DOT turns to blatant intimidation to silence criticism
When citizens give the state the responsibility for all of the state’s roads, there are some advantages. There are also some significant disadvantages in creating a huge government monopoly that, at times, can be arrogant and abusive, especially when local groups ask it to do something simple, such as install new traffic lights at dangerous intersections.
But this case crosses even the arrogant and abusive line. A state agency should not be allowed to use the threat of legal action to silence a citizens’ group that wants two new traffic lights on Falls of Neuse Road in North Raleigh.
See if you agree. The North Raleigh Homeowners’ Associations requested that DOT install traffic lights at two intersections connecting their neighborhoods to the soon-to-be-widened Falls of Neuse Road. A consultant report found that the lights were not needed. The Homeowners Association responded with its own sophisticated analysis showing that the intersections did meet DOT guidelines for traffic lights.
Instead of sitting down with the homeowners to discuss the two reports, Kevin Lacy, DOT’s chief traffic engineer, reported the group to the Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors to investigate whether they were practicing engineering without a license. Criticize us with a sophisticated analysis and we will have you investigated and possibly fined. What is worse, the Board of Examiners seems to be going along with this abuse of the citizen’s right to petition their government. Note that to be in violation of the licensing law, the work only has to be "engineering-quality work." (Read about it in The News & Observer here.)
Somebody in the governor’s or attorney general’s office should remind the DOT and the Board of Examiners that the First Amendment guarantees citizens the "right…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In fact, the Homeowners Association should file a countersuit for the violation of their Constitutional rights.
How counties can save money on trash
Haywood County is moving into the 21st Century. Instead of operating its own landfill, it is considering contracting with Santek, a private landfill management company, to manage its landfill for a savings of about $460,000 a year. The best part is that Santek can more than double the amount of trash taken in per day and not exceed the landfill’s 30-year life expectancy. How? Commission Chairman Mark Swanger, who serves on the solid waste committee, notes that: "County government is not an expert at solid waste management." Better compaction and alternative cover material work to improve the efficiency of the landfill.
The county can achieve even more savings from the higher volume and higher efficiency by accepting out-of-county waste. While this option is not always popular with the public, county officials need to explain the new economics of landfills. Larger, more environmentally safe landfills save money and reduce the cost to the homeowners and other landfill users.
Moving solid waste between counties is not new. In 2005, when this report was written, only six North Carolina counties deposited all of their solid waste within county lines, and 55 percent of all solid waste was deposited outside of the county where it was generated. Some of this solid waste went to other states, including Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina.
Chatham County commissioners are currently considering a landfill consultant report that argues that the county could save if it built a 500-ton-per-day regional landfill and accepted trash from neighboring counties and communities. The Orange County solid waste manager is reportedly interested in the idea.
In addition, the NIMBY factor can be mitigated by offering property owners near a new landfill economic incentives for the inconveniences associated with a landfill. What if a county offered a reduction in property taxes to property owners near the landfill and captured loss in revenue in the contract with the private company? How about a 50 percent reduction? A 75 percent reduction? How about zero property tax? Those who create trash would pay a little bit more in their bills and those who bear the inconveniences associated with the landfill would benefit. I hate this term, but it sounds like a "win-win" to me.
Click here for the Local Government Update archive.
