wordpress and other garbage
a fellow local blogger to whom i won't link first of all because their blog tool of choice, wordpress, won't let me post a comment, (i registered, even got my password via email, but it continues to tell me that my username isn't valid), but second of all because the link they tried to provide didn't even work, so why should i bother, talked about a globe north story regarding lowell's improving recycling program.
the point of the blog post complained about the point of the news article, which was related to tenants not able to participate in the city's program. the blogger seemed to think that one of the examples in the original article, about a group of tenants who expanded their contract with their private hauler to include recyclables, which conveniently, or so it was reported, reduced their overall disposal costs, and wasn't that enough for them, proved some kind of a backwards point.
well, fellow local blogger and anyone else who isn't listening, (yes, i mean you, gunther wellenstein), the logic, like the garbage to which it refers, smells.
first of all, taxes are taxes, and for mine to be collected just as assiduously as all my trash-pickup-served neighbors, but not extend to provide me with basic trash-hauling services like all of them enjoy, stinks.
furthermore, as me and my tenant neighbors learned when investigating the rates we pay for hauling, (on top of our city taxes, i might add), the cost to me for recycling paper, for example, actually EXCEEDS the amount i pay for general refuse, so, actually, negotiating for recycling pickup at my building and then increasing the amount of paper i recycle actually costs me MORE than if i single-streamed it all right into the hefty with my other trash.
but, sure, everything is rosy if you live out in the highlands and enjoy a visit from the city trucks once a week.
shared-living residences are a far more environmentally friendly way of life than the energy wasting and space wasting profligacy that goes on among the "single families". for us to have to essentially pay to subsidize the environmental irresponsibility of those single family wastrels is adding insult to injury.
i say trash hauling and recycling for everyone, and another great steaming mug of shut the fuck up to anyone who reads a thoughtful critique as posed in the globe article and concludes that folks left to fend for themselves and pay for the privilege are anything but screwed in the process.
the point of the blog post complained about the point of the news article, which was related to tenants not able to participate in the city's program. the blogger seemed to think that one of the examples in the original article, about a group of tenants who expanded their contract with their private hauler to include recyclables, which conveniently, or so it was reported, reduced their overall disposal costs, and wasn't that enough for them, proved some kind of a backwards point.
well, fellow local blogger and anyone else who isn't listening, (yes, i mean you, gunther wellenstein), the logic, like the garbage to which it refers, smells.
first of all, taxes are taxes, and for mine to be collected just as assiduously as all my trash-pickup-served neighbors, but not extend to provide me with basic trash-hauling services like all of them enjoy, stinks.
furthermore, as me and my tenant neighbors learned when investigating the rates we pay for hauling, (on top of our city taxes, i might add), the cost to me for recycling paper, for example, actually EXCEEDS the amount i pay for general refuse, so, actually, negotiating for recycling pickup at my building and then increasing the amount of paper i recycle actually costs me MORE than if i single-streamed it all right into the hefty with my other trash.
but, sure, everything is rosy if you live out in the highlands and enjoy a visit from the city trucks once a week.
shared-living residences are a far more environmentally friendly way of life than the energy wasting and space wasting profligacy that goes on among the "single families". for us to have to essentially pay to subsidize the environmental irresponsibility of those single family wastrels is adding insult to injury.
i say trash hauling and recycling for everyone, and another great steaming mug of shut the fuck up to anyone who reads a thoughtful critique as posed in the globe article and concludes that folks left to fend for themselves and pay for the privilege are anything but screwed in the process.
Labels: rant
posted by kad barma at 12:01 PM
3 Comments:
Just one point of clarity - I believe you do not pay the trash fee that single-through-three-fams do for trash hauling. (What, like $125/yr if I recall?)
Though there is still a deficit between the trash fee collection and the cost of hauling trash, and that is made up from the general funds unfortunately, most of the cost IS burdened specifically on those homeowners who are using the service, not on those who are barred from it.
With some more tweaking, that deficit will hopefully be gone soon as well, making it completely the tax burden of those using the city's trash system.
That's not to say I don't think the city shouldn't revise its policy with regards to condos or try to implement a system with condos included, but I want to be sure you are fair in your complaint about "being a taxpayer without the service" which, as I've pointed out, isn't entirely true (and with good management, will be entirely true before long).
The city's 2008 trash fee raised $2,458,888 from 18,119 participating households. This resulted in a deficit of almost FOUR MILLION DOLLARS from the total $6.5M cost "which was appropriated from the general fund" as per the 2008 city solid waste report. No, not nearly half. Check your facts before you choose your words.
Which reminds me of one of my all time favorite quotes, by Ogden Nash:
"People who have what they want are fond of telling people who haven't what they want that they really don't want it."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home