There was a time when Davis was the environmental leader, the innovator. But those days are long over. Davis finds itself fighting some remarkably rear-end fights on issues like plastic bags where more than sixty jurisdictions already have ordinances in place, or green waste containerization where it is perhaps twenty years behind the curve, and even on issues like fluoridation where most communities have long since come to a solution – one way or another.
Green Waste Containerization: On Tuesday, during the integrated waste management portion of the discussion, Councilmember Brett Lee put forward an interesting suggestion for creating an on-call program to deal with the few times when citizens have excessive amounts of green waste.
It turns out there may not be the excessive capacity because, while it is more efficient for Davis Waste Removal to simply move across the street and dump the containers into their vehicles than with the current system that uses the claw, the belief is that more people will put out more green waste more consistently with containerization than when they dumped their clippings on the street.
I’m not sure I buy into that, but the bottom line here is that there are communities, remarkably, that have had green waste containerization for decades and they have managed to make it work. If we were leading the way on this issue, I could see the need for people to fret as they have, and the need to come up with more innovative solutions.
But there are comments on this site, echoed at the council meeting, that people do not have sufficient room for an additional container. And yet, somehow, in communities that probably have similar-sized houses and yards that are comparable, containerization is a non-issue.
There is general council support to move forward on this issue. The only question is how it looks. Some have suggested that we allow it to proceed as an optional program, but the bottom line is that the optional program does not solve concerns about storm water contamination or the costs to the surface streets from the claw.
Individuals have held Woodland up as an example, but Woodland does not have optional containerization.
The bottom line, however, is that these are non-issues in Davis.
Plastic Bag Ordinance: The trend across California is away from the use of single-use carryout bags – both plastic and paper. Plastic bags are a particular ecological problem, as well as a problem for containment, both as litter and even in the landfill.
The Vanguard is supportive of an ordinance similar to what exists in Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo Counties. The basics would be a general prohibition of plastic bags at grocery and other similar stores, plus a fee for paper bags.
Some have suggested why not simply ban plastic bags, but have no fee for paper bags. Well, because that defeats part of the purpose and would simply shift usage from one disposable bag to another.
Brett Lee made the suggestion on Tuesday night that it makes no sense to exempt some bags and not others.
“It’s a plastic bag ban if you happen to be a supermarket, drug store, or liquor, there’s a whole broad group of businesses that are not touched by this approach,” he said. “Are plastic bags bad or are they only bad when they come from a supermarket?”
Unfortunately, Councilmember Lee’s suggestion was somewhat misreported in the write-up in the local paper.
“The City Council isn’t interested only in banning plastic bags from grocery stores and other businesses that hand them out in high volumes, but from every business in Davis,” the paper reported. It mentioned the proposed partial ban, then went on to say, “But Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilman Brett Lee both seemed to want to extend the ban to all businesses, as both didn’t believe it would be equitable to force only part of the business community to comply.”
This was untrue.
“The idea here is to reduce the use of plastic bags,” Brett Lee said. “I know this is not necessarily a popular idea… but I’m much more inclined to believe that we want to reduce the handing out of plastic bags regardless of the business, so I’d like to see a charge for both single-use paper bags and single-use plastic bags applied to all businesses in Davis.”
So Brett Lee’s suggestion was not to ban all bags, but rather to charge for all single-use bags.
Some have suggested that state law prohibits the charging for plastic bags, but in fact, as Mr. Lee pointed out, that law expired last January. The only prohibition is that it cannot be a tax, meaning that the city cannot collect the money.
Mayor Joe Krovoza also did not advocate that all bags be banned.
Mayor Joe Krovoza said, “This is too selective for me. I think it’s quite frankly inequitable. I think it doesn’t treat businesses fairly and it doesn’t move us towards the objective.”
“I’m interested in some kind of a motion that sends us back, I want to move on it faster but I want it to be more representative of the overall objective,” he said. “If I’m going to do something it’s going to be a meaningful act, I don’t want to do something that has people coming back to me saying, how come they didn’t have to do it and I had to do it?”
What his motion calls for is looking at the exemptions to make sure they make sense.
As Jacques DeBra points out, the current draft ordinance deals with most plastic bags and prohibits their use by most entities that can afford alternatives.
The bottom line here is, as was pointed out to the Vanguard on Tuesday night, we are not leading the way on this issue. That means we can look at other communities, how they have handled it, and what works the best without putting a burden on business.
Speaking of which, as I suggested for the past several months, the council got rid of the onerous reporting requirements. While everyone fretted about those, we knew once council actually started to look at the specifics of the proposal, that would be one of the first things gone and it is now gone.
Fluoridation: The fluoridation is a bit tricky. I have predicted on several occasions that the issue will not go forward. There is simply too much in the way of political dissension here without enough proven upside.
But it should be noted this is again a non-issue in probably two-thirds to three-quarters of all communities in the country, and Davis has deliberated painfully on this issue – now, it appears, for the fifth time.
Once again, my prediction, based on conversations with council, is that this will not go forward without a vote and I think the council is reluctant to put forward a vote at this time. We may see a compromise come forward – in fact, I keep waiting for one to be published on these pages, but with the holiday, it looks like next week.
On Wednesday Bob Dunning wrote, “Now, however, by a nearly unanimous vote of our Water Advisory Committee, we’ll all be ingesting a certain quantity of fluoride every time we take a swig of our delicious Davis tap water, whether that water originates from a well in the ground or from the nearby Sacramento River … if you don’t wish to ingest fluoride, you can always buy bottled water or even give up drinking water altogether … just be sure to keep your mouth shut when you’re taking a shower, because that water will be fluoridated as well …”
Someone, of course, kindly pointed out that the WAC is actually an advisory body.
Mr. Dunning writes that his statement was “completely accurate,” but was challenged by a reader.
He responds, “No correction necessary, Mark … I am fully aware that the WAC’s title includes the word ‘advisory’ right smack in the middle, but that’s a fiction for you to believe at your own peril … trust me, it’s ‘advisory’ in name only … to date, our current council has not shown the backbone necessary to reject the WAC’s advice, even when the WAC recommended that goofier-than-Bozo-the-Clown ‘CBFR’ system for calculating our water rates …”
Strangely, the council did reject that advice at first, but was prodded into a compromise when the WAC and city staff showed the council the price differential on CBFR.
But I digress.
This is a thorny political issue and I guarantee you will not see the council adopt fluoridation without at least putting the issue to the voters.
So if Mr. Dunning wants to argue on technical grounds that “when I said that ‘by a nearly unanimous vote of our Water Advisory Committee, we’ll all be ingesting a certain quantity of fluoride every time we take a swig of our delicious Davis tap water,’ I was merely accurately predicting the future … if the council ultimately decides not to fluoridate our water, I’ll WAC myself in the head ….”
My prediction: the council will either go to a compromise or will take it to a vote. I think they understand that the if they don’t take it to a vote, the citizens will do so anyway.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Photo Caption: Since we are down at my folks house for the holiday weekend, my mother suggested I show everyone how much the space issue is not an issue. Looks they even have space for an old discarded council sign.
[quote]… or the costs to the surface streets from the claw.[/quote]This is perhaps, the most ill-informed and/or stupidist statement you have ever uttered. You obviously have no concept of what the threats to the roadway pavement are. You previously cited that someone knowledgeable at the City told you this. Who? The HR director? CM? An Administrative Assistant?
If it was an engineer, I’d love to know who, because they should not be practicing.
The major causes of AC pavement distress and failure are:
Oxidation of asphalt due to solar radiation, non-use, and time (primarily)
Moisture in the subgrade, where the underlying soils lose strength
Inadequate design for wheel loads applied
There is no instance imaginable (unless one is ‘under the influence’) where the claw is even 0.00001% responsible for pavement distress and/or failure. Get real.
I get my clippings picked up at the same spot every week and that part of the roadway looks no different than any other part of the street as is the same for my neighbors. The “claw” problem is just another red herring.
GI: you are very generous in calling it a ‘red herring’. It is actually very pungent bovine fecal matter.
So when we have to switch to a smaller plastic container in order to save money on our garbage pickup as I’m sure many if not most Davis residents will do what happens to all those huge plastic bins? What a huge plastic waste pile that’s going to create. I wonder how many years of plastic bags ban that will take to make up for the huge scrap of plastic contianers being scrapped. Are we going to have to pay for the new smaller bins being that just about everyone opted for the larger one because at that time the fees were the same no matter what size you chose. I don’t think cutting down on the size of the containers is necessarily going to decrease garbage as my big can is always less than half full as is most of my neighbors. It’s just more convenient not having to compact the garbage in.
hpiece: [quote]GI: you are very generous in calling it a ‘red herring’. It is actually very pungent bovine fecal matter. [/quote]
The “claw” damage as well as Davis plastic bags making their way to the ocean are both examples of “very pungent bovine fecal matter”.
To GI’s point: we too seldom fill our garbage bin more than 25%. To avoid waste of the existing bins, I’d propose that when the current bins reach their useful life, the customer be given the option of what size they want, and implement the differential rate AT THAT TIME. (yes, I meant to YELL)
hpierce, they’ll never go for that because IT MAKES TOO MUCH SENCE.
I meant to yell too
“The idea here is to reduce the use of plastic bags,” Brett Lee said. “I know this is not necessarily a popular idea… but I’m much more inclined to believe that we want to reduce the handing out of plastic bags regardless of the business, so I’d like to see a charge for both single-use paper bags and single-use plastic bags applied to all businesses”
I don’t think charging a 10 cent fee for bags will reduce their use by consumers in a significant way. Plastic bags are the bigger villain here and council should remain focused on eliminating their use by business.
If a 10 cent charge for paper bags was implemented would this be enough for business’s to cover the increased cost of the switch?
I’m unclear what Joe Krovoza wants. Is he saying the same thing as Brett Lee. That we shouldn’t ban any bags just charge for them?
The impression I got from watching the video of the council is that it is going back to staff to reduce the exemptions in terms of which businesses are covered, and to remove the paper bag reporting requirement.
I agree Don.
David fails to contextualize why “Davis, finds itself behind the time in regard to the progressive legacy. Is this falling behind due to: change in Davis demographics and thus politics, change in the make up of the City Council over the past decade or more and therefore failure of fore-sight, commitment, leadership and advocacy on so-called “progressive” issues by some or many on those City Councils? Were those City Councils so pre-occupied with other issues, the bio-lab, for example, that they failed to keep up the “progessive” agenda. What is that agenda anyway?
Why label the issue of plastic bags or green-waste containerization progressive, anyway? Are these issues “progressive” because based on government regulation and more government spending which conservatives don’t like? Or are these by now, just good conservation policies that people of many different political persuasions and identities embrace as common sense environmental policies?
As for fluoridation: not sure how to parse this as progressive or conservative, but Bob Dunning hit it on the end in his latest column that it would be less expensive and provide for choice if fluoride treatment were made available at schools and clinics – not sure whether that is a progressive or conservative solution?
Nancy writes:
> David fails to contextualize why “Davis, finds itself
> behind the time in regard to the progressive legacy.
> Is this falling behind due to: change in Davis demographics
> and thus politics, change in the make up of the City
> Council over the past decade or more and therefore
> failure of fore-sight, commitment, leadership and
> advocacy on so-called “progressive” issues by some
> or many on those City Councils?
I’m happy to say that I’m seeing more and more people leave the “progressive” and/or “conservative” “camps” and ask “is this really a good idea or just something that will make us feel better” (think the “Nuclear Free Zone signs in Berkeley” or the “God loves our town signs in rural Texas).
I’ve actually spent a lot of time working for both Republicans and Democrats (this horrifies older partisan die-hard people) and I see the good things and the bad things about both sides. Most people younger than me that I know seem to say they are non-partisan and don’t like to be labeled as “conservative” or “progressive”…
It is really very simple…
Democrats have given away the store to their public union political benefactors. They have fully leveraged our municipal, state and Federal cash flow and debt service capability only to take and keep power. There is nothing left in the bank to spend on their great society and environmental agenda. So they start to piss off their lib constituents, moderates and even progressive conservatives because there is not enough progress. And then the electorate – tired of the mounting budget problems – votes to bring in more fiscally conservative leaders.
I am on vacation with two friends that are retired Federal workers. They are both 55. The both should have had to work until 65. There is no good reason that they were not required to work until 65 other than stupidity and Democrat political power.
If we want progress, we have to cut this asinine and absurd give away to public sector workers so we have more money to invest in progress.
Frankly wrote:
> It is really very simple…
> Democrats have given away the store to
> their public union political benefactors…
True, but the Republicans have “given away the store” to their defense contractor and big pharma benefactors.
With the current system deals are made between Republicans and Democrats who play parts for the camera (and their supporters) just like pro wrestlers.
I also know people who have retired early with government pensions that are making insane amounts of money (mostly tax free since like 2/3 of CHP officers it is easy to think of some kind of “disability” you have after working for many years).
I don’t bang the drum for the GOP since it is sad to say that I also know someone that made more in one shipment of medical supplies to Afghanistan two years ago (when my wife’s brother in law was over there with the Army medical corps)than 10 retired overpaid government workers will make if they live to be 80.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133729/posts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/military-spending-waste_n_942723.html
Back to Davis it seems like that people that want to ban plastic bags, get rid of the claw or add fluoride to water should forget if any of the ideas are “progressive” “moderate” or “conservative” and just focus on why they are a “good idea”…
“True, but the Republicans have “given away the store” to their defense contractor and big pharma benefactors. “
Two points:
Republicans don’t own the market on this behavior. In fact, today, it is behavior dominated by Democrats. Can you spell Solyndra, etc? Dems in the house and senate pull the same for their districts and states.
Second, your point is only partially valid at the national level; not at the state and local level.
[quote] I wonder how many years of plastic bags ban that will take to make up for the huge scrap of plastic contianers being scrapped.[/quote] Can’t wait for that photo of a plastic garbage bin in a tree. 😉
[quote]Why label the issue of plastic bags or green-waste containerization progressive, anyway? Are these issues “progressive” because based on government regulation and more government spending which conservatives don’t like? Or are these by now, just good conservation policies that people of many different political persuasions and identities embrace as common sense environmental policies? [/quote] THANK YOU. Love seeing someone think outside of the, “My side of the aisle is good, their side of the aisle is evil” mindset which most seem to cling to so dearly.
[quote]I’ve actually spent a lot of time working for both Republicans and Democrats (this horrifies older partisan die-hard people) and I see the good things and the bad things about both sides.[/quote] You have a fan in me. 🙂
[quote]With the current system deals are made between Republicans and Democrats who play parts for the camera (and their supporters) just like pro wrestlers. [/quote] While approximately 50% of the voters think their team (RAH! RAH!) is always right and the other 50% is convinced theirs is always right (GO TEAM!).
[quote]True, but the Republicans have “given away the store” to their defense contractor and big pharma benefactors. [/quote]
Are you sure?
The Washington Post reports that pharmaceutical companies gave equally to each party in the most recently reported election:
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/01/08/GR2009010800559.html[/url]
Open Secrets has data on company by company donations.
It shows that Pfizer, a typical Pharm company, donated twice as much to Obama as to Romney.
I didn’t check any others, but would be surprised if the pattern was different.
[url]http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000138[/url]
Certainly the drug companies got their money’s worth from Obama, who took their millions and crafted an unworkable health care law that ensures them billions in profits.
Large corporations contribute to both parties, inevitable corruption that occurs when government hands out so many trillions of dollars. Our founders understood, though few do today, that only small and limited government can save a nation from endemic corruption.
J.R. wrote:
> The Washington Post reports that pharmaceutical
> companies gave equally to each party in the most
> recently reported election
I never said that Democrats don’t give to drug companies, I was just pointing out that Republican sponsored bills to benefit defense and drug companies are equal to or greater than what Democrats give to the unions (and don’t forget that Republicans also vote for tons of cash to unions they like)…
> Open Secrets has data on company by company
> donations. It shows that Pfizer, a typical Pharm
> company, donated twice as much to Obama as to Romney.
I didn’t look but I would take the bet that they gave more to GW Bush (the incumbent) than to Kerry (the challenger) a few years back…
I commend David for digging down to “follow the money” that is flowing to progressive, moderate, (and the few) conservative candidates. The more people that learn that “our” side is not always looking out for “our” interests the better…
P.S. To Frankly who wrote: “your point is only partially valid at the national level; not at the state and local level” needs to stop reading his “GO GOP” web sites and look in to the insane amount of state and local Republican dominated government hand outs to San Diego area defense and drug/biotech companies (San Diego Republicans have also given tons of cash to unions and most of the people caught up in the recent union pension scandal were Republicans)…
P.P.S. I mention San Diego because that is the only place in California I have spent much time in that has even a single Republican holding elective office. As far as I know Davis, San Francisco and the San Francisco Peninsula do not have even a single Republican elected to a partisan position…
“Why label the issue of plastic bags or green-waste containerization progressive, anyway? Are these issues “progressive” because based on government regulation and more government spending which conservatives don’t like? Or are these by now, just good conservation policies that people of many different political persuasions and identities embrace as common sense environmental policies?”
The above made me think of this story: “Pro-Environmental labeling Turns of Conservatives”. Basically conservative were more likely to buy an energy efficient light bulb if it wasn’t labeled as good for the environment.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/04/130430-light-bulb-labeling/
[quote](and don’t forget that Republicans also vote for tons of cash to unions they like) […] I didn’t look but I would take the bet that they gave more to GW Bush (the incumbent) than to Kerry (the challenger) a few years back… [/quote]
Big Corps tend to give equally to D’s and R’s year after year, close to 50/50. Unions consistently give 90% to D’s. Consider how many states are NOT right to work, and how many people are thus compelled to “donate” unions as a requirement for employment.
[quote]The above made me think of this story: “Pro-Environmental labeling Turns of Conservatives”. Basically conservative were more likely to buy an energy efficient light bulb if it wasn’t labeled as good for the environment.” [/quote]
Basically, no.
From the article (if you read past the clever anti-conservative bold-typed first paragraph:
[quote]The study also suggested that pro-environmental messages don’t have much of a positive influence on liberal consumers at the other end of the political spectrum. “We didn’t see a significant boost among political liberals when we used the environmental message in our study,” Gromet added. [/quote]
…and this:
[quote]When all bulbs were priced the same, every participant save one chose the energy-efficient option regardless of political persuasion.[/quote]
…aaaand this:
[quote]As for the possible negative implications of green labeling, Ottman said other factors are likely at work besides politics. [/quote]
So while it might be fun to summarize this story as being about Conservatives not caring about items being good for the environment, it’s actually far more complicated than that. The article itself suggests brand loyalty likely plays biggest part in the conservative’s selections (wanting to chose well-known brands with whom they have a familiarity) and a sense that these “alternative” companies’ claims aren’t trustworthy.
Considering the liberals in the study also were not persuaded by the pro-environmental advertising, this shouldn’t be surprising. Wonder why that was buried deep in the article rather than included in the headline, hm? Seems like a far more interesting and unexpected angle.
Look to the politicization of environmental issues as the reason that conservatives are “turned off” buying products labeled as good for the environment. Marketers spend billions to develop brands as positive and desired… but no amount of advertising can repair the brand damage caused by politicians.
SOD, San Diego is an anomaly given that the defense industry has been a core of its economy for many decades. It is also only one example in a state with thousands of examples of Democrats giving away the store.
I have no problem with environmental issues and possible fixes as long as the problems are real and not some leftist feel good policy like the plastic bag ban which isn’t going to do squat for anything except cause inconvenience.
I don’t get it. What is wrong with the way people put out their compost now? What advantage is there to a container? Its more work to put it in a bin.
As for waste the best thing davis could do environmentally would be a system for disposal of compact florescent bulbs. It has got to be as big a problem as plastic bags.
…
Growth Izzue: “I have no problem with environmental issues and possible fixes as long as the problems are real and not some leftist feel good policy like the plastic bag ban which isn’t going to do squat for anything except cause inconvenience.”
Why are paper bags less convenient then
What’s your logic behind your claim that banning plastic bags does not “do squat”?
[quote]Why are paper bags less convenient [/quote]
They aren’t, but the city doesn’t need to force stores to charge 10 cents for them.
[quote]What’s your logic behind your claim that banning plastic bags does not “do squat”? [/quote]
The supposed problems with plastic bags in Davis is way overblown. Even if we ban them Woodland will still be pouring them into our dumps. All it’s doing is causing extra costs and inconvenience to the citizens of Davis.
“They aren’t, but the city doesn’t need to force stores to charge 10 cents for them. “
Would you be okay with banning plastic bags if there was no charge for paper ones?
[quote]Would you be okay with banning plastic bags if there was no charge for paper ones? [/quote]
Yes, I think that would be a good compromise.
Tempest in a teapot.
Is the charge meant to discourage consumer use of one time bags? If so I don’t think 10 cents is enough to significantly change consumer behavior regarding use of one time bags, but it is enough to annoy people. If this is the motive agree they should leave it out. (Or maybe it is enough….?)
I do think banning plastic in favor of paper bags will significantly REDUCE the number of plastics bags that end up in the landfill, (even if Woodland continues to use them). Which is a step in the right direction….
Interesting how nobody is looking at how this will disproportionally affect those of lower incomes.
Perhaps most, “don’t think 10 cents is enough to significantly change consumer behavior,” but then you’ve probably never been in the position of putting items in your grocery basket while mentally adding up every penny, calculating tax, worried that you’ll go over and have your purchase declined.
So, “a general prohibition of plastic bags at grocery and other similar stores, plus a fee for paper bags,” is only going to make that shopping trip that much more stressful. You might scoff, but a $5 reusable grocery bag is a luxury for some…multiply that by 5 or 6 and it’s downright impossible.