Landfill Legacy

I just don't know where I stand with the landfill. I've been fairly critical of the mayor for many past actions, but I'm not sure if there's any other way out of this mess.

(As an aside I should give credit where it's due. Gillian Swart has been all over this issue, both at The Current and her blog.)

Bottom line, this is now the mayor's legacy. All his talk of prudent fiscal management and responsible stewardship will wash away quickly as time passes. I think this is the one of those enduring issues that will plague a politician for the rest of his days.

This might be the inversion of the old saying, "Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan." If Mayor Moak's gambit works, he's likely to get any credit down the line. If this ends poorly, it'll be his problem alone, even though he didn't create the mess in the first place.

I recognize that's little comfort to the neighbors who truly have to live with the outcome.

But perhaps their burden should be shared a bit. We should require every truck headed to the landfill to take exit 57, drive down Storey Ave. and High Street, take a left on Green Street and make a stop at City Hall. Not only can the mayor inspect the loads himself from his office window, but we can all get a taste of what's being dumped in our city.

Landfill Update

">

Here's considerably more on the landfill/Youtube controversy. Kudos to Gillian Swart and The Current for tracking this down, and she does a nice job of weaving traditional news reporting with links to the videos to tell a more complete story.

Gillian refers to a You Tube video where Everett mayor Carlo DeMaria told the city's Board of Alderman that he was told by Mayor Moak that Newburyport would reopen its landfill for dumping. Everett officials care a great deal of this, because the material to be dumped currently resides in their city.

I suspect the tip is the fruit of her labors on her own blog, Port Reporter Unlimited. She's been following the landfill issue religously, and it's a great example of how online and printed media can compliment each other.

Even though the printed current doesn't come out until tomorrow, the online version is up and available. The Daily News appears to try to play catch up on this one today in its Heard Around Town. Unfortunately I can't find a link to the article.

Top Stories-Vol. 2

Continued and in order of appearance in the poll.

BATTLE AT CROW'S LANE: Well, this story has everything. Victims. Villains. Reports of sick residents, including children. Promises of state investigations. A very public meeting with Deval Patrick. It goes on and on and on, and potentially will do the same through 2009. This is a problem with no clear fix, but I think Mayor Moak and the council have held up pretty well in this fight against New Ventures. It's anybody's guess as to how this thing will turn out, but the issue is scheduled to have its date in court come this spring.

THE SOLAR PANEL DEAL:

Charlie Brown, you're the only person I know who can take a wonderful season like Christmas and turn it into a problem.
-Linus Van Pelt

This quote from the Charlie Brown Christmas special sums up my feelings about the mayor's push to get solar panels atop the Nock Middle School. How can a seemingly wonderful thing like Solar Panel get twisted into a problem? Well, it appears to be one-part rushing into a deal with vendor the city knew little about with a dash of having a guy who might benefit from the deal serve as the city's advisor. Just not a good combination for the sake of appearances and, clearly, performance.

The city finally moved on from the vendor, EyeOn, after the company lost its backers. According to the most recent report from the Daily News, the city was supposed to have received new bids yesterday from several interested--and economically viable--vendors. Here's hoping the terms are a little more favorable given the current climate.

The mayor's haste is due mostly to his desire to score $1.6 million in rebates from the state. It's hard to argue with the pursuit of free (i know, it's not really free) money, but the rush didn't serve us too well the first time.

BTW, we got an answer to the question we posed in our earlier post. See "The Answer."

SENIOR CENTER FINDS A HOME: Not much else to say.

Patrick and the landfill

My day job kept me from attending the Patrick talk in Amesbury, but Gillian Swart is on the case.

And tomorrow I shall post the Daily News story righhhhhhhhhhhhhht........



there.


No here. I'll put it here.


Overall I was impressed with the answers. Sounds like he was well briefed. Sorry I missed it.

.

Landfill

Gillian Swart has an interesting update.

Landfill

Mary Eaton has the scoop (no, not on the death of newspapers, that's Ari's thing) but on the landfill lawsuit.

I don't know anything more than this. Not a surprise really.

This issue belongs to all of us now.


.

Landfill Stuff

Mary Eaton unearthed a online treasure trove of landfill info.

Quick Hits

Little River: Wow. I mean, Wow. I'm shocked by this. I had a chance to sit through one of the presentations for the Little River project and I was impressed. I thought it'd be a nice fit for that part of Newbury. It would clean up an ugly eyesore, and it would provide another destination for the bike path connecting the MBTA station with the Newburyport downtown.

I feared the water and sewer hurdles would be higher than others anticipated. From what I'm told Newburyport might have held out for the right to drill a new well in Newbury, with the water than being sold back to Newbury's residents. I could see that being a problem, but I didn't anticipate this.

Well, I respect the people's decision. But Newbury's fianancial picture looked pretty bleak without this passage of this project.

p.s. I do hope that the News has more dialogue from the meeting in tomorrow's meeting. I suspect deadlines kept the article brief.

Landfill: Well, I know the news that we'll have to pay some lawyers to work on the landfill case isn't welcome, but it seems to me if we don't pay money now we'll be paying in one way or another years from now. So I view today's news as a positive development.

Concerts: Put me in for $20.


.

Globe Article

Today's Globe had a follow up, one of many I'm sure, on New Ventures/Landfill follow up. (Gillian Swart had said this was happening.)

Worth a read.

Highlights

* William Thiebeault himself speaks, and he's disappointed.

* Our city officials apparently haven't taken any donations from Thibeault. As was pointed out in Ari Herzog's blog, the same can't be said for our state senator.

* This thing is going to court this week, which I say justifies the executive sessions (except for the vote to reject the offer. I'm not sure why that was secret.)

State environmental officials, who are still weighing Thibeault's latest proposal and must sign off on it, have declined comment. The state attorney general's office is overseeing a court-ordered capping and closing of Crow Lane, and all sides in the dispute are due back in Suffolk Superior Court on Tuesday.

After Newburyport's leaders rejected the proposal Wednesday, Mark Reich, the city's attorney, said in an interview that he was "worried" the move would generate more litigation.

I still say kudos to the council for rejecting this proposal. Now let's see what the courts say. I'd be lying if I said I weren't a bit worried.

What'd I miss?

Well,

Business took me out of town for a few days, so I missed the party at City Hall on Wednesday.

I did catch up on the news online, and I wasn't as discouraged as some by the decision to ask the mayor to go back to the negotiating table. I recognize we'd all feel best if Mayor Moak formed a posse to drive the black hats out of town. But life ain't a Western.

We're going to have to do business with New Ventures in some capacity, in my unwanted opinion. I think that's clear. The question is under whose terms. I'd prefer them to be ours.

I think a more definitive decision--i.e. the City Council tells New Ventures to shove it--would open the door for the Department of Ineffective Protection to cram something down the city's vote.

So I saw the vote as shrewd. But I can understand why some folks were disappointed.

I do wonder why the vote was held in executive session. The council had discussed the proposal in open session during the previous landfill meeting. It seems the vote, at very least, should have been in open session.

It's going to be your problem now

As the Daily News reports, The City Council is meeting Wednesday night, first in public, then in private, to figure out what the next step is regarding the Crow's Lane landfill. A potential lawsuit, presumably inolving New Ventures, is on the table.

So this no longer is a neighborhood issue. It's a community issue.

Any lawsuit will cost money, money that might otherwise be spent on services for the rest of us. After listening to the complaints of the Crow's Lane folks, I happen to think it would be money necessarily spent.

But make your own decision. It's time to step up. Hit tonight's meeting. Listen to what your fellow residents have dealt with and--based on those first hand accounts--determine how much you're willing to take.

Oh, and please check out Gillian Swart's blog, particularly this diddy about some smack talk from Everett's mayor.

.

No Blog Today

But take a gander at Ari Herzog's blog when I came up for some air. Worth reading.

Absolutely Chilling

From Gillian Swart's blog. I'd normally just link but this deserves a copy and paste.

Comment from Everett re: landfill
Thought this deserved to stand on its own, as well as being a comment to a post:

FYI

Attorney Anthony Rossi, Mr Thibeault's attorney, just stated at The City of Everett's Alderman's meeting that if Newburyport votes against the increased trucking, the state will step in and override your Council's vote.

I think both of our communities are screwed.
7:44 p.m.

Chilling, but not surprising, I'm afraid. Well, if I'm on the council this makes my job easier. Time to send a big (screw) you vote to the state.

A commenter asked a question that I've been wondering myself. Where are our state reps on this? Will they really permit the state to shovel unwanted trash down our throats?

Honestly, I'm sure the DEP commissioner won't lose much sleep over this but I've lost complete faith in an organization that I once trusted. Again, I'm just going by testimony I've heard over the past weeks. First we were told the state overrode a decision by our conservation commission to favor New Ventures.

Now this. How can this be?

Thump

I had no idea this was the other shoe. According to the Boston Globe, the owner of New Ventures wants to haul his trash in Everett all the way to Newburyport so he can build a hotel or biotechnology center on his site in Everett.

Did I miss this somewhere?

I've got some other questions too.


(Update: Just to be clear, the shocking part is the development, not the hauling of the stuff. See comments.)

Just Say No

I apologize for the delay in posting this. Busy work week, plus I wanted to take a few days to consider Monday's powerful meeting.

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.


.

Landfill, a retrospective

As I've noted before, I'm a bit late to the landfill party. So I sought a little perspective in the archives of the Daily News.

Here are the headlines over the past year-plus when searches the archives for "New Ventures." I'm sure there are some articles missing. I didn't have time to do multiple searches, but this gives a pretty good overview of what's transpired over the past year.

Things looked so hopeful for a time....

May
Landfill deal would double truck traffic Council to discuss latest offer Monday night
Council puts off landfill request to special meeting
Owners want embattled landfill to accept more waste
Newburyport: Landfill settlement near; city in dark about contents

April
Letter: Residents must take action to end nightmare at landfill

March
Our view: An outrage that deserves punishment
DEP: Landfill owner shut off odor control City calls action retribution for latest order
Newburyport shuts down landfill... again
Letter: Get very angry that state not fixing landfill problems

February
New Ventures fined again for odors Monday
Landfill stench overwhelms neighborhood; New problem with equipment blamed
Landfill operator appeals fines as smells persist

September 2007
State makes right move on Port's troubled landfill
Judge orders fast action on landfill
'Blame the victim' game is playing out at landfill

August
Landfill owner demands Port pay him millions
State asks court to let it finish work at landfill

February
State should take over Crow Lane landfill
Landfill shut down again

January
Landfill stench lingered for nearby residents
Residents optimistic dump will be capped

For more landfill talk, go over to Gillian Swart's blog.

R-E-S-P-...oh Forget it.

During the first mayoral debate last fall when all five pre-primary candidates participated, Gardiner Bacon, the high school senior who sought to be be King, kicked butt at the start.

He was articulate. His answers showed thought, humor and originality. Folks in the crowd actually began to believe. He still wasn't going to win, but he had a chance of not getting his doors blown off as he ultimately did.

Then came a question about the landfill. Bacon offered an admirable, but ill-advised approach for someone running for office. He suggested he would treat New Ventures with respect, with the idea being they, in turn, would do the same, maybe.

That was it. He lost the crowd (and me.) The air rushing out of his candidacy was audible. Bacon once again looked like a naive high school student who was better off going to college and living the the "real world." Voters prefer a little table pounding.

But what about constituents? I think we'd prefer results. It seems to me the City Council and the actual Mayor, John Moak, must find a way to work with New Ventures. It's always easier for chest-pounders and fist-pumpers on the sidelines to call for war, but it's toughter to fight one.

Face it, the city signed a bad deal a few years back. I'm not sure there is a clean way out. The secret negotiations between New Ventures and the state isn't a good sign. If there was any chance of breaking out of this deal, our city officials would be in the loop on these dicussions. They seem largely loopless.

So I've grown to appreciate the slow and steady approach we've seen from the mayor and council so far. This issue certainly warrants a separate meeting--as we'll get on Monday night. And the neighborhood group representing the victims abutting the landfill should be an integral part of that hearing as they will need to live with whatever "we"--meaning our elected officials--decide.

I still firmly believe the city shouldn't agree to anything without knowing the big picture. And I agree completely with the abutters who spoke at last night's council meeting. I actually went to the meeting to watch a good ole fashioned tongue lashing, but they really impressed me with their measured and reasonable statements. I expected more yelling and hysterics, but they stayed on message and advocated for the best possible resolution. I'm not sure I would have been as composed.

So let's hear what New Ventures wants. Let's see what the state says, and then let's make the best deal--including any bonding or side funds that will cover our behinds--to close the landfill properly. I'm not sure respect comes into play at this point, but you don't always have to respect someone to work with them.



.

More Info Needed

I've got some concerns about where this landfill deal is headed. Let me preface this by saying, I haven't followed the situation closely from the start, but I have read what's our there including several on-the-spot posts by Gillian Swart plus whatever is in the Daily News, including today's article.

Apparently, New Ventures wants to haul even more junk to the landfill. The apparent goal is capping the landfill this year, which I suspect would be welcome by the folks who live in stench nearby. In order to do this, however, the City Council and Mayor have to sign off on the plan.

Okay, the vindictive part of me is screaming for city officials to take advantage of this leverage. But doing so apparently would delay the capping, which doesn't help anyone. (Someone please correct me on this if I'm wrong.)

But here's my problem. New Ventures has been negotiating with DEP and the Attorney General's office. Unfortunately, the city has no part in those talks. Even worse, apparently the public isn't worthy enough to know the details of the talks at this point.

From the News:

Refuse at the site must reach a specified capacity before a sealing membrane can be placed and other capping operations can be carried out. Increasing the incoming volume of waste would speed reaching that target.

[Ward 5 Councilor Brian] Derrivan, who said he couldn't provide too many details because the city is in negotiations regarding the site, said the request from New Ventures comes at a time when the company also is negotiating with the state's attorney general and Department of Environmental Protection to develop a plan for capping the landfill.

City officials are not involved in those negotiations, and a deal between the company and the two state agencies — if one has been struck — is not yet public information.

Derrivan, whose ward includes the landfill, said the city is not privy to much of what is going on at that level. But city officials, including Mayor John Moak, have said an agreement between the parties is due at any time.

In the end, though, Derrivan said whatever the two state groups decide with New Ventures, the city has the last say on volume amount and also "we have the luxury, if need be, to issue a cease and desist order.

"But we don't want to go there if we don't have to," Derrivan said.

Derrivan said New Ventures is likely coming to the city before signing a deal with the state.

I hope the negotiations Derrivan mentioned means the city is getting details of any agreement between New Ventures and the state. I can't see how any councilor could give a thumbs up or thumbs down to increasing the loads coming to the landfill without knowing what the long-term plan is.

Incidentally, the meeting will be Tuesday at 7:30 p.m., not Monday--aka Memorial Day--as the article suggests.


.

Hope for the best.

For all our railing about secret meetings, it's shocking to me that the city isn't in on these negotiations.

The Department of Environmental Protection, the attorney general and New Ventures are close to reaching a settlement over citations and a preliminary injunction issued against the Crow Lane Landfill owner in 2006.

But city officials remain in the dark about what that agreement may be and will remain on the outside looking in until the settlement is signed and officially approved by a judge.

Amy Breton, spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office, said the agreement is still pending and could offer no other comment.

Unsettling too. Gillian Swart has more on this here.

UPDATE: An emailer points out the city really has no formal role in these negotiations since it doesn't own the landfill site. Fair point, I get that. But still it's worrisome.

Crow's Lane

I haven't spent any time at all discussing the ongoing problems at Crow's Lane landfill. I suppose development talk comes easier to me and it's a bit more sexy than the noxious smell of eggs and burnt matches.

But the folks who do have to endure this day-in-and-out have my complete sympathies. I can't imagine living under these conditions and losing the feeling of safety and comfort that should come with being home.

Certainly the situation warrants more attention from EVERYONE, including this blog.

That point was driven home with an article in the Daily News in which state officials say the owner of the landfill had "manually and intentionally" shut down the device used to disperse the odors.

The state doesn't go as far as saying the shut down was retribution for the city issuing another cease-and-desist order. But, in the article, the city's health agent, Jack Morris, suggests that is exactly the case.

I'm afraid I don't have much to add at this point. Just raising the issue.

Also, Jim Stiles wrote a letter to the editor a few weeks back on this very subject. Worth the read.






.