If Greensboro borrows $7,420,000, plus interest, for White Street Landfill closure costs, and gasoline prices double as tax revenues fall, could City Council inadvertently sacrifice hundreds of municipal jobs by voting for what could be a politically unethical “Two Thirds Bond”?

Editorial: It’s a dirty job, but …

 

…the council chose to avoid the most obvious…the costs and implications of reopening the White Street Landfill.

 

The landfill opened in 1940.

 

Further, some of the houses nearest the landfill weren’t built until 1990.

 

…the question of where garbage goes and for how much is important

and will affect the lifestyles and pocketbooks here for decades to come…

 

…cost is particularly pertinent given the ongoing economic downturn and tightening city budgets.

 

…Between July 1, 2008, and May 31 of this year, the city spent $7.67 million using the transfer station…

 

 In terms of pure dollars and cents, maintaining and expanding the White Street facility  remains the least costly option.

 

The council knew this all along.

 

A 2001 consultant’s report projected the White Street option as costing between $3.60 and $4.30 per household, versus $9.40 to $13.30 for “out-of-county disposal,” and $26 to $31 for burning and recycling,

 

…which option serves the greater good?

 

Further, there is ample room to expand in that area, mostly on land where development is sparse.

 

Expansion would buy time for even longer-term regional and technological solutions.

 

Put all of the facts on the table and revisit all of the options.

 

Ask everything that needs asking while there is time, especially the hardest questions.

 

Greensboro News and Record Editorial Board

June 28, 2009