• PPC Membership Form
• Effective Letterwriting
• Sample Letters
• Agencies & Decision Makers
• Letters to the Editor
• Meetings & Events Calendar
 

• Order a bumpersticker online
• Wear a "Stop the Dump" T-shirt
or button
• Post signs in your yard
• Print signs— Spread the word
 

"Stop the Dump" bumperstickers, T-shirts, and buttons will be available at fundraisers and events.
 

• In response to RRLLC's threat to use to local roads (State Route 53) to access the landfill, Snow Shoe Township Supervisors discuss a "damage control" plan to protect residents from local traffic at their January 3rd township meeting. The supervisors inform those attending they are considering sending a letter opposing the landfill but supporting the interchange as the preferred means of access. The idea receives overwhelming opposition from the standing-room only crowd. Residents say they want the supervisors to stand tough, not bow down to the pressure from RRLLC, and say "no" to everything in relation to the project.
  

  "Is it blackmail, muscle-arming, a bluff or a catch-22?" —The Progress, January 5, 2006

• RRLLC submits a sewage planning module for public comment in an effort to keep moving their project forward. The sewage module for RRLLC's landfill project in Rush Township is advertised and made available in Snow Shoe Township for a 30-day public comment period. According to the Public Notice, the landfill will have "a private sanitary sewer system to collect, convey and treat wastewater. The wastewater treatment plant will be designed to handle approximately 150,000 gallons per day of sewage. This wastewater treatment plant will have a stream discharge to the Moshannon Creek." The sewage module is viewed as incomplete, inconsistent, and deficient by those who took the time to review it and send in public comment.
  
  
• Controversy continues to surround the project. The Centre County Commissioners express concern over the willingness of the Rush Supervisors to accommodate RRLLC's every need.

  "...the chairman of the board of commissioners accused the township supervisors of being 'bought' by a landfill developer." —The Progress, January 11, 2006

Back to Top

FEBRUARY 2006

• At the Feb 7th Snow Shoe Township meeting, Supervisors astonish and anger their constituents by signing an agreement with RRLLC to support the interchange. It was a Snow Shoe Township meeting, but for those attending it felt more like we were transported to Rush Township. The Snow Shoe Township Supervisors went from discussing the possibility of sending a letter to support the interchange but still oppose the landfill at their January 3rd meeting, to voting to sign an agreement with RRLLC 35 days later at this meeting. The February meeting was nothing more than a facade. The supervisors asked for input and ideas. Input and ideas were offered. Questions were asked. A delay was requested for closer review — All to no avail. NO ONE in attendance said, "Yes! Accept the agreement — Protect our local roads at all costs!" Objections and concerns were stated loud and clear but fell on deaf ears. The agreement was accepted in spite of unanimous protest.

  The township also agrees to support Resource in securing permits and approvals for the construction of the interchange, and the company will reimburse the township all attorney fees incurred while fulfilling that obligation. The agreement reads while the agreement shall not constitute nor shall it require support of the landfill by the township... the township will not oppose permitting of the landfill. —The Progress, February 8, 2006

  What happened to the Snow Shoe Township supervisors who vowed to do what the people wanted?
   
• Rush Township continues to accommodate the dump developer by approving the sewage planning module submitted by Resource Recovery, LLC even though there are no other approvals for this project to date— no subdivision, no access to the site, no environmental clearance for any part of the proposed project, and so forth.
   
  Contrary to the opinion of Tom Levine of Richard H. Bulger and Associates, who said he did not think the township could refuse approval because it was an improvement to the Act 537 plan, a municipality can disapprove a proposed revision to the Act 537 plan if they feel it is not in the best interest of their community. Why submit something for approval if there is no choice? Of course when it comes to Rush Township and any request submitted on behalf of RRLLC, the choice is very predictable.

  "Rush Township supervisors were split on whether or not to approve an amendment to its Act 537 plan to accommodate the sewage disposal plans of Resource Recovery LLC, a developer proposing a landfill and industrial park in the township." —The Progress, February 10, 2006

Back to Top

MARCH 2006

• At the request of both Rush and Snow Shoe Townships the proposed I-80 Interchange was once again considered at the March 28th meeting of the Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization for inclusion in the Centre County Long Range Transportation Plan. PPC organized an impressive campaign to encourage the CCMPO to vote NO a second time to the Interchange to Nowhere and this meeting proved to be another Victory for the People! — The MPO voted 8-7 to table (re)consideration of the proposed Interstate 80 interchange until if and when the proposed Resource Recovery LLC Landfill receives approval from the DEP.

  COLLEGE TOWNSHIP — It was a night for the people, and there were 200 or more of them. The landfill opponents filled the municipal meeting room and the hallway outside. They sat in every chair, lined the walls around the room, stood four and five deep in back and sat on the floor in front. —Centre Daily Times, March 29, 2006

  Opponents of the proposal packed the second floor meeting room of the College Township Municipal Building and overflowed into the stairwell. An overflow parking lot had to be set up to accommodate the turnout. —The Progress, March 29, 2006

  From the people who met with the individual MPO members; the speakers who did an outstanding job fitting two years worth of information into a 15-minute presentation; the volunteers who went door-to-door gathering petition signatures from 99% of the people who live along the threatened local road access; the Clearfield County folks who gathered 450 signatures against the landfill-industrial park-incinerator-interchange; the hundreds of people who "packed the house;" and the MPO for standing behind their September 2005 ruling that this project is inconsistent with county transportation planning — We salute you!
   
  Promoting an interchange for something that does not exist and may never exist is not prudent planning.
   
  After the vote, RRLLC threatened to move forward with their dump using local roads for trash hauling.

  Herb Flosdorf, executive vice president of Resource Recovery said "the private funds just dried up," for the interchange project. He and George Rettew, project engineer, said they will look to state and local roads. —Centre Daily Times, March 29, 2006

Back to Top

APRIL 2006

• Resource Recovery, LLC posts a Public Notice (April 10, 17, 24) in the Centre Daily Times announcing their intention to file an application for a Municipal Waste Permit Application. The notice states they plan to construct a dedicated interchange to access the site directly from I-80. What happened to their threat to use local roads?

Back to Top

MAY 2006

• Resource Recovery submits their permit application to DEP in May 5th.
   
• In anticipation of the upcoming primary and general elections, volunteers for People Protecting Communities sent a short survey to local, state and federal officials and candidates. Candidates were encouraged to provide any additional comments they might have. Click here to review the survey questions, list of recipients, and responses.
   
  
• What's RRLLC up to now?

  At last night's Rush Township Board of Supervisors' meeting [May 10, 2006], Jack Shannon, chairman, announced that Resource Recovery LLC, the Lancaster-based company proposing a landfill and industrial park in the township, is preparing to submit plans to the state Department of Environmental Protection for a two-step bio-diesel plant on a parcel of property that straddles Rush and Snow Shoe townships.
   
  He said both townships [Rush and Snow Shoe] have been approached about the possibility, but as of yet, no decision on location has been made. —The Progress, May 11, 2006

Back to Top

JUNE 2006

• Snow Shoe Township: No land will be rezoned, say supervisors When questioned about the recent news regarding both Rush and Snow Townships being approached about construction of a biodiesel plant on the CLOG property (site of the proposed landfill), Snow Shoe Township Supervisors assured their constituents they have no intention of rezoning the Snow Shoe Township portion of the CLOG parcel.
   
  The Supervisors insisted they were not directly approached by any agent of Resource Recovery, LLC but did receive a packet of information in the mail from RRLLC about biodiesel plants. Any industrial development on the Snow Shoe portion of the CLOG property would require a zoning variance.
   
• Are Rush Township Supervisors spending more money to pave the way for the dump?

  In other business, supervisors contracted with Dennis Gehringer, a land use planning consultant from Lancaster, to assist the township in the development of its own subdivision and land development ordinance [SALDO] at a cost of $10,000. Late last year supervisors announced plans to develop their own SALDO, and recently several engineering and surveying firms have inquired about its status because they are dissatisfied with the Centre County ordinance that currently governs land use in the township. If the township were to adopt its own SALDO, the township ordinance would supersede the county one. —The Progress, June 9, 2006

  Another consultant from Lancaster? Just another coincidence or does Dennis Gehringer have a connection to RRLLC like Rettew Associates, Inc, the firm that drafted Rush Township's Comprehensive Plan (for $35,000) as well as the Point of Access study for the I-80 Interchange? Developing their own SALDO is just another attempt to make the landfill/interchange consistent with Centre County transportation and land use planning. What lengths is Rush Township willing to go to get their landfill and interchange?
   
• PPC members meet with Senator Jake Corman and Representative Mike Hanna to discuss concerns about the RRLLC permit application. Both agreed there are issues with the application that need to be addressed by the DEP as evidenced by the letters they sent.
   
  Read the letter sent by Senator Corman and the letter sent by Representative Hanna.
   
  
• Rush Township Supervisors, Jack Shannon and Pat Couturiaux send a letter to Governor Rendell proclaiming the benefits of the landfill. Read this letter and then see if you agree with one of our supporters who commented, "The probability of Rush Township Supervisors Jack Shannon and Pat Couturiaux having authored the 5-page single spaced letter (dated 6/19/06) sent you in support of the RRLLC project is lower than the chances that two monkeys wrote Hamlet.
   
  
• Local Municipal Involvement Process (LMIP) Meeting Held Jun 29

  PHILIPSBURG— The state Department of Environmental Protection established a 21-month time table to review the permit application for a proposed landfill in Rush Township. —The Progress, June 29, 2006

  The second step in the Resource Recovery Landfill permitting process, the Local Municipal Involvement Process (LMIP) meeting, was held June 28, 2006 at the DEP office in Philipsburg. The Arm Group, the engineering firm that conducted the site studies for the proposed landfill, presented an overall view of the project on behalf of Resource Recovery, LLC; DEP staff explained the permitting process; and a timeframe for review of the application was established followed by a brief question and answer session.
   
  To help get a better understanding of how the landfill permitting process works, download the Resource Recovery Landfill Alternate Review Timeline and the DEP Permitting Process Flow Chart received at the Local Municipality Involvement Process (LMIP) meeting.

Back to Top

JULY 2006

• The DEP notifies RRLLC that their permit application is incomplete. An administrative incompleteness letter was sent to Resource Recovery, LLC. RRLLC will have 90 days to respond to the DEP's request for additional information. Click here to read this letter.

Back to Top

AUGUST 2006

• DEP Announces Online Access to Information on Proposed Landfill in Centre County

  WILLIAMSPORT — Citizens seeking up-to-date information on a proposal by Resource Recovery LLC to build a municipal waste landfill in Rush Township, Center County, may now simply log onto the Department of Environmental Protection's Web site, DEP Northcentral Regional Office Director Robert Yowell announced today. Read the complete DEP News Release or the Progress article Web site features landfill information to learn more.

  Or jump directly to the DEP Resource Recovery page and click on "Milestones" to read letters as they are posted.
   
  
• Rush Township citizens are successful in securing enough signatures on a petition to add an important question to the November ballot: Should the Rush Township Board of Supervisors expand from three supervisors to five? Congratulations to the citizens of Rush Township for this triumph!
   
  
• Snow Show Township citizens request that their Supervisors send a letter to the DEP refuting RRLLC's claim in their permit application that "The willingness of the neighboring community, Snow Shoe Township, to cooperate with RRLLC in regard to the project is indicated by the Snow Shoe Township Cooperation Agreement."
   
  
• RRLLC receives another letter from the DEP requesting additional information to make their landfill permit application complete. The permitting process will not progress until the DEP considers the application "administratively complete." Click here to read this letter.
   
  

Back to Top

SEPTEMBER 2006

• PPC hosts the Great Peale Walk
  People Protecting Communities along with 32 local businesses and nonprofit organizations joined together to sponsor the "Peale Walk" on September 17th to raise public awareness about the wonderful, historic area that will be impacted if the Resource Recovery Landfill receives DEP approval.
   
  Over 100 participants joined us for this event. Musicians Ed McDade, Richard Sleigh and Bruce Young provided great entertainment. We wanted people to view the site so they could judge for themselves— Protect and preserve this area for camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, boating, bird watching, ATV riding and other outdoor pursuits OR subject the area and surrounding communities to mountains of garbage, trash trucks, increased accidents, odors and noise, pollution of our air and water, and destruction of the flavor of our wilderness region.
   
  Many first-time visitors of the site were amazed at what the area looked like and had to offer in the way of outdoor recreational opportunities.
   
• Senator Jake Corman refuses to support the landfill/interchange project. Read the Senator's response to a gentleman when asked to support the Resource Recovery Landfill.
   
  
• PPC submits their first comment document— "PPC I"— to DEP detailing concerns about (1) land use conflict, (2) exaggerated benefits claim, and (3) 25-year permit request.

Back to Top

OCTOBER 2006

• DEP holds Resource Recovery, LLC Accountable
  The Departmental of Environmental Protection released two letters on October 2, one addressed to Mr. E.B. Abel, Jr. President of Resource Recovery, LLC and the other to Mr. William Tafuto of the Arm Group, Inc.
   
  The DEP has determined the permit application for the Resource Recovery Landfill is administratively complete; HOWEVER the Phase I (Harms-Benefit) review of the application is suspended until "Resource Recovery resolves the uncertainties connected with the Interstate 80 interchange and wetlands issues raised by the Watershed Management Program."
   
  Read these two very strong letters sent by the DEP on October 2:
  • Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit Deficiency Letter; addressed to Mr. Tafuto
  • Administrative Completeness Letter; addressed to Mr. Abel
  
  Although this is not a denial of the application, we are pleased the DEP is requiring RRLLC to provide additional critical information with regards to their permit application.
   
  
• October 6— GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. published a Blasting Notice in the Centre Daily Times to conduct "exploratory blasting" on the Rush Township portion of the CLOG property. The blasting will take place between October 6 and December 31, 2006. Hawbaker is conducting this exploratory blasting with the expectation of building a sandstone quarry near the landfill site.
   
  Q: What do State College contractor Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. and Mr. E.B. Abel, Jr. (President of Resource Recovery, LLC) have in common?
   
  A: They both have contractual agreements with the owners of the CLOG property, the 5,800-acre parcel of land targeted for the Resource Recovery Landfill.
   
  Is this in anticipation of constructing the I-80 Interchange? Only time will tell...
   
• October 23— ARM Group Inc, on behalf of RRLLC, submits a preliminary response to DEP's request for additional information regarding the wetlands permit. This letter appears to be a recap of previously submitted information by Arm Group Inc.

Back to Top

NOVEMBER 2006

• PPC attends the "Whose Land Is It Anyway?" Landfill Summit in Clearfield. Watch or listen to this entire summit online courtesy of www.citizensadvocate.net. Speakers include Samuel Anthony Ettaro, Rep. Camille "Bud" George, Rep. Dan Surra, and reports from opponents of three proposed landfills in Clearfield and Centre Counties, including PPC.

Back to Top

DECEMBER 2006

• DEP posted ARM Group's (RRLLC's engineer) response to their October 2, 2006 request for additional information regarding the I-80 Interchange. Read ARM's 9-page response. Once again this letter is a recap of their previously submitted information.
   
  
• PPC submits their second comment document— "PPC II"— to DEP outlining our concerns with (1) Act 101—the Solid Waste Management Act, (2) harms generated by the proposed landfill, and (3) environmental and social injustice.
   
  
• PennDOT District 2-0 forwards the Rush Township POA study to PennDOT Central but notes that although it meets their design criteria it does not meet the consistency determinations for land use or Centre County's Long Range Transportation Plan. The next step in the process is for PennDOT Central to forward the POA request to FHWA.

Back to Top

• Friends of PPC host a "Stop the Dumps Summit" at the Schlow Library Community Room in State College to raise awareness about proposed landfills in both Centre and Clearfield counties.
   
• The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) advertises an application from Resource Recovery, LLC to destroy 3.64 acres of federally regulated wetlands in order to construct the Resource Recovery Landfill.
   
  RRLLC plans to destroy a total of almost 11 acres of wetlands. The remaining 7 acres falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Protection. No other Pennsylvania landfill applicant has ever proposed to destroy such a large amount of wetland acres! In fact, since 1988 (yes, 19 years!) only 13.69 acres of wetlands have been sacrificed in the state of Pennsylvania for ALL new landfills and expansions.
   
  The wetlands RRLLC wants to destroy are not isolated nor do they operate independent of the other water sources on the site. At this point the RRLLC wetland mitigation plan has not been viewed favorably by either the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or the PA Game Commission.
   
• Resource Recovery LLC encounters another obstacle in their efforts to secure approval for their proposed I-80 Interchange. In hopes of obtaining conceptual approval for the I-80 Interchange, Rush Township requests that PennDOT forward the Resource Recovery Point of Access (POA) study to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
   
  Upon review of the POA, FHWA refused to consider conceptual approval for the RRLLC Interchange POA unless additional criteria are met. FHWA issued two letters, one to PennDOT and one to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (COE) explaining what RRLLC must do in order to comply with FHWA requirements. Conceptual approval does not guarantee final approval.

Back to Top

FEBRUARY 2007

• DEP suspends their review of the Resource Recovery Landfill permit application until RRLLC secures approval for the I-80 Interchange! Read this announcement in the letter from DEP Regional Director Robert Yowell to Ed Abel of RRLLC.
   
  PPC applauds this commonsense decision by DEP. Since the proposed I-80 Interchange approval is still very uncertain, we feel it is a prudent use of agency resources to postpone review of the application until the interchange is either denied or approved.
   
• DEP reposts the RRLF permit application in the PA Bulletin to clarify that public comment will be accepted throughout the review process and is not limited to a 60-day period. We appreciate DEP taking this action.

Back to Top

MARCH 2007

• March 5, Snow Shoe Township— Snow Shoe Township received a request from Rush Township to sign a "Joint Petition to Section 10302(d) of the Municipalities Planning Code." This Joint Petition requests that the County amend their comprehensive land use plan so, "[I]t provides for and incorporates a privately constructed interchange on Interstate 80... to service a proposed stone quarry, landfill, bio-diesel plant, and other industrial development in Rush Township."
   
  According to the Centre County Consistency Review with Local, Regional, and County Land Use and Transportation Plans for the Rush Township Point of Access Study, July 19, 2005, the County planners determined RRLLC's project IS NOT consistent with the County comprehensive plan. This determination was approved by both the Centre County Planning Commission (August 2005) and the Centre County Commissioners (September 2005). Nothing has changed and the County SHOULD NOT change their comprehensive plan just to facilitate a project for a private developer.
   
  The Petition goes on to state, "Snow Shoe Township believes the requested amendment to the County Plan is consistent with the Snow Shoe Township Comprehensive Plan." Nothing could be further from the truth! We all know that Snow Shoe Township zoning defines this area as forest/open space, not industrial.
   
  Kudos to the Snow Shoe Township Supervisors who unanimously agreed NOT to sign this Petition! They already signed one agreement (February 2006) to support the I-80 Interchange. That should be enough.
   
  
• March 5, Rush Township— The same evening the residents of Snow Shoe Township learned of this Petition, RRLLC and a representative of Glenn O. Hawbaker presented two "economic development" projects at the Rush Township Planning Commission meeting.
   
  Is it just a coincidence that RRLLC unveils these "economic development" plans soon after receiving word from DEP and FHWA that their project is stalled again? And once again, RRLLC is threatening to roll trucks down Snow Shoe Township roads.

Back to Top

MAY 2007

• In response to letters received from the Federal Highway Administration informing Rush Township the Interchange to Nowhere is going nowhere unless REGIONAL consistency issues are resolved, Rush Township submits their third request to the Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) to have the interchange included in the County's Long Range Transportation Plans.
   
  PPC representatives attended the May 22nd CCMPO meeting and distributed a rebuttal to the Rush Township request. The interchange was not discussed at this meeting but there is a good possibility it will appear on a future agenda.
   
  
• The Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. Small Industrial Minerals Surface Mine Permit Application for the CLOG property for a 10,000 ton per year quarry submitted in February 2007 is now being used by Rush Township/RRLLC as proof they are fulfilling their "economic vision master plan." PPC believes Hawbaker is partnering with RRLLC to propel the stalled landfill/interchange project forward and position themselves for a lucrative interchange construction deal.
   
  
• Rush Township adopted their own Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) on May 24th. We suspect they hope to use this ordinance to propel the stalled landfill/interchange proposal forward. Would it surprise anyone to know that Rush Township itself is exempt from following their own ordinance?
   
  For example, if a developer (like RRLLC) were to have Rush apply to subdivide or develop within Rush Township, they would not have to follow the newly adopted Rush rules. However, it is our understanding that projects of regional significance (like the landfill) would still be subject to the Centre County Developments of Regional Significance Ordinance.

Back to Top

JUNE 2007

• The Snow Shoe Township Supervisors once again strongly reiterated their position regarding Rush Township's demand that they sign a Joint Petition to request Centre County amend the County-wide Comprehensive Plan to include the Rush Township landfill, interchange and industrial park. We applaud the Snow Shoe Township Supervisors for standing firm and resisting the bullying tactics of Rush Township and RRLLC.
   
  
• Rush Township Supervisors could not get Snow Shoe Township to sign their petition; they could not get immediate action from the CCMPO, so they appeared with their solicitor at the June 5th meeting of the Centre County Commissioners to request that the Commissioners amend the Centre County Comprehensive Plan to include their "economic development project." No action was taken at this meeting.
   
• Rush Township, on behalf of RRLLC, sent a request to the Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization asking for the third time to have their Interchange to Nowhere included in the Centre County Long Range Transportation Plan.
  

  "In a case of landfill deja vu all over again, Centre County transportation planners learned Tuesday that they're heading toward late summer or autumn decisions on a renewed request from Rush Township to incorporate a proposed Interstate 80 interchange into the planners' construction timetables." —Centre Daily Times, June 27, 2007

  Dan Klees, chairman of the CCMPO, will consider holding special meeting to address the issue again, possibly as early as August or September. But, nothing has changed — the entire project remains inconsistent with the Centre County Comprehensive Plan, local land-use, and the transportation plans for Centre County.
   

Back to Top

JULY 2007

• Lynn Herman, former State Representative for the 77th District and co-sponsor of legislation to halt the permitting of new landfills, joins Resource Recovery as a paid consultant to help get their landfill approved!
   
  Mr. Herman did quite an about-face! In a June 2005 letter to one of his constituents Mr. Herman wrote:

  "As you know, I do not favor the [Resource Recovery] landfill. I do not think the landfill is good for the area, our county, or our state. I have co-sponsored legislation in the House of Representatives which would place a moratorium on new resource recovery permits, new landfills permits and landfill expansion permits in Pennsylvania."

  And Mr. Herman, according to an October 3, 2005 Progress article, said:

  "He has received numerous petitions and letters regarding the landfill and urged the group [People Protecting Communities] to keep the pressure on.... He also suggested it may be time for Pennsylvania to follow in the steps of New York and New Jersey and institute moratoriums on the issuance of new landfill permits. We need to reverse this trend of outside trash coming into our beautiful Commonwealth."

  Does Mr. Herman suddenly think mega landfills are good for our area, our county, and our state? How can Mr. Herman now ignore his constituent's concerns and, in turn, promote the very project they oppose?

Back to Top

AUGUST 2007

• PPC launches a new series, When Pigs Fly, an analysis of the overinflated RRLLC benefits claim.
   
• The Rush Township Supervisors and Resource Recovery begin to pursue an alternate plan — Route 504 through Moshannon State Forest — since they cannot achieve consistency with land use and Centre County transportation plans if they connect their dump interchange to Snow Shoe Township roads.
   
  The disastrous impacts from this project increase with every new move they propose!
   
  Not only would alternate plan have serious environmental impacts on one of the most beautiful and serene areas of the Moshannon State Forest but Rush citizens and folks living along Rattlesnake Pike (aka, State Route 504) will be subject to traffic impacts from diverted traffic from I-80 closures and truck traffic trying to avoid the I-80 tolls.

Back to Top

OCTOBER 2007

• RRLLC attempts to "bribe" the Philipsburg Osceola School District (POSD) by offering money in exchange for their "unwavering support" of the landfill project. According to an October 10th Centre Daily Times article:
  

  "Resource Recovery LLC will guarantee that after five years of the opening of the facility, provided our 25-year permit plan is approved by the PA Department of Environmental Protection, a minimum of $1.2 million in school real estate tax revenues will be paid annually," states the letter, signed by E.B. Abel Jr., company president.

  But to get the "guaranteed" tax revenues the letter states that the school board must:
   
  
  • Adopt a resolution to support the project and the proposed Interstate 80 interchange.
     
    
  • Issue a letter of "unwavering support, acceptable to Resource Recovery" to the Centre County commissioners, county planning office, county Metropolitan Planning Organization, DEP, PennDOT, the Federal Highway Administration and the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
     
    
  • Attend meetings or offer other verbal or written support as requested.
     
    
  If POSD School Board enters into an agreement with RRLLC, they will have no say in the landfill project whatsoever. Any real estate tax revenue the school district would receive would be determined and set after an assessment by the County, not what Mr. Abel says. RRRLC also fails to mention it could be 8–10 years before the POSD would see any money.
   
  
• October 18— Rush Township holds a Public Hearing to solicit comments on the 2007 Addendum to their comprehensive plan which includes the I-80 Southern Alternative. From all accounts Rush Township citizens were magnificent in stating, for the record, their overwhelming opposition to the Rush Township Supervisors latest plan to convert Meyers Run Road, Huckleberry Road and the huckleberry Trail into a paved two-lane highway through Moshannon State Forest for access to the landfill.
   
  
• Rush Township property owners receive a letter and DVD from RRLLC proclaiming the benefits of the landfill. Keep in mind that RRLLC has never constructed, owned or operated a landfill; has changed their story numerous times over the past several years; and has exaggerated their official claimed waste disposal, real estate tax, and new employee salaries and local wage tax benefits by 3.5 to 4 times (see When Pigs Fly: Parts 1, 2, 3, 4).
   
  Should Rush citizens believe what this developer says? Can they trust RRLLC to run a landfill?

NOVEMBER 2007

• In anticipation of the November election, volunteers from People Protecting Communities (PPC) sent a short survey to candidates for Centre County Commissioner to solicit their opinions about the controversial Resource Recovery, LLC landfill project proposed in Rush Township. View the results here. Jon Eich, Rich Rogers, and Steve Dershem were elected as the new Centre County Board of Commissioners.
   
• Victory for Rush Township! Mike Savage has been elected as the new Rush Township Supervisor.

  Rush Township ousted a longtime supervisor Tuesday in what appeared to be a rejection of a proposed municipal waste landfill. Republican Jack Shannon, a retired teacher who has held office since 1984, lost to Democrat Mike Savage, a retired planner who has lived in the township for about three and a half years. —Centre Daily Times, November 7, 2007

Back to Top
Continue to 2008– 2009
Back to 2004–2005

This site contains PDF file downloads. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you may download a free version here.

©2005-2008 People Protecting Communities • last updated Jan 29, 2008
This site has been developed, designed and maintained with 100% volunteer work. No funds are used.
Please report problems to our volunteer WebHead, TechieR