Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, August 3, 1995 TAG: 9508030018
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
In many minority communities, for instance, there is widespread suspicion that local-government officials target them to take society's rubbish.
Such suspicions aren't entirely baseless. Almost four out of 10 solid-waste facilities sited in Virginia since 1988 are in communities with disproportionately high minority populations. Moreover, a study last year indicated that the Department of Environmental Quality had inconsistently inspected and monitored such facilities in minority neighborhoods.
Troubling though that is, the study - by the General Assembly's respected Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission - found no evidence that local-government bodies have intentionally discriminated against minority communities in selecting waste-disposal sites. Factors such as land values and access to transportation would seem to be paramount.
JLARC's study, which last week won a national award for its research methodology, did not get much attention when released last fall. Unfortunately, neither did a key recommendation, which, if followed, might help ease suspicions of racial and socioeconomic bias in the waste-disposal siting process.
Specifically, JLARC suggested that local governments in Virginia follow Roanoke County's example in seriously involving residents in siting decisions.
In most localities, JLARC found, public participation has been virtually nil. Planning in urban areas often is handled by professional staffers and consultants, and, in rural areas, by county administrators and elected supervisors. Routinely, the ``insiders'' hold cards close to their chests, or work in secret. This inevitably invites mistrust, along with the assumption that certain neighborhoods are targeted to bear the burden and environmental risks of other people's garbage.
In contrast, Roanoke County was a model of openness. The Smith Gap landfill has been a good example not only of (partial) regional cooperation, but also of inclusive planning. In the late '80s, county officials decided to educate county residents about the area's solid-waste needs, and to involve them from the get-go in planning that would eventually lead to construction of the regional landfill. (Though Roanoke city and Vinton would share the dump, the county took charge of the siting process because all 15 potential sites were in the county.)
A citizens advisory committee was appointed, with members from each magisterial district - including adamant opponents of the landfill. This group worked with county staffers to study sites, and to select factors that would be used to rank the suitability of each. The citizens committee also had an unusual amount of say - unprecedented in Virginia, says JLARC - in developing landfill operating policies.
The county's process won a Virginia Citizens Planning Association award in 1991. When the city of Roanoke used a similar procedure to select the Hollins Road site for the trash-transfer station, it won a Virginia Municipal League achievement award.
No awards - or levels of public participation - will make landfills popular. Not-in-my-backyard resistance and resentment run strong in areas where such facilities are proposed and built. Still, however much recycling and other waste-saving ideas are encouraged, landfills remain necessary.
With that a given, local governments need to do a better job of winning public buy-in for siting decisions. Institutionalizing Roanoke County's procedure statewide could help.
by CNB