To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
(a) Business groups refused to support any funding mechanism to increase recycling programs and market development. Everyone agreed that without additional dollars to help local governments expand their recycling programs and find new end-users for the materials collected, the legislative package was little more than bankrupt platitudes.
(b) The City of Chicago would not agree to any meaningful recycling goals, nor would many of the business groups. Under their approach, Illinois would have made less than a 2% reduction in the waste stream each year.
Finally, Mr. Henderson unfairly castigates public interest lawyer Howard Learner in his article for being unwilling to agree to the non-deal. Mr. Learner is an attorney who was representing environmental group clients, not just himself. If Mr. Learner’s clients believe that a proposed deal is unacceptable, then Learner is in no position to accept it. It was Mr. Learner’s clients who decided that he should not participate in any further negotiations that would ultimately lead to a weakening of local control over landfill and incinerator siting. Instead, they believe it is time for the state legislature to seriously address the root cause of our garbage problem, too much waste, as opposed to the symptom, dwindling disposal capacity.
