Trash talk
by M. Stewart
I read with interest The Review's coverage of Wednesday's East Liverpool Refuse and Recycling Committee. Councilman Ray Perorazio seems to have backed off his plan to eliminate our refuse department in favor of a multi-tier rate structure that accounts for the amount of trash a household produces. The new plan was put forth by Service-Safety Director Ryan Estelle.
First of all, let me say that the rate city residents now pay for weekly trash removal is very reasonable. The only problem I have with the current situation is that people are permitted to set out trash bags so that animals can rip them apart and scatter trash all over the neighborhoods.
Many of our lower-class citizens seem to think that if an animal or the wind scatters their trash, they are not responsible for cleaning it up. Civilized standards must be forced on these people, so at the very least, the city should require residents to put trash bags inside containers with secure lids. Residents who refuse to recognize this simple requirement should be fined heavily enough to bring them into line. The collection crew could carry inexpensive cameras to document the sites where occupants repeatedly violate these basic standards.
My former neighbors carried an entire bag of garbage to the curb almost daily, leaving me curious as to how three people could produce so much personal waste. And they were good people, good neighbors.They moved away several months ago, leaving behind a nice but rapidly deteriorating rental unit that is now home to raccoons and vagabonds. At least they don't bring their trash to the street.
Normally, I'd say such a place should be razed, but there is a "house" down the street so dilapidated that even raccoons won't enter. I'm told that because the owner parks his van there once or twice each month, nothing can be done. Apparently he has rights that supersede those of us who keep up our homes.
But I digress . . .
As I understand it, Estelle's plan would supply trash containers to residents, and tags could be purchased for occasional excessive trash. I would suggest adding a fine system for those who put out insecure organic trash of any kind, even if it has a tag.
It's good to see our city officials paying attention to the things that affect the quality of life in the city. Anyone who can't pay $20 per month for trash removal shouldn't be living in a free-standing home in the first place. But that's another issue.
I read with interest The Review's coverage of Wednesday's East Liverpool Refuse and Recycling Committee. Councilman Ray Perorazio seems to have backed off his plan to eliminate our refuse department in favor of a multi-tier rate structure that accounts for the amount of trash a household produces. The new plan was put forth by Service-Safety Director Ryan Estelle.
First of all, let me say that the rate city residents now pay for weekly trash removal is very reasonable. The only problem I have with the current situation is that people are permitted to set out trash bags so that animals can rip them apart and scatter trash all over the neighborhoods.
Many of our lower-class citizens seem to think that if an animal or the wind scatters their trash, they are not responsible for cleaning it up. Civilized standards must be forced on these people, so at the very least, the city should require residents to put trash bags inside containers with secure lids. Residents who refuse to recognize this simple requirement should be fined heavily enough to bring them into line. The collection crew could carry inexpensive cameras to document the sites where occupants repeatedly violate these basic standards.
My former neighbors carried an entire bag of garbage to the curb almost daily, leaving me curious as to how three people could produce so much personal waste. And they were good people, good neighbors.They moved away several months ago, leaving behind a nice but rapidly deteriorating rental unit that is now home to raccoons and vagabonds. At least they don't bring their trash to the street.
Normally, I'd say such a place should be razed, but there is a "house" down the street so dilapidated that even raccoons won't enter. I'm told that because the owner parks his van there once or twice each month, nothing can be done. Apparently he has rights that supersede those of us who keep up our homes.
But I digress . . .
As I understand it, Estelle's plan would supply trash containers to residents, and tags could be purchased for occasional excessive trash. I would suggest adding a fine system for those who put out insecure organic trash of any kind, even if it has a tag.
It's good to see our city officials paying attention to the things that affect the quality of life in the city. Anyone who can't pay $20 per month for trash removal shouldn't be living in a free-standing home in the first place. But that's another issue.
posted by M. | 10:37 AM
22 Comments:
Matt, I'm slowly but surely coming over to your side. The founders really dropped the ball on that "private property" bullsh*t. I think the city or township or maybe the state ought to have the final say on where people live. For example them pesky 'po' folks you're always talking about; maybe we can put them in one part of town based on their color or ethnicity or religion (or lack thereof). We can call that, in the case of ELO a 'doppo ghetto!' Though I am plagarizing the name.
Surely our gummint can tell us where and how to live..it'll be, er....well, utopia, don't ya think.
However, I do agree with you re: cleaning up. Even if you're dirt poor you ought to have enough sense to pick up your trash. But hey, you Democrats started this business..how do ya like it now!
BTW, if I were you I'd think about moving to a better part of town or get a carry concealed license.
Matt,
These past two years I've purchase six thrash cans. The reason being is because our city employees can't remember to put the lids inside the can or back on them once they've been emptied. Forgetting or being to lazy to do this usually causes my lids to be damaged by cars or blown away before I get home to return them onto my property.. My cans currently have no lids because of this and I refuse to buy new ones! I really do need lids living close to a wooded area, but have shelled out enough... I'm really glad they've come up with a plan but they need realize is that Dailey's charge less for a 95 gallon container than the 32 gallon he is proposing... This being the case Mr. Perorazio may get his original wish a lot sooner than he expected..
Bob--
Yes, if you live on the public dole, the city, township, or state should be able to decide where to house you, and that should be away from those who work hard to earn their keep. Also, when I was younger and in college, I was very poor, but I didn't consider my poverty a free ticket to live like an animal. I was aware of my obligations to my neighbors and townsfolk. Besides, it's not only the poor who are obnoxious, dirty, and antisocial. There are plenty of financially stable people who are far from civilized.
Those who live in a community have every right to expect the laws of that community to protect them from filthy, garish barbarians, even if those barbarians happen to own property. You seem to think that owning property gives you the right to bring your entire community down, but no decent municipality allows that. Apparently you've never lived in a city that passes and enforces ordinances to protect its neighborhoods. You and your tea party friends seem to think that "freedom" means you can treat your neighbors any way you want, that you have no social obligations whatsoever. You imagine that we are living in a wild state where we don't need government or any regulation of behavior. It's a nice fantasy, but that's not what living in a human community is about. If you live in society, you must adhere to the social contract, and that requires an exchange of rights for benefits.
Most people WANT to live in a community where there is a division of labor and shared burden of services. That's not Marxism; it's civilization. Freedom should not be confused with barbarism.
Bub--
You're right. Our trash haulers seem to feel no obligation to replace lids on trash cans. I've never seen that in any other town I've lived--only here. That problem should be addressed by Mr. Estelle immediately.
Matt,Is the recent Health Care Reform Freedom or Barbarism?
It's neither.
Matt, I am Garbage and Vermin Officer at my current address. I too have the type of neighbors you describe.I offer to help them clean up their mess which usually works. The problem I think with the new plan is people won't bother to put the container away. Rather it will sit at the curb all the time.This is already happening with the recycle tubs.
Bub:try boring two small holes, one in the lid and one in the can and putting a short piece of nylon cord through the holes and knotted at each end. That way the lid stays with the can. And Bob with all of your bigotted talk you should live at the dump.
Matt, "Lower-class citizens"? Please explain?
If the city is issuing new collection cans,it only makes sense to select a can with an attached lid. I think the city would be wise to offer a discount for those households who choose to recycle, which in turn may encourage total or near total participation by residents city wide.
confused--
In this case, low-class citizens are those who feel it's not their responsibility to secure their own trash. In general, I use the term low-class to describe those without basic manners.
Blogger M. said...
It's neither.
What is it then?
It's easy for companies like Dailey's and Waste Mgt to charge less when they pay their workers $8-10/hr and offer no insurance. Also helps when the drivers don't all have cdl's. A Dailey's driver was cited last year for not being properly licensed when he drove his truck into a pole, knocking out power to part of downtown EL.
What is it? It's a different way of financing health care for those who can't afford health care insurance.
Fair Wage--
Our system isn't broken and it's not unfair to anyone. If what you say is true, then it only underscores my point. $20 per month is dirt cheap for refuse service. This shouldn't even be an issue. I don't know why Councilman Perorazio wanted to farm our trash collection out in the first place. The city has much more serious problems that deserve his attention.
fair wage, I'm simply pointing out the fact that they better think this through. People will go with outside contractors to save a buck. The city is better off offering one size fits all then trying to offer tiers.
I would think the new system would encourage those that aren't responsible to just throw their trash in their back yard. Of course some people are going to want the smallest container. If their garbage doesn't fit, they'll throw it else where. Billing would be a nightmare if people change their sizes often. Yes, the refuse collectors would need to be more careful with the containers. I think we pay a fair price. I don't see anyone paying for tickets for extra garbage. Have you tried to pay for anything at city hall? No one is in, no one knows the price of anything, no one has petty cash for change? They really are not very customer friendly down there.
Bub--
You are right, of course: They'd better think this through, indeed. What I read in The Review sounded good, but the committee should crunch the numbers for several alternatives. I'm not aware of any reason to rush any changes through.
Trashy--
It might encourage some to be even messier, but I would hope not. Everyone should want to keep trash cleaned up, but I know many don't. Collectors will have to do the recon for their routes. If they're not actively involved, no enforcement can work: Warnings followed by tickets.
Daileys charges 34.00 a quarter for their standard roll to the curb garbage receptacle. Much cheaper than the city can do the same job for. Private business always provides better service at better prices than any inefficient government agency.
Fred--
I never start with the assumption that cheaper is better or more efficient. This has nothing to do with Dailey's, but I've seen transitions elsewhere from public to private that turned out badly for residents. There is always more to an deal than price.
M......I have had refuse removal by all three local refuse removers. Never had any issues with any of them. All did the same job but Daileys was cheapest.
In many communities they have trucks with arms that pick up the can and dumps it into the truck. Yes, it would require expenses in the beginning to get a couple such trucks, however, only one person rides the truck. Thus less people are required. In those communities they the city provides the can. The lids are attached to the can, the can has wheels and is quite large.
Interestingly enough some such cities also offer curbside pickup. Maybe using employees that used to ride the regular garbage trucks.
You set out your trash and by trash I mean anything except widows, doors with glass in them, carpets, and the usual paint, and other such hazardous materials. You call the city to schedule and pickup, it is usually one day a week they do that and they come by and pick up the stuff.
They pick up old appliances, furniture, along with anything else not listed above.
Those prices for trash removal don't seem too high. I pay $30 a month and I live in an apartment and have to take my own trash to a community trash compactor. Wish I had curb-side service.
Post a Comment
<< Home