[greenyes] Both sides of landfill measure battle cry foul

[RicAnthony@no.address]

According to Measure B proponents this  initiative has a huge undecided vote. 
 
Rick


Both sides of landfill measure battle cry foul
10/21/2004 - SAN DIEGO CA

By: ANNE RILEY-KATZ - staff writer

Recent campaign advertisements aired in the battle over the controversial 
Gregory Canyon landfill have dump opponents and supporters pointing fingers and 
crying foul.

The complaints focus on television spots for and against Proposition B, a 
November ballot measure that would overturn the 1994 site approval for the 
debated North County landfill. 

Camps on both sides of the issue contend each others' advertisements are 
misleading, and each side appealed to local media Thursday to bring attention to 
the issue.

Political consultants for landfill developers hosted a news conference 
Thursday morning to tout a new television commercial addressing what they allege are 
false statements made in advertisements aired by landfill opponents.

The new ad, which will run on local television stations next week, tries to 
fend off dump opponents' allegations regarding the landfill's environmental 
hazards.

The spot features Lisa Briggs, executive director of the San Diego County 
Taxpayers Association, addressing landfill foes' contentions about water 
contamination and North County's need for the landfill, among others.

"Their statements have been deceptive," Briggs said after the conference. "As 
far as environmental damage, without the landfill we would have more traffic 
and more pollution, with increased traffic and fuel consumption as trash is 
trucked to landfills in South and East County."

Prop B. supporters and demonstrators, among them county Supervisor Pam 
Slater-Price, staged a protest Thursday afternoon outside the offices of the Utility 
Consumers Action Network, or UCAN, a consumer advocacy group focused on 
energy, utilities and telecommunications.

The protesters rallied against a pro-landfill commercial featuring Michael 
Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers Action Network. Though 
Shames said the ad represented his personal views and was created on his personal 
time, he appeared in the commercial without the knowledge or consent of the 
group's board of directors.

Niel Lynch, vice chairman of the group's board of directors, expressed a 
desire to distance Shames' actions from the group and its board members.

"The main concern is that (Shames') name was too closely linked to UCAN when 
he was acting as private individual," Lynch said after the demonstration. "I 
would have preferred to see some kind of disclaimer stating that his views are 
not those of UCAN or the board, because as the founder, his name has been as 
close to UCAN as Colonel Sanders is to Kentucky Fried Chicken."

Demonstrators holding "Yes on B" signs shouted "Shame on Shames" during the 
demonstration, during which Shames appeared and spoke with news media in 
attendance about the ad.

"I tried my best in this situation to make it clear that I do not speak for 
UCAN," Shames said in an interview after the protest, adding that he thought 
the proposed landfill would benefit consumers by driving prices down. "I did 
make a point not to get UCAN involved and not to do it on UCAN time."

The debated $60 million dump is slated for about 320 acres on a 1,770-acre 
site two miles west of the Pala Indian Reservation and three miles east of the 
Highway 76-Interstate 15 interchange.

The site was once owned by waste industry giant Waste Management, but was 
sold to Gregory Canyon developers in 1999.

The Gregory Canyon landfill was approved a decade ago when county voters 
passed Proposition C, which amended the county's land-use plan so the property 
could be zoned for a landfill.

Both sides are familiar with controversy, having fought a costly and public 
battle to keep the measure on the Nov. 2 ballot.

Financial statements filed this week showed that landfill supporters have 
stepped up campaign spending this month, more than doubling the money spent by 
dump opponents so far in October.

The "No on B" campaign pumped an additional $1 million into its effort this 
month, while dump opponents slowed their spending in October to $444,000 
through midmonth.

As of Oct. 16, both sides had spent about $1.8 million each and campaign 
expenditures continue to pile up as Election Day nears, with a combined total of 
close to $4 million spent so far by the two camps.

Contact staff writer Anne Riley-Katz at (760) 631-6622 or 
ariley-katz@no.address

© 1997-2004 North County Times - Lee Enterprises 


Ricanthony@no.address
RichardAnthonyAssociates.com
San Diego, California