Citizen landfill petiton: David votes to untable
July 31 ,2009
Landfill question rejected: With council's vote,
signatures needed
By Chad Cain, Daily Hampshire Gazette
By Chad Cain, Daily Hampshire Gazette
NORTHAMPTON - In a move akin to rejection, the City
Council took no action Thursday night on a citizens
petition to place a nonbinding question on the
November election ballot that would seek voter
opinion on the Glendale Road landfill expansion.
To get the question on the ballot, supporters must now collect the signatures of 10 percent, or about 1,800, of the city's registered voters. Petition backers can begin collecting those signatures Monday.
"We'll just go get the signatures. We planned on it anyway," Ward 6 City Councilor Marianne L. LaBarge, a supporter of the petition, said after the meeting.
At Thursday's special council meeting, a motion to move the petition "off the table," or move it forward for a follow-up yes-or-no vote, ended in a 3-3 tie. LaBarge, At-Large member Michael R. Bardsley, and Ward 4 member David J. Narkewicz voted to move the petition forward. At-Large member James M. Dostal, Ward 3 member Robert C. Reckman and Ward 5 member David A. Murphy voted against the motion.
Ward 1's Maureen T. Carney, Ward 2's Paul D. Spector and Ward 7's Raymond W. LaBarge were absent.
Dostal, Reckman and Murphy all expressed concern that the wording of the ballot question was too simple and lacked information. The question states: "Shall the City of Northampton expand the Northampton landfill over the Barnes Aquifer?"
Dostal said the council has a unique opportunity to incorporate into a ballot question the options contained in a recently released study examining what the city should do with its trash once the current landfill closes in June 2011.
"We need to design a question with the options in it, so that people would truly have something to vote on," he said.
Reckman called for a more informative question, and suggested allowing the opponents and proponents to each add a paragraph explaining their positions.
"We need to have a question that really gets us useful information about what the people think," he said.
At issue is a proposal by the Department of Public Works to expand the nearly full 39-acre landfill by about 20 acres to the north, and an additional 9.5 acres along the site's side slopes. Officials say the expansion would add 20 years to the life of the solid-waste facility.
The 142-page options report under review by the Board of Public Works discusses five possible scenarios for the landfill's future: expand and continue operations as is; maintain the transfer station on Locust Street, close the landfill and close the transfer station on Glendale Road; expand the landfill, but have the city or a contracted company collect trash and recycling curbside around the city; close the landfill and implement a citywide collection program that would transport city waste elsewhere; or close the landfill and have the city provide no services, leaving residents to contract waste removal as needed.
As of now, the BPW must apply to the City Council for a special permit to expand the landfill. But a proposal by Narkewicz presented Thursday would transfer that authority to the Planning Board so that councilors would no longer be bound by a gag order that prohibits them from any discussion of the landfill expansion. The proposal was referred to several city committees for review.
Bardsley and LaBarge said they believe the petition should stand as written. Bardsley said the citizens who back the question have specific concerns about expanding over the aquifer, something that the options study does not directly address.
One of the residents behind the petition also was adamant that the wording not change, particularly the reference to "Barnes Aquifer."
"We feel strongly that it cuts to the chase of the issue," said Mary Odgers, of 97 Glendale Road. "The bottom line is that the landfill is going to go over the Barnes Aquifer."
She was one of a dozen or so residents who spoke in favor of placing the question on the ballot during the council's public comment period.
Several councilors said they would consider having the council write another question for November's ballot to address the options outlined in the study. The council could do that by amending a separate resolution that Bardsley and LaBarge submitted to the council earlier this month. That resolution currently mirrors the wording of the citizens petition, but has been sent to three city committees for review.
Murphy said a second question would only confuse voters.
"I think the people, if they have the resolve, should do it through a signature petition," he said.
In the end, Bardsley said the wording on the ballot is secondary compared to the potential discussion the question would generate about such an important decision. Narkewicz later agreed.
"The key is not just putting it on the ballot. The key is to engage the public in understanding what the question is about," he said.
To get the question on the ballot, supporters must now collect the signatures of 10 percent, or about 1,800, of the city's registered voters. Petition backers can begin collecting those signatures Monday.
"We'll just go get the signatures. We planned on it anyway," Ward 6 City Councilor Marianne L. LaBarge, a supporter of the petition, said after the meeting.
At Thursday's special council meeting, a motion to move the petition "off the table," or move it forward for a follow-up yes-or-no vote, ended in a 3-3 tie. LaBarge, At-Large member Michael R. Bardsley, and Ward 4 member David J. Narkewicz voted to move the petition forward. At-Large member James M. Dostal, Ward 3 member Robert C. Reckman and Ward 5 member David A. Murphy voted against the motion.
Ward 1's Maureen T. Carney, Ward 2's Paul D. Spector and Ward 7's Raymond W. LaBarge were absent.
Dostal, Reckman and Murphy all expressed concern that the wording of the ballot question was too simple and lacked information. The question states: "Shall the City of Northampton expand the Northampton landfill over the Barnes Aquifer?"
Dostal said the council has a unique opportunity to incorporate into a ballot question the options contained in a recently released study examining what the city should do with its trash once the current landfill closes in June 2011.
"We need to design a question with the options in it, so that people would truly have something to vote on," he said.
Reckman called for a more informative question, and suggested allowing the opponents and proponents to each add a paragraph explaining their positions.
"We need to have a question that really gets us useful information about what the people think," he said.
At issue is a proposal by the Department of Public Works to expand the nearly full 39-acre landfill by about 20 acres to the north, and an additional 9.5 acres along the site's side slopes. Officials say the expansion would add 20 years to the life of the solid-waste facility.
The 142-page options report under review by the Board of Public Works discusses five possible scenarios for the landfill's future: expand and continue operations as is; maintain the transfer station on Locust Street, close the landfill and close the transfer station on Glendale Road; expand the landfill, but have the city or a contracted company collect trash and recycling curbside around the city; close the landfill and implement a citywide collection program that would transport city waste elsewhere; or close the landfill and have the city provide no services, leaving residents to contract waste removal as needed.
As of now, the BPW must apply to the City Council for a special permit to expand the landfill. But a proposal by Narkewicz presented Thursday would transfer that authority to the Planning Board so that councilors would no longer be bound by a gag order that prohibits them from any discussion of the landfill expansion. The proposal was referred to several city committees for review.
Bardsley and LaBarge said they believe the petition should stand as written. Bardsley said the citizens who back the question have specific concerns about expanding over the aquifer, something that the options study does not directly address.
One of the residents behind the petition also was adamant that the wording not change, particularly the reference to "Barnes Aquifer."
"We feel strongly that it cuts to the chase of the issue," said Mary Odgers, of 97 Glendale Road. "The bottom line is that the landfill is going to go over the Barnes Aquifer."
She was one of a dozen or so residents who spoke in favor of placing the question on the ballot during the council's public comment period.
Several councilors said they would consider having the council write another question for November's ballot to address the options outlined in the study. The council could do that by amending a separate resolution that Bardsley and LaBarge submitted to the council earlier this month. That resolution currently mirrors the wording of the citizens petition, but has been sent to three city committees for review.
Murphy said a second question would only confuse voters.
"I think the people, if they have the resolve, should do it through a signature petition," he said.
In the end, Bardsley said the wording on the ballot is secondary compared to the potential discussion the question would generate about such an important decision. Narkewicz later agreed.
"The key is not just putting it on the ballot. The key is to engage the public in understanding what the question is about," he said.