Build Local, Hire Local

Holyoke's proposed REO would require contractors to set aside jobs for residents
from The Valley Advocate, August 26, 2010
By Maureen Turner

The city of Holyoke is poised for somewhat of a building renaissance these days, points out at-large City Councilor Rebecca Lisi. There's the upcoming expansion and renovation of the city library, the new senior center, the long-awaited, yet-to-be-sited high-tech computing center.

"There are a lot of big projects coming our way," Lisi said. "There's a lot of positive attention on Holyoke these days, and we're doing a lot of work to prepare for the future."

And that, she added, makes it an opportune time for a new city policy that would ensure that Holyoke residents reap all the benefits they can from those projects. That's why she is co-sponsoring a proposed ordinance designed to guarantee city residents a certain percentage of jobs on publicly funded constriction projects. The "Responsible Employer Ordinance," or REO, would also require contractors to hire a set percentage of minority and women workers, to provide workers with decent wages and benefits, and to offer apprentice programs for city residents.

The proposed ordinance, which is still in draft form, was drawn up with local labor unions representing the building trades. Backers describe it as a way to keep local money in the local economy, and ensure that contractors give back, through employment and training, to the community paying for the projects. But critics in the industry say REOs actually have a hidden agenda: to steer public construction projects to union shops, at the expense of non-union shops, who often cannot meet the requirements of the ordinances as easily as union bidders.

*

According to a tally kept by Associated Builders and Contractors—a national organization of "merit shop," or non-union, construction firms, and a chief critic of responsible employer ordinances—REOs exist in almost 20 Massachusetts communities. They include Springfield, which passed an REO last summer.

Boston, Lawrence, Worcester and Somerville are among the cities that have REOs on their books. In Fall River, the City Council recently repealed that city's REO, which it had revised back in the spring. According to the Fall River Herald News, councilors made the move in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of employers who alleged that they would be discriminated against under the ordinance, which required 50 percent local hires.

In Holyoke, the proposed REO is sponsored by Lisi, Ward 2 Councilor Diosdado Lopez, Ward 4 Councilor Tim Purington, and at-large Councilor Aaron Vega. In its current draft form, its requirements would apply to construction contracts worth $100,000 or more that are at least partially funded with city money, or subcontracts of $25,000 or more.

The REO would require that at least 35 percent of jobs on a qualifying project go to Holyoke residents. Twenty percent would go to minorities, and 5 percent to women. Waivers from these requirements would be granted to contractors who demonstrate to a city monitoring committee that they could not find enough qualified workers in those categories, after making serious recruitment efforts.

The REO also calls for contractors to comply with existing state laws by paying prevailing wages and providing health benefits and workers' compensation coverage, and to maintain a pension plan for employees.

In addition, under the REO, contractors would have to set aside 5 percent of the jobs for apprentices learning the trade, and offer a state-approved apprentice training program for each trade in their workforce, graduating at least two apprentices a year per trade.

Contractors would be required to participate in a close tracking system to ensure their compliance with the REO. The program would be overseen by a monitoring committee, with members appointed by the City Council and mayor. Contractors who violate the REO would face a fine of $300 per day for each violation.

*

Too often, taxpayer-funded construction projects go to out-of-town, or even out-of-state, construction firms, which bring in workers from outside the area, says Dan D'Alma, president of the Pioneer Valley Building Trades Council. The council represents union shops in Hampden, Hampshire and Franklin counties.

The workers commute in at the beginning of the workday, and head home at the end.

The economic spin-off for the host community? "Maybe a coffee on their way in in the morning; maybe a six-pack and a coffee on the way home," said D'Alma.

"They want to come in and do the project, and yet they're not giving anything back to the community," he said of the contractors. "They bid the job, bring in their people. The city taxpayers, not one of them has an opportunity to work on the project."

The Building Trades Council has more than 300 residents who live in Holyoke, D'Alma added. With big jobs like the computing center on the horizon, "they should be afforded the opportunity to work on the project. ...

"They're taxpayers," he added. "It's their city, and they're locked out of working."

REOs, D'Alma said, ensure that the communities paying for the projects reap at least part of the benefits. In particular, they help get work for people who've historically been under-represented in the industry, like women and racial minorities. And their apprenticeship requirements help get residents on the path to good-paying jobs with solid benefits—an especially crucial benefit in cities like Holyoke and Springfield, where un- and underemployment is high.

"To me, it's about making sure the benefits of the projects are distributed as evenly as possible," said Lisi, the city councilor.

"This is not something that's supposed to be confrontational," she added.

*

But it is controversial, at least in one large sector of the building industry.

"While promoting responsible contracting is certainly a worthy goal, a closer look at union-sponsored Responsible Employer Ordinances (REOs) shows they are really about controlling the marketplace and limiting competition from non-union or open shop firms," Greg Beeman, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, wrote in a recent opinion piece.

"At first glance, REOs seem reasonable. But a closer look shows that they are a wolf in sheep's clothing—much more about controlling the marketplace than promoting responsibility," Beeman wrote.

ABCMA has been tracking REOs around the commonwealth for years, Beeman told the Advocate; in recent years, he said, the trend has been toward stricter and stricter requirements. "The Holyoke one is the most extreme I've seen," he said.

ABCMA's 425 member construction firms support the general concepts of REOs, Beeman said. "They want to do the right thing. They want to have an industry that has high standards," Beeman said.

But REOs like Holyoke's, he contends, have a more specific agenda: slanting the playing field to give union contractors an unfair advantage over non-union shops—which, according to Beeman, account for about 80 percent of the industry in Massachusetts.

REOs, Beeman noted, don't just guarantee health care and retirement plans, for instance; they guarantee benefits equal to or better than that offered under union collective-bargaining agreements, which automatically puts union shops bidding for the jobs in a stronger position.

In addition, Beeman said, REOs' apprenticeship requirements are written so tightly as to ensure that union shops will be able to meet them easily, while non-union shops will not. Union contractors participate in group apprenticeship programs, which serve all members of the union. A non-union shop, however, would not only have to establish its own apprenticeship program—something, Beeman said, most already have—but also meet the specific graduation rates (in the case of the draft Holyoke REO, two graduates per year in each of the trades represented). For small shops that don't have a lot of employees, that number is just too high, Beeman said.

"If this was just about being a responsible employer, we'd have no problem with it," Beeman said. "I don't see this as responsible. I see this as setting very difficult terms that are difficult for non-union shops to meet. ... We would like them to be fairer to the majority of employers and contractors, who are not union."

REOs, Beeman also contends, add yet another layer of regulations—and paperwork—to an already heavily regulated industry. "It seems like a textbook example of how to kill a company with paperwork," Beeman said. "A lot of small businesses, they're just struggling to keep up."

And it's not just non-union firms that suffer under REOs, Beeman argued—so do taxpayers. When governments are hiring contractors for publicly funded jobs, it's important to attract as many qualified bidders as possible, to get the best deal possible. The sort of strict requirements REOs place on potential bidders limit the number of firms vying for the job, he said.

D'Alma, the union leader, rejected the criticisms made by ABC as "sour grapes."

REOs don't reduce competition for public building jobs, D'Alma responded; when the city of Springfield recently sought bids for a new Putnam High, he said, more than 80 subcontractors bid on the job.

D'Alma also dismissed arguments that REOs are unfair to smaller businesses, or drown firms in paperwork. The ordinances simply require that contractors put a certain percentage of local people to work, he said. "They want to bring in who they want, make their money, and go home."

"That cracks me up, when I hear 'it's a union thing,'" D'Alma added. "It's not a union thing. It's a residency thing."

The building trades council, D'Alma said, is in the early stages of a campaign to get an REO passed in Chicopee, and has its eyes on other communities, such as Greenfield, as well. "I think every city should have one," he said.

*

Holyoke's proposed REO, Lisi stressed, is still a work in progress. In Springfield, city officials spent about six months hashing out the details before passing that city's REO last August. Holyoke councilors will also take their time, listening to all the affected parties and tailoring the ordinance to best meet their city's needs, Lisi said.

That could mean reducing the percentage of local hires from 35 percent (the figure in Springfield's REO, and in Holyoke's draft) to 20 or 25 percent—although, Lisi added, "I would like to still see it aggressive, because that's where we get the big benefits from." It could also mean raising the contract threshold that triggers the REO requirements—currently, in the draft ordinance, $100,000—to a higher figure, or expanding the residency requirement to include neighboring communities as well as Holyoke.

The ordinance is "still being molded," said Lisi, who recently met with Beeman and other ABCMA officials about their concerns.

While ABCMA has made its objections to the REO clear, another major business group has yet to officially weigh in: the Greater Holyoke Chamber of Commerce. Chamber President Doris Ransford told the Advocate her group is still studying the draft ordinance and soliciting feedback from its members.

Some have expressed concerns that limiting the pool of potential bidders in a community as small as Holyoke would limit competition, and could end up costing the city more money, she said. Others have expressed concern about the amount of paperwork the REO would require, or questioned whether the $100,000 threshold in the draft ordinance is too low.

"There's a lot of questions and issues," Ransford said. "It's not something we would blanket say 'no' to, but it doesn't look very good to us at this point."

No chicken of due process

Misleading the public
unpublished Letter to the Editor
(submitted to both The Sun and The Republican June 22, 2010)
from The Sun, July 16- 22, 2010

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to City Councilor Patti Devine’s Letter to the Editor entitled “No thanks, chickens,” published in The Sun June 18, 2010. Councilor Devine’s letter contains several myths and untruths regarding the political process that citizens in favor of transparent and responsible government should be made aware of.

First, City Councilors use orders to bring new ideas forward to the public and their colleagues. Orders are generally sent to an appropriate committee to be discussed in an open meeting and typically, the council votes to bring in relevant departments or experts in the field to help inform the council on its decision. In the case of the “chicken order,” the majority of the residents who participated in the political process voiced their opposition and Councilor Purington and I respectfully acknowledged the will of the citizens at this point in time and decided to vote with the Ordinance Committee 5-0 to give the order “leave to with draw”.

Second, giving an order leave to withdraw simply means that the council is ending the discussion on that topic; it is neither a vote for nor against that issue and the issue may be taken up by the council again at a later time. For Councilor Devine to claim that Councilor Purington and I, along with the rest of the council, voted against the chicken order is overtly misleading. Considering the many years that Councilor Devine has served on the City Council, as well as the fact that several of her own orders through the Ordinance Committee (including rescinding the business overlay district on Northampton St.; attaching late fees to special permits that are not picked up from the clerk’s office; restricting the grant of special permits to residents who have lived in the city for at least a year; among others) have been given “leave to withdraw,” I would assume that she is well aware of the significance of the term and its implications.

Lastly, during the committee meeting Councilor Devine accused the “chicken order” proponents of being out of touch with the residents. I beg to differ; if Councilor Devine believes that Holyokers have an appetite for fear-mongering and manipulative political tactics, then it is clearly she who is “out of touch” with the community.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Lisi

Holyoke City Councilor At-Large

CRUSH and Mount Holyoke College hold economic summit on city’s future

from The Sun; May 14-20, 2010

By Dennis P. Hohenberger
Turley Correspondent

HOLYOKE - The Citizens for the Revitalization and Urban Success of Holyoke (CRUSH) and the Roosevelt Institute at Mount Holyoke College hosted “Revitalizing: Building Holyoke’s Future” at Heritage State Park May 7. The daylong economic summit brought together local officials, as well as regional and national experts on urban planning and development. As final site selection for the High-P e r f o r m a n c e Computer Center nears, organizers discussed ways Holyoke can best leverage its economic and natural resources.

“[The event is] a perfect example on how Holyoke can be smart and connected,” CRUSH member and Holyoke City Councilor Rebecca Lisi said. “It’s making use of the knowledge and energy resources that are in the five-college area.”

She said the economic summit is a first in a series of “Civic Learning Labs,” whereby residents come together and discuss what works in other communities, and how those lessons can be replicated in Holyoke. “It’s all about thinking big, about what is possible,” Lisi said. “We don’t have to put a lot of hard work into re-inventing the wheel. It’s really about figuring out how those other models can fit and work for Holyoke.”



Casey Maliszewski, of the Roosevelt Institute, said the Mount Holyoke chapter was founded a year ago. The chapter, along with CRUSH, formed the summit to “stimulate dialog” on the city’s future development. “I think one of the purposes of event, and a great opportunity, is to learn what other cities are doing, because everybody has a different approach,” she said. “These gateway cities in Massachusetts, in a way, need to be aligned with one another, to bridge some ideas.”

John Dyjach, of the Holyoke Economic Development Department, was part of a panel that examined Holyoke’s current economy. He was joined by Brian Beauregard, of Holyoke Gas and Electric (HGE), and Bob Forrant, a professor at UMass-Lowell.

Dyjach said the “day-to-day, down-and-dirty” work conducted by city departments barely gets noticed. He said his department has set priorities, which includes retaining current businesses. “Our effort to retain businesses starts with outreach and we want to meet with as many businesses that we can in town,” he said.

He said the outreach can be frustrating at times because of limited resources, as city businesses face a number of challenges. Dyjach spoke of Holyoke’s industrial past, when internationally recognized companies were the norm. Now, he said, family owned businesses are the dominant
economic model.

Attracting new business since the downturn in the economy, he said, has been difficult, but that Holyoke possesses significant supply of water, which is used primarily for power generation, a key factor in the future development of the High-P e r f o r m a n c e Computer Center. Though there are sizable parcels available for the commercial and industrial use in the Ingleside section of Holyoke, the city’s main focus will be in developing the newly named Arts & Innovation District downtown.


Dyjach said challenges exist with blighted and abandoned buildings. “The last thing we want to do is take down some of these buildings,” he said.

According to Dyjach, the Holyoke Mall at Ingleside is the city’s largest employer, as the mall employs more than 3,000 persons in the region. Holyoke’s unemployment rate, though, is over 12.2 percent, higher than the state average.

He said businesses, such as the Holyoke Health Center, have returned workers to city-center and brought back needed foot traffic. While the city has seen some growth, much is riding with the High-Performance Computer Center, which is scheduled to break ground in the fall.

Though the center will not generate many jobs, city planners feel high-tech and other companies will position their businesses nearby, which could generate high-paying jobs both in the city and region. In the next few years, a north-to-south passenger rail will return to the city, which could
spark more economic growth.

Holyoke’s future depends on theavailability of cheap energy, power generated by the dam and canal system and other green technologies. Beauregard said the HGE “keeps the lights on in the city of Holyoke.”

Since 1997, said Beauregard, HGE has not only focused on energy generation, but on telecommunications and has constructed a fiber optic network. The network connects 90 percent of medium and large size businesses to high-speed internet. Still, he said, energy generation will remain HGE’s major focus.

“We can’t forget our core business and we have to ensure that we meet our mission statement - Excellent rates, excellent customer service and reliable service,” he said.

Beauregard said the HGE is currently studying the viability of harnessing wind power from the top of Mt. Tom, hydrokinetic energy from the Connecticut River, and other sources, with the emphasis on low-emissions sources.

Mayor Elaine A. Pluta, spoke during a break. “People are here because they feel the momentum and energy in the city of Holyoke,” she said. “We are, indeed, on the brink of being revitalized and reenergized. There’s a renaissance coming to the city. Everybody feels that and wants to be part of it.”


She said despite the national economic downturn, the city continues to move forward powered by an infusion of state, private and educational money, dollars that will go toward future high-tech and other projects.

The last half of the summit was devoted to “Lessons from other cities: Challenges and Opportunities.” The panelist included Benjamin Forman, of MassInc.; Kelly Aikin, of the Regional Planning Board of Hampden County; Adam Baacke, from the city of Lowell; Thomas Deller, of Providence Economic Development; and Timothy McGourthy, city of Worcester.

Don’t be chicken

from The Sun, April 23-29. 2010

To the Editor:

The recent proposal for an ordinance allowing citizens to raise chickens on their own property by councilors Tim Purington and Rebeca Lisi appears to have spurred a lively debate here in Holyoke. This is as it should be in a democracy. Ironically it is the humans rather than Chicken Little that seems to think the sky is falling!

This debate should be based on rational and evidence-based dialogue, not vague stories of days past when cupboards were lined with chicken wire.Emotional and knee-jerk reactions or epitaphs like “tree huggers” will not help further the dialogue. The urban farming movement and the interest in locally-produced food is growing stronger and has become a popular movement. It is not an ethnic or hippie ideology. It is based on sound ideas by intelligent individuals who strive to enrich their local community and protect their food sources. It is here whether the city of Holyoke accepts or rejects its philosophy.

Allowing citizens to raise chickens has many positive benefits. The nutritional quality of a fresh egg, free of antibiotic or hormone residues is not the least of these. The humane treatment of chickens allowed room to manifest normal behaviors such as walking and scratching in the earth is beyond compare to that of factory farm raised laying hens, the latter of which are raised on wire floors with just enough room to turn around, in a building where the light of day never shines. The educational benefit and sense of empowerment to families and their children in raising and controlling a food source is another obvious benefit. Additional benefits include discarded food to be eaten by the chickens instead of adding to over burdened landfills, and the composting of nutrient-rich chicken-manure for the family garden. Chickens are also very effective at removing insect pests, including ticks, from their immediate environment. Lastly, the pleasure and entertainment afforded by the observation of a clutch of hens can rival most midday soap-operas.

The negative aspects of chickens in Holyoke are few, and appear to be based on unsupported claims. First and foremost are sanitation and health concerns. Chickens produce manure, but as already mentioned this is a benefit to those with yards, and there is no odor if composted properly. The amount of excrement produced by three or four chickens pales in comparison to that of one 50 pound dog. Dog manure contains many more potential zoonotic pathogens (i.e. transmissible to humans) than that of chickens. As long as we are on the subject, you won’t ever see an emergency room victim of a chicken attack - I wish the same could be said for cats and dogs!

Salmonella (e.g. typhoid) and Avian Influenza (e.g. H1N1) are often thrown around as a perfectly logical reason to protect the public and ban chickens - except the argument doesn’t “fly” to those who understand infectious diseases. First, Salmonella is a species of enteric (gut) bacteria that inhabits chicken intestinal tracts and can be in excrement – but they also reside in your gut, your childrens’, your neighbor’s, your dog’s, cat’s, in fact most living vertebrates with an intestinal tract. The problem with salmonellosis as a disease is that it usually occurs in highly crowded, stressful environments (think factory farms) where virulent strains emerge. Additionally, the problem affects people when they handle raw, uncooked chicken products in an unsanitary manner – not in a small chicken coop on your neighbor’s property. The same science pertains to influenza of birds. A new strain of flu that affects humans will come from highly concentrated groups of birds in poorly ventilated, stressful environments (again, factory farms), not from a small flock of backyard fowl. Yes, wild fowl (especially ducks) could carry the virus, but it requires intimate close contact (beak to beak) or a really good fly-over duck poop to hit your chicken yard.


We have REAL problems to deal with people….The small diverse hobby farmer is a small scale solution to the problem of salmonella and influenza – not the cause! If you want to see how the treatment of animals has global health implications, pick up a copy of “Bird Flu” by Michael Greger M.D. Lastly I think anyone who has grown up with chickens understands how clean and quiet these animals are if given the proper environment. You don’t have to worry about noise or smell if your ordinance is clear and based on good husbandry practices. Mr. Purington has done his homework and is willing to work with experts to do just that. I applaud councilors Rebecca Lisi and Tim Purington in their attempt to allow citizens the right to live their lives in a healthier and enriching way. I heard someone say we have much greater problems to tackle in Holyoke –I couldn’t agree more. Let’s pass this ordinance and move on to more pressing issues facing this city.

Dr. John Perdrizet, DVM PhD

Shifting the Trash Burden: Holyoke takes the lead in a campaign to reduce waste at the source--manufacturers.

from The Valley Advocate
by Maureen Turner
February 18, 2010

By Maureen Turner

Chart showing how waste has changed radically

First, the good news: recycling rates in the U.S. are higher than they've ever been. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in 2008, Americans recycled or composted 83 million tons of the waste they generated—an average of 1.5 pounds per person per day. About one-third of the waste generated in the U.S. each year is recycled, up from 16 percent in 1990 and 6.6 percent in 1970.

But that still leaves an enormous amount of waste heading to strained landfills, incinerators and other waste disposal sites—the 83 million tons of trash that get recycled each year is overshadowed by the remaining 167 million tons that don't. EPA figures show that the majority of waste generated by Americans is made up of packaging and containers (30.8 percent), durable goods (18.3 percent) and nondurable goods (23.5 percent)—items that can be difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to recycle through their municipal waste systems.

Public and political pressure is building for a new approach to handling this waste, one that shifts the burden from consumers and municipalities to manufacturers, who would be forced to take responsibility for what ultimately happens to the products they make. Called "Extended Producer Responsibility," or EPR, the approach requires manufacturers to absorb the cost of collecting and recycling their products—a shift, it's hoped, that would motivate them to make more environmentally friendly products in the first place.

The EPR model has been embraced by the European Union, which has taken a leadership role on the issue. In the U.S., it's catching on more slowly, with individual states adopting laws that address some, but not all, product categories. But as more and more regions face the prospect of running out of places to put their trash, momentum is building for a broader approach.

Earlier this month, the Holyoke City Council signaled its support for that effort, passing a resolution that calls for the state Legislature to pass a bill that would require electronics manufacturers to bear the cost of recycling their products. In addition, the resolution called for a broader statewide EPR program that would include many more products.

Holyoke is the first community in Massachusetts to call for a statewide EPR program.

"I thought the issue was tremendously appropriate for Holyoke," said City Councilor Rebecca Lisi, who sponsored the resolution. She sees it as an opportunity for the city to position itself to potential investors in the much-touted new "green economy"—and to save taxpayers money in the process.

*

Laws that hold manufacturers responsible for the "end life" of their products are not new. Perhaps the best-known examples are bottle laws, such as Massachusetts', that make beverage companies responsible for collecting and recycling used bottles. Massachusetts has a similar program for the disposal of products that contain mercury, such as thermometers and thermostats. Twenty states already have EPR laws for the disposal of electronics, or "e-waste."

Massachusetts is not one of them, which means towns and cities are responsible for the disposal of the roughly 300,000 computers, televisions and similar products disposed of in the state each year. Because TVs and computer monitors contain toxic metals, including lead, they've been banned from state landfills since 2000. Instead, municipalities hire private recyclers to handle those products. In total, Massachusetts communities spend about $2 million to $4 million a year to get rid of e-waste, the Boston Globe reported last year.

An e-waste bill is pending in the state Legislature. That bill, filed by state Rep. Frank Smizik (D-Brookline), received a favorable report from the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture last fall and is now sitting before the House Committee on Rules. Holyoke is one of about 180 municipalities in the state that have called for that bill to come to the floor for a vote. (Valley communities that have passed similar resolutions include Amherst, Belchertown, Chicopee and Greenfield. The environmental group Clean Water Action is also calling on supporters to write to House Speaker Robert DeLeo to ask that the bill be brought to a vote.)

In December, in a preview of a forthcoming Solid Waste Master Plan, the Patrick administration announced its support for several waste reduction efforts, including the e-waste bill and an expansion of the bottle law to include water and sports-drink bottles.

"[T]he Patrick-Murray Administration is committed to an aggressive agenda of recycling and waste reduction that gives cities and towns assistance to expand and improve their recycling efforts and requires greater responsibility from manufacturers for products—ranging from water bottles to televisions—that end up in our waste stream," read a Dec. 11 announcement from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

"Focusing on incineration and landfills is the wrong end of the waste equation," EOEEA Secretary Ian Bowles added.

*

Lynn Pledger of Clean Water Action is excited by those kinds of statements from state officials, which she sees as an acknowledgement that we need to focus on how to reduce waste in the first place, rather than simply on how to dispose of it. She's also encouraged by the Patrick administration's emphasis on manufacturers bearing responsibility for their products.

Pledger would like to see Massachusetts broaden those efforts by creating a "framework EPR" system, one that would authorize state officials (in this case, the Department of Environmental Protection) to add new product categories to the program, rather than the current lengthy, piecemeal process that relies on the Legislature to pass individual laws addressing individual products. A handful of states are already considering framework EPR bills, including Maine. These efforts would require manufacturers to cover the cost of collecting and recycling their products and would subject them to performance standards set by the state.

That, Pledger said, would have an immediate benefit for municipalities, by relieving them of the burden of handling products that are difficult or costly to recycle. They would also have a longer term environmental benefit, she added.

"Once you make producers responsible for the cost of what happens to their products when they're discarded, that's going to influence how they design their product," she said. "They're going to design it to make it easier to recycle. If it has a toxic component, for example, they're not going to want to pay to dispose of that toxic waste, so they're going to find a safer alternative."

The three Rs of environmentalism—reduce, reuse, recycle—represent a hierarchy, Pledger said, one in which the preferred option is to not create potential waste in the first place. Even products that can be recycled come with environmental costs, in their manufacture, in their packaging, in the recycling process. EPR, she said, helps create "long product chains. & And along the way, you're focusing first on reusing things that don't have to be ground up and remanufactured."

*

If the drawn-out, contentious history of the bottle law is any indication, broader EPR legislation will face opposition from manufacturers, who are loath to accept government restrictions on how they do business, and typically insist that such mandates would cause them to pass the cost on to consumers, lead to worker layoffs, or prompt them to move to a more "business-friendly" place.

Those were some of the arguments made against the Holyoke resolution. The Advocate contacted three of the five Holyoke city councilors who voted against the EPR resolution, including Patty Devine, chair of the Public Safety Committee, which had reported the resolution out without a recommendation; none responded to interview requests.

Rebecca Lisi described her colleagues' arguments against the resolution as based, in part, on concerns that the EPR movement would create "barriers for business" in a struggling city that could use more jobs and more tax revenue. In addition, some expressed concern that if manufacturers are forced to take on recycling costs, they'll pass it on to consumers by raising prices—a development that would be especially hard on poor people.

Pledger maintains that there are significant economic benefits that would come from EPR programs, including the creation of new jobs in the recycling and product repair sectors. They could also inspire companies to find smarter ways to make products, and to compete for the money of consumers who want safer products that won't just end up in a landfill.

"It stimulates innovations," she said. "Waste is basically inefficiency."

Lisi believes such a policy would lead to expanded recycling programs, which would create new employment opportunities. "That's where the big opportunity to create new jobs in the city comes from," she said.

As for poor people being unduly burdened by manufacturers passing on their costs, Lisi questioned whether those are the people buying high-end goods, like new televisions and computers. The working poor and other taxpayers, she added, are already picking up the cost for the city to handle disposed products.

"As a consumer, you can make a choice about which products to buy," Lisi said. "As a taxpayer, you're stuck in that community."

Last year, Holyoke was selected as the site of a new $100 million computing center, a partnership between UMass, MIT, EMC Corp. and Cisco Systems. The center is being hailed as a "green" project because it will rely on hydroelectric power from the Connecticut River.

"There's a lot of grassroots buzz about how Holyoke can be the home of an industrial green revolution," Lisi said. "Even if it's with small, symbolic steps like this resolution, we need to start signaling to the state and the other investors who are watching what happens with this new computer center that we're ready to think green, act green, that we're going to be welcoming all sorts of green investment&

"We need to be proactive about marketing ourselves as a green city," Lisi continued. The EPR resolution, she said, will help get that message out throughout the state and beyond.