voiceofsandiego.org: Cafesandiego... Thinking About Trash Recycling
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Thinking About Trash Recycling

Published: Friday, August 31, 2007 11:31 AM PDT



The city of San Diego is once again calling for all residents and businesses to improve their efforts at trash recycling. We all know the practical reasons for increasing the diversion of recyclable materials from our landfills. There is the need to avoid the possibility of fines for not complying with state law (as remote as that is), the need to extend the life of our landfills (the city needs to ensure that they can continue to receive tipping fees from trash disposed at Miramar ... sorry, cynical comment) and, more importantly, to make sure our society is managing itself in a sustainable way (because greenhouse gasses and global emissions are not a good thing).

On its face, the proposed mandatory recycling program makes sense (for all of the reasons stated above), except for the fact that the city has finally acknowledged that their public education efforts are weak and that their programs can’t extend to all areas of the city. Unfortunately, that hasn’t in the past prevented City Environmental Services Department (ESD) staff from saying that “voluntary efforts have failed,” and that “businesses continue to throw away too much recyclable material.”

Earlier this week, the Mayor’s Office convened the second public workshop on mandatory recycling. This time, city staff rolled out their draft “mandatory recycling ordinance.” One of the more interesting sound bites from this meeting was city staff’s acknowledgment while this is an “education based” ordinance, not “enforcement based,” they noted they did not have the money to educate the public about the need for recycling our trash, let alone how to comply with this new ordinance.

So, one has to ask, if this is an education based program and the city has no money for education, then who is going to provide or, more importantly, pay for the education? Will city staff recommend raising tipping fees at their landfill? Will they suggest increasing the AB 939 fee (aka the recycling fee) on trash taken to Miramar?

Let me be clear, I support a mandatory recycling proposal, as do our clients (and yes, for the voiceofsandiego.org's serial commenters, I am a paid public affairs professional, do represent groups like BOMA and have a constitutional right to make my points like everyone else in our democracy).

While I believe public education is an important prerequisite, and wish the city had done a better job reaching out to residents and businesses alike, I recognize that the city does not have enough cash in its coffers to pay for such a program. That shouldn’t justify the need for a mandatory program, but it is a sad fact that will probably cause the ordinance to cruise through the public approval process.

The culprit of poor cash funding is, of course, the so-called People’s Ordinance.

This sacred cow relic from our city’s past has preserved free trash collection for single family home owners. Unfortunately, multi-family home owners and businesses have been discriminated against and forced to pay for their trash collection while single family home owners get a free ride. Ironically, it’s many of these business and tenancies, derided by city trash department staff for not doing enough, that have, in working proactively with their private trash hauler, established voluntary recycling programs for their buildings.

The facts speak for themselves. When construction and demolition waste is pulled out (that is a separate matter not considered by this ordinance), residential customers in the City represent the largest contributor to the waste stream. You can see this for yourselves on the streets when you drive around your single family neighborhood on trash day. Most of the black “trash” cans are stuffed full, most with potentially recyclable materials. When you look through the blue recycling bin, you find them nearly empty. Why? Is it the arguably underfunded education effort put forward by the city? Or is it the lack of connection between what you pay for trash collection and how much you throw away?

For energy and water, for example, the more you use the more you pay. If you conserve, your bill goes down. For single family home owners, it doesn’t matter how much trash you toss or how much you recycle. You pay the same amount ... nothing ...

The bottom line is this, that until the city does away with the “People’s Ordinance” and forces single-family home owners to pay for their trash collection, there will be no incentive for them to improve their recycling. Heck, let’s be creative and put together a tiered system. For the good recyclers, you get free trash pick-up. For those who don’t want to recycle (e.g. producers of a lot of trash) you pay some graduated amount for pick-up depending on how much you throw away.

For the private sector, the incentive already exists. We pay for our trash pick-up. That’s the same for multi-family home owners who have the cost of trash pick-up passed along to them in the form of rent or HOA fee increases. That’s not to say we can’t do a better job. Some of these properties don’t have programs and for those that do, there is a need for better education effort, but we’re working on it and a responsible recycling ordinance will help.

But, if we’re ever going to make a realistic dent in the waste stream going to our landfills, we’ll need to address the single-family side of this equation as well.

-- CRAIG BENEDETTO




7 Comments so far on this story...

Craig - it amazes me that your post on energy generated such vehement commentary while your post on trash has generated none. Could it be that the usual "serial commentators" are more concerned about your status as supposed blood-sucking tool of the money-grubbing capitalists than they are about the quality of your ideas? Once that issue is deflected, they have nothing more to say. Just a thought.

Posted by Dave | reply to this comment
August 31, 2007 6:46 am

There is a solution to the entire "no new taxes" thing.... Offer up a slight (1/4 to 1/10) sales tax reduction in exchange for being able to charge for garbage - along with CB's idea of providing "free" pick up for those that go the extra mile and do a good job recycling their greens and blue bin materials. Haven't yet figured out how to do that variable fee in a way taht would be "fair" and objective but I am sure smart Voice people could. Definately puts in the incentives in the right place.

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
August 31, 2007 8:02 am

Why Craig...you wouldnt be advocating for raising taxes would you? They might take away your Republican credentials!

Posted by Lester Hayes | reply to this comment
August 31, 2007 8:45 am

Last time I checked, trash pick-up was being paid for by the General Fund of the City of San Diego and that means hey - we're paying - those of us who actually still pay "general taxes" anymore around here. The idea that trash pick-up is "free" just aint so. Trying to repeal the "People's Ordinance" is really just another way to add another fee, the result of which would be a push by big waste haulers through their "strong mayor" to privatize pick-up services so we could all pay more for them to do it (while telling us of course we'd be paying less). Where there's an fee-based system, outside haulers find the ways to tap into it and the costs rise. This all has very little to do with increasing recycling. Beware of lobbyists claiming they want to make the system more fair.

Posted by Taxpayer | reply to this comment
August 31, 2007 10:08 pm

Lester:I don't see it as either your for taxes or against them. Although property taxes have increased over time, so has the cost of providing service. Part of what should happen with the trash collection in this city is the consideration of outsourcing to assure that costs are managed. You could split the city into zones and bid out those zones. The residents would thus be assured that as they pay for some types of trash collection (under my tiered rate scenario) that they are also getting the service at the best possible price. Anyway, if this kind of concept to promote recycling and responsible disposal of trash is anti-republican, I think you should check your history books...Nixon signed the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act into law.

Posted by CraigB | reply to this comment
September 1, 2007 1:04 am

Mr. Taxman...for the record, I don't represent the hauling industry or any waste hauler. My point here is about finding ways to pay for a system "taxed" by the conflict between Prop 13 and the People's Ordinance. This wouldn't be a new tax on people, under my scenario, if people recycled. It's really to penalize those that don't get the importance of recycling. Since we can't seem to get landfills permitted in this region and expansion seems like a short-term, also difficult process. We need to "encourage" recycling to help protect the landfill capacity we have for that which absolutely must be thrown away.

Posted by CraigB | reply to this comment
September 4, 2007 2:47 am

Taxpayer, the bottom line is that trash pick up is not equitably charged in San Diego. You can argue that it's not free because it's paid for from the general fund, but what about multi-family residents and businesses that also pay fees & taxes into the general fund and also have to pay for their own private trash service? They are paying twice to subsidize this "free" service for single family residents. Would anyone think it were fair if single family homes received "free" water or sewer service paid for from the general fund and multi-family & businesses paid for their own? Others city charge for trash, and often based on how many cans they use, providing an incentive to recycle. Wouldn't you be willing to pay to have your garbage picked up if that meant more money available in the general fund for streets, parks, libraries, etc?

Posted by Also a taxpayer | reply to this comment
September 4, 2007 6:50 am


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
956794b



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.