So, what should be done<\/strong><\/span> <\/em>about garbage in town?\u00a0 I decided to see what we’ve done in the past.<\/p>\n Teaneck had very few people when we moved to our council form of Government (~16,000), and even as late as the 40’s, it was only about 25,000.<\/p>\n Yet, as early as March, 1948, records indicate that residents complained about the unsightly nature of municipal garbage pickups.<\/p>\n “They objected to the scavengers’ parking their trucks in the service station opposite the site of the new Bryant School.”<\/p>\n “[T]he garbage trucks detract from the beauty of the neighborhood… it’s a health menace”<\/p>\n Of course, getting them to stop parking next to schools was easier than changing how it was collected and financed.<\/p>\n “A representative of the Upper Teaneck Civic Association thanked the Council and Mr. Volcker for the prompt action they took in making the Garbage trucks cease parking in the service station opposite the Bryant School.\u00a0 Only one truck, belonging to Mr. Pavale of Dumont, still parks there.”<\/p>\n Later that year in October, with garbage contracts up in the near future, the Township started to look at available options.<\/p>\n “I would like to call to the attention of the Council the fact that the garbage disposal contract ends next month, and that some further preliminary thought and investigate of cost estimates should be made.”<\/p>\n Council unanimously approved of creating the survey.<\/p>\n The report prepared that November was not what those seeking to change garbage collection had hoped for.\u00a0 It was going to cost a lot of money<\/span><\/strong> to move towards a municipal system of garbage collection.<\/p>\n A real lot of money.\u00a0 And the idea was shelved for a while.<\/p>\n “The cost to the Township would far exceed the present system…. the cost of municipal collection of the average resident assessed to $3,500 will be about $1.66 a month during the first year and around $1.90 a month during the fifth year. Mr. Volcker recommended that the Township leave its garbage collection int he hands of a commercial scavenger rather than make municipal collection because the cost would be prohibitive.”<\/p>\n The council unanimously renewed the agreement with scavengers.<\/p>\n But, rates tend to move in one direction, no matter what decade you’re living in.\u00a0 So when they went up again in 1949, residents started to think about the issue again.<\/p>\n That August, a member of Council suggested that they look into a County wide “garbage authority” modeled on the sewer authority, which people seemed pleased with.<\/p>\n “Mr Deissler stated that now that we have a Sewer Authority functioning and doing a good job, he thought something also might be started along the same line with reference to the disposal of garbage and refuse.”<\/p>\n Resolution #4856 was put forward to petition the State Legislature for legislation “permitting area wide garbage and refuse disposal authorities”.<\/p>\n The resolution was unanimous and Council was looking forward to moving towards a county-wide system that could enable economy of scale.<\/p>\n The first positive responses to the proposal came from the towns of Dumont, Edgewater, New Milford, Fair Lawn and Emerson. They were all drawing up similar resolutions.<\/p>\n Ridgefield Park, Ridgefield, and Paslisades Park were studying it a bit more.<\/p>\n “Communications from Dumont, Edgewater, New Milford, Fair Lawn, Emerson, advising that resolutions are being adopted with reference tot he establishment of an area wide authority for the disposal of garbage and refuse.”<\/p>\n “Communication from Assemblyman William B. Wdnall offering his cooperation to provide suitable legislation.”<\/p>\n “Communications from Ridgefield Park, Ridgefield and Palisades Park, advising they are studying the matter.”<\/p>\n We are starting to have buy-in from other towns and State reps willing to take action.<\/p>\n More momentum<\/strong><\/p>\n River Edge came on board next in late September.<\/p>\n “Communication from Borough of River Edge advising that they have adopted a resolution regarding the establishment of an area-wide authority for the disposal of garbage and refuse.”<\/p>\n Of course, what to DO with the garbage was a different issue in the 40’s and 50’s than it is today.<\/p>\n They wound up tossing it in Overpeck.<\/p>\n “Mayor Brett explained… we are asking the legislature to make it possible for the County to act in the same way as the Sewer Authority, is action now to clean up the Overpeck Creek. The problem of garbage disposal is larger than just one community. If this proposal does go through, we will be just where we are now, and under this ordinance, even though the land is conveyed to the County, it will still be used for dumping purposes.”<\/p>\n Of course, the State figured we could just incinerate the problematic garbage, so the idea didn’t gain as much traction right away.<\/p>\n “Assemblyman Pike, asking the Bill Drafting committee to prepare the necessary legislation for introduction… providing for area wide incineration and garbage disposal.<\/p>\n But Teaneck started this effort, and the members of council felt obliged to see if it was feasible.<\/p>\n “On the question of legislation permitting the formation of a commission or authority on the disposal of garbage and refuse, Mr. Diessler suggested\u00a0 suggested that Teaneck continue its activity in this direction and meet with Freeholder Leers and Assemblyman Pike in the immediate future to discuss the possibility of getting such legislation”<\/p>\n That February, in 1950, they met with county officials and again sought buy-in from all the municipalities that had expressed an interest the year prior.<\/p>\n Resolution #4951 requesting and urging the Board of Freeholders to study the recommended legislation was put forward unanimously.<\/p>\n Meetings were made with State and County officials to move this idea forward.<\/p>\n “Mayor Brett added that this problem is larger than Teaneck” and copies of the resolution was sent to other municipalities and civic associations.<\/p>\n During the local Council elections, garbage was a major issue of concern.<\/p>\n That week, the Record reported on the council race, with a focus on the history of the garbage issue.\u00a0 It details the promises and statements made from the early forties through the present (1950).<\/p>\n As far as the county-wide garbage authority plan, others still seemed interested.\u00a0 Emerson responded, first.<\/p>\n “Communication from Emerson Civic Assn. acknowledging resolution relative to creation of a County Authority on the problem of garbage and refuse disposal; congratulating Council for taking the initiative on this matter.”<\/p>\n “Communication from Lower Teaneck Civicl Assn. acknowledging resolution relative to County authority on disposal of garbage and refuse, stating they are heartily in accord with the purpose of this resolution.”<\/p>\n Bergenfield and Emerson decided to make steps to go to the next level.<\/p>\n “Communications from Bergenfield and Emerson regarding a County Authority to take care of the disposal of garbage and refuse.”<\/p>\n By June of 1951, the council was looking at incineration, but the idea of a garbage authority wasn’t dead yet.<\/p>\n In March, 1952, council gives an update on their efforts.\u00a0 They are treating this as an experiment to see if a county wide scheme had merit.<\/p>\n This has been a years long project and they expected it to take several more years to come online.<\/p>\n “Mr. Welsh then pointed out that of course this sanitary land fill is merely an experiment which the Freeholders and the Public Health Service are trying in order to test the advisability of disposing of garbage and rubbish in marsh areas.”<\/p>\n “Mayor Deissler expressed the feeling that this was a good start and a step in the right direction, and even if it does take several years to accomplish the desired and it would be well worth the time expended.”<\/p>\n In August of 1957, the legislation was finally passed by legislators and was on its way to Governor Meyner for signature.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, for those championing the County-wide authority plan, that October, the Governor vetoed the law.\u00a0 Gov. Meyner says “that bill was not good legislation.”<\/p>\n He claimed that “the measure among other things, would have deprived communities of local autonomy<\/em>“.<\/p>\n In 1963, the Record notes: We are back once more at the need for for some central agency to manage the problem of dry garbage disposal in Bergen County”.<\/p>\n But it seems Gov. Hughes wasn’t a fan either.<\/p>\n The editorial ends by saying: “[T]he problem will not be solved until this whole matter has been brought under some form of systematic public control.”<\/p>\nHere’s a deep dive into garbage:<\/span><\/h1>\n
People were always unhappy with garbage collection efforts<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.teanecktoday.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/90-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nTeaneck Council starts to look at available options<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nReport submitted to Council<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/p>\nAn Economy Of Scale<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nMomentum starts to build<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhere to put it<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nMoving the Plan at the County and State Level<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nElection Spotlight on Waste Collection<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nAdditional Buy-In from Neighboring Municipalities<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a><\/p>\nNearing a Finish Line?<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\nLaw goes to Governor for signature<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nAnd….. The Law gets a Veto<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/a><\/p>\nThe problem continues…<\/h2>\n