr.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 03:19 PM
>To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
>Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Is the new solid waste plan based on solid ground?
>
>Anne,
>
> 
>
>> 
>
>Separate from long-term solutions, however, I acknowledge that we have a
>broken yard waste program.  In the short-term, I believe the proposed plan
>will leave us in a better place then our current plan.  I recall, along with
>other PAC2 members, taking issue with our current plan with the former
>director, who was confident that we were all wrong.  This discussion is on
>the record of the PAC2 minutes.  Without a more sustainable long-term
>component, it seems likely that the costs of the proposed plan will create a
>problem for Durham residents.
>
> 
>
>Newman
>
> 
>
>  _____  
>
>From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
>Behalf Of Mike - Hotmail
>Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 10:38 AM
>To: Anne Guyton; RW Pickle
>Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org
>Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Is the new solid waste plan based on solid ground?
>
> 
>
>Then this may be an instance (a rare event) that we disagree.
>
> 
>
>I still feel it's a cop-out for Durham to ship waste somewhere else.
>
> 
>
>For me,  I have to believe that there's got to be a better solution.
>
> 
>
>Educated minds, much more than mine,  surely have answers.
>
> 
>
>I just keep seeing this getting more and more expensive for us with no end
>in sight.
>
> 
>
>Randy mentioned once that he'd done some research on this.  I'm just
>advocating that we keep looking at it for a longer term solution and willing
>to listen to the new Director BEFORE taking these steps (new plan).
>
> 
>
>mike
>
> 
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>
>From: Anne Guyton <mailto:annemguyton at yahoo.com>  
>
>To: Mike - <mailto:mwshiflett at hotmail.com>  Hotmail ; RW
><mailto:randy at 27beverly.com>  Pickle 
>
>Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org 
>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:02 PM
>
>Subject: Re: Is the new solid waste plan based on solid ground?
>
> 
>
>Mike,
>
>I do agree that the best policy would be to keep our trash in Durham but
>every alternative you mentioned was studied in detail before the transfer
>station was built and they were all either too polluting or cost prohibitive
>or both.  Have there been huge leaps in technology in the last 10 years that
>would justify the expense of revisiting these questions?  
>
>These alternatives all have major downsides:  For example where would a
>steam/incinerator plant be built?  Where would the emmissions go?  Scrubbers
>to clean the emissions produce hazardous waste that has to be carefully
>handled and probably trucked to an appropriate landfill.  If you site a new
>landfill within the county where will it be?  In whose neighborhood?  Last
>time this was done years were spent identifying sites without reaching an
>agreement on the location.  We are now much, much more urban and less rural
>with much of the remaining rural land in the the watersheds for Falls and
>Jordan lakes.  Those factors will make it extremely difficult to find a
>site. 
>
>I think that building materials and appliances are currently removed from
>the waste stream being sent to VA.   
>
>Part of the decision to go with the transfer station was that it was what
>other cities with similiar circumstances to Durham were doing.  You have to
>remember that Durham is a very small county that straddles two watersheds.
>We are not like Wake County which is large enough to continue development at
>the present rate for decades without running out of land.
>
>I also don't see that VA will be able to hold us hostage because there is
>competition among regional landfills.  Pender County here in NC built one
>within the last few years.
>
>I just don't think its justifed to spend more time and money on these
>questions without knowing that technology has changed significantly.  
>
>Anne Guyton
>
>Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com> wrote: 
>
>All,
>
> 
>
>If my memory serves correctly,  working out the contract to ship trash out
>of state was one of Lamont's first major decisions after becoming city
>manager.
>
> 
>
>At the time,  the decision was held with very high accolades.   But for
>many, it was a very short sighted answer to a much larger growing problem.
>
> 
>
>What are we going to do with our trash?
>
> 
>
>For me,  it was and continues to remain patently dangerous and eventual
>financially ruinous for us, as a municipality, to haul our waste out of
>state.
>
> 
>
>It's both environmentally and morally wrong.
>
> 
>
>But before we start moving forward on any 'new' plan we need to answer the
>questions posed earlier and find alternatives for bulky items (they weight
>more) to be picked up and trucked out of town!
>
> 
>
>WE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN TRASH!!!!!
>
> 
>
>As a community we must look at what options there are available first,
>before we continue to make it worse.   The plan presented by Solid Waste at
>this point in time only adds more weight and money to its cost(s).
>
> 
>
>I'd suggest we look at what other cities have done.   What the latest
>technology regarding steam generation/incineration plants,  massive
>recycling of building materials, scrap metals and larger household items
>that could cut back (or hopefully eliminate) the need to sent it to
>Virginia.
>
> 
>
>Wouldn't it make sense to have a system in place that could reuse and/or
>co-generate something positive out of our waste stream rather than pay
>millions of dollars to haul it up I-85? 
>
> 
>
>No where in the plan that's being currently passed around is a financially
>stable and physically viable long term solution.
>
> 
>
>Incorporating ideas other cities have been successful with and implementing
>ways to drastically reduce the truckload after truckload leaving Durham
>seems to me to be a better way to go about it.
>
> 
>
>If this new Director is even worth half the weight (no pun intended) of what
>we're going to pay him,  he ought to at least have some of these solutions
>in his tool box.
>
> 
>
>Why not take advantage of what he can bring to the table.
>
> 
>
>Maybe we could make some changes that everyone could agree upon and make
>sense?
>
> 
>
>Now that would be a 'plan' a lot more people could get behind!
>
> 
>
>mike shiflett
>
> 
>
>
>  _____  
>
>
>New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call
><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman5/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt
>=39666/*http:/beta.messenger.yahoo.com>  regular phones from your PC and
>save big.
>
>

---------------------------------------------
This e-mail was sent using a CentralPets.com WebMail account
Get yours at: http://mail.centralpets.com