Transfer Station

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Transfer Station

Postby Chuck Mower » Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:42 pm

I read in the Journal that Jim Bass has taken on the resposibility of proposing a petitioned article for a transfer solution to our solid waste. Jim, is this true? If the answer is yes, then would you tell us what you are proposing?
Chuck Mower
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:36 am

Postby Jim Bass » Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:06 pm

Chuck.

The Merrimack Journal printed a lie. Three times during my conversation with Ms. Trout I said that the Transfer/Recycle Station belongs on Fearon Road because that is all we have. We did, however, agree that one must travel past a handful of homes on Lawrence Road to get there.

Also, during the phone interview, I was taken aback when Ms. Trout said that she "will be with Mr. Phillips" during his campaign for curbside. I thought possibly I was mistaken but after reading the local rag I found there is certainly a bias and is truly an insult to journalism. Angela, save it for the editorial page.

Back to your question. I would fully support a petition warrant article for a Transfer/Recycle Station on Fearon Road. There is group that has contacted me and asked for my participation which I intend to do so.

Frankly I'm surprised, Chuck, that you are not pro-choice in this matter. Through the years you've often taken the more liberal stand in community affairs whether it be for the schools or municipal business.

Regards,



Regards,
Jim Bass
 

Postby Chuck Mower » Sun Dec 15, 2002 7:49 am

Jim,

I'm just trying to understand the nuts and bolts of what is being offed in a transfer station petition. Perhaps I am missing something I am unaware of. A transfer station can be a lot of different things and few desire to buy a pig in a poke. The more we know about a transfer station petition the more true choice we will have.
Chuck Mower
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:36 am

Postby Norman Phillips » Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:31 am

Jim, I would like to respond to this part of your post.
Also, during the phone interview, I was taken aback when Ms. Trout said that she "will be with Mr. Phillips" during his campaign for curbside. I thought possibly I was mistaken but after reading the local rag I found there is certainly a bias and is truly an insult to journalism. Angela, save it for the editorial page.


There may be reasons why you think you perceive a "bias" in the Journal. I agree that the editorial position taken on several occasions has been in favor of curbside. ( You might not be aware that the Telegraph has done so as well.) But I have detected no bias in the reporting.
  • Were you implying that the reporting has been biased?
  • If so, please share those events with us.


The editorial position might be favorable to curbside because that is the position for which supportive evidence has been presented to the public, and in the paper through Letters to the Editor. If you have evidence in favor of a transfer station, write a Letter to the Editor and also post it on the forum. If you are not yet up to speed on the financial details, perhaps the group you promise to support can educate you ( and us ). There also is the report by the Ad Hoc Committee. Let us make this forum hum!!!!

PS: There are several other papers that you can send your Letters to as well. And you can participate at the BOS meetings.
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby Jim Bass » Sun Dec 15, 2002 12:53 pm

Norm,

I never said "the Transfer Station belongs on Lawrence Road" thus the Journal printed a lie to support their bias. You are fortunate to have your comments printed verbatum veiled in the realm of "reporting".

Chuck,

When the Recycle/Transfer Station is built, and in the interest to be all- inclusive, how would you be best served? What choices would best fit your household? While composing your response please remember that is what each and every voter would ask themselves while entering the voting booth. Forgotten will be the bickering during the BOS meetings or the fiasco which will surely ensue during the deliberative session. Your thoughts?

Regards,
Jim Bass
 

Postby Chuck Mower » Sun Dec 15, 2002 1:31 pm

Jim,

I am not opposed to a transfer station of some modest capacity on a modest industrial site with pay as you throw. It is a system that will get our trash taken care of. I do think that the financial analysis shows townwide collection and direct out of town disposal to be cheaper by some margin at this time. That is why I think we should keep the solid waste disposal revenue fund as a contingency for the future in the event that costs rise it would be a governer to hold them to an equitable level. If it were only a matter of a couple of dollars one way or another I would be ambivilent but direct out of town disposal is much cheaper according to the bids that were submitted. It is difficult to refute an actual bid proposal.
Chuck Mower
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:36 am

Postby Norman Phillips » Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:03 pm

Jim, I have great difficulty in understanding your criticism of the article by Ms. Trout in the Merrimack Journal. You posted the following statement in reply to me:
I never said "the Transfer Station belongs on Lawrence Road" thus the Journal printed a lie to support their bias. You are fortunate to have your comments printed verbatum veiled in the realm of "reporting".


The reader of this forum might understand this to mean that Ms. Trout put words in your mouth to the effect that you said or wrote that “the Transfer Station belongs on Lawrence Road”. This is not so, Jim. Here is the entire reference to Jim Bass in the Journal article by Ms. Trout.
Meanwhile, momentum for a transfer station warrant article is also picking up.

Resident Jim Bass, a proponent for a transfer station on Lawrence Road, said on Tuesday he would fully support a petition warrant article for a transfer station. “I moved here from Massachusetts in 1982 to get away from living in a town where a few people try to speak for the town,” said Bass in reference to the people who live on Lawrence Road and who are against a transfer station in their neighborhood. “


THERE IS NO STATEMENT IN MS. TROUT’S ARTICLE THAT YOU SAID THE TRANSFER STATION BELONGS ON FEARON ROAD Just what is it that you are complaining about in Ms. Trout’s article----can you please explain it more clearly?
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

My mistake?????

Postby Norman Phillips » Mon Dec 16, 2002 8:21 am

:?: :?:
Jim, are you referring to your earlier posted comment to Chuck?
Three times during my conversation with Ms. Trout I said that the Transfer/Recycle Station belongs on Fearon Road because that is all we have.


If so, I certainly agree that she ( or the editor) left out the phrase "because that is all we have". If omission of this phrase in the article is what your complaint is about to me, then I understand your point and apologize for responding only to how you addressed me.

Sorry for this mistake, Jim. :(
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Mon Dec 16, 2002 10:34 am

Jim,

You stated:

Chuck,

When the Recycle/Transfer Station is built, and in the interest to be all- inclusive.........


My question is only about the 2nd phrase "in the interest to be all-inclusive". Do you mean that a transfer station can be built that will be all-inclusive or were you referring to including Chuck in your response?
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Jim Bass » Mon Dec 16, 2002 8:42 pm

Mark,

Absolutely! A Recycle/Transfer Station on Fearon Road could be all-inclusive as it would serve those who prefer curbside for they can continue using a local hauler, or recycling for the environmentally conscious, and even those folks who just want to dump and run. Simple isn't it?

I was also asking in the interest of how Mr. Mower would best be served, hypethetically speaking, before and after the T/S is built. Being a small business owner, his input could be of great value.
Jim Bass
 

Postby Carolyn G. Whitlock » Mon Dec 16, 2002 10:05 pm

A Recycle/Transfer Station on Fearon Road could be all-inclusive as it would serve those who prefer curbside for they can continue using a local hauler, or recycling for the environmentally conscious, and even those folks who just want to dump and run.


Jim,

There's another advantage to having a transfer station. With a transfer station and no pay-as-you-throw, two-thirds of the households (those who now have curbside service) will pay the full bill so those of us who take our own trash to the transfer station can leave it there for free!
Carolyn
Carolyn G. Whitlock
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 11:51 am

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:53 am

Jim,

I respect your opinion, but you are mistaken. Those who live in condos or other associations will not be serviced by the facility. This includes most of the businesses Jim. There is now evidence supporting this.

Please explain for us how your all-inclusive transfer station will serve these segments of our community.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Pam Fitzgerald » Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:59 am

Dear Mr. Bass,

I am also wondering if your petitioned warrant article will include a PAYT (pay-as-you-throw) stipultation as that is the only way to make a transfer station "all inclusive" in the financial sense of the term. Otherwise only those who hire a hauler will pay for the operation of this transfer station. Self haulers will dispose of their trash on the backs of other households in town.

Thank you for your postings, it opens the debate.
Pam Fitzgerald
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:09 am

Postby Jim Bass » Tue Dec 17, 2002 4:29 pm

Mark,

This is exasperating. Condo owners are recycling now and would continue to do so. Private condo associations often negotiate long term contracts with large haulers even when the town provides curbside pick-up. This affords them the luxury of receiving the quality service for which they have become accustomed to. And Mark, condominium neighborhoods are often private property with covenants that prevent even towns from plowing the property. For example: recently a local association was very unhappy with the service from WM and now have BFI. How happy would the residences be if the town went curbside and chose WM?

All above applies to businesses as well.

This is ludicrous! I hope I answered your question.
Jim Bass
 

Postby Mike Riopel » Tue Dec 17, 2002 4:55 pm

Jim,

Help me understand some of the fine points in your reply about private condo owners and their unhappiness with their trash hauler. First you state that some Condo assn's. enter long term contracts. OK. Did the assn. that recently changed trash haulers have a long term ( 1, 2, or 3 yr) deal? How did they get contractual protection to be able to change whenever they wanted? How did you determine that the town would not be able to obtain this same protection?

In the long run I'm interested in comparing apples to apples, not Macs to Granny Smiths...

Also, to clarify - for me, is it your position that the town does not need to consider Condo owners for a T/S - where ever located , due to the notion that the trash hauler already has a T/S and would not need to use the Towns T/S?

Thanks for your answers and participation.
Mike Riopel
Mike Riopel
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:39 am

Next

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron