Hook Logo

Free Peter: Fenwick rallies support for recycler

by Dave McNair
published 6:21pm Wednesday Dec 16, 2009
Bookmark and Share letter Write a letter to the editor

news-fenwick-mooney0850Betty Mooney and Bob Fenwick called on the community to support recycler Peter Van der Linde in his legal fight with the Waste Authority

At the Downtown Mall’s Free Speech Monument today, former City Council candidate Bob Fenwick led a small rally in support of recycler Peter Van der Linde, calling the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority’s $20 million RICO lawsuit against him an “atrocity.”

About a dozen people holding signs that said “Free Peter” and “Stop the Waste” stood behind Fenwick as he addressed about a half-dozen members of the local media and few spectators curious about all the fuss over Van der Linde.

“They have branded this man a federal criminal in front of the entire community by using a legal device tailored to combat organized crime,” said Fenwick. “This is a mean-spirited attempt by two governments, who are spending our money to do this, to ruin a man and his business.”

“It seems pretty wrong to me,” said Charlottesville resident Richard Stanley of the RSWA lawsuit. “We should be jumping on the Van der Linde bandwagon.”

Van der Linde opened an $11 million Materials Recovery Facility in Zion Crossroads last year, which now accepts household trash for recycling. The RSWA has accused Van der Linde, who also owns a dumpster rental business, of defrauding the Authority out of approximately $1 million in fees before he opened his own disposal facility.

Fenwick called on the community to support a man who is “building a truly green business” and “creating jobs and helping our community improve the quality of life in the area” with his new facility. He also said there would soon be a new website dedicated to supporting Van der Linde called www.freevanderlinde.com.

“We demand that this lawsuit be dropped today,” said Fenwick.

Van der Linde, who had planned on attending the rally, was busy being deposed this week by RSWA lawyers from McGuire/Woods, who have already billed the tax-payer supported Authority over $340,000 for their services, with the trial date scheduled for June 2010.

“By the time this lawsuit is done, they’ll have spent a million dollars,” said speaker Betty Mooney. “We as a community can stop this. It is so wrong. I’ve been here 40 years, and I’ve never seen something so bad that our government has taken on. Communities would die to have a facility like Peter’s, and we have it right here.”

Tomorrow, the RSWA has scheduled a special meeting to discuss their plan to privatize the Ivy Transfer station. Fenwick and Mooney encouraged people to attend the meeting, which will be held at 4pm at the Albemarle County Service Authority Administrative offices on Spotnap Road.

–Story last updated 6:24am, added “million” to lawsuit and price of Van der Linde’s facility.


  • William Carter December 16th, 2009 | 7:45 pm

    I believe the time has come for our elected officials, including those of the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, Commomwealth of Virginia, and U.S. representatives, to take a long hard look at the RWSA (in all its solid waste as well as water and sewer activities) and it’s dealings with a legitimate private provider (Van der Linde), it’s contracts, it’s customer satisfaction record as a sole utility provider, and it’s “studies”. There has simply been a seemingly never-ending litany of questionable activities and the appearance of multiple conflicts-of-interest.

  • horrified December 16th, 2009 | 8:08 pm

    So Blank and Krueger are partners in the same law firm, and Krueger is the RSWA legal counsel; he hired his own partner from McGuireWoods to prosecute the suit against Van der Linde and then upped it to a RICO assuring astronomically higher profits for his firm,( for which he gets a cut), and a far higher cost to the taxpayers–lordy, lordy what have we got here ?

    Is there an ethics specialist in the house ?

    Krueger charges over $500 dollars an hour. Is that the going rate in your town for a descent lawyer of an authority funded with public dollars ?

  • Observer December 16th, 2009 | 8:11 pm

    Confused about the Mayor and Councils silence. Maybe this will help

    “Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris stated that the City Council does not get involved in these types of legal matters. “( reported at Chn 29)

    City Democratic Co-Chair Jonathan Blank

    from the Hook by By DAVE MCNAIR
    Published 4/2/2009 12:00:00 AM in issue 813 of the Hook

    “Prepared by Jonathan Blank of the McGuireWoods law firm the suit

    from the Hook
    by Dave McNair
    published 11:14am Monday Aug 17, 2009

    “On July 31, the two sides squared off at a hearing in Charlottesville Circuit Court, part of the discovery phase of a jury trial scheduled for next June, during which Authority lawyer Jonathan Blank with McGuireWoods presented documents, provided by BFI,”

    Jonathan T. Blank �
    Partner McGuire Woods - Relationships That Drive Results�
    Court Square Building, 310 Fourth Street, N.E., Suite 300
    P.O. Box 1288
    Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288

    Lawyers in the News « Virginia Lawyers Weekly
    Sep 14, 2009 … Jonathan T. Blank, managing partner of the Charlottesville office of McGuireWoods, has been appointed by Gov. Timothy Kaine to serve on the …

    from cvillepedia.org
    Kurt Krueger is a Charlottesville attorney with McGuireWoods and the legal counsel for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority-

    Kruger serves as the Chairman of the Piedmont Family YMCA.

    Kurt J. Krueger
    Partner McGuire Woods - Relationships That Drive Results�
    Court Square Building, 310 Fourth Street, N.E., Suite 300
    P.O. Box 1288
    Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-1288

  • Observer December 16th, 2009 | 8:51 pm

    Do not forget the Virginia Attorney General. His office is key. Check US Code Title 18 Section 96 which includes this;

    (7) “racketeering investigator” means any attorney or
    investigator so designated by the Attorney General and charged
    with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect this chapter;

  • Observer December 16th, 2009 | 9:01 pm

    Anyone so inclined may read




  • Kevin December 16th, 2009 | 9:24 pm

    I’d spend a million taxpayer dollars to eliminate the RSWA from our civic structure. If there ever was a time for it, its over.

  • yepper December 16th, 2009 | 9:32 pm

    what I’ve not heard is anyone commenting on the merits of the suit, whether or not the RICO statutes are appropriate.

    Did Van Der Linde defraud the RWSA and therefore the taxpayers? Simply because he’s a private businessman should we automatically assume that he wouldn’t have done this? Couldn’t he have filed a motion to dismiss the case prior to discovery? If the case is so meritless, why wasn’t it dismissed?

    Surely he didn’t want to be deposed. Surely this is a waste of his time. Surely he doesn’t actually WANT to go to trial. A judge has the discretion to dismiss a case without merit. Why hasn’t that happened in this case?

    Implying that the RWSA, the City Council and Macquire Woods are all trying to railroad Van Der Linde because he provides a better service than the RWSA sounds a little fishy.

    I mean, if there’s truly nothing to this case, why hasn’t it been dismissed? Why is the Hook the ONLY media outlet that has apparently discovered this case of corruption by the RWSA?

    The hook has been reporting on it for a while, the other media outlets are not ignorant of this, but no one else is making these connections. Could it be that the hook is only presenting one side to this story and is using the silence of the city council (which is entirely appropriate, btw) as a smoke screen to filter out the fact that there’s not much to this story?

    Maybe the fraud case against Van Der Linde has merit.

  • city resident December 16th, 2009 | 9:45 pm

    Remember the water plan debate–the Hook was first with that too –luckily we have one newspaper in town willing to do investigative reporting and not print press releases and misleading info from officials without checking the sources. I’d believe the Hook’s reporting any day of the week over the other media outlets–who, as you will notice, all picked up the story today and are just beginning to comprehend what this is all about. As to your legal questions, I hope a lawyer will respond, I’m sure there is a reason why the suit couldn’t be dismissed. What do you think of their only witness being jailed ?

  • yepper December 16th, 2009 | 10:21 pm

    I’m just saying that maybe there’s something to the case. As far as the only witness, I would only know that from the hook’s website. But from that same article:

    “The verdict,” says director Frederick, “does not change the fact that Mr. Van der Linde and his companies deposited tens of thousands of tons of waste at the BFI transfer station that originated in Charlottesville and Albemarle but were declared as coming from other jurisdictions, thereby avoiding the Authority’s service contribution fee, and depriving the Authority, and by extension the taxpayers of our community, of at least a million dollars in revenue.”

    I mean, that’s a pretty straightforward summation of facts. Should be easy to refute or substantiate. If this constitutes fraud on the part of Van Der Linde, then are we now saying that it is ok to defraud the taxpayer if you provide a decent service to the public?

    I’m not talking about the timing of the suit or whether or not the RICO statutes are appropriate. The core of the suit seems cut and dry. It is either true or false.

    Just because someone was convicted of extortion doesn’t mean someone else’s allegations are necessarily false just because the extorter was involved.

    Sounds like Van Der Linde has a great facility. Sounds like this truck driver tried to extort him.

    It also sounds like Van Der Linde may have cheated the RWSA.

    All three of those facts can be true.

  • city resident December 16th, 2009 | 10:49 pm

    My understanding, from reading the Hook articles and listening to Mr. Van der Linde on Rob Schilling and Coy Barefoots shows ( WINA), is that BFI had no idea where the trash came–they didn’t ask the haulers. They totally mismanaged the contract with RSWA and there is a document from 2005 showing that RSWA threatened to sue them if they didn’t keep better records. Mr. Van der Linde has handed out memos showing that he is owed money by RSWA, because BFI overbilled him and all the other haulers as well –sounds like BFI ran a sloppy bookkeeping operation and they’re the ones that owe taxpayers many millions, if they billed incorrectly. Why aren’t Blank and Krueger going after them? And if BFI ran a don’t ask don’t tell operation what about all the other haulers they didn’t ask ? Going afer Van der Linde, who is shutting them down with his new recycling center, only makes sense for one reason, eliminate the competition.

    Have you actually read the Hook articles. They are reporting on a lawsuit and have reported both sides of the story. Yepper, you are the one calling it corruption .

  • The Schilling Show December 16th, 2009 | 10:59 pm

    If you’ve not already done so, please sign the online petition: Drop the Van der linde lawsuit on schillingshow.com

  • yepper December 17th, 2009 | 12:15 am

    cr, Yes I have read the stories and I’m not saying they aren’t correct. I’m asking my questions in good faith. I don’t have an axe to grind. Your post explains the whole brouhaha in a concise manner for me. I was lacking such a concise understanding previously. Thank you.

    If you read some of the comments prior to mine it is quite clear that some are implying less than pure motives for both the lawsuit and the city council’s silence. It certainly smells like corruption if it all is to believed, doesn’t it?

  • really? December 17th, 2009 | 5:46 am

    I just don’t see what all the fuss is about here. If this article above is accurate it is only a $20 lawsuit and a $11 recycling facility. Not a big deal right? Unless of course you meant to say millions after the 20 and 11. Or is this another weak attempt at humour by the hook maybe we should put the RSWA in the stocks for this. Hire some new writers and a proofreader tis the season.

  • courteney December 17th, 2009 | 6:29 am

    –Story last updated 6:24am, added “million” to lawsuit and price of Van der Linde’s facility. (Thanks, Really?)

  • Betty Mooney December 17th, 2009 | 6:56 am

    Thank you to everyone who turned out yesterday. You have another chance to be heard today at 3:30pm at the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board Meeting. Located at the office of the Albemarle County Service Authority.

    I respectfully disagree with the Mayor’s comment above, and do believe, in our representative form of government that our elected officials have an obligation to protect the citizen’s from unjust use of their money and from unjust lawsuits against citizens. I had thought the reason elected representatives Brown and Boyd were placed on the RSWA board was to provide accountability for the citizens, the same way that Edwards and Thomas were put on the RWSA board. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Directions to today’s meeting:


  • Betty Mooney December 17th, 2009 | 7:18 am

    Councilor David Brown and Supervisor Ken Boyd voted for the lawsuit to proceed and for their citizens money to be used to pay for it, how can the Council and Board of Supervisors not be involved ?

    I would appreciate an answer to this question.

  • Downing Smith December 17th, 2009 | 7:28 am

    I just signed the Schilling Show petition and I urge everyone to do likewise.

    Betty I disagree with the mayor too but not respectfully.

    I believe the Hook should not allow comments to articles without people using their real names. If you don’t have enough courage and conviction of your opinions to identify yourself then you should just keep quiet.

    I must I had better get my butt in gear and write that letter to the Attorney general. If anybody else wants to write the address is:
    Office of the Attorney General
    900 East Main Street
    Richmond, VA 23219

  • Betty December 17th, 2009 | 7:44 am

    Yepper, I agree with Mr. Smith. If you want your opinions taken seriously please identify who you are. Otherwise, you could be anyone, and suspicions would be that you are a member of the McGuireWoods legal team.

  • St. Halsey December 17th, 2009 | 8:29 am

    How in the heck can you “free Peter” before he has had his day in court? Sounds to like Van der Linde is better at PR than juris prudence. He admits he didn’t pay the money he was suppose to- the only question is “who is lying Van de Linde or BFI”? Did BFI lie by not asking or did Van de Linde by not offering the truth.

    I am kind of stunned how a rabid group of defenders can’t get by those very simple fact. The county should have had fees from garbage taken out of this area- the only question is who. I like the courts to find out which one of these folks is responsible because my rates are higher because the tipping fees were never collected.

  • yepper December 17th, 2009 | 9:12 am

    Betty, I believe that the questions I’ve asked are relevant and pertinent. It’s interesting that you explicitly ask me to be quiet!

    Why do you not like my questions? Are they unfair in some way? Show me how.

    I have posted on the hook’s message board many, many times as the hook staff would attest. I have done so for a long time as they would attest. The anonymity of the internet allows for the free exchange of ideas. If you are uncomfortable with this, I suggest that YOU should be the one that doesn’t post your opinion.

    City resident had some excellent points in his comments but he was anonymous. Do you wish to see his posts wiped off this page too?

    However, city resident seems to be saying that NO ONE was paying these fees so why is Van Der Linde being punished. It’s the old, “everyone is speeding so why can’t I?” excuse after getting pulled over.

    Yes, maybe he is being singled out because the RWSA has a different axe to grind with him. However, this does not seem evil or wasteful to me, but the way the world works. I would expect nothing less from humans; it is human nature.

    If Van Der Linde had paid the fees that were due it should be very easy to prove, right? Why are all these OTHER issues regarding this story brought up time and time again?

    If you want to believe that I am an interested party other than an unbiased observer go ahead. I’ve been following the case on the hook and I posted comments and questions because something about it didn’t add up. I posted a comment on another article using the ‘yepper’ moniker.

    I believe my comments and questions were dead on. The fact that you and others literally want to silence me leads me to believe that your side’s motives aren’t as pure as the driven snow and that maybe the suit has merit.

    If you want to enforce a “real name verification” policy on a weblog, go ahead and start a weblog and do so. The hook is run by staff intelligent enough to know that one of the reasons why their website is so popular is that they DON’T enforce such a policy.

  • yepper December 17th, 2009 | 9:19 am

    st. halsey, maybe the ‘free peter’ sign refers to the allegation that he didn’t pay the proper fees? Perhaps Ms. Moony meant to put “Peter Dumps For Free” but got the words mixed up. Perhaps the the back of the sign says “dumps for” and you are supposed to start reading at the word “Peter”.

    I for one am pleased that our public officials are trying to recoup public moneys that may have been improperly withheld by alleged dumping scofflaws.

  • Betty Mooney December 17th, 2009 | 9:58 am

    There is no evidence that Van der Linde lied to anyone. The only witness for the RSWA case, that claimed he lied, now sits in jail, his testimony deemed not credible by a 12 member jury, and charged as a convicted felon with attempted extortion. If you are worried about your money being wasted the RSWA lost over $700,000 of revenue last year. You should also be worried that the trash haulers have been overpaying because of probable mismanagement at BFI, and could have a case of their own against RSWA and their partners.

    The only winners in this case will be the lawyers, who will make more money than is ever recouped for the public.

  • yepper December 17th, 2009 | 10:21 am

    So then is there evidence that BFI lied, Betty?

    Here is where you have a chance to put your money where your mouth is. You can, using your true and verifiable identity, allege on this public forum that BFI committed a crime. This will be a good test of your “only people that use their real name should post comments” philosophy. Please feel free to answer my above question at your earliest convenience.

  • Downing Smith December 17th, 2009 | 10:32 am

    Yepper you are a coward. I am not singling you out. My comment was aimed at all anonymous posters whether I agree with their posts or not. Your rational about the free exchange of ideas is crap. By hiding behind an alias you can spread rumors and lies with no repercussions. By hiding your identity you can also hide the fact that you have a vested interest which if known would discredit your comments. Anyone who posts anonymously will not be taken seriously.

  • Betty Mooney December 17th, 2009 | 10:45 am

    Yepper, Lonnie Wood, director of finance for RSWA said this :

    “Proper charging and accounting of customers has been inaccurately managed,” RSWA finance director Lonnie Wood told Allied officials in a November 2005 letter. “[T]here has been and continues to be a breach of contact.”–quoted from the article below

    Wasted revenue? Authority realized in 2005 station didn’t track origins
    by Dave McNair
    published 3:22pm Monday Apr 20, 2009

    “The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is suing Peter Van der Linde, who recently opened a major recycling facility in Zion Crossroads (right next to the RSWA-sponsored facility), to retrieve millions in fees the outspoken hauler allegedly avoided paying by lying about the origins of his trash. However, Authority documents recently obtained by the Hook show that the Authority may have been fleeced by its own partner in trash.

    In 2005, seven years after the RSWA inked a deal with a firm called Allied Waste (then BFI and now part of a publicly held company called Republic Services) to send area waste to Allied’s waste station in Zion Crossroads, RSWA officials learned that Allied employees were “completely unaware” of their duty to collect a $16 “service contribution fee” for the Authority every time in-district (i.e. Charlottesville and Albemarle) waste crossed company scales.

    “Proper charging and accounting of customers has been inaccurately managed,” RSWA finance director Lonnie Wood told Allied officials in a November 2005 letter. “[T]here has been and continues to be a breach of contact.”

    Wood chafed that Allied kept customer accounts directly with area haulers, including Van der Linde, in violation of its RWSA contract, and he said the Authority was “prepared to take legal action.”


  • yepper December 17th, 2009 | 10:46 am

    Downing Smith, now you are attempting to insult me? First you want me to keep quiet but when I continue to post pertinent comments and questions now you resort to insults.

    Is your argument truly that weak?

    Show me where I’ve posted a lie or a rumor (other than what I’ve read on this website).

    All of these personal posts by Betty Mooney and Downing Smith are off topic, frankly. People are free to take seriously any and all comments, regardless of the moniker used to post them.

    I believe I have not spread lies or rumors but, in good faith, asked questions about this case to try to get at the truth. Downing Smith and Betty Mooney apparently feel threatened by this. Perhaps they have an axe to grind of their own? Perhaps they are using this issue as a red-herring because they have an ulterior motive regarding the RWSA?

    These are just questions but they seem pertinent due to the other comments on this page.

  • yepper December 17th, 2009 | 10:57 am

    Betty, thank you for that post. So would you say that the RWSA should attempt to recoup these fees from BFI/Allied/Republic Services instead?

    I guess my questions would be: Did Van Der Linde’s drivers have a responsibility to state where his trash came from? Did they do so? Does BFI’s ‘mismanagement’ result in a breach of contract to the point where legal action could be taken against them instead of Van Der Linde?

    I haven’t heard anyone say that the RWSA isn’t owed this money. I guess the question is “by whom?”

    Who is to say that after the case against Van Der Linde they don’t go after the other private haulers?

  • Man with a paper a-hole December 17th, 2009 | 11:01 am

    You two(Downing & Betty) should start a campaign to abolish anonymous voting too. From my prospective your idea and mine aren’t too far apart and obviously both are ridiculous.

  • city resident December 17th, 2009 | 11:06 am

    I think we should recoup all costs from the lawyers who advised this suit in the first place. What a mess ! I agree with Kevin, I’d pay to get rid of RSWA altogether.

  • Man with a paper a-hole December 17th, 2009 | 11:12 am

    Never mind recouping the costs. How about just stop the bleeding. Swallow some pride. Be the bigger man. Let it go. Of course that will never happen because government funded movements have endless funds and the people(Frederick) behind those movements recognize this, therefore giving them no reasonable motivation to wave the white flag.

  • St. Halsey December 17th, 2009 | 11:30 am

    If you want to believe that Van der linde is telling the truth you have to believe one thing. That is when Albemarle passed the tipping fees Van der linde never heard about it and that BFI never asked. Otherwise Mr. Van de Linde and his drivers are suffering from a lie of omission (not telling the truth is sometimes the same as telling a lie”. Somebody owes the RWSA money, it’s either BFI or Van de linde

    If Van der linde lost he would have to pay those lawyer fees and then the RWSA would in fact have made a wise decision. Unlike Betty or Downing I don’t know enough facts to tell you who lied and think that court might be the only place the truth might come out. I wouldn’t be upset if this were settled either.

  • Man with a paper a-hole December 17th, 2009 | 11:41 am

    Given the information that has been disseminated thus far, that sounds like a high risk gamble to me. If it were your money alone and not a collective of the those tax payers that contribute, would you still make that bet? I wouldn’t. It’s a coin toss at best.

  • yepper December 17th, 2009 | 12:18 pm

    the man with a paper a-hole makes some good points. however, a contrary point would be that if the RWSA simply allowed whomever to not pay the appropriate fees, then what is stopping others from doing so?

    Some public institutions are required by law to recoup any and all moneys owed. Perhaps RWSA is in a similar bind?

  • Man with a paper a-hole December 17th, 2009 | 12:43 pm

    $20,000,000! I’d say that would keep the RSWA in the black for a good many years. That doesn’t sound like recouping monies to me at all. Sounds more like tax payer funded extortion. Apparently it’s contagious. Is there a vaccine for that?

    I recognize that Van der Linde’s motives certainly fall short of altruistic, but in the end, I just hope whether or not he wins, loses, settles, etc., that he isn’t squeezed penniless and forced out of business. Regardless of whether he’s done something wrong, that facility is good for the community. The RSWA is a huge tax drain. The recycling facility is a tax windfall in many ways and solves a HUGE problem that the specialized “authority” assigned to the task of waste management can’t manage.

    I don’t have a dog in this race, but the RSWA is an absolute detriment to the community in every imaginable way.

  • Man with a paper a-hole December 17th, 2009 | 12:45 pm

    Yeah, I guess I do have a dog in the race…my wallet!

  • Man with a paper a-hole December 17th, 2009 | 12:48 pm

    …and it’s getting skinnier by the passing ($500/hr lawyer) hour.

  • Cville Eye December 17th, 2009 | 2:46 pm

    yepper, I’m not interested in who you are unless you have a vested interest that goes beyond that of the public. I found nothing offensive about your questions and I think they were satisfactorily answered.
    This blog is as successful as it is because there is a freer flow of ideas simply because most of the commenters do not use their real names and thus do not add another dimension to the conversation. Charlottesville is a very small town and too many people talk about people and not concepts.
    Let’s get back to the thread.
    Doesn’t van der Linde have audio tapes showing that BFI was not asking the drivers for the source? Is this the same company that was not disposing of our recycling properly a few years ago? Face it, trash disposal is a dirty business.

  • **** December 17th, 2009 | 4:07 pm

    RSWA’s contract with BFI obligated them to collect an additional fee for all trash from Alb/Ch’ville. Constructively, if not actually, that creates a duty upon BFI to ask trash haulers where their trash is from or determine its origin in some other manner. They clearly failed to do the former, and their principle, RSWA is now seeking to determine the source of van der Linde’s trash trough sworn testimony. Four years after the fact. I’d hardly call that reasonable. If this was a criminal RICO case, I think van der Linde would have a compelling argument that he was entrapped by BFI, because they failed to ask him where his trash came from at the time. As it is, I think RSWA should be estopped from proceeding against him by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands, as their agent, BFI breached its own duty to determine, in a reasonable manner, where his trash was from, and thus which fees to apply to it. Just my $.02

  • yepper December 17th, 2009 | 4:18 pm

    cville eye, I agree that my questions have been answered and I certainly have a greater understanding of the issue having read the posts in this thread. ironically, by asking my questions and having them answered, I am more sympathetic to the argument espoused by those that sought to stifle my posted messages!

  • Reality Check December 17th, 2009 | 4:24 pm

    ****, I think you hit that nail squarely on the head.

    Even if one were to successfully argue that Van der Linde committed a sin of omission, I think most everyone agrees that this suit is waaaaay over the top. It seems pretty clear that we, the people, do NOT want to spend our hard-earned scratch on this foolish adventure.

    If the RSWA wants to go gunning for someone, it should target BFI for its shocking mishandling of their end of things. One has to wonder, however, if the RSWA would want to take on the terrifying legal team that BFI’s corporate overlords no doubt have at their disposal. Hence they’re going after the little guy? Tsk tsk, not sporting, that.

  • **** December 17th, 2009 | 4:53 pm

    Agreed, Reality check. I thought van der Linde had third-partied BFI into his litigation with RSWA though, no? Maybe someone can answer the following: how many people were fired/forced to resign in 2005 @ RSWA after it was learned that BFI had gone YEARS without collecting the service contribution fee or whatever it was called? Exactly what do we pay these fools for?

  • CT not for me December 17th, 2009 | 7:45 pm

    Just a thought but has any body ever said who is responsible from when the dumping fee was passed (what the law actually states).

    Is the hauler or the collecter ultimately responsible? Without this information the BFI vs Van Der Linde of who pays, I can’t really support a side here. If the law says that the hauler must pay then Van der linde is guilty no matter what BFI asked/didn’t ask. If BFI was suppose to ask everyone who came where the garbage and didn’t, then BFI owes the money. Perhaps they both do. I don’t know and would like to have someone who KNOWS help me out. thanks

    What I can’t yet believe is Van der linde didn’t know he owed the fees, perhaps that is how he afford to build his brand new digs.

  • Kramer December 17th, 2009 | 7:52 pm

    OK, so if you went into Best Buy and bought a TV for 400 bucks and they asked you for 400 bucks and you gave them 400 bucks and took your tv home who’s fault is it that they didn’t charge you tax?

    Are you under a LEGAL obligation to ask them to collect the tax from you? NO
    Are you under a moral obligation to ask them? MAYBE

    Can the state take you to court to pay the tax that Best Buy didn’t collect? DOUBTFUL

    Can they force Best Buy to pay the tax they didn’t collect? PROBABLY

    Can Best Buy sue you for the taxes they forgot to collect? DOUBTFUL

    Especially since there is no direct paper trail. Does BFI have direct written proof of any violation? Supposition is not evidence.

    Was BFI paid a fee to collect the tax? If not, holding them accountable is real iffy on its face. Asking questions and tabulating taxes is a little different than withholding from payroll. What was BFI supposed to do if a hauler lied.Did they have instructions or authority to accuse a hauler of a crime?

    Seems to me that this is just another example of incomptent government in action. They should drop the case now and get it behind them.

    and these folks want to be our latex salesman…….

  • Cville Eye December 17th, 2009 | 7:55 pm

    CT not for me, it was my understanding that it is a contract between RWSWA and BFI. I don’t recall any ordinance that was passed that would allow RSWA to collect the fee on any trash that orginated from Chalbemarle. That would have required an ordinance to be passed by both the city and the county. How RSWA can charge anyone for a service it doesn’t provide I have no clue.

  • Cville Eye December 17th, 2009 | 7:59 pm

    “Seems to me that this is just another example of incomptent government in action.” This bears repeating over and over.

  • Cville Eye December 17th, 2009 | 8:41 pm

    I just searched the City’s Code for”service contribution fee” and nothing showed up. I doubt if there is any legal ties between RSWA and the trash haulers, just those between RSWA and BFI.

  • Cville Eye December 17th, 2009 | 9:15 pm

    Let’s see. van der Linde’s operation is in Zion Crossroads, either Louisa for Flubann, if I’m correct. BFI is also in Zion’s Crossroads. Is RSWA’s argument that if someone from Budkingham County ahuled my tras to Buckingham’s or Nelson’s landfill, the hauler is supposed to give BFI the service contribution fee to give to RSWA? Just how much jurisdiction the City and Albemarle have over our trash? Would the onus of payment be upon the hauler or BFI to find him and collect the fees?
    To tell the truth, if anyone is guilty of racketeering, it’s RSWA. Get rid of this dsgraceful entity. Too bad we have no one on Council that cares enough to question.

  • Man with a paper a-hole December 18th, 2009 | 1:45 am

    I haven’t read all the comments for all the stories on this topic and this may already have been addressed, but it occurs to me that there’s an undeniable conflict of interest here. How can BFI possibly be trusted to do the right thing when the competition (Van der Linde) has to essentially report directly to them? In my business ventures, it’s my job to crush the competition. Unfortunately for me, the government hasn’t handed me the golden scepter with which I could do this oh so easily. BFI on the other hand holds a mighty fine government issued scepter. You can figure out the rest of my thoughts on your own. I’ll stop short of anything libelous so my post doesn’t go bye bye.

  • Cville Eye December 18th, 2009 | 1:49 am

    “Flow control” is what our honorable officials at RSWA are considering.

  • jeff December 18th, 2009 | 6:08 am

    When RSWA went into business with BFI and made them, the only ones that DIDN’T HAVE TO PAY the $16 tipping fee, when all the other haulers did, that is when they started down the path that would lead them into this mess. Not only did BFI not have to pay the tipping fee, but they could make more money according to the Hook articles and Mr. Van der Linde’s statements on the Coy Barefoot show, by not asking where the trash came from. Then they could add on other fees, that RSWA would not allow, and bill the haulers for even more than if the trash was coming from Charlottesville or Albemarle. No wonder they didn’t ask.


  • Man with a paper a-hole December 18th, 2009 | 7:03 am

    You are correct jeff. This story seems to evolve on a weekly basis now and somehow that fact managed to escape my brain in the passing weeks. It certainly backs my point.

  • Dakota December 29th, 2009 | 10:55 pm

    Just in case there is any doubt, I typically operate on an elementary level.To solidify the fact , I must ask , what is the lady adverting for on the downtown mall in the picture accompanying this article ? That pic is headed to Jay Leno :)


login | Contents ©2009 The HooK