Husband and wife activists post responses to Waste Management Grand Central Sanitary Landfill self aggrandizement in Express Times "Opinion"

This past week, the Express Times posted a lengthy opinion credited to a "Guest Columnist" that was authored by Waste Management's public relations employee Adrienne Fors, in which she claims that a proposal to expand Plainfield Township's Solid Waste Zoning District "deserves a second look".  It must be nice to have what appears to be free advertising in the newspaper - since letters to the editor are limited to 250 words.  Ms. Fors' piece is 851 words.  Surely Waste Management can afford to take out a whole page advertisement, and the Express Times is just as surely desperate for the income it would have generated.

This is not the worst part - Ms. Fors' screed contains several falsehoods and misleading statements, in an effort to paint the action that the Board of Supervisors took on July 8 as premature, uninformed and without forethought.

Husband and wife activists Tom Carlo and Elisa Robles each wrote letters to the editor - staying within the 250 word limit in response to Ms. Fors' screed, published on July 30 and August 1 respectively.

Ms. Robles is apparently not a fan of Ms. Fors' position.  She calls Ms. Fors' words "laughable and offensive" and states that the "guest column" is nothing more than a promotion of the company's agenda - all of which would be hard to dispute.  Waste Management's agenda is to continue to make millions upon millions in revenue annually from its property in Plainfield Township for decades into the future.  Plainfield Township's vision, based on the July 8 Board of Supervisors meeting, is that the township has stored enough of Pennsylvania and the tri-state's solid waste, and that the landfill will have to shut down in 2028 - the year it is expected to reach 980' elevation.  It is currently at 968'.  Waste Management has proposed three projects in the span of four years that would help it realize its goal - in early 2016, it proposed that the landfill be allowed to dispose of liquid wastes that do not pass a paint filter test.  In late 2016, it proposed the Synagro sludge drying and pelletizing plant, and in 2020 it proposed to expand the zoning district so that it can continue to operate until half the people currently living are dead.  At the moment, each of these proposals is DOA.

"As a lifelong resident of the area, believe me I care..."

Ms. Fors has reportedly stated many times, on tours of the landfill as well as at town meetings that she is a "lifelong resident of the area," and if this were to be believed one might assume that anything she promotes - such as a forever solid waste business in Plainfield Township and bordering Pen Argyl - she would be happy to live near.  However, when one scratches the surface, it becomes apparent that Ms. Fors is actually a lifelong resident of western Monroe County, not Northampton County where Pen Argyl, Wind Gap, Plainfield Township and the landfill are located.  Ms. Fors grew up as Adrienne Borger in Effort, and attended Pleasant Valley schools, graduating in 2003.  She now lives in Polk Township.  This would be like someone born and having lived in Plainfield Township most of their life, saying they were a lifelong resident of Phillipsburg because they lived in an apartment there for a few years.

Speaking of misrepresentation, that is the subject of Mr. Carlo's letter.  Mr. Carlo argues that Ms. Fors made multiple misrepresentations in her "opinion":

• Plainfield Township Supervisors acted in a manner that prevented or discouraged Waste Management from holding public meetings to promote their proposal, prior to the Board considering it
• The Supervisors erred in not forwarding the proposal to the township planning commission
• That at the meeting at which the Supervisors held their vote, relatively few residents were in attendance or spoke - resulting in the Board not considering a deep enough body of feedback prior to making its decision
• That the Supervisors failed to consider the monetary benefits that the landfill provides to the community

Mr. Carlo linked to both articles and official township minutes in support of his response to Ms. Fors' claims. 

• From the June 10 BOS minutes: "All Board members were in favor of discussing the matter at the July 8, 2020 meeting. Ms. Adrienne Fors added that Waste Management would like the opportunity to meet with residents about the project, but understands that they may not have the opportunity to do so at this point. There is a video, as well as other literature on their website that explains the project and what Waste Management intends to do."   (bottom of pg 10)
  
  Waste Management dragged its feet since it first announced and ballyhooed its plans in February, and failed to organize a Zoom or other meeting with the public by the time Supervisors addressed the proposal months later on July 8.  The Supervisors are not responsible for this.  As Mr. Carlo stated, Ms. Fors voiced no objection to the Supervisors' plan, the creation of which she was present for.  How can she now argue that Waste Management was slighted?
  
  
• Solicitor Backenstoe explained in detail at the July 8 meeting that in his opinion, there is no requirement to forward Waste Management's proposal to the planning commission.  If the Supervisors agreed to draft an amendment to the zoning map and/or ordinance, then a draft would have to be reviewed by the planning commission.  Since the Supervisors are not agreeing to explore a change, there is no proposed amendment to send for review.
  
  Here is the disputed language from the zoning ordinance Sec 27-807:
  
  "1. The Township may, on its own motion or by petition, amend, supplement, change, modify, or repeal this Chapter.
  2. Before voting on the enactment of an amendment, the Board of Supervisors shall hold a public hearing thereon, pursuant to public notice.
  3. In the case of an amendment other than that prepared by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors shall submit each such amendment to the Planning Commission at least 30 days prior to the hearing on such proposed amendment and permit the Commission an opportunity to submit recommendations."
  
  Furthermore, Solicitor Backenstoe opined previously that there is no requirement for the Supervisors to even respond to Waste Management's proposal.  Note that the second item did not take place either - the July 8 meeting was not a hearing.  Again, this section of the Ordinance applies to an amendment which is being proposed by the township.  There is a procedure whereby an Applicant can force an amendment they propose to be considered - this ain't it.
  
  There is a potential remedy for this difference of legal opinion if Waste Management chooses to pursue it - attempt to appeal the BOS action in the Court of Common Pleas.  Not publishing a guest column in the newspaper to bitch about how unfairly you were treated.

• Ms. Fors' complaint that an insufficient amount of feedback was considered by the Board of Supervisors at the July 8 meeting totally ignored the fact that on March 11, 2020, the Board heard feedback from several citizens at the meeting at which the proposal was formally received by the Board.  Not one citizen spoke in favor of the proposal at either the March or July meeting.
  
  
• Finally, Mr. Carlo points out that the Board of Supervisors during its annual budget process reviews the income from the landfill, and projections of future revenue.  In the recent past, the Board has reviewed projections of the impact that the expected 2028 landfill closure will have on real estate taxes. 
  
  The State of Pennsylvania requires municipalities that have a landfill to fund a Trust Fund, in order to ameliorate the impact of loss of revenue (tipping fees) when a landfill closes.  The Board of Supervisors has the discretion, once the landfill closes, to draw down the Trust Fund annually at a rate of its choosing so that there is not a precipitous increase in real estate taxes.

In addition, the supervisors did have a thoughtful discussion of the proposal - on the evening that they voted against further consideration.  This was documented in an Express Times article as well as on this blog.  Long story short - the planning for a solid waste district in 1987 provided for an expansion of the landfill well in excess of its volume at the time - and now the landfill is reaching the capacity of the district.  Game over.

Does the landfill operation throw off shards of cash that are used in multiple ways in the community?  Absolutely.  Will taxes have to go up?  Quite possibly.  But landfills have a life span, and they are the number one nuisance use that a community can have.  The gravy train has to come to the end of the track one day.  Plainfield Township appears to be unwilling to roll out the red carpet to proliferate solid waste uses beyond the area that has already been allotted - and soon to be expended.  Ms. Fors promises that Waste Management will be rolling out its plan.  Will this be a new plan, will it be the same plan, seeking a "do-over"?  Will they go to court to settle a legal dispute instead of griping about it in the local newspaper?  Only time will tell.  But Ms. Fors' letter was indeed "laughable and offensive" as Ms. Robles described it - penned by someone who is a lifelong resident of an area north of the Blue Mountain - not south.