Monday morning’s vote on the Conecuh Woods landfill application by the Conecuh County Commission will likely be looked back on as one of the most important votes in the county’s history.
Future generations might even look back on April 18, 2011 as a turning point in the county’s history.
Those of us living in the here and now are left trying to make sense of the 3-2 vote in favor of the application.
The handful of people in favor of the landfill are claiming Monday’s vote as a victory and see it as just another hurdle they’ve had to jump on the track to making the landfill a reality.
The thousands of citizens in Conecuh County and surrounding counties are outraged by the outcome of Monday’s vote. But, while disappointed, the grassroots organization opposed to the landfill, the Citizens for a Clean Southwest Alabama, say that Monday’s vote is just a minor setback. They’re suing on the grounds that the application process was flawed and illegal.
In my mind, from a historical standpoint, I see Monday’s vote as being very similar to the decision of the Conecuh County Board of Education in the late 80’s to consolidate the public high schools in the county. From what I’ve read about it and been told about it, that decision then was based on the county’s declining student population and was ultimately a question of money.
Those in favor of the landfill have also chalked it up to a question of money. Proponents of the landfill say that it will boost the local economy and will pump millions in payroll into the county over the lifetime of the landfill. And it goes without saying that more than a few of the people in favor of the landfill stand to gain financially, in some way, from the landfill. The county government stands to gain from tipping fees, which will pump money directly into county coffers.
With all this in mind, how do you properly and objectively evaluate Monday’s commission vote?
The commission is composed of five men from five different parts of the county. You can argue that, as elected officials, each commissioner has a duty to vote in accordance with the wishes of the citizens who live, vote and own property in their commission district. You can also argue that each commissioner is charged with looking out for the county’s best interest as a whole, both in the present and in years to come.
On Monday, commissioners Wendell Byrd, Jerold Dean and Leonard Millender voted in favor of the application while commissioners D.K. Bodiford and Hugh Barrow voted against it.
Did these commissioners, taken individually, cast votes in accordance with the wishes of their constituents? Did their votes represent what’s in the best interest of the county?
One question up for debate is what duty the commission has to people living outside of the county, many of which are just as opposed to the landfill as folks living within the county’s borders. On paper, the commission probably has no legally binding, black and white duty to anyone outside the county. But, on the other side of the coin, you can argue that, as living, breathing, thinking men, they have at least a moral duty to “do unto others, as you’d have them do unto you.”
In the end, I’m sure each commissioner put a lot of thought into the vote they cast on Monday. I’m sure they weighed how their decision would impact their constituents, the generations to come, the future of this county from a financial standpoint and from a quality of life standpoint, the impact it would have on the county’s image and the impact it would have on the local economy.
And, I’m sure they had their reasons for voting the way they voted. Maybe they had more than one reason, maybe they had a hundred thousand reasons. Who knows?
No comments:
Post a Comment