By The Exchange Board of Directors
It’s not because we think it’s the best solution to our county’s solid waste program. It’s because its the best choice being offered.
First of all, let’s recognize that waste management is a public issue. Not just because improper waste disposal has public health, environmental and economic ramifications, but because we are all contributors and users of our waste infrastructure. It is an essential public service, a utility, appropriately guided by and for the public good.
In our country, state and county, that public good is set forth in laws and Solid Waste Management Plans that describe the goals of a waste program and how a community expects to achieve them. San Juan County’s plan describes our unique island geography and our unique waste disposal challenges. Its most emphatic goal is to reduce our waste, process and reuse as much as possible locally and to export as little as necessary.
After 30 years of public education programs, we are all familiar with the 3 “R” mantra of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. These are the worldwide tools of modern waste policy that underlie the ultimate solution to waste. Larger landfills, polluting incinerators and more trucks to haul it away are businesses that depend upon and profit from our collective shortfall in eliminating waste. They may treat the symptoms but do not cure wastefulness.
Since 1983 the Exchange has kept millions of dollars worth of reusable goods within our island economy that would have been exported as waste. It is one model of what an appropriately designed waste system can provide for the public good. There are few if any households on Orcas that have not benefited from the Exchange.
We are so fortunate to be allowed to operate at the county waste facility where we can intercept the flow of waste and recover some of its value. Much more could be diverted from the waste stream, yard waste, construction materials, if there were more public commitment to reduction programs.
What is the public’s position on waste?
Survey results, sentiments expressed at public meetings, petitions and citizens advisory committee recommendations indicate that we strongly support recycling, self hauling, “Take it or Leave it”, the Exchange and a desire for more local control over our waste programs. In short, we seem to support the goals of our Solid Waste Management Plan to reduce, reuse, recycle and export less.
But, and this is very important, Prop. 2 is being presented in a form that makes accepting a particular funding method as the only way to achieve these goals. And if we don’t like that method we have to abandon public control of our waste goals and infrastructure and turn the whole system over to private operators whose services and profits are based on waste volume not waste reduction.
We do need some form of public infrastructure funding if we intend to support our common goals. This could take many forms; separate island disposal districts; a countywide property tax; a combination of the two; or something else not on the ballot. What is on the ballot is a choice between a public system with community goals and benefits and a private system with private goals and benefits.
The Exchange is committed to the concept of waste reduction and its many benefits to our local economy. Its future can only be insured by continued public control of our transfer station on Orcas. Once privatized there is no going back. If a private entity controls the access and hours to the Exchange, be it the current hauler or some company that buys them out, we are no longer part of our community’s commitment to its waste management goals. Indeed there will be no community waste management goals beyond exporting waste to the vast landfills of eastern Oregon.
The choice before us is not the result of an informed public dialogue and understanding of the issue. On the contrary, it is the result of a largely ignored but predictable, long time, politically driven, public policy failure that confuses and divides rather than unites us in a common goal. Whatever the outcome, we can only improve solid waste policy or any public policy by electing and holding accountable, representatives who seek and respond to our input as citizens.
However short of ideal this parcel fee may be, it is not immutable. As long as we maintain public control and are willing to participate in and demand responsive government, we can modify county policy to suit our needs. Privatization of this essential public service is pretty much an admission that we can no longer govern ourselves in accordance with our collective values. What then are the prospects for our future as a community?
Please join the Exchange in support of Proposition 2 and a more cooperative and sustainable future.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
As an artist on Orcas Island, I have benefited many times from the “Exchange” in using the many objects/artifacts from the salient and hidden corners of the “Exchange”, and I whole heartedly endorse their continuance on our island. Orcas has “character” because we are “characters”, and we are unique in our life style. Let’s remember that, and support that! The “Exchange” is uniquely Orcas Island!
The exchange said (above) “Privatization of this essential public service is pretty much an admission that we can no longer govern ourselves in accordance with our collective values”
That statement is regrettably exactly correct!
From where I sit, I feel like I am asked to respond to the classic “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Given our “collective values” and the history of government operated waste management that brings this issue to the public ballot, a vote either way looks to me like a short term mistake and long term disaster.
Charlie Binford
Deer Harbor
The Exchange provides a terrific service on Orcas, as does Take it or Leave it on Lopez. So do the Thrift Store and Consignment Treasures on San Juan, and other re-use and recycle operations on multiple islands.
Only the first two are on County property, and only Take it or Leave it is managed by County.
Yes, solid waste services are critical to our community, but that doesn’t mean they need to be provided by County, nor that they should be funded by a tax (or “user fee”). Grocery stores, gasoline stations, electrical service, propane delivery, telephone service, etc. are all critical to our community, but they’re not provided by County and they’re not (directly anyway) subsidized by tax revenue.
It’s true that the Exchange and Take it or Leave It business models benefit from traffic at the solid waste stations where they’re located. They’d probably be worse off if there were a major shift to curbside service and reduced or eliminated self haul. There’s been an implication that’s going to happen if Proposition Two fails, but it’s not necessarily true, despite what Council and other proponents may say.
If County gets out of the business and rescinds flow control, it’s very likely that robust self haul service will be available. There is no good reason to believe that curbside will increase more under Plan B than Plan A. In fact Plan A includes a gate fee, to raise revenue and to “encourage trip consolidation” which would probably leave self haul more expensive for most customers than using curbside collection, encouraging more customers to sign up for it. (See the table in Council Resolution 43-2011.)
Right, more curbside is probably bad for the Exchange and Take it or Leave it. It could be argued that they’d be better off if everybody self hauled, but that’s an unlikely outcome. And anyway, reuse and recycle activities which aren’t co-located with the dumps do very well now.
Leasing part of County SW sites to a private operator to provide drop off service doesn’t require leasing the whole site, nor imply that operator would control access to the Exchange or Take it or Leave it. Drop off service only requires a parking area for two or three packer trucks and some two yard dumpsters and, possibly, “roll off” boxes for other recycling or construction debris. There is no reason it couldn’t co-exist with current re-use operations.
The choice in this election is about how we responsibly deal with the solid waste we generate and how we pay for it (and who pays how much). Getting people to consume less, or waste less, or throw away less is beyond its scope (and a lot of that is effectively beyond local control anyway). Plan A does nothing more for reduce/reuse/recycle than Plan B–arguably less. It’s more money, unfairly collected, for the wrong system, badly designed, managed, and governed.
The Exchange is a true island institution, and has been let down by the County system. Everyone on Orcas loves The Exchange, and the goals and principles are quintessential San Juan Islands. Wouldn’t it be great if its Board could run the Orcas system as they want?
Actually, under Plan B, they can.
With the County out of the way, Orcasians could do what they want for all things solid waste. This is what Lopezians have organized to do, and are primed to Take Back the Dump on their island with a No vote on Prop. 2.
Prop. 2 challenges Orcas to make progress in its own way, rather than keep banging their heads against the County door as they have for the past 30 years.
Do something different…vote No to encourage change and support new ideas and new leaders.