Like Mayor Burke says, they think they can pay us to take their poison. But when we choose our health and future over their money, it turns into raw threats. Watch closely as this plays out because as Pat Clark says, it shows exactly how the owners of the landfill operate: Give us exactly what we want or we will come after you. Will they take back all the police cars and fire trucks they “donated” with the landfill money they made off the backs of our citizens, as well? Is generosity only given with the expectation of something in return?
From the Article:
If Dunmore Borough Council doesn’t override the mayor’s veto of a controversial zoning amendment for the Keystone Sanitary Landfill, the town will be on the hook to pay back $21.55 million to the landfill, a Keystone consultant contends.
Opponents view it as a threat.
Mayor Timothy Burke vetoed an ordinance last week that said sanitary landfills are not structures and therefore not limited to the 50-foot height restriction in the landfill’s zoning district. The zoning amendment was a devastating blow to efforts to prevent the Louis and Dominick DeNaples-owned landfill’s proposed 40-plus year expansion plans.
Council voted 4-3 in favor of the zoning change in September, but Burke’s veto halted the legislation. To overturn the veto, council will need a majority plus one, or a 5-2 vote.
In an opinion column published Tuesday in The Times-Tribune, landfill consultant Al Magnotta wrote that if council does not override the veto, the borough will be in violation of its 1999 and 2014 host agreements with the landfill.
‘Significant financial problem’
If Dunmore violates the host agreements, the landfill will only have to pay the state-mandated minimum of 41 cents per ton of garbage, Magnotta wrote, compared to the $1.51 per ton the borough is receiving in 2019.
Moreover, the borough will have to reimburse the landfill for the $21.55 million the town has received in reimbursements and debt forgiveness since 2014, according to Magnotta.
The landfill expects to bring in a bit more than two million tons of garbage this year, he said.
“I just don’t believe that the full ramifications of the actions of the council or the mayor actually … are understood by the vast majority of the people in Dunmore,” Magnotta said in a phone interview Tuesday, adding the mayor and the councilmen are setting the borough up for a “very significant financial problem.”
The landfill consultant pointed to a line in the 1999 agreement where the borough agreed “to facilitate the continued development and operation of the landfill.”
“If the mayor’s veto is sustained by the three councilmen, in theory, we’re in violation right now,” Magnotta said. “It has nothing to do with the expansion. … In theory, we’d have to shut down now.”
The landfill is about 550 feet tall at its peak.
‘Basically
threatening us’
Pat Clark, a leader of anti-expansion grassroots group Friends of Lackawanna, said the borough has to ensure it has the right to enforce zoning before it figures out what its enforcement options are.
Neither of the agreements have any basis for the landfill getting a refund, Clark said.
“Al draws plenty of legal conclusions, all of which are unfounded and designed to scare people,” he said.
He also noted that the 1999 agreement doesn’t mean the borough has to do everything to facilitate and enhance the landfill’s unmitigated growth.
“It’s not a blanket agreement to do the landfill’s bidding forever and for always,” Clark said.
Additionally, the mayor’s veto does not violate the 2014 agreement, he said. Magnotta cited a section of the agreement that said the landfill “is not a building under the current zoning ordinance pertaining to maximum building height.”
The veto has nothing to do with the landfill being deemed a building, Clark said.
“It has everything to do with it being a structure … therefore this veto is not in violation or contrary to the 2014 agreement,” he said.
Burke agreed his veto was simply about whether the landfill is a structure or not.
The mayor also noted the detrimental health effects from the landfill, including the impact on air quality and how it affects sensitive populations like children, pregnant women and the elderly.
“He’s basically threatening us,” Burke said. “He’s basically saying, ‘Take our poison. We’re paying you enough money to take it.’”
Clark said the landfill has a history of bullying, but now it evolved from “issuing threats behind closed doors” to challenging the town in a newspaper editorial.
“This letter is such a brazen, open threat to the people of the area that I have no idea why it was written,” he said. “It does, however, clearly show everyone exactly how they operate: Give us exactly what we want or we will come after you.”
‘Black and white’
Burke vetoed the ordinance on Oct. 14, and according to the state’s borough code, council has 10 days to take action on the veto. Otherwise, it stands.
As of Tuesday, council had not scheduled a special meeting, said Borough Manager Vito Ruggerio.
If the veto stands, council could vote on a revised ordinance, which would require submitting the ordinance to the county and borough planning commissions, holding a public hearing and voting again. Burke could veto the new ordinance, though.
While the landfill requested the current ordinance, Magnotta said proposing a revised ordinance is up to council.
“They could either go through with it, or they could send us a check,” Magnotta said. “I think this council has to decide what position they want to take.”
Councilman Michael Hayes, who has previously raised concerns about violating the agreement and voted in favor of the zoning change, said council should override Burke’s veto to “save this town from bankruptcy.”
“It’s what I’ve been saying all along,” he said. “Unfortunately, no one was listening. I’m glad now that people can see it in black and white.”
In the event that Dunmore did lose its host fees, the town will survive, Burke said.
“I see towns around that survive without a landfill. Dunmore could do the same,” he said.