City Council Considers Ban on Gasification; Some Say it's Anti-Business [VIDEO]

Attleboro city councilors heard hours of opinion from residents during a joint public hearing between the Council and the Attleboro Planning Board Tuesday night. The hearing was to hear opinion on the amendment to an existing zoning ordinance that would create a ban on gasification businesses building in Attleboro. 

City Councilor Duff White brought in the proposed amendment as a way to close the gate on any gasification plants. His effort was fueled by members of the Attleboro Residents with Important Safety Concerns (@RISC), a group formed by Attleboro resident Charlie Adler. 

For months, members of @RISC have been the Boston-based gasification company Ze-gen from opening a plant at the old Texas Instruments site in Attleboro. Residents reached a victory when Ze-gen officials announced that they were their effort to build in Attleboro

One by one, residents went before the council Tuesday night to speak for or against the amendment. 

Resident Jackie Romaniecki told councilors that she sees the proposal as a chance to be proactive. "This proposal does give you, our elected officials, the time to fully investigate and develop a complete plan that will truly protect the citizens of Attleboro, and I for one am encouraging you to accept it."

No one debated the fact that Ze-Gen wasn't welcomed in Attleboro, but the disagreements came from the details of the proposed amendment. 

Jack Jacobi, a resident and local attorney in Attleboro, told the council that there were many holes in the proposed amendment and he suggested the council not vote to approve an amendment to stop gasification that does not include a definition of "gasification."

"I think the proposal comes from a good place from applicant, but I think they are going about it the wrong way," he said. "I'm concerned we will shoot ourselves in the foot because the federal government will decide there is a benefit from gasification and we will have no ability to regulate it."

"Please let's do it right. Let's not ban technology because we are afraid of one particular applicant," he added. 

"What we are attempting to do is prevent the situation that happened with the cell towers," City Councilor Water Thibodeau said. "We had no ordinance to prevent the cell towers and now we do.

"We are trying to close the gap because we have nothing to stop anyone from submitting plans," he added. "If we take what we have tonight, as nondefined as it is, and vote it through, at least we have a stop gap, but if we change where we are right now we’ve done nothing."

Also opposing the proposed amendment was Jack Lank, president of the United Regional Chamber of Commerce, who said the council is sending the wrong message to those companies with an interest in doing business in Attleboro. 

"The permitting environment in the city is difficult enough," Lank said. "What are you going to ban next?"

Attleboro resident Lisa Nelson, who is aide to Congressman James McGovern, said she believe not all gasification is bad and cited an effort supported by the Bill Gates Foundation as an example. The Foundation is supporting the effort to reinvent the toilet for developing countries.

What does the Foundation and a toilet have to do with gasification? Nelson cited the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, which is developing a toilet that will generate electricity from waste, that will be gasified into plasma using microwaves. 

City Councilor Richard Conti suggested an alternative to the amendment in the form of a moratorium. 

Jacobi agreed with Conti's suggestion and said "a two-year moratorium on gasification plants might stand better than what was proposed in the amendment.

City Councilor Kimberly Allard told residents that when she called for a public hearing in June she made it clear that the amendment was temporary. "This is the stop gap," she said. "The city solicitor told us what we need to change things and I have amendments." 

The council voted to close the public hearing and the Planning Board will have 21 days to provide the council with its recommendations on the proposed amendment.