Food scraps recycling to become mandatory in ‘09
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like the Seattle City Council gets more ridiculous by the day. The latest example, as reported by the Times is this: they’ve just decided that starting in April ‘09, all single-family homes in Seattle must sign up for table-scrap recycling. The cost of the program is not covered by existing taxes so all single-family homes will be obliged to pay for this program. Mind you, they’re not obliged to actually use the program since no one’s going to be checking the bins to see if they’re used. Oh, and by the way, businesses and apartments, who produce twice the waste of single family homes, aren’t obliged to use the service or even pay for it. Yep, that’s right: the people who produce the most waste don’t have to do a darn thing about it. If this plan makes sense to you, please feel free to explain it to me because I’m just not getting it at all.
I wonder how aggressive they’ll be about enforcement? I’ve had city workers (actually Waste Management) remove small branches and twigs from my garbage can, because they were “yard waste.”
Oh, and by the way, businesses and apartments, who produce twice the waste of single family homes, aren’t obliged to use the service or even pay for it. More people = more waste. If you have 2 people living in a 5 bedroom home, they probably don’t produce as much trash as 55 people living in an apartment building. I think you’re anger is misdirected.
For the record, my husband and I live in an apartment and we’ve been recycling our food scraps into the yard waste bin for about 3 months now. We also recycle everything that we can, and only take out one brown grocery bag of trash a week.
It seemed like the way Austin did it (at least how they did it 10 years ago) made sense, which was they severely limited the amount of trash they’d pick up from your home, but you got infinite recycling. That seems more logical (and cost effective) than picking twigs out of your household trash or investing in scanning facilities that would fine you when you put recyclables in your garbage.
Uh, Wesa? That apartments make more waste is my whole point here. Why should the people who MAKE MORE WASTE not have to pay when the people who make less waste do? That is what I am asking. I have no idea how you think that is misdirected anger; I’m still looking for an explanation of why the city thinks it’s okay to shift the burden for waste onto the people who create the least of it. And for the record? I don’t live in a single-family home; I just think the people who do deserve better than the shaft.
Jenna, that sounds like a reasonable plan. My landlords have one trash dumpster for the whole building but tons and tons of recycling bins and it has really made a difference.
I think what Wesa was trying to say is that just because somebody lives in an apartment, doesn’t make that individual produce more waste. Sure, there’s more people in one space that are creating waste, but it’s NOT more just because each individual produces more. Spread those 55 people each into single-family homes and they’re probably going to produce the same amount of waste, right? Regardless, the service isn’t going to apply to apartments so why would they pay for something they’re not getting - THAT seems like they’d be getting the shaft? I understand it sucks to have to pay for it in a single-family home, but single-family homes are getting the service. Businesses are a different story.
John,
I see what you’re saying, but the issue remains that single-home residents are having this forced upon them; they’re not choosing to have this service. The City Council has decided–without consulting the homeowners, getting their buy in or allowing them to vote on it–that they have to pay to have their waste picked up. If the rationalization for having this service forced on them is to cause people to create less waste, it seems incredibly ineffective (to say the least) to have a program that hoists all of the responsibility for reducing waste on the residents of single-family homes. I guarantee you that if apartment buildings were forced to comply or face punishment they would find a way to pass this on to their residents who are collectively creating so much waste, much in the way that the price of my rent includes my landlords’ cost to provide water, maintain the building, pay for trash & recycling pick up for all the residents of the building, staff the building with an on-site manager, and, oh yeah, pay their property taxes.
The apartments don’t “get” to have the service because the city council has decided not to foist it on them; I remain completely convinced that this program, as it is, is unfair.
Yes, I think you came to the realization that Wesa was trying to show you - anger should be directed at City Council because they’re having to pay for the forced service, not at a apartments or anybody else because they “seemingly” produce more waste.
Thanks for the pointless condescension, John, but phrases like “it seems like the Seattle City Council gets more ridiculous by the day” and “they’ve just decided” make it rather evident that my anger has been directed at the Seattle City Council FROM THE START and has not deviated from that point. I haven’t “come around” to seeing anything other than Wesa missed the point (that it is unfair for the City Council to dump this responsibility on one group and not the other) and you, apparently did so, too, seeing as both my post and all of the comments I have made to this thread have been asking how it is fair that the City Council charge one group of waste producers and not the others.
Yeah but you shoud have left all the argument about apartments and who produces more waste out of it! That was beside the point - THAT YOU MADE FROM THE START - I guess.
You know, John, I’ve been wrong before and I’ve been corrected (sometimes nicely, sometimes not so) and my response has been: “Oh, sorry about that, I was wrong.”
That the City Council is forcing single family home residents–who make less waste than apartment buildings and businesses–to pay for this recycling program and not forcing apartment buildings and businesses–who make more waste than home residents–to pay for this recycling program was, in fact, the entire point of this post and all of my comments after it.
So you DO still think individuals living in single-family homes produce less waste than individuals living in apartment buildings?
I think that apartment buildings create more waste than single family homes. I think whether individuals in apartments make more or less waste than individuals in single family homes is besides the point.
If the City Council is going to force one group of people to reduce their waste, the City Council should force all people to reduce their waste. For various reasons, I produce a ton of paper for the recycling bin, while the woman across the hall from me produces next to nothing. If I put out, say, ten pounds of paper and she puts out one pound of paper, we’re still collectively putting out 11 pounds of paper that has to go somewhere.
As I mentioned in another comment, the people who own my building have provided all of us who live here with a single dumpster for garbage but a ton of dumpsters for recycling. I’d like to believe that they do this out of environmental sensitivity but thanks to communication from our in-house manager I know that one of their motivations is the fact that they’re required (by the city) to reduce waste produced by their building. Single family homes are under the same burden (to have only garbage in their garbage and to have recyclables in their recycling bins) so the burden of separating garbage from recycling is shared.
In this food scraps proposal, however, single family homes are being told that they must reduce their waste or else but apartment buildings are being given a free pass. Either food scraps waste is a real problem, or it’s not. If it is a real problem and this new policy is really necessary because food scrap waste is a real policy, then single family homes are being unfairly penalized because they are being forced to pay for this service for the smaller amount of waste that they produce, as a whole, while apartment buildings–buildings, I’m saying, not individual residents–aren’t forced to pay for this service even though they, as a whole, are producing more waste.
One way to produce less waste is to have less people, not less apartments or more houses. Or, no matter what the dwelling, apply the same waste-reduction policies. Again, I agree with you that the point is that City Council should apply this policy on all residents of Seattle, regardless of where you live. Conceivably, if this policy was applied to apartment buildings, the landlord would redistribute the costs to each resident outright or add it into the rent - nothing’s really free. I think food waste matters and we should do something to compost or recycle it. And while this next step might not be ideal, I think it’s a good next step. I’m also an apartment dweller, and I am willing to pay for part of the solution.
Wow, I didn’t expect my comment to spark such debate. I’ll start explaining:
Why should the people who MAKE MORE WASTE not have to pay when the people who make less waste do? Individually, we don’t make more waste then those in single family homes. Also, part of our rent goes specifically to pay for garbage. At our last apartment, we had an extra fee every month that went for “garbage, sewer, and water”. So, we do pay for it on an individual basis. If I’m going to use that example then, we pay the same fee for throwing out less waste than most of our neighbors do.
I guarantee you that if apartment buildings were forced to comply or face punishment they would find a way to pass this on to their residents who are collectively creating so much waste As stated earlier, we do pay for garbage. We just do not get an individual garbage bill.
I think whether individuals in apartments make more or less waste than individuals in single family homes is besides the point. I would like to state that it is the point that John and I are focusing on. Whether it was your intended point or not, that is what we are taking from your post.
I apologize if my previous comment and this comment came across as condescending or as an attack. I love reading the articles here and was just as surprised that City Council isn’t insisting that apartment buildings also recycle food scraps. One explanation (as an example) is that apartment buildings do not generally have large yard waste containers. When we rented a house in Bellevue, we had the largest yard waste container I’ve ever seen. That was shared by 3 people. In my current apartment building of (est.) 50 people, we have a tiny yard waste container, smaller than most single family homes’ garbage containers. Some weeks, we have to wait until the container is empty before dumping our food scraps in it. There isn’t much vegetation either, so I’m not sure how it fills up so quickly. I hope they extend the plan to cover apartment buildings.
Around 95% percent of trash comes from commercial and construction. Food waste is a very tiny slice of what goes into landfills. This smells like a very stinky and ineffective solution.
I applaud this move. There is no reason anyone should be complaining unless they are a) incredibly lazy, and b) retarded.
You have to pay for the pickup, the purpose is to reduce trash which saves money. If this reduces trash by 15% then that saves a ton of money for the city.
Also, note that the city isn’t responsible for managing the trash at construction sites, and usually not for businesses either (depends on the business and the city). Construction waste is regulated by other means anyways, and they don’t produce food waste!
Where are these asinine comments coming from??? The complaints you make are like saying ‘Why should I pay for a catalytic converter on my car while Chinese factories go unregulated?’
Reading this blog and the comments, as well as those I typically see on the PI and other local sources is as bad as listening to Rush Limbaugh. THINK!
So, Keith, it’s totally just and fair that apartment buildings–who are producing food scrap waste, just like single family homes–don’t have to recycle their food scrap waste, but single family homes do?
Restaurants, which are businesses, don’t produce food scrap waste?
Allow me to shift this a bit…I live in a house. I recycle my food waste in a special compost bin (I don’t eat meat) and use the resulting compost in my garden. I have no intention of doing differently.
I’m surprised they are making it mandatory. Since I am already doing the right thing, I really don’t want to be charged for something I don’t need or want. If I’m not mistaken, yard waste bins are still voluntary (I could be wrong on that, I’ve had one for so long). It just seems odd that the city is leaping right in to making food waste mandatory without giving people the option to recycle food waste on their own. I agree that we should be responsible for the waste we create, and I’m okay with the city establishing standards as to what can be placed in the garbage can. However, I wish the city would allow some lee-way for people who bought, and are successfully using, the lovely food waste bins the city has been selling.
Drury