Sunday, July 18, 2010

From 1980: Trash Hauler Files Appeal Over Dumping Ordinance

The following article was published exactly 30 years ago today, appearing in the Hartford Courant of July 18th, 1980.
A garbage hauler, whose license to dump refuse at the city landfill was ordered suspended for 10 days after he was accused of dumping refuse from another town, filed a court appeal Thursday, challenging the city ordinance that prohibits dumping refuse from most other towns.

In a ruling announced last week, acting Public Works Director Nicholas Misenti imposed the suspension on Dainty Rubbish Service Inc. In a hearing June 24, a Middletown policeman testified that he had seen a truck from the company pick up garbage in Rocky Hill and drop it at the Middletown dump -- violating the recently enacted city ordinance.

Superior Court Judge James Higgins has ordered a hearing for Monday at 2 p.m. on Dainty’s request for an injunction halting the suspension, which was ordered to begin today.

Phillip Armetta, the president of Dainty, said at the hearing that he didn’t order the driver to truck Rocky Hill garbage to the Middletown dump, and that he had fired the driver who is accused of trucking the garbage. He later described the penalty as excessively harsh, particularly because he recently donated part of the land now used for the landfill.

Misenti said the 10-day suspension was the lightest penalty that could be imposed under the ordinance, which has no provision for firms whose licenses are suspended to appeal.

The seven-page complaint filed in Middlesex County Superior Court contends that the ordinance, which regulates only garbage dumping at the city dump on Johnson Avenue, limiting it to waste from Middletown and Cromwell, was not approved by proper state authorities and not included in the city’s solid waste management plan filed with the state in July 1979.

Dainty claims the ordinance is unconstitutional, not approved by proper state authorities, and in conflict with state laws.


Anonymous said...

What is the purpose of this article ?????? If your that desperate for news just dont write anything.

fishmuscle (Stephen H. Devoto) said...

Regular readers will recognize that most Sundays I post a "this date in history" article, in which I choose an article published exactly 10, 20, 30, or etc., years ago on that particular date. I try to choose articles that are of some relevance to contemporary events, or that are of historical interest, or that illustrate something peculiar.

I hope that readers learn something about our city and its residents from these, especially those readers who, like me, have not benefitted from an entire lifetime of living in Middletown. If not, I sincerely hope that they skip the Eye articles which they do not find worth reading.

If there is something from Middletown's rich history that you would like to see covered, drop us an email!

Anonymous said...

I found the article very interesting. It seems things change very little. I can understand, though, why Anon @7:27 is unhappy.

Jane Harris said...

I've lived in Middletown since
1974, and am regularly amazed by the articles you retrieve. It's a wonderful feature and I've never been able to detect any "agenda" -- the articles are interesting in and of themselves. It's unfortunate that people such as Anonymous 7:27 (and I love the biblical look of this naming convention) adopt such an argumentative and peremptory tone in telling the editors how to run the Eye. I am reminded of an anecdote about an outraged reader who complained to The National Review about something William F. Buckley wrote. The reader concluded his diatribe with the words, "Please cancel my subscription!" to which Buckley supposedly wrote back, "Cancel your own damned subscription!"

Anonymous said...

Ms. Harris if you dont think Fishmuscle has an agenda your only fooling yourself...this is not unbiased reporting, just watch as his true colors emerge as he covers the Inland Wetlands meeting.

In my opinion it is wrong and hurtful to bring up a difficult time in anyones past.

Anonymous said...

Please explain how you believe this relates to "contemporary events", is of "historical interest" or is "peculiar"? I'm sure there were other story options to choose from, but why single out Mr. Armetta? It's easy to just repost something from the past without explaination, but to unjustifiably bring up something such as this 30 years later something is up. You don't make a connection from 30 years to the present day. What conclusion is the reader supposed to draw? What is all this leading to fishmuscle? Please enlighten us as to what the real agenda is.

Anonymous said...

Seeing as Mr. Armenta does as he pleases without regard to pollution laws, it interesting to see his pattern of behavior goes back at least 30 years.

Anonymous said...

You could say that Mr. Armetta has been making news for 30 years.

troglodyte1 said...

This blatant disrespect of our police officers makes me sick. Are people like Anonymous 7:27 saying that they don't think the Middletown Police did a good job 30 years ago? I suppose that mean's they aren't doing a good job now. Your just playing into the hands of the terrorists.