On August 21st, the joint BPW-City Council meeting met again to discuss placing their own landfill question on the ballot. City Council members on this board are: Bob Reckman( Ward 3), Jim Dostal (At-Large), and Paul Spector (Ward 2).

In our minds, this seems like a conflict of interest. The Permit petitioners (Board of Public Works) are working with the Permit Granters (Councilors Dostal, Reckman and Spector) on framing a non-binding question for the voters. Watch and see what you think. Is this an ethical violation? If concerned then please contact your City Council member or the Mayor's Office and weigh in with your opinion.

This video is provided by

North Street Neighborhood Association and was recorded by Lachlan Ziegler










North Street Neighborhood Association posted some thoughts regarding the expansion that we would like to share with you here:

We have concerns about the apparent pro-expansion slant of the ballot language that came out of Friday's meeting:

• The landfill business is competitive and the revenue stream fromNorthampton's landfill is uncertain. Even HDR/Stantec (AlternativesStudy, Section 9, PDF)says our landfill expansion might be worth less than $8 million to aprivate business, which may be a relatively small amount of moneyrelative to the potential harm.
• Northampton's 34% recycling rate lags that of many nearby communities. By operating a landfill, the city has an incentive to tip more tons of waste, not reduce them.
• It is not proved beyond doubt that disposing of our wastewithin Northampton is significantly cheaper than shipping it out. Thecost to ship our waste to Seneca Meadows/Seneca Falls, New York—to namejust one alternative--appears to be comparable to our landfill'scurrent average commercial tip fee (Alternatives Study, 8/17/09 presentation, slide 30).A more thorough search of outside disposal sites might reveal othercost-competitive options. By choosing to ship our waste out, the citycould retain flexibility in the face of changing conditions. If weexpand the landfill, we are locked into that course of action for thenext 25-30 years, even if better (cheaper and/or more ecologicallysound) waste management options emerge in the meantime.
• It seems likely that many other landfill sites are lessecologically sensitive, and less near homes, than the site of theproposed expansion, which would intrude the landfill into the rechargearea of the Barnes Aquifer. This offsets the moral benefit we mightperceive from disposing of our own waste.
• The claim that there will be "no new environmental risk for the city" seems scientifically impossible. As noted at Zero Waste America,"even the best liner and leachate collection system will ultimatelyfail due to natural deterioration." It might be plausible to claim theenvironmental risk from landfill expansion is small, but it's not zero.
• The claim that there will be "no health risk" seems similarlyaggressive. Some humility in the face of past experience is warranted.Waste disposal practices that were acceptable less than 50 years arenow restricted as harmful. The long-term impacts of many substances arestill not fully known.