The New Council Weighs In
Expect a mix of opinions from the new council on the proposed landfill in Webberville
By Lee Nichols, Fri., June 6, 2008
Will Wynn: "Austin's [Metropolitan Statistical Area] will double in population over the next 25 to 40 years. We have to recognize and deal with the fact that there will be more than a thousand tons per day of solid waste created in Travis County in the coming years, even as the city of Austin begins to implement zero-waste strategies. In the public sector, we need to control our own destiny with a state-of-the-future facility that will accelerate our zero-waste goals and capitalize on the synergies of co-locating related municipal functions, including carbon-neutral waste-to-energy generation and recycling – all while creating good 'green jobs.' Otherwise, we continue to stick our heads in the sand while the privately controlled landfills on Highway 290 tower over Central Texas. The other option is a privately controlled monopoly over this entire discussion – charming."
Lee Leffingwell: "We have said that the city of Austin needs a new landfill. We have suggested the location at Webberville. But at this point, we're open to someone bringing up another possibility. If someone has another site that would fit the environmental criteria – which are pretty rigid; you can't locate a landfill just anywhere – obviously we would be open to consideration of another site. But certainly Webberville is under consideration until we locate another site."
Brewster McCracken: We were still waiting for a call back from McCracken, but he told the Austin American-Statesman in a May 27 article that he had reversed his previous opposition: "I am not a blanket 'no.' We need a public dialogue, a regional dialogue about where this needs to go. But if the opponents of this won't engage in that process, we have a site, and it's Webberville."
Mike Martinez: Aide Andy Moore says Martinez "was not supportive of it being located in Webberville to begin with, and he spoke out against it publicly. He still feels the same way. He was supporting the Villa Muse project out there and said if we're willing to build a landfill and a water treatment plant and an electrical substation, why wouldn't we support a mixed-use development out there as well?"
Sheryl Cole: "I don't favor using that tract for a landfill. We have enacted a zero-waste policy, and we need to give time to see what we can do responsibly to reduce our waste, and then we have to explore a whole host of options, including our existing landfills. I don't know where I would put a landfill."
Randi Shade: Says she's not completely up to speed on the issue, but, "I'm concerned about the issues that the people in the neighborhood are concerned about, but I'm more worried about the mixed message of creating a landfill at the same time that we're trying to reduce waste."
And the two candidates in a run-off for Place 4:
Laura Morrison: Admits she's not completely up to speed, but: "My sense of the whole issue some months ago was that, especially at a time when we're looking at a zero-waste plan, that it makes sense to try to look at landfill needs in terms of having success in that route. To move forward with a landfill at this point without folding it into the whole plan raises concerns for me. ... I certainly haven't seen any evidence that shows we have to do a landfill now. ... It might exist, but I haven't seen it."
Cid Galindo: It depends on the nature of the proposed facility. "Putting in a landfill along our current understanding of what a landfill does and how it functions would be extremely shortsighted," he says. But, the tract is ideally located for a town center of the type he advocates along the SH 130 corridor – if the city could come up with something "technologically advanced" and "environmentally friendly" that would become an employment center, "then it could be a win-win."
Got something to say on the subject? Send a letter to the editor.