Saturday, June 11, 2011

Abner Doon June 10, 2011 - 9:42 pm EDT at Allen Johnson's News & Record Blog on the White Street Landfill

"Is someone going to report how much trash is to come from Greensboro
compared to "Guilford County"?

I hear 68 thousand tons is to come from Greensboro.

Which means of the 238 thousand total annual tonnage,
more than 70% is supposed to come from "Guilford County"

Once they sign on the bottom line,
the "county trash" could be coming from anywhere.

Why not limit the contract to Greensboro trash only?

70% less trash could mean 70% less smell etc...

I don't get why no media outlets are reporting the difference between the numbers.

Waste Industries is spending tens of thousands on advertizing.

Is that why the Greensboro only numbers arn't being released?

No one seems to know what the city doing just Greensboro would save.

It's almost as if
some kind of deal is being made
with those council members against
to not object to more than 150 thousand tons of non-Greensboro trash
going into the White Street Landfill.

Can someone from the Greensboro News & Record
explain why the public is not being made aware of other options
that don't include trash that could be coming from outside Greensboro?

No offense Allen,
but I think more than a few are being rolled like doughnuts
with ad spending and special interest pressure.

What else could explain why there isn't more transparancy?

If this thing goes down without the paper of record
telling its readers how much non-Greensboro trash would be involved,
there could be a case of journalistic malpractice to make.

Please tell the truth to our community.

I hear the math in the feasability study being used
counts on $1.50 gasoline.

But let's not give the farm away
in exchange for some ad dollars etc....

Seems to me any politician against the landfill
who isn't telling the truth about how much non-Greensboro trash is coming,
is lying to their constituents,
even though they may vote no,
because the yes votes are there.

Time to step up Allen.


George Hartzman

No comments: