
{"id":3471,"date":"2008-09-18T08:31:02","date_gmt":"2008-09-18T16:31:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.carrborocitizen.com\/main\/?p=3471"},"modified":"2008-09-18T08:31:02","modified_gmt":"2008-09-18T16:31:02","slug":"rogers-eubanks-hangs-on-transfer-talks-continue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/2008\/09\/18\/rogers-eubanks-hangs-on-transfer-talks-continue\/","title":{"rendered":"Rogers-Eubanks hangs on, transfer talks continue"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>By Taylor Sisk<\/strong><br \/>\n<em>Staff Writer<\/em><\/p>\n<p>At a Tuesday night solid-waste transfer station work session, Rogers-Eubanks community members and their supporters once again turned out in force. With some lifting signs that read \u00e2\u20ac\u0153No to Eubanks-Rogers Rd. Solid Waste Transfer Site,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d they urged that after 36 years of hosting the Orange County Landfill, Eubanks Road should be removed from consideration as a potential transfer station site.<\/p>\n<p>And while Eubanks remains on the list of potential sites, at least one Orange County commissioner hinted Tuesday night that when the list is further narrowed on Oct. 21, Eubanks might well no longer be on it.<br \/>\n<!--more--><br \/>\nThe Southern Human Services Center was packed to near fire code-infringing capacity Tuesday night as the county commissioners picked up the transfer station siting search process that began last winter. With the landfill projected to reach capacity in 2011 and the board of commissioners having decided to build a transfer station to transport our solid waste outside the county, the list of potential sites for the station has now been reduced to 10.<br \/>\nEubanks Road ranks fourth on that list, but residents of the largely black, working-class community believe that when community-specific criteria, including environmental-justice considerations, are applied, as they will be prior to the Oct. 21 session, Eubanks should no longer be considered a viable option.<\/p>\n<p>Olver Inc. \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the consulting firm the commission hired to establish criteria, conduct the search and advise the commissioners on the selection of a site \u00e2\u20ac\u201c initially identified 379 potential sites. Sites that are too far from major roads or the projected geographical center of the county\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s waste generation were then eliminated, as were those of historical, archeological and cultural significance and those protected for environmental reasons. Technical criteria \u00e2\u20ac\u201c including such considerations as traffic compatibility, room to expand and access to utilities \u00e2\u20ac\u201c were next applied, narrowing the list to the 10 sites that now remain for consideration. Those 10 have been ranked by Olver, with a weighting factor applied to each individual criterion. <\/p>\n<p>During the public-comments session Tuesday night, residents of several communities adjacent to potential sites voiced their opposition. Community members from the vicinity of the two sites at the top of the list, both located near the intersection of I-40 and Old N.C. Hwy. 86, said that the transfer station would curtail Hillsborough\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s economic development and diminish quality of life in the adjacent neighborhoods. Residents of one proposed site spoke of families and businesses being displaced.  <\/p>\n<p>But opponents of siting the station on Eubanks Road were the decided majority. And while Eubanks wasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t immediately removed from consideration, as many suggested it should be, the commissioners hinted that once the community criteria are applied Eubanks may cease to be considered a viable site \u00e2\u20ac\u201c with commission Chair Barry Jacobs saying that the ranking of sites would likely \u00e2\u20ac\u0153change significantly.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/p>\n<p>Jacobs drew a short chuckle from some in the audience when he said that the third- or fourth-ranked sites, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153just as an example,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d might easily fall to ninth or tenth.<\/p>\n<p>\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Just as an example,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Commissioner Moses Carey added.<\/p>\n<p>Last spring, the board of commissioners voted to site the transfer station on Eubanks Road, then in November announced they were reopening the search.<\/p>\n<p>Neloa Jones, a resident of the Rogers-Eubanks community and a member of the Coalition to End Environmental Racism, asked why it was that community criteria were only now being applied.<br \/>\nThe somewhat sterile-sounding term \u00e2\u20ac\u0153community-specific criteria\u00e2\u20ac\u009d includes environmental-justice concerns as well as consideration of the number of residents affected; proximity to schools, churches and recreations sites; and more. <\/p>\n<p>Jones pointed out that the EPA document titled \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making\u00e2\u20ac\u009d states that once unsuitable sites are eliminated by applying exclusionary criteria, both the technical and community criteria should be applied to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all remaining options.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Only then should the list of potential sites be ranked and narrowed.<\/p>\n<p>Olver Inc. will return on Oct. 21 with community criteria rankings. Those criteria will be listed alongside the technical criteria rankings. The commissioners will then further narrow the list. Meetings soliciting public input will then be held in the communities that remain on that list.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Taylor Sisk Staff Writer At a Tuesday night solid-waste transfer station work session, Rogers-Eubanks community members and their supporters once again turned out in force. With some lifting signs that read \u00e2\u20ac\u0153No to Eubanks-Rogers Rd. Solid Waste Transfer Site,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d they urged that after 36 years of hosting the Orange County Landfill, Eubanks Road should&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3471","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3471\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}