[Announce] Landfill Secret Meeting We Must Attend!

Wed Jul 11 12:18:27 MDT 2007

In the Town of Clifton Park where I reside, Clough,
Harbour & Associates is the designated "town engineer"
and has been for many years. Only in the past 3 years
have they begun to show any interest in things like
setting aside any open space for protection,
clustering development sites instead of carving up all
remaining "residentially" zoned land into houselots
and streets, traffic calming,  assessing wildlife or
vegetation, etc.  

Although they have been responsible for a few modest
improvements in the town's land use planning recently,
I feel their long history as Town Engineer is one of
the main reasons (and "expert" justifications) that
has caused Clifton Park to be mauled by sprawl for so
long. 

When it was in their interest to promote sprawl plans,
they did.  And, though the Town Planning Board
rejected several advices of their Town engineer just
last night --- such as questioning a mall developer's
plan to build parking spaces on State land in the
Northway right-of-way, and doing a semi-cluster of
homes on a historic farmstead in Elnora, a historic
hamlet in the town, rather than covering the land
completely with houselots and streets --- right next
door in the Town of Halfmoon, apparently Clough
Harbour doesn't object to anything any developer
proposes.  

That is why Halfmoon is now the "fastest growing" town
in New York State, according to some measures of
"growth".

My only reason for this long intro. is to say that I
was told a year or so ago by the person who serves as
the the Clifton Park Town Engineer (he is actually a
landscape architect) that documents possessed or
generated by Clough Harbour are not FOILable - that
Clough Harbour, despite it being an official Town
consulting agency hired by the Town, is "not subject
to FOIL".   

Of course, of particular interest to SPB folk, the
Clifton Park Town Planning Board also uses Clough
Harbour's supposed expertise and reviews to justify
accepting worthless "management plans" for the
endangered Karner blue butterfly, and to justify their
violating SEQRA, including the Town's own earlier
adopted GEIS Findings meant to protect the butterfly
and its habitat. 

So - I am wondering how many interesting things
pertaining to the landfill and its secret meeting
tonight might be in possession of Clough, Harbour, and
whether Albany & Colonie citizens would also be
stonewalled, with any FOIL request for documents not
already in the City's official file for the project?  

Please do keep me informed of the outcome if any FOIL
requests for engineering, emissions, traffic, noise or
other studies or data are made, either directly to
Clough Harbour, or, which somehow involve them.  

I hope we can all lift the veil of secrecy and
professional 'privilege' that this and other municipal
consulting firms use to shield their work and advice,
paid for with public dollars, from public scrutiny.

  William Engleman

--- Carol Waterman <waterman at nycap.rr.com> wrote:

> Sheree:
> 
> I couldn't agree with you more.  Many toxins don't
> smell and we can't let
> them get away with the scam they're perpetrating. 
> You're right that we have
> to watch our language by using words like
> "emissions", "toxins", etc.
> instead of "odor" and "smell".
> 
> It looks to me like they're trying to remove a lot
> of the activist
> opposition to the landfill by improving the odor, a
> tactic that might,
> unfortunately, possibly work to some extent.  But
> maybe we should feel good
> about the fact that we've shown so much power in our
> opposition that they
> felt that had to do something about the smell to
> pacify us.  We'll keep
> fighting!
> 
> The shirt I'll be wearing to the meeting says "No
> Dump..."  It doesn't say
> "No Smell..."  Which part of the word "Dump" do they
> not understand?
> 
> Carol
> ----- 
> From: "Sheree" <sheree at nycap.rr.com>
> To: "Bert" <bert.090355 at gmail.com>; "Lynne Jackson"
> <lynnejackson at mac.com>
> Cc: <announce at nodumpinthepinebush.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Announce] Landfill Secret Meeting We
> Must Attend!
> 
> 
> Suggestion: steer the discussion by refusing to
> label the emissions "odors"
> as if the SMELL is the problem, and the proof that
> there IS a problem.  What
> you don't smell can also hurt you... all toxins do
> not smell.
>     Allowing discussion to refer to emissions as
> "odors" can couch it as an
> esthetic issue, not a health issue.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bert" <bert.090355 at gmail.com>
> To: "Lynne Jackson" <lynnejackson at mac.com>
> Cc: <announce at nodumpinthepinebush.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Announce] Landfill Secret Meeting We
> Must Attend!
> 
> 
> Questions Questions Questions
> 
> Upcoming meeting Wednesday July 11th
> 
> With Fred Lebrun and Mayor Leak's discussion of  a
> significant
> reduction in odor complaints and the TU's mention
> that odor would have
> been an obstacle, I believe the City will be using
> this to full
> advantage in their landfill expansion permit.  
> While we know why the
> City finally working on the odor issue, we do not
> know how well this
> will work for the future or what gases are released.
>   The residents
> and businesses and others affected on so many
> occasions for years to
> the point of loss of business, use of property and
> sickness, and the
> unknown affect the "toxic" fumes on health, the
> reduction of
> complaints should not be a reason to stop any suit. 
> I believe it is
> all the more reason to explore the health issue via
> a survey as well
> as pushing for a independent research of illness,
> cancer rates etc in
> the community around the landfill and for those
> workers affected
> greatly.  This should include City workers.
> 
> I am not sure what Wednesday's meeting is about but
> assume it is
> results of an air and hydrologic survey.   I heard
> that this
> un-advertised meeting intends to not cover the
> expansion of the
> landfill though this does not make any sense.
> 
> Questions I wonder are:
> 
> Air – Qualifications and history of the sampling
> firm and testing
> laboratory?
>           Sampling methods, number of events,
> before/after the plastic
> cover?
>            Air testing under the cover, weather etc?
> 
>             If the liner has a break, what might be
> released and how
> toxic would it be?
> 
>            Also, was the testing firm aware that
> many have been
> sickened, sent home from     work, children could
> not go out and
> play, residents were woken from their sleep     and
> that fumes often
> resulted in Fire Dept and Utility Gas Co calls?
> 
>             Is the testing firm aware that the
> number of events and
> complaints are likely in
>             the thousands?
> 
>             Were there any claims by businesses,
> residents, workers
> for loss time or other     claims as a result of the
> persistent and
> frequent odor?
> 
>            Were there any claims by the Fire Dept or
> Utility Co for
> the many "false" calls?
> 
>           Would there be an explanation of whether
> any prior testing
> of toxic fumes and
>           what the results were?
> 
>           Would there be any explanation or
> discussion of whether
> fumes that were strong    enough to sicken people
> inside their homes
> or businesses would be toxic?
> 
>           Is the firm aware of any studies of fumes
> sickening people
> from other landfills?
> 
>           Are they testing the cover materials (also
> wastes) and are
> they aware what has    been used in the past
> (different depending on
> who (industries) paid the City to take industrial
> wastes as a cover.
> 
> Water – Qualifications and history of the sampling
> firm and testing
> laboratory.
>             Was the firm aware of the principal
> aquifer and the nearby
> 6 Mile Water Works      (Rensselaer Lake), whose
> water rights were
> leased in 2002 by the Albany
>             Water Board from the City for $3.7
> million for an
> emergency water supply?
> 
>     That there is a contaminated plume moving from
> the landfill from
> the older     unlined section of the landfill?
> 
>            Or that there was a leak in a section of
> the lined area
> that leaked required repair?
> 
>            Is another Aquifer Variance required? And
> although
> "permitted" by DEC with     extensive discussion in
> the last landfill
> expansion lawsuit, and although DEC's     own
> regulations do not
> allow landfills or expansions over a principal
> aquifer.      While
> not allowed, the issue of the Aquifer is not a done
> deal though the
> City and     DEC will likely point to the testing,
> lining and other
> technologies, besides this     one of the main
> points arguing for a
> Variance was no use as a public water     supply. 
> The timing of the
> last suit (lost) was the same year as the purchase
> of
>           the water rights – so it was known but not
> shared with DEC
> or others.  Is there a
>           legal issue here?
> 
> Waste- DEC indicated it would not have allowed the
> permit without
> 
=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222