Rural counties depend on landfill business

| Print |  Email
Articles - February 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Neighboring farmers and vineyards were outraged. “Welcome to McDumpville,” screamed one website. The Willamette Valley Winegrowers Association declared the landfill would ruin the “view-shed,” “smell-shed” and reputation of local products. “No offense to those from Arlington, Oregon, but we don’t want our ‘food and wine haven’ to look and smell like your town,” one resident wrote in a letter to the editor.

Riverbend is especially unpopular because of the 42 inches of rain it gets each year, which makes the landfill smellier than its eastern counterparts and raises concerns about the fact that it’s in a floodplain. And some residents resent that what started out as a locally owned county dump now accepts waste from as far as Washington County, after being bought by a national waste company, Sanifill, that eventually merged with Waste Management.

Arlington-landfill-rail-yard_0254
A “top pick” grabs one of the 32-ton rail containers filled with trash from Seattle or Kitsap County, Wash., to hand off to one of the trucks that will take it up to the Columbia Ridge Landfill.

Waste Management spent more than half a million dollars arguing its strongest case: “Yamhill County Needs Riverbend Landfill.” It advertised that garbage rates would go up in the county by as much as 255% if the landfill shut down. It commissioned an economic impact study from ECONorthwest, which estimated the long-term economic benefit of expanding the landfill would be 24 construction jobs, $740,000 in host fees and $5.3 million in local and regional spending every year for the 25 years it would take Riverbend to reach capacity again.

County residents voted in favor of the landfill expansion on a ballot initiative in November 2008. “When it’s a pocketbook issue you can almost always figure out how Oregon voters are going to vote,” says Leslie Lewis, chair of the county commission.

But the landfill’s fate was still uncertain. The county planning department voted 7-0 against it in January 2009 and the county ordered a third-party study on landfill alternatives. The report, released in October, concluded that sending trash to other landfills would be more expensive and there are currently no viable alternative technologies.

In December the three-member county commission approved the expansion 2-0, with one commissioner abstaining because her husband works for one of Riverbend’s major partners.

Maybe Waste Management won over Yamhill County by compromising on the proposed height of the addition; maybe it won by simply outspending its opponents more than 100 to 1. Or maybe the landfill expansion just made more sense than sending the trash to say, Arlington, which would cost money and jobs and put an end to the discount disposal costs that residents and businesses now enjoy.



 

More Articles

Justice for All

January-Powerbook 2015
Thursday, December 11, 2014
BY JESSICA RIDGWAY

Lawger upends the typical hourly based fee model by letting clients determine the cost.


Read more...

Healthcare pullback

News
Thursday, November 20, 2014
112014-boehnercare-thumbBY JASON NORRIS | OB CONTRIBUTOR

Each month for Oregon Business, we assess factors that are shaping current capital market activity—and what they mean to investors. Here we take a look at two major developments regarding possible rollbacks of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).


Read more...

Three problems with Obama's immigration order

News
Wednesday, November 26, 2014

BY NISHANT BHAJARIA | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR112614-immigration-thumb

By now, anyone who knows about it has a position on President Obama’s executive order on immigration. The executive order is the outcome of failed attempts at getting a bill through the normal legislative process. Both Obama and his predecessor came close, but not close enough since the process broke down multiple times.


Read more...

Editor's Letter: Power Play

January-Powerbook 2015
Thursday, December 11, 2014

There’s a fascinating article in the December issue of the Harvard Business Review about a profound power shift taking place in business and society. It’s a long read, but the gist revolves around the tension between “old power” and “new power” as a driver of transformation. Here’s an excerpt:

Old power works like a currency. It is held by few. Once gained, it is jealously guarded, and the powerful have a substantial store of it to spend. It is closed, inaccessible, and leader-driven. It downloads, and it captures.

New power operates differently, like a current. It is made by many. It is open, participatory, and peer-driven. It uploads, and it distributes. Like water or electricity, it’s most forceful when it surges. The goal with new power is not to hoard it but to channel it.

The authors, Henry Timms and Jeremy Heimans, don’t necessarily favor one form of power over another but merely outline how power is transitioning, and how companies can take advantage of these changes to strengthen their positions in the marketplace. 

Our Powerbook issue might be viewed as a case study in the new-power transition. This annual book of lists provides information on leading businesses, nonprofits and universities in the state. Most of the featured companies are entrenched power players now pursuing more flexible and less hierarchical approaches to doing business. Law firms, for example, are adopting new technologies and fee structures to make legal services more accessible and affordable.

This month we also take a look at a controversial new U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring public companies to disclose the median pay of workers, as well as the ratio between CEO and median-worker pay. 

Part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the rule will compel public companies to be more open about employee compensation, with the assumption that greater transparency will improve corporate performance and, perhaps, help address one of the major challenges of our time: income inequality.

New power is not only about strategy and tactics, the Harvard Business Review authors say. “The ultimate questions are ethical. The big question is whether new power can genuinely serve the common good and confront society’s most intractable problems.”

That sounds like a call to arms. Or a New Year’s resolution. Old power or new, the goals are the same: to be a force for positive change in the world. Happy 2015!

— Linda


Read more...

Dan and Louis Oyster Bar opens up to a changing neighborhood

The Latest
Thursday, December 11, 2014
121114-oystervidBy MEGHAN NOLT

VIDEO: Revamping a Classic — an iconic eatery stays relevant in a changing marketplace.


Read more...

Streetfight

News
Sunday, December 07, 2014
BY LINDA BAKER

On Friday, Uber switched on an app — and with one push of the button torpedoed Portland’s famed public process.


Read more...

The short list: 5 hot coffee shops for entrepreneurs

Contributed Blogs
Friday, November 14, 2014

CupojoeBY JESSICA RIDGWAY

Oregon entrepreneurs reveal their favorite caffeine hangouts.


Read more...
Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02
SPONSORED LINKS