City Commission Meeting

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

Got home too late to catch most of tonight’s City Commission meeting; tuned in channel 7 just in time to catch the last few minutes. Three things:

First, I saw someone who was upset at the proposal to move the recycling center. He quoted something from the Tribune to the effect of, “I don’t know anybody who doesn’t want to recycle; they just want it to be convenient.” Uh…actually, there are indeed some people who don’t want to recycle (I’m one of them).

Second, a nice send-off to retiring city planner Ben Rangel. I’m sure some people have quibbles with some of the projects that he spearheaded or worked on, but I have no doubt that he has done far more good than not for Great Falls. Congratulations on your retirement, Ben – thanks for working to make Great Falls the wonderful community that I love and call home.

Third, I noticed that Mary Jolley stated something towards the very end about someone being removed from the meeting – did I hear that right? Did anyone see what happened, or who it was?

GF Girl has a recap of the meeting, and notes that it was John Hubbard who was removed from the meeting.



  1. Dave,

    I agree with you and do not like to recycle, however I think that is because of what we had to deal with the past couple of decades, do this, do that etc.

    However if we “have” to recycle I want it convienent, and inexpensive, although I don’t think we can have it all.

  2. Not that is should be required or law, everyone should make an effort to recycle, it just makes common sense. We need to stop being lazy and realize other generations follow.

    Hubbard said the commissioners are “empty-headed.” Could not have said it better. Based on the mess the City is in they need to fill their heads with some facts and figures. The recent Yellowstone Valley Electric Cooperative lawsuit is an eye opener. What else in in the secret box?

  3. John is a very opinionated guy with a lot of time to think about issues. he always speaks his mind… good or bad.

    I wish I could have made this meeting. Thanks for the info Dave & GFGirl!

  4. I just don’t understand how someone could not want to recycle? I can understand if it’s a huge hassle that some don’t have the time. You don’t have to recycle every single thing possible but any effort is better than no effort. Making glass using recycled glass takes something like 50 or 60 percent less energy than making it from sand. Now days I don’t think there is any reason(not a important one) not to do at least some recycling.

  5. I think that recycling can be a real nuisance when it and it’s cost is shoved down the throats of the people.

    Years ago, we had paper. Paper … a biodegradably safe solution for our environment. Now we have plastic. Go figure.

    Years ago we had cans (tin) … another biodegradably safe solution for our environment. Now we have plastic. Go figure.

    I find a hackle or two raised on occasion whenever some environmental nut job comes along and starts preaching to me about recycling. We had it quite good back in the day as far as what was environmentally friendly and what wasn’t.

    Used to be … we could bury it and it would go away in the matter of a few years. Now though, we bury it and it stays around for hundreds of years.

    If you ever were interested in what our *enlightened society has done for us lately, just take a look around at all of the “plastic” that has invaded our lives, homes and landfills.

    We can solve many of our waste problems simply by visiting earlier times (earlier materials).

    Growing a tree (paper) doesn’t cost much, it’s renewable, and it doesn’t pollute. In the larger scheme, even loggers were much more environmentally friendly than even most of todays environmentalists claim to be, because they brought us some very biodegradable products.

    Our societal mindset is extremely skewed when it comes to our environment and how it might relate to us.

    I don’t bother to separate all of the little presumed polluting entities that end up in my garbage can. If the environmental powers that be want a perfect world for themselves, they can go back to the basics.

  6. Dave,
    Well we are not in the “old” days any more. Please take this respectfully- I think our earth and our future children would appreciate if yours truely could help out a little on the recycling front in order to preserve our planet and Montana.

  7. You must remember, it was the environmentist that assured us of a great deal of non biodegradable waste clear back in the late 70’s when they got it into their enlightened heads to have our woods shut down.

    When I look at 1974, and then turn to look at 2008, I see that the environmental movement is long on answers, but lacking greatly in solutions.

    Every time I turn around, it appears that the movement itself just keeps making a bigger mess.
    And now, it’s all about recycling? PahLeeze.
    If recycling hasn’t caught on in all of 34 years, what makes you think it will ever catch on?

    You just might have to face the many solutions that were already in place, clear back, all of those many years ago, in the dreaded “Old Days”.

    Environmentalism of the past 30 years has done more to harm us than it has done to secure a viable future for anybody. I thank the environmentalist every time I visit Albertsons for all of those handy dandy plastic bags.

    All of the plastic pop containers, milk cartons, oil jugs, knife handles, car bumpers and the list just goes on into infinity.

    Sure, environmentalism might have caused this mess, but it’ll take those of us that may not be as *enlightened, to clean it all up, no matter how unpopular the solution might be, thus, truly securing a better future for all of us.

  8. Ryan said: “earth and our future children would appreciate…”

    With all due respect, that’s the kind of attitude that I think turns people off. Are you really presuming to speak for the “earth” and “our future children?” You need to understand that that kind of presumption really turns people off.

    (By the way, we recycle.)

  9. Well I don’t claim to speak for the earth and I’m not the Lorax. But I will have children someday and I hope that they will be able to enjoy all the outdoor activities I do to the fullest. Just one question…why do you feel the statement I made in a previous post would cause people to be turned off?

  10. Because it is extremely presumptuous. It speaks as though there is an issue, you have decided it, and your decision is therefore correct. Just like an earlier comment where you suggest that any dissenting point of view is “ridiculous.”

    The question is not whether I agree with you or not. When one speaks to another as though he is all-knowing, or his opinions are entitled to deference he hasn’t earned, or that his position is so clearly the correct one as to be beyond cavil, that turns people off. It turns me off, especially when the attitude is take in conjunction with someone telling me what I should or shouldn’t do.

  11. Well I will make the assumption that recycling is important. If you don’t believe it, then I think you are being ignorant. And that sir is my opinion. I can post facts if you want them. If not, do a little research.

  12. “If you don’t agree with me, you are ignorant.”

    Gosh, I can’t think of any reason why someone would find that off-putting. Based on that, I assume everyone would want to immediately run out and do what you suggest.

%d bloggers like this: