19880900 To Burn or Not to Burn an interview with Neil Seldman

To Burn Or Not To Burn

Recycling is both environmentally sound and economically sensible

An Interview with Neil Seldman, by Robert Gilman

One of the articles in The Next Agenda (IC#19)

Autumn 1988, Page 22

Copyright (c)1988, 1997 by Context Institute | To order this issue ...

Neil Seldman is the President of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (2425 18th Street NW, Washington, DC 20009) and a consultant to cities and citizen groups around the country who are looking for sensible solutions to the growing garbage crisis.

Robert: People aren't nearly as aware as they could be about the waste crisis, in spite of all the media coverage it's starting to get.

Neil: That's right. We've all heard of the garbage barge from Islip. But I wonder how many people have heard of the ash barge from Philadelphia? The material on the Islip barge was municipal waste, technically commercial waste. On Philadelphia's barge the material is waste incinerator ash, not from a modern mass burn plant, but from an old time incinerator going back 80 or 90 years, a garbage destructor. The amount of garbage on the Islip barge was 3,000 tons, but the ash on the Philadelphia barge weighed 15,000 tons. And how long were they at sea? The Islip barge four months, the Philadelphia barge twenty-three months and it's still on the high seas. Where did the Islip barge go? It went from Islip down the East coast to the Caribbean and back to Brooklyn, where the gargage was finally burned and its remains sent to Islip. Now, the Philadelphia barge has been down through all of those states, into the Caribbean, out to West Africa, back to Philadelphia, and back out to West Africa again.

Robert: It's very curious that the media hasn't picked up on this.

Neil: It shows how you can't trust the media. You must go very deeply into these issues, because these issues are going to determine your future directly in your city. And your small town. These problems have to be solved within three years. Right now most of the authorities in the United States want to turn what was on the Islip barge into what is on the Philadelphia barge. They want to burn the garbage and dispose of the ash. And the story is, look how much more difficult it is to get rid of the ash than the garbage!

Robert: I understand this is all coming to a head because so many municipal areas are basically running out of landfill.

Neil: Absolutely. And that's actually understating the problem, because 8 years ago you could put garbage in the ground on the East coast for $5 a ton, and now it's a $100 a ton for landfill space. One of the ironies is that throughout the 1970's New Jersey tried to keep Pennsylvania's garbage out of New Jersey. They went all the way to the Supreme Court and were eventually told they couldn't do it because of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Right now, guess where New Jersey's garbage is going. Into Pennsylvania. That's how quickly and profoundly the situation has changed.

And it's not because of a lack of landfill space. It's there theoretically, but politically it's become impossible because of the incredible growth of cities, towns and suburbs. Literally no one's neighborhood is unaffected. And people don't want to see their property devalued tremendously, their kids' health risked, their environment destroyed.

Robert: So the alternatives are recycling - or mass burn.

Read the entire interview here: To Burn Or Not To Burn

All contents copyright (c)1988, 1997 by Context Institute

Please send comments to webmaster

Last Updated 29 June 2000.

URL: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC19/Seldman.htm

Home | Search | Index of Issues | Table of Contents

18950000 Westminster Gets Electric Lighting

"Westminster Gets Electric Lighting"
Carroll County Times article for 28 November 1999
By Jay A. Graybeal

The 1895 election in Westminster centered on the issue of electric lighting for the city. The "electric arc light" faction won out over the "gas light" supporters and the city was soon illuminated by electricity. J. Leland Jordan wrote about the impact of the new lighting in his September 18, 1942 column in this newspaper:

"In our column Last week we mentioned the fact that through a vote of the citizenry, the use of street lighting by electric arc lamps was preferred. That is, the overwhelming majority of the 'Electric' ticket over the 'Gas' Ticket brought electric lights to our streets. To follow the press and certain actions on the part of our city fathers, it would indicate that Westminster took on new life immediately. There seemed to be a bit of pride popping up here and there, and it was felt that the deplorable condition of our streets and pavements, showed up almost as bad under the new 'arcs' as they did by day. There was actually a general cleaning up all over town.

From the time of the third incorporation of Westminster in 1838, and in up through the years to the turn of the century, the corporation authorities passed on occasions, (too numerous to mention here) acts to compel property holders to clean their sidewalks and curbing of grass and weeds and to lay proper pavements and gutters.

Quite frequently in the early years the town authorities found it necessary to employ laborers to mow the grass along Main street and the side streets. A note in the local press as late as 1888, recorded that the town council was having 'superfluous vegetation removed from our thorough fares.' Then too, it was moved occasionally by the Council, 'that debris should be removed from the sidewalks and gutters.' All these acts and notices would indicate that our thoroughfares were in a deplorable condition.

Paving had received its share of attention throughout the years. One of the first acts following the incorporation of 1838 was a paving and grading ordinance. Either good brick or flagging was preferred. On November 11, 1839, flagging was ordered laid from 'sidewalk to sidewalk across alleys.' In 1882 the city ordered 142 property owners in the town 'to pave, grade, repair or replay their brick pavements.'

Evidently these requests on the part of our city fathers received only scant attention, for as late as 1910 similar requests were being made.

Many of our readers will remember these conditions—they will recall cinder walks, board and plank walks and in some places no side walks at all. Most all the curbing was of limestone, but some of the more prominent homes sported brick gutters and there were a few curbs of planking.

As has been said, the town seemed to take on new life after the coming of the arc lamps, and many of these breakneck side walks were relaid and a majority of those who had not walks at all, complied with the town ordinances. Walking actually became safer.

Many of us remember the hours we have spent cleaning grass from our sidewalks and gutters—but can you remember the hundreds of black bugs then buzzed about those arc lamps at night? We took great joy in tramping on them, just to hear them crack."

It is interesting to see how the residents responded to the improved lighting. Some residents fixed their sidewalks, others installed them, and local kids like Jordan found a new way to have fun at the expense of the bug population.

Photo caption: Westminster streets, including this section of E. Main, were lit with electric lights following the 1895 city election. Historical Society of Carroll County collection.

18950511 City of Westminster Elections on May 11, 1895

City of Westminster Elections on May 11, 1895

American Sentinel, May 11, 1895.

The great interest attending the election of Mayor and Common Councilmen of this city, on Monday last, brought out the largest vote ever polled at a municipal contest here, 589 ballots having been cast, nearly 40 more than the number at the election in 1890, when the issue was the bonding of the city for $25,000 for street improvements.

In the present instance the contest was in relation to the method of lighting the streets, and the ticket in favor of the use of "arc lights, all night, every night in the year," obtained a majority so decided as to leave no doubt that the preponderance of the public sentiment is largely favorable to that method.

The vote was as follows: ELECTRIC LIGHT TICKET - For Mayor - Mayor Schaeffer, 397. For Common Council - Emanuel Mackley, 376; Abraham C. Strasburger, 336; Martin Leahy, 369; John B. Saylor, 404; Charles Hesson, 390.

CITIZENS' TICKET - For Mayor - Edwin J. Lawyer, 191. For Common Council - Jesse F. Shreeve, 213; Gershom Huff, 234; J. Hoffman Fuss, 192; Edmund J. Awalt, 185; John M. Roberts, 217.

19640600 Maryland Municipal News Magazine with aerial Ocean City Photo

The front cover of the June 1964 edition of the Maryland Municipal News magazine featuring an aerial view of Ocean City. Of course, this was the annual edition that covered the annual Maryland Municipal League summer convention.

[For more information on “Soundtrack” about the Maryland Municipal League click on: Maryland Municipal League. Disclosure: I served on the Maryland Municipal League Board of Directors annually for five consecutive years, from June 2000 to May 2005.]