photolite
10-28-2009, 07:17 PM
Thanks, just thanks.
View Full Version : Thank You Efren Carrillo For Voting Correctly...Again! (Sonoma County Dump)
Barry
10-28-2009, 11:06 PM
Thanks, just thanks.
And my thanks too, Efren (to the extent I understand the issue).
For those of you who are wondering what we are talking about, see below:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/images/logo2.gif
Sonoma County supes reject landfill deal
Carrillo casts key vote reversing last month's preliminary decision
By BLEYS W. ROSE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=SR&Date=20091027&Category=ARTICLES&ArtNo=910279961&Ref=AR&MaxW=250&border=0
PRESS DEMOCRAT/2008
Currently, much of Sonoma County's trash is
taken to transfer station at the now-closed landfill
on Mecham Road. The waste is the loaded on big-
rig trucks and taken to dumps in outlying counties.
Supervisors turned town a proposal by a Phoenix
company to pay for reopening and making it the
dump for all of the county's cities.
A proposal to sell the Sonoma County landfill to an Arizona waste processor was scuttled Tuesday when Supervisor Efren Carrillo cast a key vote against it.
Because the land deal required agreement from four of the board’s five supervisors, the proposal to sell the Mecham Road facility and four trash transfers stations died when Carrillo joined Supervisor Shirlee Zane in voting no.
The vote, coming after two hours of debate and heavy criticism during public comment, was a dramatic turnabout from a voice vote a month ago to turn over landfill operation to Republic Services of Phoenix, Ariz. After the initial vote, Zane declared her opposition.
The deciding vote Tuesday was cast by Carrillo, who represents the west county where two of the four transfer stations are. He said he was troubled by financial terms in the proposal and by what he viewed as inadequate Republic commitment to diversion of trash away from burial and toward recycling.
Carrillo said the financial terms of the proposal “have some flaws” and the agreement’s trash diversion provisions were inconsistent with the county’s goals to improve climate protection and reduce greenhouse gas production.
Many in the audience of about 100 people applauded when Carrillo said the proposed sale agreement “needs four votes of the board, and it does not have four votes to proceed.”
Under the deal reached after two years of competitive bidding and subsequent negotiations, Republic Services would have processed most of the trash generated by Sonoma County for the next 20 years. In exchange, Republic would have paid $2.7 million a year in annual royalties to the county and funded installation of a $70 million liner necessary to obtain a state license to reopen the dump.
At the order of state water quality regulators, the landfill was closed in 2005 because of concerns that leakage would damage groundwater. Since then, trash trucks operated by North Bay Corp. have made 65 trips each weekday taking the refuse of county residents to East Bay dumps.
Exploration of landfill sale was ordered by the previous board, which did not include Zane and Carrillo who took office in January.
Public Works Director Phil Demery said his staff concluded that sale, called divestiture in government terms, was the only way to reopen the Mecham Road facility and get someone else to pay for it.
Demery has warned that state regulators are about a year away from ordering the county to either reopen the dump or institute environmental cleanup with costs estimated at $21 million.
“If you want an in-county solution, it is divestiture,” Demery said. “If you want any other option, it is too late.”
Supervisors Paul Kelley, Mike Kerns and Valerie Brown voted for the sale, although Brown and Kerns admitted they had lingering doubts about certain aspects of the proposed agreement.
Kerns, whose south county district includes the Mecham Road facility, lamented that two years of closed-door negotiations resulted in the public and city councils having little more than two months to review the proposal.
“I may have doubts, but you have to weigh things as best you can,” Kerns said. “Divesture is the next best alternative to getting it open.”
Brown said she supported the agreement with Republic because it “keeps alive” the possibility that the dump could reopen while county officials sought assurances of trash flow commitments from city governments. Still, she said “it is clear to me that we should have included the cities all along” in negotiations in order to garner widespread support.
Members from several city councils told supervisors that their panels had so many reservations about long-term trash commitments that their cities were in no position to sign on to the agreement. They included Debra Fudge of Windsor, Mike McGuire of Healdsburg, Pamela Torliatt of Petaluma and Gary Wysocki of Santa Rosa.
“It seems that the less garbage going to landfill, the more we will pay,” McGuire said. “You need to bring the cities in at the beginning, not at the end.”
Kelley, however, said the county is making a mistake by rejecting the Republic proposal.
“If the county goes through the reopening or the closure process, it will be expensive and those expenses will be on the back of the ratepayers and the taxpayers,” he said. “I do hope that those people who are willing help do come with a big checkbook.”
Zane, however, said she rejected the Republic proposal because “this agreement does not have a constituency as far as I can see.”
During several public hearings on landfill, dozens of opponents raised objections and only one county resident expressed lukewarm support.
Although the opportunity for public comment on the Republic deal had ended in early October, at least 20 speakers told supervisors Tuesday that it was a bad deal for county residents.
“This deal with Republic locks us into a gloomy solid waste future,” said Ann Hancock, director of the Climate Protection Campaign.
With rejection of the Republic proposal, Demery said his staff is likely to return to supervisors next week with an outline of options, including continuing to truck garbage out of the county, solicitation of new proposals for landfill operation and creation of a joint powers authority to manage a publicly owned landfill.
Copyright © 2009 PressDemocrat.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.
And my thanks too, Efren (to the extent I understand the issue).
For those of you who are wondering what we are talking about, see below:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/images/logo2.gif
Sonoma County supes reject landfill deal
Carrillo casts key vote reversing last month's preliminary decision
By BLEYS W. ROSE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=SR&Date=20091027&Category=ARTICLES&ArtNo=910279961&Ref=AR&MaxW=250&border=0
PRESS DEMOCRAT/2008
Currently, much of Sonoma County's trash is
taken to transfer station at the now-closed landfill
on Mecham Road. The waste is the loaded on big-
rig trucks and taken to dumps in outlying counties.
Supervisors turned town a proposal by a Phoenix
company to pay for reopening and making it the
dump for all of the county's cities.
A proposal to sell the Sonoma County landfill to an Arizona waste processor was scuttled Tuesday when Supervisor Efren Carrillo cast a key vote against it.
Because the land deal required agreement from four of the board’s five supervisors, the proposal to sell the Mecham Road facility and four trash transfers stations died when Carrillo joined Supervisor Shirlee Zane in voting no.
The vote, coming after two hours of debate and heavy criticism during public comment, was a dramatic turnabout from a voice vote a month ago to turn over landfill operation to Republic Services of Phoenix, Ariz. After the initial vote, Zane declared her opposition.
The deciding vote Tuesday was cast by Carrillo, who represents the west county where two of the four transfer stations are. He said he was troubled by financial terms in the proposal and by what he viewed as inadequate Republic commitment to diversion of trash away from burial and toward recycling.
Carrillo said the financial terms of the proposal “have some flaws” and the agreement’s trash diversion provisions were inconsistent with the county’s goals to improve climate protection and reduce greenhouse gas production.
Many in the audience of about 100 people applauded when Carrillo said the proposed sale agreement “needs four votes of the board, and it does not have four votes to proceed.”
Under the deal reached after two years of competitive bidding and subsequent negotiations, Republic Services would have processed most of the trash generated by Sonoma County for the next 20 years. In exchange, Republic would have paid $2.7 million a year in annual royalties to the county and funded installation of a $70 million liner necessary to obtain a state license to reopen the dump.
At the order of state water quality regulators, the landfill was closed in 2005 because of concerns that leakage would damage groundwater. Since then, trash trucks operated by North Bay Corp. have made 65 trips each weekday taking the refuse of county residents to East Bay dumps.
Exploration of landfill sale was ordered by the previous board, which did not include Zane and Carrillo who took office in January.
Public Works Director Phil Demery said his staff concluded that sale, called divestiture in government terms, was the only way to reopen the Mecham Road facility and get someone else to pay for it.
Demery has warned that state regulators are about a year away from ordering the county to either reopen the dump or institute environmental cleanup with costs estimated at $21 million.
“If you want an in-county solution, it is divestiture,” Demery said. “If you want any other option, it is too late.”
Supervisors Paul Kelley, Mike Kerns and Valerie Brown voted for the sale, although Brown and Kerns admitted they had lingering doubts about certain aspects of the proposed agreement.
Kerns, whose south county district includes the Mecham Road facility, lamented that two years of closed-door negotiations resulted in the public and city councils having little more than two months to review the proposal.
“I may have doubts, but you have to weigh things as best you can,” Kerns said. “Divesture is the next best alternative to getting it open.”
Brown said she supported the agreement with Republic because it “keeps alive” the possibility that the dump could reopen while county officials sought assurances of trash flow commitments from city governments. Still, she said “it is clear to me that we should have included the cities all along” in negotiations in order to garner widespread support.
Members from several city councils told supervisors that their panels had so many reservations about long-term trash commitments that their cities were in no position to sign on to the agreement. They included Debra Fudge of Windsor, Mike McGuire of Healdsburg, Pamela Torliatt of Petaluma and Gary Wysocki of Santa Rosa.
“It seems that the less garbage going to landfill, the more we will pay,” McGuire said. “You need to bring the cities in at the beginning, not at the end.”
Kelley, however, said the county is making a mistake by rejecting the Republic proposal.
“If the county goes through the reopening or the closure process, it will be expensive and those expenses will be on the back of the ratepayers and the taxpayers,” he said. “I do hope that those people who are willing help do come with a big checkbook.”
Zane, however, said she rejected the Republic proposal because “this agreement does not have a constituency as far as I can see.”
During several public hearings on landfill, dozens of opponents raised objections and only one county resident expressed lukewarm support.
Although the opportunity for public comment on the Republic deal had ended in early October, at least 20 speakers told supervisors Tuesday that it was a bad deal for county residents.
“This deal with Republic locks us into a gloomy solid waste future,” said Ann Hancock, director of the Climate Protection Campaign.
With rejection of the Republic proposal, Demery said his staff is likely to return to supervisors next week with an outline of options, including continuing to truck garbage out of the county, solicitation of new proposals for landfill operation and creation of a joint powers authority to manage a publicly owned landfill.
Copyright © 2009 PressDemocrat.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.
Barry
10-28-2009, 11:13 PM
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/images/logo2.gif
PD Editorial: What next?
Sonoma County supervisors set 'new direction' for trash, but will cities go along?
Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=SR&Date=20091028&Category=OPINION&ArtNo=910289924&Ref=AR&MaxW=250&border=0
KENT PORTER / The Press Democrat, 2005
Derek Maskell of Petaluma recycles a metal head-
board at the Sonoma County central landfill near Cotati. The vote this week on the future of the Sonoma County landfill was as surprising as it was daunting.
Supervisors chose to take the hard route out of this complex problem. What that route will be, however, is still anybody’s guess.
Kudos to Supervisors Efren Carrillo and Shirlee Zane for voicing their displeasure with the terms of this deal to sell the landfill to Republic Services, particularly as it relates to the disincentives to reduce the county’s waste stream over the next 20 years.
As written, this deal would have essentially locked residents into paying the same amount for disposal whether they do a better job of recycling or not. Who doesn’t believe that the technology and methods of waste reduction will improve over the next 20 years?
The sale needed four votes on the Board of Supervisors to move forward. It only received three.
“As far as I’m concerned, we are looking at a new direction” on handling waste, Carrillo said Tuesday. As Zane said in defending her vote, “this agreement does not have a constituency as far as I can see.”
The problem for the county is that it’s not evident that any alternative has a strong constituency either. Many alternative ideas have been expressed in recent weeks, but there is no common vision.
County staff is planning to come back to the supervisors next week with a list of options. We can anticipate what they will say:
• The county could try to reopen the landfill on Mecham Road, but it has been ordered by the state Integrated Waste Management Board to close it “immediately” if the sale does not take place.
• The county could close the landfill, but it has only $10 million of the $21 million it needs to formally shut it down and seal it. The difference would need to come from the general fund, which is already cut to the bone, and/or from cities within the county.
• The county could plead for more time from the state. But it still lacks the estimated $70 million it would need to make the necessary improvements to reopen the landfill.
• Meanwhile, the county’s contracts for exporting garbage are due to expire next year. We can all hope for the day when nearly 100 percent of our trash is recycled. But that’s not today. For the foreseeable future, the county will still need a place to dump the estimated 30 percent of its waste that is not recyclable.
The key in moving forward will be the involvement of the cities of Sonoma County. Council members from cities such as Santa Rosa and Windsor testified before the supervisors this week about their reservations about the landfill deal. It’s incumbent upon them to take a greater role in encouraging their council colleagues and staff members to help the county develop a better solution for waste disposal. One possibility is to renew discussions about creation of a joint powers authority to manage a publicly owned landfill, an idea that cities have resisted in the past.
In short, the county can be applauded for seeking a new direction for dealing with waste. But it doesn’t have a lot of time or money to spend finding it. And it’s going to need the help of cities getting there.
Copyright © 2009 PressDemocrat.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.
PD Editorial: What next?
Sonoma County supervisors set 'new direction' for trash, but will cities go along?
Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=SR&Date=20091028&Category=OPINION&ArtNo=910289924&Ref=AR&MaxW=250&border=0
KENT PORTER / The Press Democrat, 2005
Derek Maskell of Petaluma recycles a metal head-
board at the Sonoma County central landfill near Cotati. The vote this week on the future of the Sonoma County landfill was as surprising as it was daunting.
Supervisors chose to take the hard route out of this complex problem. What that route will be, however, is still anybody’s guess.
Kudos to Supervisors Efren Carrillo and Shirlee Zane for voicing their displeasure with the terms of this deal to sell the landfill to Republic Services, particularly as it relates to the disincentives to reduce the county’s waste stream over the next 20 years.
As written, this deal would have essentially locked residents into paying the same amount for disposal whether they do a better job of recycling or not. Who doesn’t believe that the technology and methods of waste reduction will improve over the next 20 years?
The sale needed four votes on the Board of Supervisors to move forward. It only received three.
“As far as I’m concerned, we are looking at a new direction” on handling waste, Carrillo said Tuesday. As Zane said in defending her vote, “this agreement does not have a constituency as far as I can see.”
The problem for the county is that it’s not evident that any alternative has a strong constituency either. Many alternative ideas have been expressed in recent weeks, but there is no common vision.
County staff is planning to come back to the supervisors next week with a list of options. We can anticipate what they will say:
• The county could try to reopen the landfill on Mecham Road, but it has been ordered by the state Integrated Waste Management Board to close it “immediately” if the sale does not take place.
• The county could close the landfill, but it has only $10 million of the $21 million it needs to formally shut it down and seal it. The difference would need to come from the general fund, which is already cut to the bone, and/or from cities within the county.
• The county could plead for more time from the state. But it still lacks the estimated $70 million it would need to make the necessary improvements to reopen the landfill.
• Meanwhile, the county’s contracts for exporting garbage are due to expire next year. We can all hope for the day when nearly 100 percent of our trash is recycled. But that’s not today. For the foreseeable future, the county will still need a place to dump the estimated 30 percent of its waste that is not recyclable.
The key in moving forward will be the involvement of the cities of Sonoma County. Council members from cities such as Santa Rosa and Windsor testified before the supervisors this week about their reservations about the landfill deal. It’s incumbent upon them to take a greater role in encouraging their council colleagues and staff members to help the county develop a better solution for waste disposal. One possibility is to renew discussions about creation of a joint powers authority to manage a publicly owned landfill, an idea that cities have resisted in the past.
In short, the county can be applauded for seeking a new direction for dealing with waste. But it doesn’t have a lot of time or money to spend finding it. And it’s going to need the help of cities getting there.
Copyright © 2009 PressDemocrat.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.
Barry
10-28-2009, 11:44 PM
https://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:itjppJllG4LgmM:https://niviusvir.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/trash_can_up_fo_2.jpgI'm not really up on this issue, but from the information and opinions presented above, and from what I could see at the NorthBay Corporation Website (https://unicycler.com/western_sonoma_residential.shtml), what I would do is:
1) Raise the garbage fee on all can sizes, say 20%.
2) Introduce a new smaller can size than the current smallest size (say 40% smaller) at a rate lower than the current rate for the current smallest size.
3) Introduce cans in between the sizes of 32, 68 or 95 gallons, so people can get a smaller can and avoid the increased cost by getting a smaller can.
4) I don't have access to the current pricing, but there should little, if any, volume discount. So if you generate twice as much trash as the next guy, you pay twice as much.
5) Put the savings of both the lower trash volume and increased revenue towards retrofitting the landfill so it could be re-opened.
6) Put yet a stronger emphasis, along with financial incentives, to increase Recycle, Reuse, Reduce!
The current smallest can is 32 Gallons. Say that currently costs $10/month. Raise that to $12/month; Offer a new 20 gallon can for $8/month. So if people can cut back on their waste, they can save money.
What do you think???
1) Raise the garbage fee on all can sizes, say 20%.
2) Introduce a new smaller can size than the current smallest size (say 40% smaller) at a rate lower than the current rate for the current smallest size.
3) Introduce cans in between the sizes of 32, 68 or 95 gallons, so people can get a smaller can and avoid the increased cost by getting a smaller can.
4) I don't have access to the current pricing, but there should little, if any, volume discount. So if you generate twice as much trash as the next guy, you pay twice as much.
5) Put the savings of both the lower trash volume and increased revenue towards retrofitting the landfill so it could be re-opened.
6) Put yet a stronger emphasis, along with financial incentives, to increase Recycle, Reuse, Reduce!
The current smallest can is 32 Gallons. Say that currently costs $10/month. Raise that to $12/month; Offer a new 20 gallon can for $8/month. So if people can cut back on their waste, they can save money.
What do you think???
Bryan
10-29-2009, 01:10 PM
Honda Manufacturing says that their auto plants do not even have waste containers at all - only recyclable containers are allowed at their plants. That is a huge commitment to recycling.
Efren needs to show a lot more healthy skepticism in this, a very new job. This county spends lots of time somewhere hidden meeting on problems - not a transparent process, and shows up with a fait accompli contract. This dump contract is just one such example. I would like to see Efren demand much more transparent process across the entire administration board.
That means proposals, paperwork, meeting minutes are REGULARLY posted on the internet. Why is that so hard? Then people aren't surprised when stuff like this happens as they had a chance to see what is actually going on. ANd I don't think it should cost anything - it should be part of the job description of the 1,000 managerial types sitting in the county payroll costing us $170,000 a year EACH in salary and benefit.
Efren needs to show a lot more healthy skepticism in this, a very new job. This county spends lots of time somewhere hidden meeting on problems - not a transparent process, and shows up with a fait accompli contract. This dump contract is just one such example. I would like to see Efren demand much more transparent process across the entire administration board.
That means proposals, paperwork, meeting minutes are REGULARLY posted on the internet. Why is that so hard? Then people aren't surprised when stuff like this happens as they had a chance to see what is actually going on. ANd I don't think it should cost anything - it should be part of the job description of the 1,000 managerial types sitting in the county payroll costing us $170,000 a year EACH in salary and benefit.
Sara S
10-30-2009, 05:52 AM
I don't have trash pick-up service, but I think that to introduce new can sizes would entail a new fleet of trucks to pick them up; I remember trading a 32-gallon can to Mykil for a larger one he had that the trash people couldn't pick up with their truck.
https://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:itjppJllG4LgmM:https://niviusvir.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/trash_can_up_fo_2.jpgI'm not really up on this issue, but from the information and opinions presented above, and from what I could see at the NorthBay Corporation Website (https://unicycler.com/western_sonoma_residential.shtml), what I would do is:
1) Raise the garbage fee on all can sizes, say 20%.
2) Introduce a new smaller can size than the current smallest size (say 40% smaller) at a rate lower than the current rate for the current smallest size.
3) Introduce cans in between the sizes of 32, 68 or 95 gallons, so people can get a smaller can and avoid the increased cost by getting a smaller can.
4) I don't have access to the current pricing, but there should little, if any, volume discount. So if you generate twice as much trash as the next guy, you pay twice as much.
5) Put the savings of both the lower trash volume and increased revenue towards retrofitting the landfill so it could be re-opened.
6) Put yet a stronger emphasis, along with financial incentives, to increase Recycle, Reuse, Reduce!
The current smallest can is 32 Gallons. Say that currently costs $10/month. Raise that to $12/month; Offer a new 20 gallon can for $8/month. So if people can cut back on their waste, they can save money.
What do you think???
https://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:itjppJllG4LgmM:https://niviusvir.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/trash_can_up_fo_2.jpgI'm not really up on this issue, but from the information and opinions presented above, and from what I could see at the NorthBay Corporation Website (https://unicycler.com/western_sonoma_residential.shtml), what I would do is:
1) Raise the garbage fee on all can sizes, say 20%.
2) Introduce a new smaller can size than the current smallest size (say 40% smaller) at a rate lower than the current rate for the current smallest size.
3) Introduce cans in between the sizes of 32, 68 or 95 gallons, so people can get a smaller can and avoid the increased cost by getting a smaller can.
4) I don't have access to the current pricing, but there should little, if any, volume discount. So if you generate twice as much trash as the next guy, you pay twice as much.
5) Put the savings of both the lower trash volume and increased revenue towards retrofitting the landfill so it could be re-opened.
6) Put yet a stronger emphasis, along with financial incentives, to increase Recycle, Reuse, Reduce!
The current smallest can is 32 Gallons. Say that currently costs $10/month. Raise that to $12/month; Offer a new 20 gallon can for $8/month. So if people can cut back on their waste, they can save money.
What do you think???
podfish
10-30-2009, 08:29 AM
I don't have trash pick-up service, but I think that to introduce new can sizes would entail a new fleet of trucks to pick them up; I remember trading a 32-gallon can to Mykil for a larger one he had that the trash people couldn't pick up with their truck.
I like Barry's ideas too. I know several people who freak out when they feel they're asked to actually pay more for something that doesn't show immediate personal benefits, so I strongly support anything that keeps - or appears to keep - the price the same; it's even better, if there's a way to to lower the perceived price. There's a lot of suspicion out there regarding things that are supposed to benefit society or the environment but require taxes, fees, or other changes, including changes in behavior. But as the cereal manufacturers know, people aren't all that sensitive to cuts in size. And they are less unwilling to pay more if they think they're getting more, whether they need 'more' or not.
If the trucks only handle two sizes of cans, maybe you could take a tip from the wine business. Offer some cans with the bottom punched in so there's less volume while the apparent size isn't any smaller.
I like Barry's ideas too. I know several people who freak out when they feel they're asked to actually pay more for something that doesn't show immediate personal benefits, so I strongly support anything that keeps - or appears to keep - the price the same; it's even better, if there's a way to to lower the perceived price. There's a lot of suspicion out there regarding things that are supposed to benefit society or the environment but require taxes, fees, or other changes, including changes in behavior. But as the cereal manufacturers know, people aren't all that sensitive to cuts in size. And they are less unwilling to pay more if they think they're getting more, whether they need 'more' or not.
If the trucks only handle two sizes of cans, maybe you could take a tip from the wine business. Offer some cans with the bottom punched in so there's less volume while the apparent size isn't any smaller.
The A Team
10-30-2009, 08:50 AM
Be part of the solution. Here is what we do-
Compost all your scraps, don't buy cheap crap from China, take extra useable items to charity thrift stores, sell valuables, take electronic waste to CRC or e-waste disposal places, use cloth grocery bags, buy little packaged food.... and you will basically will have very little "unrecyclable garbage". I put my small can out once every 6 weeks.
-Alan:2cents:
I like Barry's ideas too. I know several people who freak out when they feel they're asked to actually pay more for something that doesn't show immediate personal benefits, so I strongly support anything that keeps - or appears to keep - the price the same; it's even better, if there's a way to to lower the perceived price. There's a lot of suspicion out there regarding things that are supposed to benefit society or the environment but require taxes, fees, or other changes, including changes in behavior. But as the cereal manufacturers know, people aren't all that sensitive to cuts in size. And they are less unwilling to pay more if they think they're getting more, whether they need 'more' or not.
If the trucks only handle two sizes of cans, maybe you could take a tip from the wine business. Offer some cans with the bottom punched in so there's less volume while the apparent size isn't any smaller.
Compost all your scraps, don't buy cheap crap from China, take extra useable items to charity thrift stores, sell valuables, take electronic waste to CRC or e-waste disposal places, use cloth grocery bags, buy little packaged food.... and you will basically will have very little "unrecyclable garbage". I put my small can out once every 6 weeks.
-Alan:2cents:
I like Barry's ideas too. I know several people who freak out when they feel they're asked to actually pay more for something that doesn't show immediate personal benefits, so I strongly support anything that keeps - or appears to keep - the price the same; it's even better, if there's a way to to lower the perceived price. There's a lot of suspicion out there regarding things that are supposed to benefit society or the environment but require taxes, fees, or other changes, including changes in behavior. But as the cereal manufacturers know, people aren't all that sensitive to cuts in size. And they are less unwilling to pay more if they think they're getting more, whether they need 'more' or not.
If the trucks only handle two sizes of cans, maybe you could take a tip from the wine business. Offer some cans with the bottom punched in so there's less volume while the apparent size isn't any smaller.
loricolin
10-30-2009, 09:13 AM
I definitely agree on the idea of promoting "recycle, reuse and reduce" and a financial incentive/motivation for people to actually cut back on waste, such as the one you described is excellent. I know I would definitely be more willing cut back anyway I could!! The extra money made on the increased price for "smaller" garbage cans is also a good alternative to making some extra needed money for the company!!
Good thinking...now if only the decision-makers would do some good-thinking!!
Lorena
https://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:itjppJllG4LgmM:https://niviusvir.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/trash_can_up_fo_2.jpgI'm not really up on this issue, but from the information and opinions presented above, and from what I could see at the NorthBay Corporation Website (https://unicycler.com/western_sonoma_residential.shtml), what I would do is:
1) Raise the garbage fee on all can sizes, say 20%.
2) Introduce a new smaller can size than the current smallest size (say 40% smaller) at a rate lower than the current rate for the current smallest size.
3) Introduce cans in between the sizes of 32, 68 or 95 gallons, so people can get a smaller can and avoid the increased cost by getting a smaller can.
4) I don't have access to the current pricing, but there should little, if any, volume discount. So if you generate twice as much trash as the next guy, you pay twice as much.
5) Put the savings of both the lower trash volume and increased revenue towards retrofitting the landfill so it could be re-opened.
6) Put yet a stronger emphasis, along with financial incentives, to increase Recycle, Reuse, Reduce!
The current smallest can is 32 Gallons. Say that currently costs $10/month. Raise that to $12/month; Offer a new 20 gallon can for $8/month. So if people can cut back on their waste, they can save money.
What do you think???
Good thinking...now if only the decision-makers would do some good-thinking!!
Lorena
https://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:itjppJllG4LgmM:https://niviusvir.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/trash_can_up_fo_2.jpgI'm not really up on this issue, but from the information and opinions presented above, and from what I could see at the NorthBay Corporation Website (https://unicycler.com/western_sonoma_residential.shtml), what I would do is:
1) Raise the garbage fee on all can sizes, say 20%.
2) Introduce a new smaller can size than the current smallest size (say 40% smaller) at a rate lower than the current rate for the current smallest size.
3) Introduce cans in between the sizes of 32, 68 or 95 gallons, so people can get a smaller can and avoid the increased cost by getting a smaller can.
4) I don't have access to the current pricing, but there should little, if any, volume discount. So if you generate twice as much trash as the next guy, you pay twice as much.
5) Put the savings of both the lower trash volume and increased revenue towards retrofitting the landfill so it could be re-opened.
6) Put yet a stronger emphasis, along with financial incentives, to increase Recycle, Reuse, Reduce!
The current smallest can is 32 Gallons. Say that currently costs $10/month. Raise that to $12/month; Offer a new 20 gallon can for $8/month. So if people can cut back on their waste, they can save money.
What do you think???
nicofrog
11-10-2009, 08:00 AM
FOOD in trash is an atrocity;
It's that simple,food belongs in your back yard,or if your place is to small to compost find someone that does and use theirs.
The trash cartels(yes the mafia,that has always managed our waste)
will tell you in a holy tone of voice that food is 1/3 of the waste stream.
That hides the fact that it is 3/4 of the weight of the haul, and it's weight they get payed for, which is WHY they fought composting for years.even having the health department and U.C. dredge up excuses to make it seem evil and dangerous. They are why most composters today still erroneously believe you cannot compost meat, or dairy(the heaviest part of the food, and best heaters for hot systems)notice whole foods composting hold no such restrictions.Yay.
Our transfer site at Mecham does pretty well with re-cycling, I like the new
recycling mandatory signs! but they have ruined re-cycletown! pulled the funding I guess. they have people working there who don't care.(accepting Brian natruraly,he just shrugs and says"what can you do" certainly he has tried...
and WHY in all the world don't they route the dump road THROUGH the recycletown parking lot(that is bigger than it needs to be anyway) and have people checking for perfectly good iterms being discarded.or allow a rep on the "sorting" floor.Some typical kind of nonsence like"oh our insurence won't allow that" that is the dumest-ass excuse for almost everything that makes sence not happening i've ever heard.
So good Efren...lets not have an even BIGGER conglomerate glom up our
mess, lett's clean it up ourselves.I have one grocery bag full of dirty plastic bags a month genrally. the rest is compost,re-cy and re-use.
Let me know if you have any bottlecaps,corks, lighters, pens, pencils,
crayons, toys,hubcaps,marbles,pot lids ,broken ceramics(colors not white)
bricks((Never throw away a brick)) tile,balls,rusty nails screws hardware,
(save all fencing for concrete re-enforcement) .I use them in art and will pick them up.
San Francisco has out-lawed food in the trash!!!!
Yay! now we're talkin' Put it in the green can(and no don't put yr
meat and cheese in there it will smell ,get a wormbin!!( I sell them).
I have spent my life with a close eye on the bottom rungs of our
system here.Those big trucks that haul the trash are a horrible dinosaur from the past, take a good look in 20 yrs they will be gone.ever COUNT
how many times that stupid deisel engine has to grunt to pick up one garbage can? ever heard of a fly wheel? in Europe
there is a city where they spin a huge flywheel in each truck,and it runs all day on that spin. Hello.
That Machine is gruntin to pick up food full of water,baby poop that should not be going in landfill, waterbottles with half the water in them and the tops put back on.Can anybody tell me what part of neatness requires people to put the bottle caps back ON tightly to their empty bottles before they discard them?.....I'm mystified,ever try to smash a water bottle with the cap on? run over it with your car, its fun.
America discards 60% of its food,check your local grocers dumpster.
Get active. we have been asleep. we are fouling our nest.
Nico 707 684 0341
this from"Cool 2012"
"Stop Creating Methane Now: No matter how the waste industry “greenwashes” its “new and improved landfills,” there is only one proven method to truly prevent methane emissions — keep compostable organics out of landfills. Public policy needs to first support the elimination of methane by requiring source separation of compostables and recyclables, then mitigate methane from existing sources where organics have already been buried."
Thanks to Zeno for links below
Visit https://www.cool2012.org (https://www.cool2012.org/) for the downstream relationship between
landfilling of organics and climate change.
Visit https://www.<wbr>stoptrashingtheclimate.org (https://www.stoptrashingtheclimate.org/) for the relationship
between wasting, consumption, manufacturing and climate change.
Relationship between Extended Producer Responsibility and Climate
Change https://www.productpolicy.org/<wbr>content/climate-change-epr (https://www.productpolicy.org/content/climate-change-epr)
https://www.grrn.org/<wbr>conference2009 (https://www.grrn.org/conference2009)
National Recycling & Zero Waste Conference Oct.18-20 2009
It's that simple,food belongs in your back yard,or if your place is to small to compost find someone that does and use theirs.
The trash cartels(yes the mafia,that has always managed our waste)
will tell you in a holy tone of voice that food is 1/3 of the waste stream.
That hides the fact that it is 3/4 of the weight of the haul, and it's weight they get payed for, which is WHY they fought composting for years.even having the health department and U.C. dredge up excuses to make it seem evil and dangerous. They are why most composters today still erroneously believe you cannot compost meat, or dairy(the heaviest part of the food, and best heaters for hot systems)notice whole foods composting hold no such restrictions.Yay.
Our transfer site at Mecham does pretty well with re-cycling, I like the new
recycling mandatory signs! but they have ruined re-cycletown! pulled the funding I guess. they have people working there who don't care.(accepting Brian natruraly,he just shrugs and says"what can you do" certainly he has tried...
and WHY in all the world don't they route the dump road THROUGH the recycletown parking lot(that is bigger than it needs to be anyway) and have people checking for perfectly good iterms being discarded.or allow a rep on the "sorting" floor.Some typical kind of nonsence like"oh our insurence won't allow that" that is the dumest-ass excuse for almost everything that makes sence not happening i've ever heard.
So good Efren...lets not have an even BIGGER conglomerate glom up our
mess, lett's clean it up ourselves.I have one grocery bag full of dirty plastic bags a month genrally. the rest is compost,re-cy and re-use.
Let me know if you have any bottlecaps,corks, lighters, pens, pencils,
crayons, toys,hubcaps,marbles,pot lids ,broken ceramics(colors not white)
bricks((Never throw away a brick)) tile,balls,rusty nails screws hardware,
(save all fencing for concrete re-enforcement) .I use them in art and will pick them up.
San Francisco has out-lawed food in the trash!!!!
Yay! now we're talkin' Put it in the green can(and no don't put yr
meat and cheese in there it will smell ,get a wormbin!!( I sell them).
I have spent my life with a close eye on the bottom rungs of our
system here.Those big trucks that haul the trash are a horrible dinosaur from the past, take a good look in 20 yrs they will be gone.ever COUNT
how many times that stupid deisel engine has to grunt to pick up one garbage can? ever heard of a fly wheel? in Europe
there is a city where they spin a huge flywheel in each truck,and it runs all day on that spin. Hello.
That Machine is gruntin to pick up food full of water,baby poop that should not be going in landfill, waterbottles with half the water in them and the tops put back on.Can anybody tell me what part of neatness requires people to put the bottle caps back ON tightly to their empty bottles before they discard them?.....I'm mystified,ever try to smash a water bottle with the cap on? run over it with your car, its fun.
America discards 60% of its food,check your local grocers dumpster.
Get active. we have been asleep. we are fouling our nest.
Nico 707 684 0341
this from"Cool 2012"
"Stop Creating Methane Now: No matter how the waste industry “greenwashes” its “new and improved landfills,” there is only one proven method to truly prevent methane emissions — keep compostable organics out of landfills. Public policy needs to first support the elimination of methane by requiring source separation of compostables and recyclables, then mitigate methane from existing sources where organics have already been buried."
Thanks to Zeno for links below
Visit https://www.cool2012.org (https://www.cool2012.org/) for the downstream relationship between
landfilling of organics and climate change.
Visit https://www.<wbr>stoptrashingtheclimate.org (https://www.stoptrashingtheclimate.org/) for the relationship
between wasting, consumption, manufacturing and climate change.
Relationship between Extended Producer Responsibility and Climate
Change https://www.productpolicy.org/<wbr>content/climate-change-epr (https://www.productpolicy.org/content/climate-change-epr)
https://www.grrn.org/<wbr>conference2009 (https://www.grrn.org/conference2009)
National Recycling & Zero Waste Conference Oct.18-20 2009