All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Can Public Authorities Just Get Things Done? An Analysis of Politically Buffered Institutions in a Contentious Policy Arena
Unformatted Document Text:  19 political issues including: precursor controversies, choice of landfill or incinerator sites, and the political strategies that sustained or brought about the demise of a project. Monroe County: By the late 1980s, Monroe County had already endured a number of solid waste battles but had yet to reach a successful resolution. The Republican county executive had previously constructed a WTE facility 6 that cost the county over $50 million and never worked properly. His solid waste proposals became such a volatile issue that they were a major problem in his re-election and many, including the local paper, attributed his defeat in 1987 in part to the failed WTE. His successor, a Democrat, made development of a county-wide landfill one of his top priorities. In 1988, this new county executive picked up a long-standing but somewhat desultory effort to site a landfill in the county and proceeded to revisit the site selection process. Although the creation of a public authority was broached in the debate, according to his staff, he chose “on principal” not to create one. The county went through a formal site selection process; however, according to staff who worked on the project, most insiders knew the site in advance. The site was believed to be environmentally sound but just as important, the site was in a rural area at the edge of the county line, which made it politically feasible. While the landfill proposal required the county legislators and executive to face down significant protest and lawsuits from the host community and surrounding jurisdictions, the landfill ultimately survived the political process. At one point, the project even required a mandatory two-thirds vote of the legislature to approve the almost $50 million in debt necessary to finance the facility. This vote was initially held up by the 6 The facility was technically a “refuse derived fuels” facility, which turns garbage into fuel for energy production. The problem with these facilities was that the fuel produced did not burn cleanly or evenly.

Authors: Bourdeaux, Carolyn.
first   previous   Page 19 of 38   next   last



background image
19
political issues including: precursor controversies, choice of landfill or incinerator sites, and the
political strategies that sustained or brought about the demise of a project.
Monroe County: By the late 1980s, Monroe County had already endured a number of solid
waste battles but had yet to reach a successful resolution. The Republican county executive had
previously constructed a WTE facility
6
that cost the county over $50 million and never worked
properly. His solid waste proposals became such a volatile issue that they were a major problem
in his re-election and many, including the local paper, attributed his defeat in 1987 in part to the
failed WTE. His successor, a Democrat, made development of a county-wide landfill one of his
top priorities.
In 1988, this new county executive picked up a long-standing but somewhat desultory
effort to site a landfill in the county and proceeded to revisit the site selection process. Although
the creation of a public authority was broached in the debate, according to his staff, he chose “on
principal” not to create one.
The county went through a formal site selection process; however, according to staff who
worked on the project, most insiders knew the site in advance. The site was believed to be
environmentally sound but just as important, the site was in a rural area at the edge of the county
line, which made it politically feasible. While the landfill proposal required the county
legislators and executive to face down significant protest and lawsuits from the host community
and surrounding jurisdictions, the landfill ultimately survived the political process. At one point,
the project even required a mandatory two-thirds vote of the legislature to approve the almost
$50 million in debt necessary to finance the facility. This vote was initially held up by the
6
The facility was technically a “refuse derived fuels” facility, which turns garbage into fuel for energy production.
The problem with these facilities was that the fuel produced did not burn cleanly or evenly.


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 19 of 38   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.