The fleecing of Chesapeake: Only the lawyers make out

Local, Politics 2 Minutes

I’ve been following the spat between the City of Chesapeake and Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA). Last week, Chesapeake voted to end its contract with the regional trash agency. Seems Chesapeake is a little upset that the agency is messing with out-of-state trash and that SPSA needs to borrow some money to keep afloat.

Anne Odell , Chesapeake’s acting city manager, informed SPSA’s board of directors Wednesday of the city’s intentions . The news was met with stunned silence, anger and incredulity by board members from SPSA’s other service communities: Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Franklin, Isle of Wight County and Southampton County.

Michael Barrett , who represents Virginia Beach on SPSA’s board, was the most vocal opponent Wednesday. He described demands by Chesapeake as “astounding” and “very surprising” and said the city’s arguments against SPSA contained “significant errors of fact” and “simple misinformation.”

Not only does Chesapeake not understand the situation, they also don’t understand contracts. Apparently, the contract that Chesapeake has with SPSA doesn’t expire until 2018. So can Chesapeake walk away from the contract?

This is one of the few items both parties agree on. Yes, Chesapeake can legally withdraw from SPSA. However, many questions remain. In a written release, the trash agency said “Chesapeake is allowed to withdraw from being a member of SPSA, but it is not allowed to walk away from written obligations Chesapeake made to SPSA.”

In other words, Chesapeake can do whatever it wants – but it still has to pay the per-ton disposal fee to SPSA that they agreed on in 1983.

The longer this little tiff continues, the more it is going to cost the citizens of Chesapeake. And Roger Chelsey hit the nail on the head today:

Oh, to be an outside counsel hired by the city of Chesapeake. Just think of the riches.

No matter whether the city stands a good chance of winning its legal battles, its lawyers always end up victorious. And the billable hours will start piling up in earnest again, now that the city has sued to break its contract with the regional waste authority.

Why is it that cities keep making decisions that cost its hardworking, taxpaying citizens money? Do you think they would be doing so if they had to pay for this stuff themselves? I doubt it.

Published

9 thoughts on “The fleecing of Chesapeake: Only the lawyers make out”

  1. I agree. Why would Chesapeake agree, till 2018, to a contract and now try to back out of it? Taxpayers of Chesapeake will now be forced to pay legal bills for lawyers. This does not include the cost of hiring someone else to do the trash. I am sure the SPSA offered a lower rate since they were doing all of the other localities. When I vote for city council, I now try to pick people I think will screw us up the least. I tried to vote Cowboy Carawan on the council last time. It didn’t work out.

  2. Why is there no criticism of the total financial mismanagement in SPSA? “Borrow a little money”????? 20 million dollars is “a little money”? Even Mike Barrett on SPSA Board voted against their dumb decisions concerning out-of-state trash, From the Pilot (12-2-05)

    “He said he is concerned about “continuing to feed the beast” – meaning that SPSA is increasingly relying on its incinerator to raise money in tight times, even though the plant is expensive to operate and, on paper, has shown financial losses in recent years.”

    “I don’t see how, economically, we can afford to keep doing that,” Barrett said.

    “He also said the timing of the out-of-state waste plan is wrong.”

    Now, Chesapeake wants out of the mess, and they’re wrong?

  3. There are problems with SPSA, no doubt. But no matter how you cut it, Chesapeake citizens are going to have to pay. Why not stay in and fight with SPSA to try to make them more fiscally responsible?

  4. I don’t mean to sound confrontational about this, but SPSA’s financial problems are not new. They have been trying to “stay in and fight” and their “fiscal responsibility” is getting worse, not better.

    It’s not working, so they’re changing tactics. I’d criticize Chesapeake if they continued to do the same thing and expected change.

  5. So you’d rather Chesapeake stick its citizens with paying for disposal twice, at least for another 12 years, plus the legal fees for trying to break the contract?

  7. It’s not a matter of loyalities, it’s a matter of costs and who has to pay those costs. Perhaps Chesapeake mad a bad decision in signing that contract, but it is unfair to burden the citizens with the costs of litigation in a fight they cannot win plus the duplicate costs of disposal. That is about the worst answer to the problem.

Comments are closed.