Mulch plans Mulch plans ADVERTISING Better for whom? In the beginning there was municipal solid waste. Landowners paid property tax, the county managed the waste, and it was good. Then old landfills reached capacity, the county found that building landfills
Mulch plans
Better for whom?
In the beginning there was municipal solid waste. Landowners paid property tax, the county managed the waste, and it was good. Then old landfills reached capacity, the county found that building landfills was expensive, and it was not good. So a plan was implemented to extend the life of the landfills by diverting the recyclables and green waste.
The diverted green waste was converted into mulch and offered to the public for free. The diverted streams still cost money to manage, but were far less than land disposal would cost.
People used the mulch to keep down weeds in place of herbicides, or made compost from it to grow vegetables and plants in school gardens and parks.
Then someone decided that reducing the cost of landfilling by diverting green waste wasn’t good enough. This mulch stuff was valuable and the county was just giving it away. So, now we find ourselves paying property taxes to have the county manage our waste, and then, if we have a landscaper, paying tipping fees on green waste from our yard.
On top of that the new 60 -mile round trip will price out most people using local truckers for large loads. And only the truly zealous will try to hand-load their pickup in the blazing sun at Kealakehe.
In a recent article in WHT (Dec. 5), the acting Director of the Department of Environmental Management explained the change by saying, “It’s been in the plans for a long time.”
This explanation is not satisfactory. The public — the taxpayers who fund the Department of Environmental Management — deserves a real explanation.
Tell us, in detail, how this is better than the present system. Just in case clarification is needed, “better” would mean better for the majority of residents — not just certain individuals or businesses.
Vheissu Keffer
Honaunau
Campaign expense
Cost-benefit query
So, Mayor Billy Kenoi’s high-financed, well-oiled machine yielded a 1,400-vote mandate.
How many of those dollars came from off island?
WHT has noted there were Oahu contributions. I know for a fact at least one of his pollsters was in Oregon.
Is it really a “successful campaign” to garner and spend so much money to damn near lose?
Maybe the Oahuans couldn’t scrape up the 10 bucks for Harry Kim. He almost wins with want ads?
Both of them end up with deficits. Kim wants free buses and Kenoi subsidizes golf.
Wow.
Richard Allen
Keauhou
