In May 1986, AEA Papers and Proceedings published a proposal by RFF's Robert Cameron Mitchell and Richard T. Carson of the University of California, San Diego, for mandatory public referenda on the siting of hazardous waste facilities (see accompanying article). Almost simultaneously, and quite by coincidence, the New York Times (May 6, 1986) reported that something very like the Mitchell-Carson proposal was in the works in rural Lisbon, Connecticut.
According to the Times, Philip Armetta—who is proud to be called Mr. Garbage—had proposed to locate in 3,400-resident Lisbon a modern incinerator that would generate both energy from waste and $1 million in tax revenues. Despite the financial incentive and assurances that the incinerator would be equipped with the latest antipollution devices, garbage still was garbage in the eyes of the town: Armetta was rebuffed. Indeed, the issue so galvanized the electorate that in November 1985 forces opposed to the incinerator captured control of Lisbon's Planning and Zoning Commission. In January 1986, the commission majority delivered on its campaign promise and voted to prohibit waste plants.
At this point, Armetta put a brilliant new spin on his proposal. In place of saying it would bring the town $1 million a year in new tax revenues—a solid enough figure but one lacking appeal to individual voters—he promised to pay the 1986 property taxes of every landowner in Lisbon and to continue paying the same amount for the next twenty-five years. At an average of $900 per homeowner, Armetta had shrewdly calculated, his promise came to a rough annual total of $1 million.
The dollars involved may have remained constant, but garbage in Lisbon suddenly took on a more attractive aroma. Political winds shifted, minds changed, the local newspaper modified its editorial stance, and a referendum was scheduled. In a surprising turnaround from the November election, Lisbon voted 680 to 590 to rezone the town to allow incinerators.
Had the Mitchell-Carson proposal been law, Mr. Garbage would have his incinerator and Lisbon's property owners would have their $900 per year for twenty-five years. But Connecticut does not permit binding referenda in such matters and the vote thus was only advisory. In a meeting on August 26, the town Planning and Zoning Commission cast a 5 to 4 vote against the incinerator. Is the issue then dead? "Nothing's dead when a substantial number of people still want it," said Lisbon First Selectman Jeremiah Shea in a post-vote telephone interview with Resources.
Lisbon's citizens are no more greedy than any others, and it may be that Armetta's catchy property-tax offer only provoked closer examination of a development that had some appeal regardless of how it was presented. But what Lisbon's experience does show is that the Mitchell-Carson hypothesis has considerable practical merit. Offered a package of incentives by a developer and empowered to vote their property rights, citizens can be trusted to act in their own best interests.
A version of this article appeared in print in the October 1986 issue of Resources magazine.
