- September 25, 2018
I read the April 11 article explaining why Waste Pro has stopped accepting glass for recycling: the cost of separating the glass from other materials is high, and there is no local market glass. All collected materials are processed together, and workers must pick out bottles and broken glass from other materials as they go down a conveyor belt. This process is time-consuming, dangerous, and expensive; ultimately, glass has been going to a landfill. So, we pay to pick it out from other material and then we pay to dump it. I support Joyce Shanahan’s efforts to find a use for the glass.
The obvious question is: “Why are glass, metal, plastic and paper all dumped together?” In other states we’ve lived in, we had a bin for plastic, glass, and metal, and a separate bin for paper. The recycling trucks had one area for paper and a separate area for everything else. Does Waste Pro not have such trucks?
When we lived in Wisconsin in the 1990s, paper was collected separately and processed by itself. The recyclables processing plant used a combination of water, air jets, and electromagnets to separate glass, plastic, and metals. They did not collect yard waste; you had to take it to a processing plant yourself; but the plant processed the waste into mulch, which was then offered free to anyone with a shovel.
When we lived in Massachusetts the supermarket (Market Basket) maintained an area with machines to receive aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and glass bottles. You placed each item into the appropriate machine, one item at a time, and the machine read the label. The machine kept track of all items that had a deposit. After crushing everything, the machine issued you a ticket which you exchanged for cash.
Here are my suggestions:
1. Waste Pro should stop mixing all recyclables together. They should implement a plan to educate people on the recycling process, and then provide two recycling bins to each household (in Massachusetts the city provided the bins).
2. I suggest to Joyce Shanahan that she consider the machines that Massachusetts used to facilitate recycling. Each machine was the size of a refrigerator, and crushed items were dumped into plastic tubs and picked up by a recycling company.
Mr. Warren took the time to defend his friend, the mayor, which was a very noble gesture. That's what friends are for. But, in doing so, he misconstrues various interpretations of what he thinks I think. I do not "really want that last word." I would, for once, like to see the mayor and his commissioners vote in a manner respecting FACTS presented by the general public of Ormond Beach instead of favoring the money power of the developers.
Our City Commission manufactures excuses to justify their decisions to approve projects such as a gas station and/or a car wash as opposed to taking into account the comments by the general public. Examples (re: the car wash): 1) "I really don't think this use is going to be bad in any way. I think it is appropriate; it fits the area." [Really? Directly in front of single-family homes?] and 2) "...because I look at what's on Granada Boulevard right now and I see a concrete plant, for one. I see an open-bay oil change facility. I see multiple open bay garages." [Really: Recognize that these businesses are in an area considered to be commercial zoning about 1/2 to 1 mile east of Granada Pointe. Forcing the car wash and gas station at that location was improper.] And, instead of "I", shouldn't the mayor be saying "we," as in “we the people.” I do not recall the last time the mayor said "the people want that."
As a citizen, you are free to call me out and, personally, disagree with me. But, is identifying yourself as being from the Public Defender's Office proper? The fact that you work at that office does not impress me. Everyone should have a job. As a Port Orange resident, I would venture to guess that you were never present at any Ormond Beach City Commission meetings or public hearings dealing with this tragic mutilation in the heart of our city. Therefore, you have not been witness as to how the City Commission ignores the requests and recommendations from the public. As a result of that, the commission contrives lame excuses to be able to render a decision — the last word. We did not want, or need, a gas station at Granada Pointe. We did not want, or need, a car wash at Granada Pointe. Based on those self-serving decisions, THEY gave us what THEY wanted!
In the April 11 issue of the Ormond Beach Observer, you will note there are two other individuals who feel the same as me. They also take issue with the mayor's "disingenuous" commentary about those of us who attended a City Commission meeting and expressed ourselves via our First Amendment rights. I am not the only one who sensed a holier than thou attitude.
I see myself as a defender of the public, too, for all those citizens who are too intimidated to attend public meetings, or to rise to speak. My questions and complaints to Mayor Partington are not "disingenuous" and are not submitted out of "revenge," as you claim, but to shine a light on the need to change a flawed development process. I did not slur the Mayor's reputation. He has done that himself, with damaging decisions and condescending words. For me, I would rather have, and maintain, an image.
The article titled "This is our best chance" is disturbing. "The good news," says Joe Yarbrough, “is that the cities and county are working to educate the public together." You've got it wrong, Joe. It's the Volusia County elected officials who need the education. We, the people who pay the taxes, do not need more taxes. And we, the people who elected you, object to expensive special elections, with voting by mail, at a time designed to sneak in special interest objectives. We don't want our elected officials promoting the idea of term limits, when what they really have in mind is extending their terms. We have term limits, and two years is the term. I have to laugh at analogy made by Mr. Sharples, who undoubtedly thought he was being very clever, by suggesting we dumbbells "look at the half-cent sales tax like they're at a half-time of a basketball game and need to know the value of passing it." Great analogy, except it is incomplete. We know that no points are scored unless someone shoots. And we know there are no points scored unless the shot goes down. This shot by our tax hungry politicos is not going down. What I hope goes down is a clean sweep of these players at the next time we have the opportunity to impose some real term limits.
While your recent lengthy essay in the Ormond Beach Observer shows great loyalty to your father and his company, many of your assertions are false, and raise new questions. The biggest is your claim that commercial development of acres of floodplain is somehow negated by the massive fill required to raise the grade for the gas station. You're saying that now FEMA will come back and remove the floodplain designation.
FACT: You still developed floodplain, and, contrary to your explanation, the residential rezoning to conservation was DIRECTLY connected to the development as the “conservation” is a six-acre retention pond/stormwater management area made necessary by your filling the flood plain.
FACT: Cando 2 and its endorsed candidates were never against all development, only over-development. In an essay last fall, you took credit for writing copy for the Ormond Proud advertisements that falsely attributed no-development positions to the five challengers. You and a small group of local businessmen bankrolled Ormond Proud with $35,000 to spread false propaganda against honest challengers. Nearly a quarter million dollars in total contributions were made to and for the five candidates supported by Ormond Proud.
FACT: The parcels could and should have been developed like the nearby Office Depot in the same floodplain, preserving historic trees and a minimum of 15% natural vegetation.
FACT: The Granada Pointe development caused elections for all five seats. A huge segment of voters were sickened by the clear-cut but still voted for the incumbents.
FACT: You and your father, as longtime Ormond residents, had to be aware of the decades-old public mandate to preserve trees, wetlands, green space and the environment.
This mandate, which you ignored, was reaffirmed in public citizen input meetings as recently as 2015, with a report presented to the city commission in a public workshop.
The elections and the public debate over your insensitive project may be over, but the pain associated with broken hearts in our betrayed community has not diminished.
Kathy Maloney Johnson
Vicky & Steve Feuhrer
Sheri Snook Malo
(all residents of Ormond Beach)