Published: May 11, 2008 09:35 am         

Editorial: County must scrap its opposition to trash plan

Why do we even bother?

More than a year after Traverse City and Garfield Township started talking about forming a trash hauling partnership, the do-nothing chairman of the county board says the effort is "a waste of money."

The chairwoman of the county's Resource Recovery Council, whose husband just happens to be a trash hauler, say's there's no reason to rush.

"And that's OK," she proclaimed, "because this is a process that doesn't have to be done yesterday." Hey, what's another year, or 10, as long as hubby stays in business?

The county's efforts over the past five years to create a new resource recovery plan -- bureaucrat-speak for a countywide trash hauling and recycling program -- have gone beyond cronyism to outright animosity toward the process and county property owners.

In 2006, a three-year, $140,000 effort to create a new plan dissolved after representatives from three trash-hauling firms -- all of whom had a seat on the citizen committee creating the plan -- met in private with members of the county board to complain they were being disrespected.

A few days later, the plan was rejected and some citizen members of the committee quit in disgust.

Now council Chairwoman Monica Feibing, whose husband Mike owns Clearbrook LLC, openly scoffs at the city and township's desire to form a waste authority.

"They want to have their hand held and have someone walk them through it," Feibing said. "If the city and township feel it's going too slow they should spend some of their own time and money."

Bravely spoken, except: It's the Resource Recovery Council's job -- the reason it exists at all -- to deal with waste issues; as to "time and money," she seems to have forgotten that Traverse City and Garfield produce most of the commercial and retail trash hauling fees and those fees make up most of the Recovery Council's income. So whose money is it she chooses not to spend?

This almost visceral opposition to a trash authority appears to be strongly rooted in what's good for a few individuals. An authority could put some smaller operators out of business. And area trash haulers obviously have the ear of the county board; they certainly get more face time and respect than mere voters do.

Feibing is right on one count. Traverse City and Garfield should hire a consultant to crunch the basic numbers and see how an authority could play out here (maybe they could later bill the county). The city has obtained one estimate of $95,000 to study and implement a trash hauling authority.

Waste authorities are common in Michigan because they save homeowners hundreds and offer greatly expanded services. Traverse City and Garfield would spell out what would be expected, seek bids and choose a single trash hauler to get the work.

The winning hauler would make money by economy of scale and increased business, neighborhoods and local streets wouldn't be overrun by multiple haulers, and homeowners could get large-item pickups, spring and fall cleanups and much more. For homeowners (many of whom double as voters and taxpayers, of course), it is a clearly superior system; for losing bidders, it could be bad news. But homeowners don't exist to keep trash haulers in business.

Last year, in a fit of pique after another solid waste plan was rejected, the county board drastically cut the Resource Recovery budget and its director resigned; there are no plans to hire a replacement. That gives new perspective to board Chairman Addison Wheelock Jr.'s assertion that studying an authority is premature -- since there is no one to do it -- and a "waste of money."

Clearly, the county board's loyalties are to the status quo and to local trash haulers. Traverse City and Garfield should find -- or hire -- a point person to do the legwork and just get on with it; invite other townships to join when they can and get things rolling.