Authored by: Jamie on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 01:22 PM GMT+5
I read that section, and I couldn't agree more.
It is unfortunate that the case has been "presented" in the way that it has. There is a strong argument for PAYT that I think a lot of Brattleboro folks would agree with if it was presented with a little more consideration and finesse.
Barbara,
I don't think Brattleboro and Boston are comparable. I do agree however that there will be bumps along the way that will take time to smooth out. The end result is worth the effort.
Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 02:37 PM GMT+5
The case has been "presented" the way a police officer might "present" a billy club to the neck of a rowdy citizen.
My feeling about it is: try weekly recycling, along with a sort of "final warning" public education campaign first. I bet you tipping fees will plummet, thus taking care of the extra fees for weekly recycling pickup.
If that doesn't happen after nine months, then go with PAYT. It makes me sick that the town is pretending to address the issue of recycling with PAYT, when the way to address the issue of recycling is with a BETTER RECYCLING PROGRAM. This is not rocket science. And it doesn't take rocket science to realize that the town does not actually give a crap about recycling rates; they are just using it as an excuse to make it seem like they're not raising our property taxes.
If I were actually rewarded with lower property taxes because I make less garbage than other people, I might have a selfish interest in this. But i'm not an idiot. I know very well that my taxes are not going to go down, ever. They are not even going to stay the same. Taxes only ever go up.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: Jamie on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 02:53 PM GMT+5
PJ, we agree on the "presentation" issue, but I
disagree with your strategy. It's not realistic considering the dynamics and players involved here. My original contention stands: PAYT is a proven and effective tool for increasing recycling and reducing waste.
Authored by: babalu on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 01:10 PM GMT+5
My judgment clouded by POLITICS?
Ask the city of Boston why they are hoping to install cameras throughout the city at 6 thousand dollars apiece to help combat illegal dumping, which they say is a direct result of PAYT in outlying areas.
There are countless ways to publish propaganda but the truth lies within the bottom line for places like Boston who are dealing with the result of cost shifting.
The cost actually rises with PAYT regardless of who writes the checks - or maybe I'm not as good with math as I think I am - and along with that is the simple fact that there exists only a cursory attempt at recycling in this town which with PAYT will be the beginning of the end of any attempt (or motive for the town as a whole) to seriously address the ways in which recycling efforts can grow rather than diminish.
It's about the conservation of all resources, including money.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 01:53 PM GMT+5
From your post Jaimie:
"PAYT is an effective tool for communities struggling to cope with soaring municipal solid waste management expenses. Well-designed programs generate the revenues communities need to cover their solid waste costs, including the costs of such complementary programs as recycling and composting. Residents benefit, too, because they have the opportunity to take control of their trash bills."
Well my solid waste management expenses are going to probably go up quite a bit because this doesn't seem to be a well-designed program at all. As i've said before, double the portion of my taxes that go to waste management and it'll still cost me less than PAYT (I do recycle for your information).
Perhaps if there were more clear concise information out there about what the plan is and how much it will cost and procedures for taking care of the plan the reception would be different but at this time I haven't seen anything coming out of the SB that spells out how this will work for residents at all. I really don't need an opportunity to take control of my trash bills thank you, I'm perfectly happy with the way I'm doing it now. There are far too many unclear areas as this has been proposed at this point for it to be fair, especially in an economic climate where many are hard-strapped as it is.
Do you own or rent Jaimie?
Do you live alone or with others?
How many friends do you have?
Saying you and all your friends
just reminds me of the SB saying that xx% of respondents feel this or that....
it means nothing unless we know how many resondents there are
or for that matter how many friends you have.
Not everyone is in the same situation here and this should be weighed as to how it will affect all residents of the town and I say that as someone who can do PAYT but my concern is that it's not even clear what the cost of a g**#(__@*#* bag will be at this point.
If this were a well managed plan you'd think they'd at least have nailed down the price of bags, as I understand it's still uncertain.
(or is $2 now, or is that a figure they've just thrown out as in around $2)
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 01:58 PM GMT+5
Oh I see now they've apparently nailed down the $2 per bag. Excuuuuse me.
My theory is that a lot of residents are pretty in the dark about this and the you know what is going to hit the garbage can if this gets passed
Authored by: Jamie on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 02:11 PM GMT+5
Would you like my social security #, date of birth and a link to my facebook account as well Spud? :)
The emphasis in my post is on environmental responsibility.
I also want to emphasize the link that PJ so kindly offered regarding building consensus.
My personal feeling is that whatever savings can be had by implementing PAYT, could be used to help provide bags for those who cannot afford the additional expense.
I support PAYT in general, but as you wisely point out, the particulars need further elucidiation and discussion.
Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 02:41 PM GMT+5
"My personal feeling is that whatever savings can be had by implementing PAYT, could be used to help provide bags for those who cannot afford the additional expense."
Actually, the waste management folks made it pretty clear recently that subsidizing low-income folks would cancel out the fiscal advantages of the program. The Selectboard feels renters should not get a "free ride," and that is part of why they have been drooling over this idea since the libertarians took office. They don't seem to realize that renters pay property taxes too.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: pjmelton on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:11 PM GMT+5
Well, we are in agreement that PAYT sounds good in the abstract but that the program being proposed is as stinky as a dumpster full of poopy diapers on a 100-degree day.
So, I'm a little confused about why you say you "strongly support PAYT" in your original post. Perhaps mistakenly, I took that to mean you support town meeting reps voting for the budget that's on the agenda for tomorrow, but everything else you've said would point logically in the other direction.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:45 PM GMT+5
I believe that their official comment was actually that those who are concerned about anyone who would have trouble buying $2 garbage bags could feel free to donate extras to the Drop In Center.
It's the Let Them Eat Cake approach to trash collection.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:47 PM GMT+5
I believe that their official comment was actually that those who are concerned about anyone who would have trouble buying $2 garbage bags could feel free to donate extras to the Drop In Center.
It's the Let Them Eat Cake approach to trash collection.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:48 PM GMT+5
I believe that their official comment was actually that those who are concerned about anyone who would have trouble buying $2 garbage bags could feel free to donate extras to the Drop In Center.
It's the Let Them Eat Cake approach to trash collection.
Authored by: SpudHill on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 06:49 PM GMT+5
HEh what's going on here???????
This is supposed to be in response to Melton's comment about the SB not wanting to subsidize renters etc. etc. about 3 posts above my multiple posts.
Authored by: annikee on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 04:26 PM GMT+5
My view of PAYT is from its immorality and its impracticality. It's great when things are in place, perhaps, and there are ways for those who can't afford it to keep up payingfor it. But it's a "champagne taste on a beer wallet" proposition. And all my friends are against it.
Authored by: mr.mike on Friday, March 12 2010 @ 10:09 PM GMT+5
I've been waiting for someone to approach this from the environmental angle.
First, I will say that I disagree with PAYT. But only from a constitutional issue. I don't think the government should be in the trash business. YOU buy it. YOU throw it away. Let people get rid of their own trash. The town's role would only be to enforce trash build up on people's property. Fines for trash not being disposed of.
Having said that, I'm surprised that many in Brattleboro,Fish included, would not look at this from the "tax the wealthy" and environmental angle. Part of the problem is the cost of trash hauling and disposal due to the amount or "tipping fees". By reducing the amount we lower the cost and save the earth at the same time. The wealthy will buy more bags because they will generate more trash due to consumerism.
Also you folks need to look at it from the Socialist standpoint in that EVERYONE needs to contribute to the good of society by buying these trash bags. I don't get it, normally this is the kind of policy that liberals,especially those in Brattleboro, would embrace with great enthusiasm. What's a couple of bucks a week? It's less than a pack of smokes. Less than a six pack. A coffee at Mocha Joe's is probably about 2 bucks. Isn't the environment worth it?
---
Wasn't Calvin Coolidge from Vermont? Boy you'd never know it looking at Vermont today.
Authored by: pjmelton on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 07:45 AM GMT+5
Mike, these are good questions.
I was actually a PAYT supporter originally, but the implementation is the problem. Unless they go to weekly recycling, this is just a penalty for people who don't have storage space. And in general, the people with less storage space are people who have less money.
So it's more complicated than PAYT just automatically being good for the environment. That isn't true unless more recycling actually happens rather than people continuing to shell out for more bags.
If the environment were really the point here, we would already HAVE weekly recycling pick-up. In reality, the town is trying to push through a regressive tax under the guise of environmental responsibility. Leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
And what happens if they don't get the revenue they wanted from PAYT? Do you think they will THEN start listening to real environmentalists who demand weekly recycling? No, they will only raise the price of the bags. I would much rather pay higher property taxes so everyone can have weekly recycling. Once we have that, then I could support PAYT if it's still needed as an incentive.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR
Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 08:51 AM GMT+5
There are a couple of interesting letters in today's Reformer regarding PAYT. Barb Sontag writes that she objects to recent claims that PAYT was rejected overwhelmingly citing that the vote was 54 to 78, therefore 41% voted for PAYT. Well yes, perhaps overwhelming is an overstatement but it was hardly a squeaker was it...
Then she goes on to say
"The minutes of the last year’s Town Meeting state that "it was the general sentiment of the meeting that with further discussion and additional measures in place, the meeting would be receptive to taking up the issue at a future meeting.""
But that's hardly what's being done here. Receptive to taking up the issue is a far different thing than putting the item in the budget so that the budget will either be voted on with PAYT going through or voted down. Isn't that what's happening here. I think this is their problem, it would be one thing to take up the issue now again with more information, it's quite another to just put it in the budget as a foregone conclusion. And that's probably why there are so many misgivings.
She also states that letters answering questions raised last year will be sent to the SB members and that there is an article coming in the Reformer...if the letter that was linked here is an indication I didn't find it all that informative or even clear and iike Melton that is my concern. I don't see that it's all that obvious that this is a plan that has been thoroughly thought out and ready for implementation. I think it's going to be a big "stinkin" mess but heh maybe I'm wrong.
However that doesn't change the fact that putting it into the budget is the same thing as further discussion.
Authored by: SpudHill on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 08:53 AM GMT+5
And of course my last paragraph should read
However that doesn't change the fact that putting it into the budget ISN'T the same thing as further discussion.
Authored by: annikee on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 02:13 PM GMT+5
"It's less than a pack of smokes. Less than a six pack. A coffee at Mocha Joe's is probably about 2 bucks"
Yes, and I can't afford any of those things anymore, either. Those are also all luxury items. Trash isn't a luxury.
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 04:46 PM GMT+5
"First, I will say that I disagree with PAYT. But only from a
constitutional issue. I don't think the government should be in the
trash business. YOU buy it. YOU throw it away. Let people get rid of
their own trash. The town's role would only be to enforce trash build
up on people's property. Fines for trash not being disposed of."
This is not just a "government" issue. This is more akin to saying:
Do we want trash, like municipal water and sewer and public road
maintenance, to be treated like a utility, supported with public
taxation, or as an "everyman for himself" issue. The "government"
you rail against, mr mike, is the town, not federal or even state
government, so I don't see what you could be complaining about.
"Having said that, I'm surprised that many in Brattleboro,Fish
included, would not look at this from the "tax the wealthy" and
environmental angle. Part of the problem is the cost of trash hauling
and disposal due to the amount or "tipping fees". By reducing the
amount we lower the cost and save the earth at the same time. The
wealthy will buy more bags because they will generate more trash due
to consumerism."
The wealthy or large businesses actually get to pay LESS under the
PAYT system, because the cost burden comes out higher for the
individual than if we raised taxes for everyone proportionately to
cover the cost.
Authored by: Jamie on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 11:36 AM GMT+5
I have heard a lot of great ideas expressed on this site: Closing down VY, building a skate park, preserving an historic reservoir, to name just a few.
The median household income in Brattleboro is $32,000.
How folks, are we going to pay for all these great ideas?
Please...let's come down to earth and make the hard choices, and sacrifices me must make. We can't have it all. Moral posturing is not constructive.
Numbers, we need to think numbers...and priorities.
Thank you Brattleboro select board for your efforts at trying to balance the needs of our community with so few resources to work with.
I continue my support of PAYT in the effort to balance our ideals, our priorities and our checkbooks.
I urge the select board to include a safety net for the most vulnerable in our community in transitioning to PAYT.
I'm not sure about weekly recycling pickup. I wonder about the cost, but what about more recycling stations around town? again, cost?
Wait a minute----I'm really trying to be non-biased here Jamie
Authored by: Mr. Buddy Love on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 02:05 PM GMT+5
Jamie,
I'd probably be one of the first to tell you that, once VTYankee is shut
down, Brattleboro will suffer some economic decline, because there is
currently no real industrial or large commercial infrastructure to
replace those lost dollars that are pumped into the area by VY: it's
employees, who purchase goods and services, and the trust monies
that VY spends on. Even if the decommissioning lasts for a few years,
that will help a bit, but it still means an industry is leaving ultimately
from the area. I'm not putting a value judgement on whether to keep
VY open or not, just looking at the economics honestly here. It looks
like the plant will probably close, if you read between the lines of the
recent purchase agreement VT's state legislature just made to buy
more power from Hydro-Quebec.
That being said, even if VT Yankee closes, Brattleboro needs to
maintain it's utility and service infrastructure: police, roads, water and
sewer, etc. Trash and recycling will still have to be taken care of, and
PAYT won't save the average income earner any money; rather it will
cast MORE for the average wage earner in town to dispose of his/her
trash under PAYT, because a modest tax increase to cover costs pales
in comparison (for the small individual trash thrower) to having to
drive to and purchase individual bags and pay for each trash throw,
rather than pool the tax money (like health care which is cheaper
when paid for by a giant pool of payers as Obama rightly points out).
If I were in charge of Brattleboro or had influence, I'd tighten some
expenditures for public goods, but keep trash pick up the way it is,
just raise the tax figure by a couple of dollars per year per
homeowner, a bit more per business, which generates vastly more
trash per unit. I would work like mad to encourage other businesses
into town, with a marketing campaign and possibly an appeal for high
tech green business along the Putney Road corridor, at a reduced rate
for space. I'd also work to get high speed rail in the East Corridor
(through our representatives to Congress) and try to get a new rail
terminal built downtown. Around this rail terminal, I'd encourage more
vertical living spaces be built, such as what is planned to go in over
the new COOP, putting housing close to retail downtown. I've seen
firsthand how doing this around Washington, D.C.'s METRO stations
has been extremely successful commercially, a real money-maker for
retail and landlords who bought up space around the metro stations.
Even with all this, I'm afraid Brattleboro is due for some decline in the
short run, as VT Yankee closes, and it will take some time for the
town to recover the economic loss. But in the long range, I see a
bright future for Brattleboro as a rail hub and as a smart growth area,
once it gets past the slump of VT Yankee and also past the slump of
aging baby boomers, who will put a strain for a few years on the
infrastructure (until many of them die off). Nursing and old age care
will be a booming business in Vermont in the next decades because of
the aging boomers. This could also cost taxpayers a bit of money, and
therefore the sooner we get health care passed, the sooner we can
move in future administrations to amend it so that it later includes a
public option, which will make old age care costs go down a bit. Still,
old age costs are going to soar, no matter how you slice it.
Authored by: KM on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 02:59 PM GMT+5
Economically, PAYT will cost many a lot more (those who can least afford it), many others a little bit more and a smaller group a little to a lot less. As far as economic impact to the residents, this should be defeated. You have correctly noted a need for us to view this from the environmental responsibility perspective. The Town/WSWD is limiting what we can recylce, collecting only every other week, very limited recycling drop off locations, nearly non existent public composting and minimal outreach to supply personal composting bins. I would fully support increasing costs to incorporate these elements in with real education. Propaganda is NOT education. That letter that was sent out was one of the most insulting pieces of junk mail to ever be delivered to my home.
Authored by: SteevL on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 02:23 PM GMT+5
I think it's a shame that this issue has been bent by ideologues into a weapon of class warfare. That's not what it should be at all.
Human beings respond to incentives, be they high- or low-income. PAYT puts part of the real costs of waste disposal (the tipping fees, not the larger collection costs) directly on the waste disposal itself, rather than hidden among your taxes. That creates an incentive toward creating less garbage, through a variety of ways including buying less packaging, recycling, composting, and yes illegal disposal.
The illegal disposal worry has turned out not to be a big problem in places like Greenfield (there was some already, not much more afterward.)
It's correct that exempting a certain sector of the population, like renters or low-income residents, would negate the advantages of the system. The same incentives have to apply to everyone, no double-standards.
And speaking of fairness, it isn't fair to expect those who recycle and minimize their garbage output to subsidize those who don't bother.
Waste disposal is not free, it's a commodity that costs money, like food or shelter or energy, and likewise it's reasonable to ask people to pay in the degree that they use it. When real costs are attached to services, people use them much more wisely than if they appear "free".
I appears that PAYT is going to happen. Afterward I imagine some will continue to carry their battle flags for a while, and brand supporters as evil; there will be some kinks to work out of the new system; but I think that in the end Brattleboro will be better off, regardless of income level.
Authored by: SpudHill on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 08:28 PM GMT+5
Oh shoot you've seen through my carefully guarded facade....
Dang it all
I'm totally in support of anything that will increase recycling but I think Buddy hit the mark and I'm also having big issues with how this was supposed to be represented for discussion and instead of any discussion it was just put into the budget. Something about that really really rankles me, I don't know why, oh wait, yeah, I do know why....because it's not right, it's called going back on your word, and it's even kinda sneaky in a way. Plus....oh never mind, read Buddy and Melton's posts I think they said it all.
Authored by: SpudHill on Sunday, March 14 2010 @ 08:32 PM GMT+5
And Maus just summed it up pretty spectacularly in a new post under Open Letter to District 3 Reps....go read it, I'm in total agreement with him. This is not about being for or against recycling, Maus did a great job of stating my feelings also.
---
"Economic laws are not made by nature. They are made by human beings." -- FDR