Let’s Talk Trash

No, not that kind.

Back in Hudnut Administration days, Indianapolis entered into an agreement that was ahead of its time: rather than sending trash and garbage to rapidly-filling and hard to site landfills, we’d use it to generate energy. The City has continued that arrangement ever since.

The problem is, that was then and now is now.

What was a forward-looking effort in the late 1970s is a dinosaur in 2014. In the intervening years, most of America has (grudgingly) recognized the importance of recycling and reuse. Evidently, as with so many other city functions, news of the changes in what constitutes “best practices” hasn’t reached the Mayor’s office. Instead, Ballard has just announced plans for a ten-year extension of its contract with Covanta, the company burning our trash.

The proposed contract would not require people to separate out recyclable items–the promise is that Covanta will handle that messy job by “sorting” at a new plant. As environmentalists have pointed out, the proposed facility is what is known as a “Dirty MRF” (Materials Recovery Facility). It’s called dirty because the quantity and quality of the recycled material is dramatically degraded in the process.

The proposed agreement would recycle a mere 23.5% of the material. Even Governor Pence–hardly an environmentalist–has called for a goal of 50%. Furthermore, the agreement excludes glass, one of the most “recyclable” materials there is. Covanta says there is no  market for it; experts say Indiana’s glass industry is desperate for it. Believe whom you will.

Dirty MRF’s are nearly extinct in the US. Clean ones–like the ones Republic and Ray’s operate locally–are proliferating.

Experts tell us that over 92% of what gets thrown away can be recycled or composted. But that requires a well-thought-out, free curbside recycling program, like those run by most other cities our size.

Doing things that made sense in the 1970s don’t always make sense 35+ years later, and “keeping on keeping on” isn’t public management.

Comments

Religious Warfare

File under: “Rights for me but not for thee.”

Residents of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, have spent the last four years fighting to prevent construction of mosque. According to a story in Religion News,

Hundreds marched in protest after Rutherford County officials approved plans for the mosque in 2010. Televangelist Pat Robertson labeled the Islamic center a “mega mosque” and claimed Muslims were taking over Murfreesboro. An arsonist set fire to construction equipment on the building site.

Mosque opponents eventually filed a suit against Rutherford County, seeking to block construction of the worship space.

What reports have called a “thriving anti-Muslim movement” in Tennessee fueled the fight, with opponents of the Mosque asserting that the First Amendment’s religious freedom guarantees don’t apply to Muslims–that they only apply to Christians.

Joe Brandon Jr., a lawyer for mosque opponents, went so far as to claim that Islam is not a religion, and that the mosque would be a threat to the community.

I guess the residents of Murfreesboro define “liberty” as “rights for folks like me.”

Think about Murfreesboro the next time a pious apologist claims that religion is a force for good.

Perhaps Jesus was all about love, but a significant percentage of his followers are all about fear and hate.

Comments

City Housework is Dull, But Really Important

No one likes housework. I grumble when I change sheets ; sweeping is a chore. But like all–okay, most–humans who inhabit a built environment (aka a “house”), I know that failure to tend to these mundane tasks will eventually make my home unlivable or dangerous or both.

What is true for houses is true for cities. I realize that the everyday tasks of running a city–cleaning and paving streets, tending to parks, dealing with budgets and myriad other necessary chores–aren’t the fun parts of being a Mayor. But that doesn’t make them less important.

One of my persistent gripes with the Ballard Administration is its neglect of the essential housekeeping tasks that keep a city livable. To be fair, some of those tasks are assigned to municipal corporations like the Health and Hospital Corporation, but those corporations are part of city government, and citizens have a legitimate right to expect the city administration to monitor their performance and ensure that they are doing their job–especially  when public safety is at risk.

That isn’t getting done.

Case in point: We own a property–a double–across from Brookside park. Several weeks ago, a really bad fire destroyed the house immediately east of that double.  You can see through what is still standing.   The remaining roof and sidewalls are clearly dangerous, and burned timbers lie haphazardly on what was the front porch.

It’s very dangerous. And it is still unsecured, weeks after the fire, and despite repeated calls to Health and Hospital. If neighborhood children decided to play in it–or if a homeless person tried to squat there– the likely consequences would be serious.

When I was in City Hall, promptly securing such properties was a high priority. (So was Code Enforcement, which by the looks of several neighborhoods is currently nonexistent.) Money isn’t a problem–a lien against the property secures repayment of amounts spent to make the premises safe.

I understand that things like weed control, securing abandoned properties, and managing city services is anything but glamorous. I’m sure it’s much more fun to bid for a Super Bowl or build a cricket stadium. But there is no excuse for ignoring the boring, necessary work of managing the various agencies that are needed to run a city.

I know that when Mayor Ballard announced that his administration would make “public safety number one” he was thinking of crime. But securing dangerous structures is also a public safety issue.

He’s batting zero on that one, too.

Comments

Don’t You Just Hate When That Happens?

I posted a couple of days ago about the first-ever EPA rules limiting carbon emissions, and the hysteria with which Indiana’s 19th-Century leaders greeted those rules.

Those leaders must have been really annoyed by a story in yesterday’s New York Times–that is, if they actually read the Times or other credible news sources.

The cries of protest have been fierce, warning that President Obama’s plan to cut greenhouse gases from power plants will bring soaring electricity bills and even plunge the nation into blackouts. By the time the administration is finished, one prominent critic said, “millions of Americans will be freezing in the dark.”

Yet cuts on the scale Mr. Obama is calling for — a 30 percent reduction in emissions from the nation’s electricity industry by 2030 — have already been accomplished in parts of the country.

At least 10 states cut their emissions by that amount or more between 2005 and 2012, and several other states were well on their way, almost two decades before Mr. Obama’s clock for the nation runs out.

Worse still for the naysayers, the states that have already begun to clean up their acts haven’t suffered the dire consequences predicted by apologists for Big Coal. The New England region has made some of the biggest cuts in emissions, and residential electricity bills there have fallen 7 percent since 2005.  Meanwhile, economic growth in the region ran slightly ahead of the national average.

Oh, pesky evidence!

The Times also reported that Europe is considering a 43 percent cut in emissions by 2030.

So much for “we’re number one!”

Comments

Why Am I Not Surprised?

Yesterday, the Indiana GOP held its convention and adopted its platform. According to the Indianapolis Star, 

After a contentious weeks-long debate, more than 1,600 delegates from across Indiana approved the new language for the state party’s platform. It says, “We believe that strong families, based on marriage between a man and a woman, are the foundation of society.”

Chalk up another win for the party’s social conservatives–the “Christian” theocrats  who are firmly in charge of what used to be a rational political party.

Most observers predicted this outcome. The real question is whether members of the Hoosier electorate–whom poll after poll show are far more moderate than the current GOP,  on this issue and others–will care enough to vote their displeasure.

Back when I was an active Republican,  the Marion County Chairman frequently noted how grateful he was for the apathy of Democrats. Even then–back in the 1980’s– Democrats outnumbered Republicans in Indianapolis. Republicans kept winning elections,  however, because they voted. Democrats didn’t.

On this issue and so many others, the research suggests that Democrats have won the policy debate. Most Americans agree with them.

What they’ve lost is GOTV.

Comments