Plans Dropped for Morton Grove Waste Transfer Station

Lakeshore Waste Services announced it will not pursue an application for a waste transfer station, but may look at an alternate use for its property in Morton Grove.


The Village of Morton Grove made public the following press release, issued by  Lakeshore Waste Services early Friday evening:

"Lakeshore Waste Services has informed the Village of Morton Grove that it will not pursue previously discussed plans to develop a waste transfer station on property adjacent to its corporate headquarters in the community.

“'We continue to believe that a waste transfer station would be a compatible and acceptable land use in Morton Grove, given the proposed industrial park location and the strict environmental regulations that would govern its operations,' said Josh Connell, president of Lakeshore Waste Services. He noted that waste transfer stations are located near residential areas in communities throughout Cook County.

“'I respect the public process and community involvement, and was fully prepared to begin meetings with residents in advance of submitting an application for a transfer station. Unfortunately, it became clear that an open, factual dialogue was going to be difficult to achieve.'

Connell left open the possibility of approaching the community about another business use for the property adjacent to its corporate headquarters at 6132 W. Oakton Street. Connell said he did not have a specific timetable, but that Lakeshore would reach out to the Morton Grove community to engage in fact-finding about a potential alternate concept before submitting it to the Village.

Established in 2001, Lakeshore Waste Services has been based in Morton Grove since 2010. The company is an independently owned and operated waste and recycling hauler serving Chicago and its suburbs." 

Get Niles and Morton Grove news in your email. It's free. 

Pete September 08, 2012 at 02:25 AM
This is better than goin to the movies. Sherwin an ray boy need to make up some ground here cause they are lookin pretty dumb. RT about now
Pete September 08, 2012 at 02:29 AM
Hum let's see rat boy claims victory on his account an sherwin seems to have all the inside details after they come out. Well folks ya both got my vote for mayor. Sure glad I don't live in Morton grove anymore. Lol
Mr. Rats September 08, 2012 at 02:36 AM
Pete must live in Evanston and be a little disappointed that the garbage dump is going no where. I'll take your vote though thanks
steve September 08, 2012 at 05:20 AM
Rat Boy's obviously a sad, lonely, little man with nothing but time on his hands which enable him to get into verbal altercations with others commenting on this article. If he had any cahones, he wouldn't hide behind a poorly created website. He'd channel his energy into something good and positive that would actually benefit his community, not alienate MG neighbors with his biting (pun intended) comments. Wow, if you ran for mayor, you might have to reveal yourself to the world, Rat Boy. Then being mean and sarcastic wouldn't be as much fun if everyone knew who you were, now would it?
sherwin dubren September 08, 2012 at 05:30 AM
What a bunch of cry babies. Too bad you didn't get your garbage transfer station. Your grammer school remarks only show the level of your collective mentality. Audrey, don't blame me for not catching the sneaky moves of the Morton Grove trustee board. If it's one thing they are good at, it's keeping things of importance under the radar. It's like blaming the US Navy for not knowing the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor. Keep your eyes on the MG trustees and mayor to see if they can again sneak in the next project of Lakeside Garbage Company.
M. Kim Jr. September 08, 2012 at 10:15 AM
Springfield is going to move their pension responsibilities to us now too! Then why are we paying Illinois so much in taxes? I hope the people here speak up about the waste and excess of these out of control school district boards and administrators. I even heard from a friend that at D67 the teachers wanted to offer some volunteer tiime help to the children, but their unions told them no. So are we supporting the kids or unions with our taxes? What's going on with these school boards anyway? Someone said it here before about another topic, but it applies more so here to the current school boards "Throw the bums out!"
Lizzy T September 08, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Now you're calling us all a bunch of cry babies and our trustee board sneaky! My, my, my; oh what a hypocrite you are Mr. Dubren. Maybe the readers here are more interested in a story that affects all our pocketbooks like the drunken sailor spending at the schools instead of joining in on your regular round of witch hunts and name calling. I will take your advice though on one matter and keep an eye on the MG trustees and mayor. So far they are working for a common good and giving back to the community, not just blowing hot air like some. Still praying for you that one day whatever happened to make you so narrow minded and bitter will stop affecting you so negatively.
Joe September 08, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Lizzy T September 08, 2012 at 01:42 PM
Joe, why are thanking someone who has done nothing? The Committee to Stop the Transfer Station worked hard to get the word out. Sherwin just jumped on the bandwagon to get some attention. Sorry Joe, maybe Sherwin is a friend or relative of yours, but I hope you find another mentor worthy of your time, ho doesn't insult others and acts like a bigger cry baby then the people who dare not agree with his viewpoints.
mij September 08, 2012 at 03:36 PM
Whats Evanston going to do with its waste now?
M. Kim Jr. September 08, 2012 at 03:46 PM
What Evanston does is not our problem, never was. We should be looking at the ever increasing and obnoxiously high salaries of administrators at our school districts. The REAL waste issue in our community should be about Niles and Maine high school districts and grammar schools like District 67 and their wasting our money.
Mr. Rats September 08, 2012 at 03:54 PM
Well it almost became our problem. This all started because a couple of condo developers decided to build right next to the dump and later raise a "stink" about the stink. Then Evanston thought they were going to bully Morton Grove to accepting their problem. They almost got away with it cause of our elected officials but "We the People" stopped them, just in the nick of time. The condo developers can eat it for all I care.
Mr. Rats September 08, 2012 at 04:01 PM
M. Him Jr.: Who can argue in support of these ridiculous Admin salaries and the pensions attached to them. I tell you, the real pain will come when pension costs are moved to the burbs. What can we do? The only thing I can think of is file for bankruptcy, cancel contracts and redo the pensions. If not you're looking at potentially hundreds of percent hikes in property taxes.
Mr. Rats September 08, 2012 at 04:40 PM
I know that bankruptcy may not be a viable option. Our bond rating would take a hit and lending costs would rise across the board for the next ten years. We're entering the fifth year of the "Great Recession". Had we done this at the beginning we'd be half way there now. Can't the admins/teachers just come back in good faith and say "yea these numbers just don't make sense in our current conditions" and renegotiate. I thought public servants weren't in it for the money. I'm all for paying top salaries for anyone who deserves it but all these layers of admin for what? As I said before, the men who went to the moon 50 years ago were educated for far less money and under many less levels of admin.
Dan Goldberg September 08, 2012 at 05:57 PM
Talk about trying to sneak one in! Looks like D67 didn't get the message when they were told no before to higher taxes: http://mortongrove.suntimes.com/15002304-781/district-67-plans-referendum-meetings.html
RIP-Neil September 08, 2012 at 07:05 PM
The district put a door-hanger on every single door in the district back in July inviting the community to open houses that were held over the summer to inform them and gather feedback so that the community could have input into the options they district had moving forward after the failed referenda in march. Did you attend? Do you even care? If not, you really have no right of accusing the district of trying to sneak. Sounds like useless political rhetoric by the uninformed, which is just said and unproductive for the educated ones that read this. This is not a stupid presidential election. Let's leave that childish crap for them. Fact is that the district needs these referenda. There are no other options. You may believe that the district can make further cuts and live with their current funding and the pathetic/unsafe facilities, but that is just a naive/uninformed opinion. Fact is that they desperately need repairs on critical facilities and need additional income to maintain a balanced budget. Yes, teachers are paid too much and that needs to be rectified, but that is irrelevant now, since the district is not asking for funds to continue the current teacher contracts, they are asking for the minimum they will need even with significant cuts to teacher's contracts going forward. So, how about helping the community out instead of making ignorant/unfounded statements and get involved with the solutions?
Dan Goldberg September 08, 2012 at 08:27 PM
Let's look past what D67 offered in the way of information post-vote in which the public rejected the higher taxes. But instead any new solutions, the District Board and Administration are pushing the same old question again. Why would anyone give more money to the same management team who have not been able to find a solution over so many years? What about the unions telling the teachers they couldn't volunteer their time to help the kids? If high admin salaries had been stopped, more money could have been spent on the facility. Te buildings may need improvement. So why did they reject a plan that would have resolved that issue and let a new business in town with out raising taxes? Personal attacks, calling others uniformed just because they don't agree with your viewpoint and dismissing their past actions takes the question off the point here. What has or will change significantly enough to make things better to improve the facilities and eduction without simpy writing a blank check? District 70 did it. No matter your level of passion, that question has not been answered. So let's lay off the diversion of personal attacks, we've all read Saul Alinsky, and focus on finding a real solution to help the community that will provide the great education that will keep people in their homes too.
RIP-Neil September 08, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Let's look at the FACTS: 1. District has communicated with every resident and requested input since July. 2. You just stated that they are trying to sneak one in. 3. I accuse you of unfounded statements and political rhetoric. Teachers are overpaid, concessions are relatively laughable in light of current financial situation, and past board is to blame for the approval of the current contract. However, most of that board is gone, rest is up for re-election this year, and I don't think any of the remaining board members that could possible had a role in this are running again. So, after this year we should have a board that did not create this situation. Superintendent is on the job just 2 years and had nothing to do with this. Who are you holding to task? This is no reason not to support the district. Please explain to all of us your solution? How do you fix failing facilities and unsafe equipment without any funds? How do you operate a district that has increasing expenses that they cannot do anything about at this point, with decreasing revenue from the government and shrinking tax base? They are not asking for funds to give the teachers raises. They are not even asking for enough to maintain the current contracts. They are requesting a relatively minimal increase to maintain a balanced budget. So, let's hear your alternative? They have already cut all sports, many activities, etc. Sounds like you are a problem creator, not solver.
SuburbanMary September 08, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Again, you misrepresent the facts. It was Lakeshore that listened and decided NOT to submit an application. Last time I checked, Josh Connell is not an elected official.
RIP-Neil September 09, 2012 at 02:05 AM
Textbook example of people who live in glass houses throwing rocks. Dear Evanston. We the residents of MG truly apologize for this statement by a purported citizen of MG. Please do as the rest of the world and simply discount these ridiculous ramblings. This person obviously leads a hard and tortured life. You don't deserve the dump anymore than us, but unfortunately squatter's rights are going to have to apply for now :) Good luck !!
sherwin dubren September 09, 2012 at 03:04 AM
I think we should get the facts correct about Evanston's involvement in this whole matter. Contrary to some claims, Evanston did not get Lakeshore to try and move to Morton Grove. When Evanston heard that Lakeshore had on their own initiative made that decision, they were happy to get rid of it. I have not personally checked the location of the present Lakeshore dump, but I believe it is closer to residences and schools than the proposed MG site. Trying to make Evanston the fall guy here is out of line. It was totally Lakeshore's decision to try and come to MG based on the fact that they already had offices there on Oakton. Was Evanston happy to get rid of the dump, I would say yes. Did they suggest or encourage Lakeshore to pick MG as a prospective site, I don't think so. One of the reasons Lakeshore decided to cancel the project for MG was the experience they had with the Evanston residents, that is picketing their site, etc. Once they saw MG residents were strongly opposed to their moving in there, they did not want to repeat that scenario. So indirectly, we can thank Evanston for their strong opposition to the dump in their town. I never heard Evanston try to compare their dump location to MG's proposed site. This is something somebody made up. If you want to point fingers, do so at Lakeshore. MG as a target was their decision only.
sherwin dubren September 09, 2012 at 04:46 AM
John, I was incorrect about which company was operating a transfer station in Evanston. It is Veolia, not Lakeside. However, according to the Evanston Roundtable newspaper, mayor Tisdahl of Evanston was upset that they were operating 50 feet from residences there. The law allows 1,000 yards. That is much closer than it would have been in MG, but when the wind blows, a few blocks would have made MG just as vulnurable. Tisdald also said "it was an injustice to have a transfer site in a residential area". Why would she then turn around and say it was ok for Lakeland to do so in MG? I have seen no evidence of Tisdahl, or any other Evanston official encouraging Lakeside to open up a trash transfer site in MG. They were probably aluding to the fact that any location other than Evanston would be preferable to locating it in their suburb. I still maintain that the selection of MG for the Lakeside garbage transfer station was entirely their decision. They did not need Evanston to point out that they already had a site for their offices in MG. I have no reason to defend Evanston, except that we have enough problems with our own administration here in MG and don't need to stir up trouble with our neighbors.
Mr. Rats September 09, 2012 at 04:48 AM
That's cojones, come mierda
Judy Kochman September 09, 2012 at 08:15 PM
Never be shocked by the flow of false rumors ! People who are unhappy, not involved, have the freedom to gossip and accuse, without proper facts or info. "In the Day",I was a school board member for 12 years and even the prez for 5..I could make the hair stand up on your head with accusations, being accosted in the grocery store, and asked how much money I made off an under the table deal..to this day I don't know who was offering the schol board the money!
Dan Goldberg September 09, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Here are the alternative ideas for D67 reforms requested by RIP-Neil. Before you read on, let’s hope Neil will stick to facts and ideas presented and comment on those; avoiding his previous Alinsky-like tendency to make comments that try to diminish the validity of the person delivering arguments he doesn’t agree with. Eliminate one principal, have the one remaining handle both, with a senior teacher becoming an assistant at the other location. Estimated savings, about $140K annually. Maybe cut the Administrative Assistant for Dr. Reilly. Re-examine reading specialist and hire a part timer, could save over $100K annually. Re-examine pre-school for expenses and salaries formerly part of the Park District (don’t believe D70 provides the service anymore). Review the food service for both quality and cost. The Business Manager’s duties could be absorbed by the Superintendent, some skills she should already possess and are paying extra for. PART ONE
Dan Goldberg September 09, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Here’s a big one, look at health care contributions from teachers and propose a 50% contribution to their own health care which could save over $250K annually – and with it, re-negotiate the teachers’ contract now before any proposed referendum. Longevity allowance in pay should stop – get paid for doing a good job, not just for showing up. Additionally, all compensation should be tied to performance like the real world – and not to exceed CPI. Students have paid the price so far, and the teacher’s union won’t let them volunteer their time, even if they wanted to (look into the 8th Grade play where they wanted to help but were prohibited). Instead of acquiescing to a 4-5% raise in pay, what about a freeze in salary? The School Board has not stood up for the children but bent to union demands. The Board President has been in her position for years, so little chance of change in attitude or approach I fear. Other board members are employed by law firms that represent unions, not a good mix and possible conflict of interest. Is it not about time to look at salaries and make some tough choices that will preserve the quality of the education and the physical property. PART TWO
RIP-Neil September 09, 2012 at 11:43 PM
I applaud the suggestions. You can't move to 1 principle in 2 school district. Especially with all of the new/recent regulations as to what a principle has to do both in regards to direct contact with education, etc. It's a good proposal, but it is just not possible with the current regulations. You also propose to cut the admin assistant. I am not a superintendent and I don't know what is physically possible by the job demands. It may be an option, but I doubt it. I could not do my current job with my assistants. Not enough hours in the day. Pre-school is self-sustaining, so no savings there. Food service is under constant review and this is where they have already made significant cuts by outsourcing it. Business manager is probably not needed in normal situations, but in the current conditions, they are needed (at least until this situation is resolved). I believe the district has already considered all of these options, and while they do represent ideas, they would be a small dent and I don't think most of possible anyway more than what has already been done. Again, these are already a source of previous cuts.
RIP-Neil September 09, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Absolutely...but they don't have that option right now. Something called a "contract". I agree the teachers receive better benefits than most and this needs to be changed, but the entire benefits that cut be cut probably amount to 50K. Don't get me wrong. MANY MANY MANY parents that support the district and support radical changes in regards to teacher contracts. As I previously mentioned, the district is not requesting a funds to continue the current contracts and definitely not expansion of contracts. Right now, teachers probably get more like 6-8% raises. Can you image trying to get the teacher's union to agree to a salary freeze? They should agree to this in times of financial stress, but we all know they won't. If you are really concerned about teacher's contracts, then the best thing that could possible happen is for the referenda to pass. This would give the district a concrete budget (which remember, does not even support the current contract conditions), and then they could enter the negotiations in 2013 with a "this is what we have and we have no more options" attitude. If they do not pass, the teachers will hold out for more and just expect the district to keep going to the community to get the money. I know it may be hard to digest, but for anyone that is truly against the current contracts, passing of the referenda is the path to the most drastic contract cuts in 2013
RIP-Neil September 09, 2012 at 11:51 PM
What really needs to happen is massive district consolidation and a large infrastructure investment to make everything run more efficiently. It may come to that in a few years and i can't wait for that day. Also, I would love if unions were dissolved in regards to education and public service and each employee had to stand on their own merit. Going to happen? Not in chicago.
M. Kim Jr. September 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM
If the situation in Chicago shows anything, the unions more than teachers are putting money, control and dues above the welfare of the children. We're reading that D67 unions won't let their teachers volunteer their own time to help the kids? I think most teachers are dedicated and put the kids first, its the weak school boards and administrators at fault for bending to union demands. A well rounded education is important but focus on the basics first. For all those so vocally supporting the tax increases of the referendum, maybe they could dontate what they would have paid in higher taxes to support more programs.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »