By Fred Baryol
I read the Guest Commentary by Norm Sweeney with interest in the Jan. 3 - 5 edition of the Sun, Specifically because of two things; First, because of its inaccuracies and second, because of the potential benefit to a very few individuals while jeopardizing many others in the future. I take exception to anyone putting their own enrichment ahead of those of their community and the generations to come after themselves.
Problem 1: Norm states, "Our commissioners have been unnecessarily hostile to Recology and the Jungo landfill project." Last I heard, the County Commissioners have a responsibility to represent the citizens of Humboldt County. Since 70 percent of our voting population is against the project, I'd say they are doing what they were elected to do.
I find it disingenuous for Norm to say the "commissioners have given the county a reputation of being unfriendly to business." In fact the commissioners have been very pro business when the business model complements the county's plan for the future. (Ref. Humboldt County mission statement) which states the commission is:
"Committed to maintaining an effective and efficient organization that is open and responsive to the needs of the Community and works together for the benefit of all. Provides a safe, healthy environment, quality service that is accessible and sustainable with sound fiscal management. Plans for the future ensuring Humboldt County remains a great place to live, work, and visit."
Problem 2: With reference to the Dec. 20, 2010, commission meeting; The Recology proposal to end a perceived conflict, negotiated between attorneys with the help of a federal judge sounded more like a Chicago style back room deal than a true effort to negotiate in good faith. The fact is that the Jungo Road Landfill project has been mishandled from the beginning. An out of state company rolled into town at the behest of some prominent folks with a slick idea to make a buck by dangling a promise of prosperity for all. The reality is they wanted to take advantage of, what they perceived as a bunch of clod kicking yahoos with no business or community sense. Well they were wrong!
The recommendation to accept the Recology proposal was formulated by Federal Judge Cooke (a partner of McDonald, Carano, Wilson, McCune, Bergin, Frankovich & Hicks LLP) until she was appointed to the U.S. District Court in 1999. Once the public became aware of the project's magnitude and the pros and cons of the project were understood, the community became actively engaged to stop this eco-hostile project.
Recology, realizing they had awakened a sleeping giant in the citizens of Humboldt County, portrayed resistance to the project as being politically motivated rather than the legitimate concern of residents that there is a devastating potential impact to the environment.
Problem 3: The Humboldt Regional Planning Commission (RPC) and the Humboldt County Development Authority (HDA) neither of which are elected by the citizens of Humboldt County were contacted and along with City Hall, became advocates for the project which might bring in some revenue to our county and town. A Conditional or Special Use Permit (CUP) was issued even though, at the time, county ordinances prohibited the acceptance of solid waste from outside the landfill district for disposal at sites other than Humboldt County Regional Landfill (At the time the CUP was issued, April, 2007, local ordinances only allowed for one landfill.) The City attorney authored a change to that ordinance to allow for a second landfill which was approved October 2007. Even though this was the case, I've heard that the Mayor, along with others proclaimed that the landfill was a done deal and that the resistance to the project was from a "vocal minority."
Problem 4: Norm's reference to the Dec. 12, 2011, special meeting of the County Commission and that the commission should stop wasting taxpayer money is once again an affront to the people of Humboldt County who deserve to hear both sides of this important community issue. I believe Recology has made a considerable investment in this project. But by virtue of a statement by Adam Alberti, spokesman for Recology and Jungo Land and Investment, saying the landfill Recology was pursuing in Nevada is "a speculative effort" quoted in the San Francisco Bay Guardian April 7, 2010, should be construed as any other speculative opportunity is (i.e. it might or might not come to fruition, investment not withstanding).
[[In-content Ad]]
