One of the benefits of waiting three or four days to write a post on the landfill mess is much of what you initially wanted to say already gets said. So read yesterday's Daily News editorial. Read Stephen Tait's excellent reports from Tuesday and Wednesday.
Gillian Swart has been covering this to death. I don't agree with her criticism or initial assessment of the council. But disagreement is a spice of life. And Ari Herzog has done his usual homework here.
Mary Eaton hit upon this issue in her welcome return here.
The Royless Current even ran a decent primer. It's only got one source, but the source, James Shanley, provided a clear picture from the Council's perspective.
I actually went to Monday's meeting thinking--and agreeing--that some sort of compromise was inevitable and imminent. But I left convinced the deal currently being offered this city isn't one worth signing, and I'm fairly sure several councillors agree.
The suffering neighbors did a superb job of presenting their case. Each speaker presented a fresh and powerful perspective. The City Council had wisely suspended the normal limits on public comment, but no speaker overstayed his or her welcome
Instead, they convinced me that the current proposal--at least what we know of it--would not bring an end to our nightmare. Yes, our nightmare. This issue really affects the entire community. We all may not be forced to close our windows in the summer time; endure nausea, nosebleeds and general ill health, but we're all being assaulted here whether we know it or not.
I do see wisdom in the council's patient approach. With the exception for Ward 5 Councillor Brian Derrivan, their overriding responsibility--and the source of their political power--comes from the city as a whole, not a particular ward or neighborhood.
Therefore, they must act on the interest of the city as a whole. And that's why they should reject this deal.
After the convincing testimony, I now doubt New Ventures can hold up their end of a deal without more assurances. Abutter after abutter presented examples of unkept promises and--even worse--shoddy practices that might ultimately fall upon us to repair.
Furthermore, this offering doesn't even provide us with any real protection from litigation associated with the landfill. Jim Stiles, speaking at the meeting, pointed out correctly that New Ventures wouldn't even release the city from any future liabilites. (The full letter is on Gillian's Blog.)
All claims associated with New Ventures' demands for response costs under M.G.L c. 21E for past costs to cap and close the Landfill except those attributable to sewage sludge or any other hazardous material deposited by or
arranged by the City, even though a portion of the capping and closure costs may be attributable to the municipal waste that the City dumped at the
Landfill...
For those coming in late, the state designated the landfill a 21E site last year. This designation empowers New Ventures to sue anyone who has ever dumped somethin in the landfill, and that means the city. (Yeah, thanks a lot DEP.)
But the terms of the deal almost are secondary.
The health of our community is and should be the primary concern. I'm not talking about our physical health, which already has taken a hit, but our community's health.
Yes, accepting the proposed deal might stave off any lawsuits and preserve our fiscal house. But stability would come with too high a price if it means abandoning neighors in need.
So let's push for more. Eventually, we'll have to do business with New Ventures and the state to get this landfill capped. But let's demand for more assurances and safeguards.
And if the state brings down the hammer and forces us to accept some sort of unwelcome deal, fine. At least our community conscience will be clear.
All I can say is if that happens Deval Patrick's aides will have to do a better job briefing him next time.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment