Authored by: babalu on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 11:28 AM GMT+5

I live in District 1 and agree completely, Annikee.

I went to the town's web site and saw a PDF for a list of town meeting reps (for 2009). Included are phone numbers, email and mailing addresses.

To any TMM who may not be hearing an opinion one way or the other from their district residents, is there any reason why a Rep. would not call and poll a few people before assuming that no phone calls or emails (or only a few) translates into no objections? Or, is the role expected to be only a passive one?

Authored by: JefferyAnderson on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 01:27 PM GMT+5

Thank you for your letter. As a recently elected Rep in your district, I am on the line regarding this issue. I see the merits of it and see the movement by a growing number of communities to this system. Ideally I like it --it has its merits-- but I the implementation snags me pretty strongly and my perception that there is a lack of work done on combating the negative impacts to those it would harm most without them reaping the benefits. I don't see a rash of illegal dumping should it pass. I think that is a slightly disingenuous argument to garner support for voting it down, but other arguments against it do have their own merits. I am a little soured on Dick DeGray's proclamation at this weeks informational meeting that he would try to push it through no matter what TMM's decided. With all of that said, my vote is still not in hand either way. I would love more people to voice their opinions on this issue as Laura has. It helps a great deal!

Authored by: annikee on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 02:42 PM GMT+5

Thank you, Jeffrey. Such a drastic move as this should not lay in the hands of 3 SB members to decide. If they, as has been said, ignore Town Meeting, I hope there will be a townwide vote on it and the people will decide for themselves.

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 02:45 PM GMT+5

I am in district 1, but here is my opinion, as succinctly as I can state it.

If the goal is to increase recycling, the town has not done its part to make recycling work for low-income people who have limited space for storing two weeks' worth of recycling. I cannot support PAYT until they address the real issue here, which is that recycling rates are low because the curbside recycling program is dysfunctional.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 02:59 PM GMT+5

I have family in NJ where recycling is mandatory. Town
garbage crews will not pick up garbage not packaged in
clear transparent bags. They will not pick up bags when
they can see recyclables inside (Bottles, newspapers,
etc.), Refused bags are tagged with explanation. Three
refusals results in a $25 fine. as does any further
refusal. Unpaid fines double every 30 days.
THIS WORKS WELL.

Authored by: annikee on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:05 PM GMT+5

I also have family in NJ with such. I had the same myself, in Manhattan. It works well when there is at least weekly pick-up and a full range of recycling materials accepted. Such is not the case in Brattleboro.

Authored by: spinoza on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:55 PM GMT+5

I wouldn't presume dumping to not be a problem, as places like mine- and there are many- are pretty inviting to drive-by chuckers. And who's going to have to clean up or pay for those wayward throws?

Authored by: JefferyAnderson on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 01:42 PM GMT+5

As an update to my previous post, I wanted to inform those interested that I intend to support the amendment that will be proposed on Saturday to update the budget in the hopes of reversing Pay As You Throw. Philosophically, I jump at the chance to increase recycling but doing it in what I perceive to be a punitive fashion runs counter to the ideology that brings me to desire a higher recycling rate in this town. I have seen very general numbers regarding increased rates in other towns that have moved to a PAYT system, but they are such broad numbers that do not tell the entire story. Whose recycling rates increased (demographics), what help was provided to those that would be more likely to feel the negative impacts of the change, how easy was it to recycle compared to the difficulty here. This is not the apples to apples comparison it is made to be. I understand that the Selectboard (those who support it) expresses the desire to continue working on it even after it is implemented to make it better, but I would suggest that this cost shift is ill-conceived at the wrong time economically and not enough has been done to encourage people to recycle prior to this scheme. Make it easier to recycle first off, then we'll talk.

Authored by: annikee on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 04:32 PM GMT+5

Bless you, Jeffrey. That's what I've contended all along- we have no plan in place to make this work. Until a reasoned plan is up and working, it's a goal to work toward, not something to be shoved down our throats by a bully tactic. I've never liked bullies, and that's just the way this is being pushed at us, in a "TS" attitude.

Authored by: ScottMcCarty on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 09:07 PM GMT+5

I will be voting No.

---
www.scottmccarty.org

Authored by: Jamie on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 09:32 PM GMT+5

Would you mind sharing a little more about your thought process on this issue Scott?

Authored by: annikee on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 08:22 AM GMT+5

Thanks, Scott.

Authored by: Lise on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:03 PM GMT+5

I'm against Pay As You Throw as well, for a host of reasons -- I don't
like that it's a cost shift onto residents who already pay taxes. I
believe that renters absolutely pay property taxes, even if indirectly.
I don't think it will help the recycling rate because I think many if not
most residents are already doing their best and could only do better if
WSWM is able to take more types of recyclables. I think there are
much better ways to improve recycling than punishing residents with
this program.

What else -- oh, I also feel like the "blame the residents" tone of the
Solid Waste Committee and members of the Selectboard is
wrongheaded and will not succeed as I don't believe people,
particularly adults, are positively motivated by being scolded.

I would like to see PAYT defeated once and for all, as in my opinion,
it's not something that residents want. In the end, I think it's up
to residents to decide this, regardless of what members of the
Selectboard or Town staff want.

Just my two cents, for the record.... ;)

Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:25 PM GMT+5

I live in the Sam Elliot Apartments
(The high rise next to the Fire House).
We have garbage chutes on every floor - you dump
your trash and it falls into a compactor and thence to
a dumpster.
Everyone uses this system because it's just plain
convenient.
Outside our side entrance we have a number of
recyclable containers which are emptied weekly.
The pickup people will not empty them if they contain
non-recyclable trash. This happens frequently.
It's virtually certain that the trash is brought in by
outsiders because it's easier for the tenants to use
the chutes.
As i posted elsewhere, I've witnessed how
transparent bags can increase recycling.

Authored by: annikee on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:08 PM GMT+5

"I think it's up to residents to decide this, regardless of what members of the Selectboard or Town staff want." That's what I think, too.

Authored by: AirBrattleboro on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:09 PM GMT+5

Just an FYI: I'll be having a number of folks (Town Meeting Reps) on "Live & Local" next Wednesday at 9:15 to discuss this topic, and Fish will also be discussing it prior to that on the FM side (Classic Hits 92.7). It's a confusing issue, and brings out some passions, but we're hoping to elucidate all the pros and cons, as have been discussed here.

Listen in, call in........let's be sure we all have as many facts as possible, and are thinking about all the impacts, pro and con.

---
**********************************************
Steve West
Host - "Live & Local"
WKVT 1490 AM
802.254.5286

Authored by: annikee on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 09:06 AM GMT+5

Good to know, Steve. Thanks.

Authored by: Stevil on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:00 PM GMT+5

The Pay as You Throw program seems to have been designed by holier than thou intellectual snobs whose mantra must be "how can you NOT support this, it will save the earth - and save us money!" Aha! It's not the earth they want to save, it's their money.

Home owners with a couple of apartments support PAYT because "recycling" is good. I.E. they want to save their money.

Those with connections in the business community support it because it will show the bigger landlords and shop owners that the town has a supportive business environment - and it will save them money.

Never mind that the businesses which we are to support do not sell goods which most of the people here want or can afford. It's very nice to have art galleries, oriental rug and antique galleries, stores whose stationery prices seem designed for investment baking offices and lawyers, good clean healthful food which is priced as a luxury item, and so on and so forth - in short, an upper class tourist trap. But where are the everyday goods at everyday prices for the people who have to put up with the snide, self-absorbed attitudes of our "betters"? The working class is only here to serve at their pleasure, and then be forced out as no longer relevant to the town.

The Pay as You Throw system is part of the death knell for relationships between the economic classses. It destroys the last vestiges of "community", the idea that we do things for the COMMON GOOD.

The better off can afford to go to the dump for something besides a swap meet. They don't understand the average person can not afford "tipping fees" (not that most of the workers ever see a "tip"). The average citizen/family can go to some perhaps mythical office in the Town Hall (where nice drawings of Putney Road of the future - with 6 or so more "traffic circles" - are on display) and get ONE green (no pun) plastic tub which will hold a week's worth of newspapers - for an alleged every other week pickup. (How many times have I carried back my recycling (at different addresses) because the recycling truck never showed up? (Quite a few, actually.)

If the selectboard truthfully wanted to have everyone recycle as much as possible, why can't they try an every weeek pickup? Because it would cost the town money, that's why.

Do you remember that last year the selectboard wanted to do away with town sidewalk snow removal?
A good argument can be made that it hardly existed at all if you ever had to get down the southern side of High or Grove Streets after a storm. But in the end, it will come up again, be passed, and remove more common good services in the town budget.

Do you remember that once upon a time, a concept of a "parking garage" was floated? It got voted down at town meeting. Was it after adding a "transportation center" that it came up again the following year? It got voted down by town meeting once again. But, it showed up as surely as Stevens and Associates at the whisper of "grant money". And so, after one more time around the block, we got a 9 million dollar 305 space "multi-modal transportation center". And it wasn't going to cost the Brattleboro taxpayer anything! And parking fines and parking meters weren't going to have cost increases, we'd live in the land of milk and honey and be so happy ever after that we could ignore that pesky federal investigation into just where the millions for the refurbished train station went.

So now, here's PAYT back for a second town meeting member vote - and just about all of the paperwork and cost projections out there show that it is a cost shift from the more economical method of having the town pay for it to the citizens who will be "billed" (by purchase of trash bags) for the amount of trash they throw away, undoubtedly as a matter of fairness and conscience.

Add in the fines sure to show up, and the late fees, and whatever other fees they can dream up, and the poor and everyday resident will end up being forced out of town - A HA! - the program gets rid of the riff-raff as a side benefit.

What's next? Charging someone whose house has burned down for the water and fireman hours used in trying to save it? Why, soon enough the selectboard will be able to cut fire serves out of the budget, too. And then we won't have to worry about building that new firehouse. Win-win, I'd say.

A few more cost shifts and that handful of unelected elitists won’t have to pay a single cent to social services. Brattleboro - the town that shows the federal government the way. Does have a ring to it, doesn’t it?


---
"The rich should mind their charities and get off the backs of the poor" - a Bag Lady in Boston

Authored by: annikee on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:09 PM GMT+5

Bravo!

Authored by: Jamie on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:32 PM GMT+5

Stevil,

I am a homeowner in Brattleboro. My taxes are outrageously high..truly, I mean it!

On top of my outrageously high taxes I am going to pay for PAYT bags. This is an added expense. What benefit for me is there to support PAYT.

Will this support of PAYT lower my taxes?

No.

So why do I support Payt? It seems contrary to my self interest?

It's not.

This is a cause that is important to me.

The cause is reducing our waste, to increase our recycling..blah blah blah

This is the most practical option available. This option has the most consensus. This option is local, is current, is relevant. This option has already been adopted by many communities and has had a proven positive result.

I'm not convinced that those that are opposing PAYT are not THEMSELVES self interested.

Where is the moral compass???

Authored by: annikee on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 05:49 PM GMT+5

Yes, where is the moral compass? 100 dollars a year means little to those who hold millions in real estate, or even to someone making 50G a year. But to someone who makes 15G a year, it matters. It matters a lot.

As for the global warming argument, wait til you see the polution created when all your neighbors start burning their trash in a barrel or pit. I lived in a like area in PA 30 years ago, where the town stopped trash pickup. The thick black smoke was so acrid on Saturdays you'd think a crematory was on fire.

Authored by: Jamie on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:15 PM GMT+5

Anikkee you are right.

There needs to be a subsidy.

but again, It seems like the most viable option is PAYT. We can agree that reducing waste and increasing the recycling rate is a good thing?

If we offer a subsidy, it will affect only those who can afford it.

This is key.

and I like the the idea to increase recycling so that we have weekly pickup. definitely, to begin with.
In my opinion, those who can afford the bags are probably the people who produce the most waste!

so...I am a socialist.

Let those that can afford it, pay the additional fee...for the sake of the common good!


I like Tomaidh's example of what worked in NJ, but is that plausible here?

If it's a good idea, let's talk about it!!!

Authored by: annikee on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:24 PM GMT+5

As I said in the original post, we have nothing in place to make this work properly. Few plastics are recyclable. There is one single recycling site that you can drive to, if you have a car. Municipal recycling is planned to stay the same- every 2 weeks. There is no subsidy for the poor. The only thing that seems in place is the garbage bags- plastic themselves. PAYT's time has not come yet.

Authored by: Jamie on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:27 PM GMT+5

and your alternative plan for waste reduction is...

Authored by: annikee on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:37 PM GMT+5

Weekly garbage and recycling pickup. Expansion of recyclable materials, including a processing place for materials used elsewhere in manufacturing that the town can sell by weight. Several public compost pits around town, for every neighborhood. Once these things are in place, clear bags for trash, blue transparent for recyclables, fines for violation. Then we'll be ready for PAYT.

Authored by: Jamie on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:45 PM GMT+5

Anikkee,

You have some great ideas.

I want something that is going to stick.

Something that works.

Maybe we will need to scrap the current proposal.
Honestly, I don't know enough to make that judgment.

Will more people chime in please?

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:38 PM GMT+5

"This option has the most consensus."

Says who? Did you take a poll and how many people did you talk to or is this another most of my friends kinda thing.

Authored by: Jamie on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:40 PM GMT+5

Oh Spud...I think I'm falling in love.

can I get sued for saying that?

Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:42 PM GMT+5

Well until I see that date of birth and social security number your claims of affection mean nothing....:)

Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 08:36 PM GMT+5

"I'm not convinced that those that are opposing PAYT are not THEMSELVES self interested."

If this were about self-interest, I would love PAYT. We put trash out every three to five weeks, because we barely have any. Our lifestyle of eating whole foods, buying in bulk, using glass milk bottles, making our own yogurt, washing all bags and containers, eating no meat, composting all food waste, etc., etc., etc. is a luxury. There is a part of me that would LOVE to see other people have to pay for their wasteful lifestyle while I spend $10 a year on trash bags. But the rational part of me understands that my lifestyle requires more time, energy and money than most people have. I am happy to pay more taxes to subsidize other people's ability to recycle more before we try charging by the garbage bag for trash.

You have acknowledged that a lot of other things would need to be in place in order for PAYT to work well for our town. None of those things are on the agenda, and they will not be for the foreseeable future. So why still support it?

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: tiny on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 11:34 AM GMT+5

If weekly pick up was so important to people or expanding the types
of plastic to be recycled or pick up of compostable items or any other
enhancement to the trash program, how come nobody ever said
something? There are plenty of greenies here in Bratt and at this site,
why have not they stepped up? The POS folks like to tell us how to
live, why don't they have reps on the trash board?

You know what got people thinking, the threat of additional money.
Clearly an excellent motivator.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 11:56 AM GMT+5

Actually, people in the entire waste management district have been complaining about the narrow range of recyclables accepted, and the lack of colection facilities, for years. Maybe this is the first time some people have heard about it.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: annikee on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 02:18 PM GMT+5

Plenty have been saying all of it, but obviously you and the PTB haven't been listening.

Authored by: pjmelton on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 03:41 PM GMT+5

The solid waste committee has specifically said that there will not be weekly recycling, and that there will not be bag subsidies for low-income residents. They already knew that people wanted them, and they have said NO. Which is why I still feel the need to say NO to PAYT.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Stevil on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 04:03 PM GMT+5

Has anyone actually measured the amount of recyclable waste produced by the citizens of Brattleboro? I keep reading the "we can do better" argument, but compared to any other town our size, how do we measure up? And by the way, who’s doing the measuring?

See, what I don't get is why we are all in a rush (relatively speaking) to change a system of trash collection which has worked fairly well for many, many years. It's the recycling system which doesn't work. If the cause of recycling is such a part of your being, then why aren't you out there advocating for it, and educating people about it? I see no neighbor to neighbor policy. I don't see any weekly recyclables pick ups at designated spots around town. With all of the junk mail I get, from encouraging me to shop at a store which left town, to candidate platforms at election time, where is the deluge of recycling information? With so many people so dedicated to the cause, wouldn't it make sense that there would be at least one forum at one of our public spaces?

Tiny noted that it took motivated self-interest (i.e. Money) to get people to pay attention. Well, why not pay people to do more recycling? The more they turn in at a redemption centers, the more money they get. Kind of like turning in your soda cans and bottles at a supermarket. The less well to do will pick up a host of discarded recyclables and march right to the redemption center for the few extra bucks that might be squeezed out to help purcase food, gas, clothing, medicine, you know - things like that.

Of course, if this idea is to work, there must be a demand for recyclables from the industrial sector. Last I heard, they could no longer float a profit reclaiming paper, glass, and plastic for re-use.

When I walk around town, I rarely see discarded bottles or cans. I see no papers being whisked around by a breeze. Oh, I do see a mess on summer mornings at the Harmony lot. Why isn't someone trying to convince the kids to pick up after themselves and to recycle more?

I do see weekly trash pickups, with nothing left behind where collected trash had been. Unless you go to the dumpsters by the High School. Those are the ones where so much inappropriate trash is discarded (because it gets carried away cost free to the dumper) that the town installed cameras to nail the sons-of-bitches who put a broken chair there.

So, yeah, go ahead and change trash collection when it doesn't need it. Maybe we'll once again see abandoned cars on the sides of Mt. Wantastiquet. (If anybody cares, I know where at least one still hides in undergrowth.)

Oh, if only things were like they were in the 50's - clean streets, water that was drinkable, lakes one could swim in without catching a horrible disease, sledding down a big hill (closed to traffic) in snow, you know. When even the lower middle class had it good. Union jobs. Townwide pickup of trash - funded by taxes. Swimming and sledding for kids - just like it was before the insurance companies made it cost so much (coverage for when those maniacs sue you for a kid getting a splinter), that such niceties ceased to exist. Oh, remember public transportation?

What we have here in town are old fashioned systems meant for another era. Let's close it all down and try to make a profit on it.
By the way, who gets what kind of money for the purchase and re-sale/purchase of the new trash and recyclable bags? Have the insurance companies been sniffing around again?




---
"The rich should mind their charities and get off the backs of the poor" - a Bag Lady in Boston

Authored by: annikee on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 02:16 PM GMT+5

I have long wondered- the tipping fees are by weight, or by garbage bag? What if the amount of weight of the garbage exceeds the projected sales of bags and the tipping fees are higher?

Authored by: SteevL on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 01:21 PM GMT+5

Thanks for your input Laura. I am a new Town Meeting Member for District 3.

I support PAYT. It is unfortunate that some try to portray this as a good-vs.-evil choice; support and opposition does not seem to be breaking down along ideological or party lines, people have different reasons for their reactions.

I questioned Jesse Corum about the infrequency of recycling pick-up, and about the refusal of certain items (i.e. yogurt containers.) He said that the pickup frequency could increase if use increased, but our current recycling rate is low. That's one thing that could change after PAYT, depending on how residents use the service.

Also, as often as people mention items like yogurt containers, the studies show that these things only actually make up 1-2% of trash, much lower than cans, bottles, & cardboard for example. This, too, could change if people recycled enough of them to make it economically feasible for the Town to begin collecting them.

In short, Jesse Corum (with whom I usually disagree about most things) said to think of the recycling program as a work-in-progress, which can be adapted to changing conditions.

At present, if you recycle, you are subsidizing those who don't, and I don't think that's fair. Our recycling rate has gone DOWN over the years to under 20%, compared to 35% average for recycling towns - that's terrible for a place that likes to call itself 'green'! Clearly most people need a financial incentive to get into it. That includes lower-income people as well as others.

People tend to over-use a system they perceive as free, even though, of course, it's not free. If you pay for the amount of the service you use, people tend to use it more judiciously.

The Selectboard has struggled to flat-line the Town budget for this year, and one way they have been able to do it is shift the $338,000 tipping fee for garbage onto users of the system, through bag sales. Under PAYT the Town still pays over $500,000 per year to collect the trash in trucks. If we didn't go to PAYT, the $338,000 tipping fees would have to go back in the budget and into people's taxes (including renters).

I too was concerned about the incentive to dump garbage, and the impact on lower-income households. But there are many other communities where this has been adopted, and those fears have not been borne out. It's still easier to pay $1 for a bag of garbage than to drive somewhere and dump it and take the chance you won't get caught. In general PAYT has gone well. I don't think Brattleboro should be held back from taking this progressive step because of these fears. While there is a lot of grumbling and resistance now, I hope people will be happy afterwards, as they have been elsewhere.

-Steev Lynn

Authored by: annikee on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 02:04 PM GMT+5

Thank you for serving. I have, in the past.

Recycling and its use are only one part of the picture. As I have to keep repeating, this is unmanageable for the poor. Like the "Flat Tax" idea, it only serves the wealthy. There will be pollution in many forms if this passes. I have seen it happen.

As for Jesse's not-even-a-promise of further recycling, I don't believe it. If this goes thrru, the only thing that will increase regularly will be the price of the garbage bags.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 06:51 PM GMT+5

***only thing that will increase regularly will be the price of the garbage bags***
Well, I think that sums up the danger. This is just the beginning.

I don't think PAYT is a good idea, because I think that the purpose of government is to provide for the common. I also believe government should use the carrot rather than the stick in doing so.

I see someone has posted a link to the same old EPA PAYT bullshit that claims PAYT works wonderfully in every community, there are no problems, and if you have PAYT it will rain unicorns and leprechauns.
Don't forget, the EPA has been run by Republicans (and Republican lite) for the last 30 years. Is it any surprise that they recommend a solution that burdens the poor, rewards the rich, favors the privatization of public services, and calls their phony cost shift a "savings?" It's classic Reaganomics!

But even if you like the idea of PAYT generally, there are some serious problems with the selectboard's proposal that should give you pause.

The first problem is need. The selectboard has announced that Bratt residents don't recycle enough, but they haven't shown full data, just thrown out a few half-truths that support their desire to have PAYT. Moreover, they don't appear to have considered any relationship between this perceived problem and the lack of recycling facilities and recycling pickup, or the relatively small amount of recyclable material accepted in the district. For all they know, Bratt residents are recycling as much as possible under its severely limited recycling program.

The second problem is cost. We know there is no savings offered here - the town has admitted as much. This is a cost shift, out of the town budget and onto the backs of renters and those with lower incomes. I have to laugh at the people who say they're PAYT proponents, but they don't think it should impact people with low incomes. Let's be real clear here: The only proposal up for discussion is one that will benefit people with high-end properties and business, and will impact those with the least the most. There is no "subsidy" up for discussion. In fact, the complaint by some on the selectboard is that the current system subsidizes lower income property owners and renters.
Is this really a good time to increase the burden on people who are already struggling? Some seem to think so.

The third problem that has gone unaddressed is illegal dumping. I agree with one person that it's probably not, in itself, a reason to vote against PAYT. But it will happen, and what is the town's plan for dealing with it? Their plan is to believe that it's not a problem in other communities with PAYT!! (It is, as a quick call to a couple selectboards would quickly show.)
And it's not just people throwing bags of trash (I've even seen old appliances) over the bank on back roads. You wouldn't believe the things people will do. You'll have all kinds of things stuffed in the recycling bins. Everything from yogurt cups to, and I am not making this up, car parts and furniture.

The last problem is the arrogance of the whole process. Last year, Town Meeting representatives refused to approve PAYT, and asked the selectboard to try to increase recycling through education, to comeback with a better proposal, more fully fleshed-out, with answers to their many questions. Instead, the selectboard has made no attempt to increase recycling, has not offered any education, has come back with the SAME PAYT plan, still without the answers representatives asked for.
This time, however, Dick DeGray says Town Meeting representatives are irrelevant, and he'll implement PAYT whether you like it or not.

Bratt doesn't need PAYT. If Brattleboro can't think of a way to reduce waste and increase recycling without imposing a huge penalty on those with lower incomes and giving those who consume more a big tax break, then maybe trash is one of the last things you need to be worrying about.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: annikee on Tuesday, March 16 2010 @ 07:19 AM GMT+5

Thanks for some critical thinking! Sadly lacking in our town government most of the time. Either that or they think we're idiots who'll believe anything they say.

Authored by: pjmelton on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 03:20 PM GMT+5

"He said that the pickup frequency could increase if use increased, but our current recycling rate is low."

Somebody get that man a copy of Catch-22!

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Jamie on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 03:37 PM GMT+5

Synchronicity PJ!!!

I am reading Cats Cradle...Kurt Vonnegut, jr

It's an old book, a classic.

so, on the front it says "the most imaginative novel since Catch 22.

weird

non-sequiters aside Pj,


get on board.

What is your major malfunction ;)

lol...

Authored by: Stevil on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 05:35 PM GMT+5

Dear Steev Lynn,

While there are several things in your post which provide interesting points for discussion, the one thing that truly inspires me is this:

(quote) At present, if you recycle, you are subsidizing those who don't, and I don't think that's fair. (end quote)

One of the attractive things about a town the size of Brattleboro, is that its citizens banded together to provide services. We pay for those services thru state taxes (and get a return from the state), local taxes, and prepared food surcharges. There are also grants and federal tax monies involved. People move from places like Brookline or Newfane to Brattleboro for the availability of goods, and for services.

The citizens of years past defined their needs, and decided what the people of the town could do to service those needs. The services which resulted, and the sharing of the costs, were based on the ideals people used to have. Times have changed, and that system is antiquated.

I do not drink town water. I purchase water to drink, sending money out of the area. I do use town water for showers and cleaning dishes, and am willing to pay for that. I do not think it fair that a portion of my taxes goes to support someone else's drinking water. I want that portion of my money back.

I do not use the services of the police department, aside from the general deterrence to crime they provide. I do not approve of town covering part of the cost of the police department thru onerous ticketing of people who park in a spot without paying. I pay for my parking to avoid those tickets. Why should my good behavior be taxed to keep the police available for ticketing those other people? I want a part of my tax monies back.

Furthermore, I do not approve of spending my tax dollars to keep open a free public library. I have purchased many of the books I need (paying the sales tax without complaint). Why should I pay for the rest of the town - as well as people from towns nearby - simply so they can have access to information? I pay a hefty sum for broadband internet, where I am able to read newspapers and magazines for free. Why should my taxes be used to provide both the internet and the papers, magazines, and books for others? Such duplication of resources is costly and exhibits poor planning. Why should I subsidize this? I want a portion of my taxes back.

I am single and do not have children. Why should I pay for costly schools, their independent on-site libraries, their teachers who only work 9 months out of the year, the costly insurance in case someone else's little brat gets hurt, school bus drivers which go where I need to go but will not stop to pick me up - why should I pay for these things I never get to use? I don't think that's fair. I want a huge portion of my taxes back so I don't have to subsidize the poor choices of others who have children they can't afford.

The apartment building in which I reside has its own trash and garbage removal. Why should I pay attention to this discussion? It doesn't affect me - unless a portion of my taxes goes to subsidize people who collect and hoard trash and garbage, and who depend on the town to provide services I pay for which are included in my rent? It's not fair. I want that portion of my taxes back.

In fact, through my research on the internet, I have discovered that part of the idea of a social contract is that I give my consent to be governed. What? When I don't need, want or approve? I certainly never gave my consent. Who else out there didn't give theirs? Can we get the town to fund a study to investigate this???

Yours, ever so appreciatively,
Stevil


---
"The rich should mind their charities and get off the backs of the poor" - a Bag Lady in Boston

Authored by: cgrotke on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 09:19 PM GMT+5

This story was referred to in a story in The Times Argus, fyi.

I think the best way to help everyone recycle more is to switch the regular pickup with recycling, so that we get twice as many recycling pickups as garbage pickups. That would encourage people, at no extra expense, to put more into recycling to get more out of the house.

Right now, recycling is operating with a proverbial hand tied behind its back. It's easy for some to forget which week is for recycling and get off schedule. It's easier for some to favor the trash, because it gets picked up more often.

If we really embrace recycling in town by increasing pickups and the types of materials accepted, and things still don't change, we can consider PAYT. Until then, I think we have many other steps we can undertake to help people reduce waste and increase recycling.

Authored by: annikee on Monday, April 26 2010 @ 11:14 AM GMT+5

I just read back thru this thread, while we await the unnecessary court decision.

Chris' suggestion of making recycling every week and garbage every other, is a bright idea. It would bring a sea change in focus. If that is the real altruist goal behind the PAYT advocates, why not do that?

The use of Turd Blossoms in politics is starting to irk me.

Authored by: SJD on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 07:52 PM GMT+5

For what it's worth... you decided to purchase the initial goods that "you" made into trash, right, don't you think you have an obligation to take care of your own mess in a responsible legal manner. Why should your actions, or lack of action, be mandated my problem?



---
Don't tell Obama What Comes After a Trillion.

Authored by: Jamie on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 08:30 PM GMT+5

A major obstacle to constructive debate on this issue is
that we cannot agree on the facts.

The facts are as follows:

Towns that implement a PAYT system experience,

a reduction in waste

an increase in recycling

a decrease in the cost of trash disposal.

period.

exclamation point.

It has also been noted in several case studies that
fears of widespread illegal dumping have proven to be unfounded.

This is not propaganda folks, there are hard stats to
back up my claim.

I encourage those of you who are thoughtful, to indulge in the facts.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 07:18 AM GMT+5

I would encourage the same, although I would encourage the truly thoughtful to indulge in facts that are relevant to Brattleboro and the reality that is at hand, not generalites that even the EPA PAYT propaganda Web site is careful to say are not experienced in every case, or through any implementation process.

If anyone has facts relevant to Brattleboro, it would be great if they would post them, or post a link to them.

---
Slán abhaile

Authored by: Jamie on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 07:27 AM GMT+5

Maus,

In the immortal words of David Byrne:

"you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything"

If you have been following the debate and exploring the links provided, you will see for yourself the mountains of REAL stats from REAL towns that have implemented PAYT with good results...and yes, they are comparable.

Do you really care one way or another, or do you just like to hear yourself talk?


on the other hand, maybe you're right Maus: maybe the EPA is an insidious instrument of the vast right wing conspiracy. What were you saying about unicorns and leprechauns..lol

Authored by: annikee on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 08:33 AM GMT+5

Jamie,
Now who's descended into name-calling and mocking?

I contend that "other places" had better alternatives and resources in place than we have. I've also lived in several places that have insitituted alternate trash systems.And watched them crash and burn. Literally burn. PAYT is not suitable for Brattleboro right now.

Have you ever heard the saying, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"? Stats can be manipulated to prove whatever one wants to prove. I prefer to live in the real world.

Authored by: Jamie on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 09:21 AM GMT+5

Well I wouldn't exactly call it name calling.

We certainly see a lot of that though, don't we ;

I look at it as "calling someone out" on something.

anyway,

I do apologize :)

I like for my part to keep the discourse civil.

I also like to tease..good natured ribbing.

That's why I use emoticons so often: to try to convey what is sometimes lost though this impersonal medium of communication.

so...much respect to you, to Maus, PJ, Spud and everyone else..even Mr Mike ;)

The moral quandry I have with this issue, which you have pointed out, is that there are some in this town who will really experience hardship because of the extra cost. I really feel for these people. The quandry, as an astute observer remarked is, if the poor are also not motivated to recycle and reduce waste... in this case through a financial motivation
What is their incentive?

Do you see my position?

Jamie

Authored by: Jamie on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 09:24 AM GMT+5

oh another thing,

speaking of the real world.

I am.

Brattleboro,VT

This is the most viable option RIGHT NOW for BRATLEBORO to make a difference.

Believe me I have no interest in abstractions or manipulating statistics.

My interest is in results

respectfully yours,
Jamie

Authored by: annikee on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 09:30 AM GMT+5

My interest is also results, Jamie. Results that are sustainable, able to be built on, able to grow and not put hardship on those least sble to do it, and will therefore say, "F&$k it". This plan has not been thought thru, it's just a bandaid. Nothing has been added from last year's version, except setting the price of the plastic bags.

Wouldn't it be great to have a system that may, in 10 ytars' time, almost eliminate waste? That's what I'm talking about.

Authored by: Jamie on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 09:42 AM GMT+5

well I guess this is going to have be one of those "agree to disagree" things

oh..and a shout out to Buddy: Although I may not agree with you sometimes, I enjoy your thoughtful posts :)

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 10:16 AM GMT+5

Thanks Jamie. I probably need a Buddy Blog or something, so I can post
my long-winded, history-packed er, discussions. Then I can sit back and
watch the replies come stomping in. After they take their shoes off at
the door of course.

Authored by: Jamie on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 10:56 AM GMT+5

Let us know :)

I'd check it out.

I promise to be on my best behavior ;0

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 11:27 AM GMT+5

Jamie,
I'm sorry if that sounded like an attack. One of the things that's missing in all of the debate over this Brattleboro Town Meeting issue is actual local information upon which voters, or in this case representatives, can make their own fact-based decisions.

One of the things the EPA Web site says that I certainly agree with is that any PAYT plan must be developed through a process of careful consideration and planning. Perhaps if that could be principle was followed, and if the public was brought into the process, the proposal might make more sense.

But before people can accept any of the generalities you mention as "fact" in the current debate, they have to be made relevant to the situation at hand. We all understand that, for example, if all PAYT communities see an average increase in recycling of 15%, that means some communities may see a 50% increase in recycling, while others may see a 2% increase.

In order for the claimed increase to be relevant to the current debate, there has to be some kind of projection of what Brattleboro can expect, based on Brattleboro's unique factors. Is Brattleboro a 2% town, a 15% town, or a 50% town? The same goes for cost "reduction," trash reduction, unicorns, leprechauns, and any of the other claims. Without relating them to Brattleboro, they're, well, irrelevant.

It's hard to make a cogent argument for, or against, PAYT without the ability to evaluate the effect on this community.

---
Slán abhaile

Authored by: Jamie on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 11:49 AM GMT+5

Good stuff Maus, thanks :)

You make some great points!

I think the fact that other communties have successfully implemented this program with great results is VERY relevant. This is what the current plan is based on.

You are correct, it's hard to make completely accurate predictions with the small amount of local data that is available.

We are reinventing the wheel. I think that's the metaphor I want.

"Reinventing the wheel is a phrase that means to duplicate a basic method that has already previously been created or optimized by others"

Jamie

Authored by: Jamie on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 11:52 AM GMT+5

...of course I understand the true meaning of the phrase "reinventing the wheel", but I like turning the meaning of the phrase on it's head ;)

Authored by: annikee on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 01:25 PM GMT+5

My problem with the plan is that it isn't a plan. It's just a cost switch.

Yeah, this is one of those things that we'll just not agree on.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 09:37 AM GMT+5

"For what it's worth... you decided to purchase the initial goods that
'you' made into trash, right, don't you think you have an obligation to
take care of your own mess in a responsible legal manner. Why should
your actions, or lack of action, be mandated my problem?"

SJD, what if instead of trash, we applied your logic to say, municipal
water supply? If a town has a finite supply of fresh water, but a
wealthier person lives upstream and can tap that finite supply, dam it
up and take more because he owns the land upstream, is this ethical?
After all, it's HIS land and HE can do whatever he wants with it, right?
Or is there some communal interest in making sure that everyone has
enough water to use in the town? In that case, the water running
through the upstream wealthy landowner's land isn't all HIS, even if
he could potentially dam it up and keep it for himself, because there
is a public need for this water. Therefore, following this logic, the
water supply is a PUBLIC GOOD, and must by a public law be shared
with the town; one streamside landowner cannot gobble up all the
water. This is how community resources are shared for the public
good. Everyone in the town has to pay a tax to allow equal access to
a percentage of the public water supply, distributed via public utility
water mains, purified via a public water system, and stored in a public
reservoir for cleaner supply.

With trash disposal, you can apply the same principle of public utility
rather than private ownership. Each person in the town pays a tax so
that their garbage can be collected, their recycling can be picked up,
and processing of the recycling and trash can be done responsibly by a
public utility, rather than dumped by individuals all over the
landscape, in an anarchy of everyone for himself. When you pool the
resources of many (the community) you can get reduced rates,
whereas if you make each person pay on their own, it's more
expensive, like the current health care mess we are in where there is
no public health coverage for all.

Since man formed the first communities around agricultural crop
storage, we've had to develop shared systems and laws under some
form of government, to manage utilities: water, defense,
communications systems, and today such things as broadband internet
access, which will have to be available to all under public utility, just
as electricity was done under FDR, if we want to be the richest, most
competitive nation for much longer. The Romans knew how important
it was to have public water supplies, public municipal trash removal,
public roads----all supported by a tax that citizens paid---for the price
of membership in the civitas, or 'civil society'. Those who didn't want
these benefits of civil society were free to leave, to live as
'barbarians' on the frontier.

I think Brattleboronians need to think more like one town with shared
resources, rather than as barbarians, paying for everything on their
own and not pooling together for utilities.

Authored by: pjmelton on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 01:52 PM GMT+5

I think there is something to be said for taking responsibility for one's own trash. This is very different from using too much water.

The problem is that - here in the real world - there is not really as much choice in this matter as some people seem to believe. For example, if you don't have a lot of money, you are going to buy the cheapest food that is on sale and you have coupons for, etc. That food is highly processed and involves a lot of packaging. If you don't have a lot of money, you are going to buy your clothes and all other goods used or you're going to buy them really cheap, and that means you will make more trash. If you don't have a lot of money, you are not going to have the option of storing a lot of recycling or burying your food scraps in your yard - because you don't have space, and you may not have a yard.

So, yes, some responsibility for your own trash. But make it easier to recycle and compost first. Because if you do PAYT first, there will be zero pressure on the system to make these other, more environmentally friendly, things happen. There will only be pressure on the system to raise the cost of bags.

---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR

Authored by: Jamie on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 02:26 PM GMT+5

I don't know PJ, your lifestyle doesn't seem so extravagant. I bow down to your ability and commitment to reduce your waste stream. I am inspired by your example :)

http://www.ibrattleboro.com/comment.php?mode=view&cid=80433

None of the things you mentioned in the above link seem to cost much money...correct me if I'm wrong.

Choices my friend, we all make choices.

Let's stop approaching "the poor" with kid gloves, and give them the respect they deserve!

Everyone, regardless of class can make good choices :)

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 05:38 PM GMT+5

"I think there is something to be said for taking responsibility for
one's own trash. This is very different from using too much water."

Unless you have a water shortage, and individual water usage
(watering a lawn, washing a car, etc.) becomes an issue.

I think trash falls under a municipal problem, not an individual
problem, EXCEPT in educating people not to throw away recyclables.
Having recycling every week rather than every other week might be a
partial solution, but just as educating folks about not wasting water
and electricity is important, so is education about trash and recycling
important.

The bottom line is, trash removal is a community, NOT an individual
problem.

Authored by: Jamie on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 06:32 PM GMT+5

Here are few PAYT stats for you:

I swear I didn't manipulate them

and...cue the maniacal laughter

---

ASHLAND, MA (first year results)


Trash decreased 38%

recycling increased 98%

and last but not least, Ashland saved $139,000.00 in disposal costs.


HAMILTON,MA (first 6 months result)

Trash decreased 35%

recycling increased 24%

Hamilton saved over $36,000.00 in the first 6 months of implementing PAYT


WRENTHAM, MA (first year results)

Trash decreased 33%

recycling increased 25%

trash disposal cost savings: $133,803.00


So Buddy,

What sort of results do you expect from recycling education and weekly recycling pickup?

Look back at my original article on the subject of PAYT

Do you remember the title?

think about it Bud

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 09:42 PM GMT+5

"cue the maniacal laughter"?

How about if instead we just the debate, so I don't get this awful
image of the old National LAMPOON cover from the seventies that
featured Dick Nixon laughing, with the caption, "Why is this man
laughing?"

Now, about your list of towns, dollars saved, and recycling that you
say was stepped up:

1. How much was saved in dollars by individual households, and
especially by renters (the little guys and not the big firms)? Because I
would like to know how adding a small amount to everyone's taxes is
impossible to do at a lower rate than charging people for bags and by
weight?

2. Was the "savings" in money calculated in taxes reduced, or did the
statistics leave out the hidden higher costs to individuals (not large
firms) for their new 'pay for each scrap of trash you throw' system?

3. How much trash do these towns have dumped on roadways, in
ditches, and burned in the vicinity now, that didn't happen before
people got nickled and dimed into paying for every item of trash they
had to get rid of?

Authored by: Jamie on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 06:29 AM GMT+5

What do you mean cheap shots?

I'm cornfused?

:)

Humour Bud:

it's a convention we humans employ once in a while
to lighten the mood :)

The maniacal bit was my (obviously) failed attempt
at being funny.

There was a point made by an earlier poster that statistics can be manipulated to say anything you want them to say. We are all aware of this, and no, I'm not trying to manipulate any statistics.

you dig?

My goal was/is/has been to provide stats, facts and opinion for you, Maus, and whomever else has an interest in the issues, to consider.

In regard to Global warming,
I'm just saying...

so, I have provided the facts.

I could seek out the minutae, I could provide additional links (which have already been provided) to satisfy all your questions. I could argue this ad naseum, but I'll rest my case.

My concern is that many have already made up their mind.

My opinion is that if I produced a Unicorn, there are many who would still say, "I don't believe in Unicorns"

I don't know what else to do.

Peace

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 08:00 AM GMT+5

The point is, those statistics don't show all of the details. I should "hang
up the phone" now and do some research on those towns, maybe even
ask some of the residents what they think.

I remain skeptical of PAYT, as it sounds like a padded shift in taxes away
from the wealthier sector and onto the backs of the poor (renters) and
small homeowners. I also worry about individuals taking trash and
dumping and/or burning it, to 'save money'.

Authored by: SJD on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 10:52 PM GMT+5

Why is the guy living upstream always wealthy, or the black-hat in your fictions? Gosh I personally hope he starts bottling water.

I understand your lecture, however the principle remains the same, we all have responsibilities. Our continued march toward total dependency on and for everything will eventually destroy not only the human spirit but the ability to pay the tax's you so love.

My only compassion is for your carpal tunnel pain.

---
Don't tell Obama What Comes After a Trillion.

Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 08:05 AM GMT+5

"Why is the guy living upstream always wealthy, or the black-hat in
your fictions? Gosh I personally hope he starts bottling water."

Oh, I don't know...Maybe because the upstream analogy is a CLASSIC
ECON 101 Lecture taught everywhere from Kellogg Business School to
East Podunk University?

The point of my argument is that collectively people can do much
more than in an anarchy. Read how Alexander the Great conquered
most of the civilized world by using concentrated forces, also how
Chicago, working as a strong municipality, was able to redirect the
flow of a river, and you'll begin to understand. Everyone roaming
around for themselves, reinventing the wheel every time they have to
solve a communal problem is primitive anarchy.