RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeSo instead they'll stall applicant new businesses to death!
The state of recycling in Central Ohio is really a crying shame.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion
SWACO doesnt want recycling to bankrupt their landfill...
[94 posts] [29 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
somertimeoh
Harrison West
Login to Send PM
I'm confused. Doesn't this sound like it DIRECTLY conflicts what the state has said it's goal is?
Also, the City can't really do much. This is a state level mandate.
SWACO is one of 52 single and multi-county solid waste management districts established under Ohio's solid waste management program. The primary goal of the State's solid waste management program is reducing reliance on landfills for solid waste disposal in Ohio. SWACO is a political subdivision of the State of Ohio and is responsible for preparing, updating and implementing a comprehensive solid waste management plan for the Franklin County Solid Waste Management District (principally Franklin County, but also including parts of five adjacent counties).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM
This is completely ridiculous. My head is spinning with all the things that are wrong with SWACO's stance on this.
Do you need letters written? Phone calls made? Clearly, SWACO needs to hear from someone other than their own bloated sense of self-importance, so they'll understand that the community at large doesn't agree with them.
GAH.
Posted 1 year ago # -
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM
Here's an alternative revenue idea: Make part of Mt. Trashmore a sledding hill, charge $5 for a day pass. (In the winter the stench isn't so noticeable.) Problem solved.
But don't hold up a new business that wants to divert compostable waste from the landfill - that'll only hurt in the long run.Posted 1 year ago # -
somertimeoh
Harrison West
Login to Send PM
-
lizless
Columbus/Hocking Hills
Login to Send PM
Our company, Eartha Limited (run by Mike Minnix) is paying rent on a large warehouse facility that will store byproducts (glass, cardboard, plastic, aluminum and paper) we collect from restaurants, bars and other foodservice operations to be sold to brokers who convert the byproducts into various products.
SWACO tells us it will be 30-45 days to simply read our proposal and then an additional 9 months to a year to gain their approval for our facility.
Operations are stalled until we receive approval from SWACO. Meanwhile, our company pays rent each month on a warehouse that sits empty while dozens of green jobs remain on hold. We were unable to apply to SWACO without the facility so we had to sign a lease before obtaining approval from SWACO.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources has been beyond helpful and absolutely wonderful to us. SWACO is being helpful but claim their regulatory obligations require we wait this ridiculous amount of time to store products that cause no threat or danger to anyone.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
Here are the current board members. I'm writing a letter to members I know asking for better leadership and expressing my dismay. I knew this was why the City of Columbus has never been able to recycle but preventing private enterprise from acting responsibly is an outrage. Ron Mills needs to go.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JoeMitchell
Login to Send PM
Mercurius wrote >>
He should be fired on the spot, today. This is unfathomable.Why? For protecting public interest
Reading between the lines I think what SWACO is really saying is they don't want private entities cherry picking the most profitable waste materials and leaving the public to deal with the rest. Which I tend to think is wise as dollars generated by the profitable materials can help subsidize the disposal of less desirable waste. The approval/environmental impact excuse is more than likely a delay tactic while SWACO tries to figure out how to keep the dollars from waste in public use.
I am dense, what point am I missing?
Posted 1 year ago # -
somertimeoh
Harrison West
Login to Send PM
JoeMitchell wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
He should be fired on the spot, today. This is unfathomable.Why? For protecting public interest
Reading between the lines I think what SWACO is really saying is they don't want private entities cherry picking the most profitable waste materials and leaving the public to deal with the rest. Which I tend to think is wise as dollars generated by the profitable materials can help subsidize the disposal of less desirable waste. The approval/environmental impact excuse is more than likely a delay tactic while SWACO tries to figure out how to keep the dollars from waste in public use.
I am dense, what point am I missing?They are asking to provide services SWACO is NOT providing nor has expressed any desire to provide.
Posted 1 year ago # -
lizless
Columbus/Hocking Hills
Login to Send PM
I'm a restaurateur, I sell beer and kitschy food.
After a decade of inefficient recycling and composting options for my restaurants, I decided to invest my money in a company that would help my restaurants (and others) achieve goals of reducing, re-using and recycling every bit of waste we generate.
I'd prefer to be spending my time and creativity on new restaurant concepts or menus but until I can efficiently and effectively reduce, re-use and recycle the products we use, I'm committed to finding solutions.
Cherry picking? I dunno. We are a restaurant. I'm trying to recycle the things we use. That includes paper, plastic, aluminum, glass, food waste and cardboard.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
JoeMitchell wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
He should be fired on the spot, today. This is unfathomable.Why? For protecting public interest
Reading between the lines I think what SWACO is really saying is they don't want private entities cherry picking the most profitable waste materials and leaving the public to deal with the rest. Which I tend to think is wise as dollars generated by the profitable materials can help subsidize the disposal of less desirable waste. The approval/environmental impact excuse is more than likely a delay tactic while SWACO tries to figure out how to keep the dollars from waste in public use.
I am dense, what point am I missing?SWACO mission is to "Manage the District municipal solid waste stream to... treat solid waste as a resource capable of yielding recovered materials and energy, reduce reliance on landfilling...," yet time and time again, they thwart any initiative that would do just that. If the Executive Director is quoted in the major news publication saying his intention is against the mission of the organization, he needs to go.
Posted 1 year ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
JoeMitchell wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
He should be fired on the spot, today. This is unfathomable.Why? For protecting public interest
Reading between the lines I think what SWACO is really saying is they don't want private entities cherry picking the most profitable waste materials and leaving the public to deal with the rest. Which I tend to think is wise as dollars generated by the profitable materials can help subsidize the disposal of less desirable waste. The approval/environmental impact excuse is more than likely a delay tactic while SWACO tries to figure out how to keep the dollars from waste in public use.
I am dense, what point am I missing?I see SWACOs stance in the same light (which is pretty clear I think if you read SWACOs board rules). I can see it being frustrating to potential businesses (usually tending to be impatient), but we're talking about an area of business that has long been part and parcel to a serious web of public policy regulations and interested parties. It goes with the territory.
Posted 1 year ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
Mercurius wrote >>
JoeMitchell wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
He should be fired on the spot, today. This is unfathomable.Why? For protecting public interest
Reading between the lines I think what SWACO is really saying is they don't want private entities cherry picking the most profitable waste materials and leaving the public to deal with the rest. Which I tend to think is wise as dollars generated by the profitable materials can help subsidize the disposal of less desirable waste. The approval/environmental impact excuse is more than likely a delay tactic while SWACO tries to figure out how to keep the dollars from waste in public use.
I am dense, what point am I missing?SWACO mission is to "Manage the District municipal solid waste stream to... treat solid waste as a resource capable of yielding recovered materials and energy, reduce reliance on landfilling...," yet time and time again, they thwart any initiative that would do just that. If the Executive Director is quoted in the major news publication saying his intention is against the mission of the organization, he needs to go.
No money, no mission.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
myliftkk wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
JoeMitchell wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
He should be fired on the spot, today. This is unfathomable.Why? For protecting public interest
Reading between the lines I think what SWACO is really saying is they don't want private entities cherry picking the most profitable waste materials and leaving the public to deal with the rest. Which I tend to think is wise as dollars generated by the profitable materials can help subsidize the disposal of less desirable waste. The approval/environmental impact excuse is more than likely a delay tactic while SWACO tries to figure out how to keep the dollars from waste in public use.
I am dense, what point am I missing?SWACO mission is to "Manage the District municipal solid waste stream to... treat solid waste as a resource capable of yielding recovered materials and energy, reduce reliance on landfilling...," yet time and time again, they thwart any initiative that would do just that. If the Executive Director is quoted in the major news publication saying his intention is against the mission of the organization, he needs to go.
Less money, means they are accomplishing their mission and have less to manage and lower overhead.
Fixed that for you.
Posted 1 year ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
Mercurius wrote >>
myliftkk wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
JoeMitchell wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
He should be fired on the spot, today. This is unfathomable.Why? For protecting public interest
Reading between the lines I think what SWACO is really saying is they don't want private entities cherry picking the most profitable waste materials and leaving the public to deal with the rest. Which I tend to think is wise as dollars generated by the profitable materials can help subsidize the disposal of less desirable waste. The approval/environmental impact excuse is more than likely a delay tactic while SWACO tries to figure out how to keep the dollars from waste in public use.
I am dense, what point am I missing?SWACO mission is to "Manage the District municipal solid waste stream to... treat solid waste as a resource capable of yielding recovered materials and energy, reduce reliance on landfilling...," yet time and time again, they thwart any initiative that would do just that. If the Executive Director is quoted in the major news publication saying his intention is against the mission of the organization, he needs to go.
Less money, means they are accomplishing their mission and have less to manage and lower overhead.
Fixed that for you.
How does "less money" in any way prove they are accomplishing their mission?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
myliftkk wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
myliftkk wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
JoeMitchell wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
He should be fired on the spot, today. This is unfathomable.Why? For protecting public interest
Reading between the lines I think what SWACO is really saying is they don't want private entities cherry picking the most profitable waste materials and leaving the public to deal with the rest. Which I tend to think is wise as dollars generated by the profitable materials can help subsidize the disposal of less desirable waste. The approval/environmental impact excuse is more than likely a delay tactic while SWACO tries to figure out how to keep the dollars from waste in public use.
I am dense, what point am I missing?SWACO mission is to "Manage the District municipal solid waste stream to... treat solid waste as a resource capable of yielding recovered materials and energy, reduce reliance on landfilling...," yet time and time again, they thwart any initiative that would do just that. If the Executive Director is quoted in the major news publication saying his intention is against the mission of the organization, he needs to go.
Less money, means they are accomplishing their mission and have less to manage and lower overhead.
Fixed that for you.
How does "less money" in any way prove they are accomplishing their mission?
Revenue generated = Tons of waste. Less revenue = Less waste going to the landfill.
Posted 1 year ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.