......since you were away Comrade Miller has cancelled the contract with private trash haulers, which cost us $10 less than the city, has bought a landfill site, even though we don't have the money, and which will spew 50K tons of pollution which we will have to pay for, has caved into extortion to local indian bands and the list goes on and on.
Garbage proposal should be thrown away
April 06, 2007
Royson James
Pliable, trusting Toronto residents so want to do the right thing with their waste, they are inclined to swallow any scheme proposed at city hall.
The latest one announced by Mayor David Miller this week is bad medicine in the guise of a cure for mounds of garbage.
The mayor wants to charge you $180 minimum per year to put out garbage in a standard bin.
If you throw out more, you pay more, he says, and it reads like a terrific incentive to reduce waste and a disincentive to ignore the blue box and green bin.
Win-win. What could be bad about this?
There are simpler solutions.
There are bigger issues affecting the amount of waste reaching landfill. The concept takes us down the slippery slope toward more user fees.
The proposal is regressive, hitting poorer families harder.
Apparently, city staff have been to other cities to study their user-pay systems.
What the staff don't loudly say is those jurisdictions are often unlike Toronto – in trash practice and culture.
San Francisco has had a private-firm, user-pay system for decades; Vancouver has had user-pay since the early 1990s.
Here, our culture is we pay property taxes and the city picks up our refuse. More than any other North American citizens, we are scrupulous.
We dutifully separate out paper, cardboard, plastics, glass, metal, leaves, dog poop, diapers, food scraps, to the point where 42 per cent of the trash is diverted from landfill.
The only stuff most of us send to the dump is material manufacturers push on us that the city can't recycle or compost.
If Toronto is having problems reaching its 70 per cent reduction target, the answer does not lie with single-family households.
One might want to look at apartments, where the diversion rate is abysmally low. And there is the huge issue of why manufacturers are allowed to use excess packaging made from non-recyclable materials.
Why does the city allow homeowners to throw out as many as six bags every two weeks?
Council last term rejected a plan to progressively reduce the bags allowed on the curb. Council also rejected a bag tag system – a simpler plan that's a success in many Ontario municipalities.
Instead of adopting a bureaucratic system of rebating everyone an average $180 and then charging them $180 for a standard bin, why not keep the current system and impose disincentives?
Limit bags (or size of bins) for standard pickup and require residents to purchase bags or tags for extra.
Dump more, pay more. Meanwhile, the city maintains the integrity of a flat-rate service.
Why is that important? Because user-pay systems disproportionately affect poorer residents. Charge everyone $180 to pick up a standard bin and the poor person pays more of his or her wages than the well-off person.
Tie it to property tax, and the impact is not nearly as discriminating.
Yes, there are some scofflaws, some idiots who refuse to do their part, but what else is new? There are those who drive gas guzzlers; those who don't install smoke alarms; those who use the parks as a private backyard while some never put foot in them; those who rarely use the police; and those who have never used public schools.
As soon as we start implementing a user-pay system for basic services like garbage, where do we stop? Fire services? Police? Transit? Roads?
Garbage czar Glenn De Baeremaeker is the type of zealot most of us like because he is out to save the planet. He says the proposal offers a way to punish those who won't do the right thing and reward those who do.
Not really.
Imagine this. You have the average home valued at just over $300,000 and pay the average $180 a year for garbage in property taxes. A friend with a $600,000 home is paying, you would think, twice that, at $360 a year. A third person, in a $200,000 townhome, pays about $120. Under the new plan, each would get a rebate of $180. not $180. Meanwhile, the townhome resident appears to be getting a bonanza.
Let's say the three are good recyclers and composters. They opt for the standard bin. Without changing their habits, the $600,000 home gets a 50 per cent tax reduction and the modest home is hit with a 33 per cent hike.
City hall's argument is that this will reduce garbage. Vancouver has seen waste levels rise, but blames it on an economic boom.
So while it is a regressive approach to taxation, hurting the poor more than the well-off; and while it has not been proven to reduce waste, it also opens up the door to hosing the ratepayer.
Without a doubt, the standard fee for that bin will increase significantly over time. Skillfully crafted staff reports will make it appear the higher costs are needed to cover higher costs. Revenue-neutral, they will say. But it won't be. And if they admit it isn't, it will be because they can offer a good reason to increase the fee.
With all that against it, why is the plan finding favour at city hall – especially with a left-leaning government that would normally fight user fees?
Three main reasons.
One, incentives/disincentives are needed to move some people. But to adopt the simpler option of bag tags would be to adopt what Miller's opponent Jane Pitfield proposed in the election – a plan he rejected. As one highly placed Millerite admits: "Who campaigned for bag tags? That explains why it is not on. This is just bag tag in a can."
Two, bag tags tend to remind the ratepayer he is paying more. You would think that is good, but politicians don't want to be blamed for anything. They'd rather to do it by stealth.
Finally, follow the money. This plan gives the city a chance to increase future revenues. As usual, politics and money rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment