IBJNews

Law targeting controversial landfill only fuels fight

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even for those with a vested interest in the battle over a proposed landfill near Anderson, it's hard to get too worked up over the latest twist before the courts or government agencies.

After all, the Mallard Lake Landfill battle is in its 29th year.

The latest development, one that opponents of the project had hoped was the silver bullet to fell their garbage Dracula, is starting to look just as inconclusive as countless other chapters, at least for now.

That silver bullet was supposed to be Senate Bill 43, signed into law during the last session of the Indiana General Assembly. A part of the bill crafted by Sen. Tim Lanane and Rep. Terri Austin-both Democrats from Anderson-requires a new round of reviews and approval for landfill projects initially OK'd more than 20 years ago but which had not accepted waste by the end of last March.

But Ralph Reed and sons, who've long wanted to put a landfill on their 254-acre farm near county roads 300 East and 300 North, are as tenacious as ever.

In March, their waste venture, J.M. Corp., put up a sign at the proposed site, "Mallard Lake Container Collection System Open to the Public."

Their arch nemesis, nearby residents under the name of Killbuck Concerned Citizens Association, complained it was a blatant attempt to circumvent SB 43. A couple of months later, KCCA filed a lawsuit in Madison Superior Court, seeking a declaratory judgment to effectively force J.M. Corp.'s compliance with the new law.

KCCA wanted to force the Reeds' J.M. Corp. to go back before the county board of zoning appeals, which approved the landfill in the 1980s. The neighbors reasoned the project wouldn't comply with laws and regulations enacted since then.

"They're trying to get around [SB 43]," said Bill Kutschera, KCCA secretary. "It doesn't look like that's going to happen, but they are going to try."

Indeed. In August, J.M. Corp. filed suit in Madison Superior Court asking for a change of judge and a change in venue.

Plain and simple, "it's bad law," Reed attorney Ronald Fowler said of SB 43 and its attempts to "retroactively apply laws.

"That's never been successful in the past."

J.M. Corp.'s Indianapolis-based legal counsel, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, recently sent a letter to Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter, arguing that the new law is unconstitutional.

Observers say not to look for any rulings in the court cases until sometime in September.

Opponents have long argued that the Reed property is a poor site geologically and geographically for a landfill because leaks would contaminate Anderson's water supply.

The Reeds disputed studies cited by KCCA and said their facility would meet the latest environmental standards.

J.M. Corp. contends being lost in the debate is the potential benefits of the site in helping Anderson and Madison County deal with waste. Shipping garbage out of the county costs Anderson taxpayers alone about $750,000 a year, argues Fowler.

The KCCA argues that the potential benefits are outweighed by risks, such as birds attracted to the landfill, creating a hazard for aircraft using the nearby Anderson Municipal Airport. They also warn of a dangerous parade of garbage trucks on narrow county roads and the likely closure of an elementary school directly across from the Reed property.

The group also worries that the Reeds might be receiving the backing of East Coast trash firms, saying they find it hard to believe the family has been able to afford high-priced legal counsel after filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2003. Ralph Reed laughed aloud, denying such a claim, when asked about it last year.

Even now, "they're showing no signs of financial exhaustion," the KCCA's Kutschera said of the Reeds.

"The potential payout of this landfill is just too great for anyone to walk away at this point."
*

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT