by Michelle Millet
The city’s decision to move from the current loose-in-the-street collection method to a containerized collection method has resulted in, as one councilmember put it, “his email box blowing up” with comments regarding this issue.
While there is strong support from many for this move, especially from the bike community, there is opposition from people who insist that they will not be able to fit their green waste into a container and that they just don’t have room for another cart.
One councilmember stated at Tuesday’s meeting that he received emails asking him why he was trying to make people’s lives more inconvenient by supporting the move to containerization.
After learning about some of the complaints being made to councilmembers and reading ones on the Vanguard that express a similar sentiment, I started to wonder if maybe people in Davis could benefit from a broader prospective on the issue of not only green waste disposal, but of waste disposal and collection in general.
I recently read an article about the great lengths people in Japan are required to take when disposing of their trash, and thought their story might just give such a prospective.
In most of Japan, people are required to sort their garbage into four basic categories: burnables, plastics, metals and glass. Different types of trash are picked up on different days. For example, in one city, burnable trash goes out on Tuesdays and Fridays, non-burnable gets collected the 1st and 3rd Saturday and recycling is on Wednesday.
Some cities, like Hirosaki, have taken this one step further by subdividing these into even more groupings, within the main categories.
Residents are expected to divide their garbage into 12 different categories. For example, plastic food and drink bottles are collected separately and on a different day than other plastic containers, and must be separated by colors: colorless, brown, and “other.”
Once a month, cartons and cardboard boxes are picked up. Milk and juice cartons must be washed, dried and cut so that they lay flat. Cardboard boxes must be flattened and bundled using “paper-based” cord.
In some places it is required that different types of trash be placed into color-coded translucent bags on which the resident must write their name and address. Residents are required to purchase these bags themselves, and if they put the wrong trash into the wrong bag it is not collected.
Given, Japan is a small island with a large population, so while drastic measures like these may not yet be necessary in this country, the effort required to properly dispose of trash in Japan does give me a different perspective on some of the complaints made recently in Davis, like these from a recent Vanguard article I wrote on this topic:
“The solution is simple – if yard waste must be placed in containers to increase DWR’s profits I will cut down my willow tree. I simply can not afford to maintain it without claw pickup on a regular basis.”
and my favorite:
“I DON’T HAVE ROOM IN MY YARD TO STORE ANOTHER LARGE ENOUGH CONTAINER! AND I KNOW I AM NOT ALONE WITH THIS PROBLEM!”
Less drastic, but arguable by Davis standards, more “inconvenient” waste management practices have been implemented in cities around the country.
In 2010, Seattle began requiring households to rent a composting bin – it costs between $5 and $7 per month, depending on the size. Rules require residents to collect food and yard waste in a special bin, though households are able to opt out if they compost on site.
For any yard waste that does not fit in the cart, here are some options given to customers. They can place excess waste in a 32-gallon can with handles, they can bundle and tie waste with fiber twine, (up to 4 feet long by 2 feet in diameter), or put waste into approved compostable bags.
Food waste is a much bigger issue in San Francisco than yard waste. So, in 2009, in an effort to reach their waste reduction goals, the city of San Francisco passed the Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance, requiring all persons in San Francisco to separate their recyclables, compostables and landfill trash, and to participate in recycling and composting programs. Fines for noncompliance range from $100 for households to $1,000 for large waste generators.
In 2012, Sacramento voters approved a ballot measure that allowed the city to phase out street pickup of yard waste as a regular service. It mandated yard waste containers for all residents and provided regular loose-in-the-street pickup for all customers from November through January, in addition to the weekly containerized yard waste pickup.
I have argued that, in order to maximize our waste reduction and diversion goals, the city needs to implement policies that make it as easy for people as possible to dispose of their waste in appropriate ways.
But I have recently begun to wonder if policies that do this, like allowing people to place unlimited amounts of green waste in the street instead of placing it in a container, have led to Davis residents gaining a false and somewhat destructive sense of entitlement when it comes to throwing out their trash.
As the city continues to move toward reaching its own waste reduction goals and the ones mandated by the state, life in Davis will be undeniably more inconvenient. But, while people are making the extra effort required to put their leaves into a container, I urge them to think about the people in Japan who are trying to remember which type of plastic bottles gets picked up the next day, and hope they feel grateful for all the conveniences the city of Davis, and the folks at DWR, who sort those plastic bottles for us, still provide.
Yes, everytime I put out my garbage I’ll think about the poor people in Japan. Sheesh…………..
Better yet, in the quest for zero waste let’s just eat our own garbage like the Freegans do. Now everytime you put out your garbage I want you to think of them.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11154276/
Maybe this will inspire my family to actually achieve our zero waste goals so we don’t have trash to throw out.
You are a samurai of great heart, Issue San.
I think our method works for us. We are not Japan and don’t strive to be.
In what sense do you think our method works for us? I don’t think the point of Michelle’s piece was to argue we are or should be like Japan, but it does suggest that we can do more than we have in this area.
Just because something is “working” does not mean it’s working well. Our waste collection methods are inefficient and wasteful, we could be doing a lot better.
Also, mentioning anything about Seattle today is not well received.
Haha Ryan, I’m still licking my wounds.
I don’t see what the problem is. And how replacing piles with large green containers will make it better. Also, how much would this cost us for new equipment and containers?
Not a big sports fan so this didn’t occur to he until after the piece was written….hopefully it won’t be to big of a red haring.
or herring
I am a horribel speler.
As a quick primer,
The problem with a loose pile:
* It looks bad
* It smells bad
* It blows all over the place, and washes away in the rain (remember the rain?)
* It requires three trucks and three drivers to maintain the service
* The claw scratches the hell out of the street
* it is an obvious, significant safety issue for cyclists of all ages and abilities. Even those with really good lights.
* Most people seem to think that storing piles on the street for days (up to a full week) in advance of pickup is OK.
* It may conflict with some sort of storm drain permitting in the future. Not enough details on that one. Something that’s been mentioned for years without details.
Containers make the situation:
* Less likely to be put out in the street days in advance of pickup
* A convenient place to store generated waste through the week until pickup
* A convenient way to roll it all out to the curb without having to drag large pieces one at a time.
* Much easier for cyclists and drivers to see and avoid
* Contained in a smaller footprint so it isn’t as likely to spill into or take up the full bike lane.
* Less likely to find its way into the storm drains or onto your neighbors’ yard
* Safer and more attractive for everyone.
The concerns I hear from the “leave it like it is” folks include: (Sorry folks. Here’s where I get snarky. Let me apologize in advance. I can’t help myself…)
* If we containerize the waste, then the small gardeners we employ may not be able to continue working for the insultingly low wages we choose to pay them. Continuing to toss waste on the street ensures that our yard work bills remain low, and the workers remain underpaid. We continue to feel good about helping the working poor by doing… nothing differently.
* Older folks may have a harder time cutting limbs into smaller pieces and performing the lifting task of putting them into the bin vs man-handling the whole thing out to the curb. The convenience of dragging everything into the street leaves more time for the elderly to dig holes to plant more 5-gallon shrubs, to climb up on the roof to clean their gutters, etc.
* Cycling safety isn’t really a problem. At least for non-cyclists. So really… what’s the problem?
* It is a solution looking for a problem.
* Variation of above: There is no “need.”
* It is a bicycle advocacy thing.
* Most people are quite fond of “the way things are.”
* Davis has hyper-productive trees that produce more biomass than the trees in the hundreds of others CA cities that containerize their green waste. Probably because we have so much cheap water.
* We’re pretty much entitled to do things the way we want to do things, and nobody should force us to do anything that might be different than what we’re used to. Don’t stomp on my right to place these piles in your way!
* The green bin is ugly. Uglier than the black garbage can. Uglier than the blue recycle cart. Uglier than the smelly piles all over town. In the bigger picture, we should probably be dumping our trash and recyclables on the street too, for maximum beautification.
* Can’t figure out how to store a green cart.
* The cost for the service may change. We don’t know if it would go up or down, but it might change.
* How can we possibly deal with green stuff that won’t fit into the bin? We may have to consult with the hundreds of other communities that have solved this vexing situation.
Ryan Kelly said . . .
“I don’t see what the problem is. And how replacing piles with large green containers will make it better. Also, how much would this cost us for new equipment and containers?”
Ryan, the monthly bill for all three services with green can pickup in El Macero is $33.81 per month thus far in 2014. That compares to the City’s 2014 rate of $37.06 per month for all three services with green pile claw pickup. It would appear that if the City negotiates effectively with DWR each ratepayer’s bill will go down by 8-10%.
Of course one possibility is that the costs to DWR for containerized pickup of green waste are really lower than claw pickup, because the other two cans are done identically in the City and in El Macero. We get periodic street sweeping for that fee as well.
i wonder how our recycling rate stacks up against Japan’s? I remember they had much higher rates in the 80’s but I bet we are much closer now. Especially in Davis. Of course Japan is a resource poor country that imports most of its energy and wood products so sequestration of reduced carbon through burial has much higher external costs than it does here.
“i wonder how our recycling rate stacks up against Japan’s?”
I Googled that question and found this answer from the economics of recycling:
“In Japan, recycling rates are much higher than those of the United States: approximately 50% of solid wastes are recycled in Japan, compared to about 30% in the United States. Only about 16% of waste in Japan is sent to landfills, compared to about 60-70% in the United States. Chart 1 and Chart 2 indicate that Japan is outpacing the United States in recycling efforts. Although comparisons between particular categories are approximate (aluminum cans – Japan vs. aluminum – US), the overall trends are evident. ” (Source: http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lid=218&type=student)
Certainly, cultural traditions built up over decades and even centuries play a part in recycling rates. But I would guess that two factors favor Japan over us in this regard: one, they have almost no natural resources they need for industry. They import everything. As a result, they have a natural industrial demand to use and re-use things we might throw away; and two, Japan is terribly crowded. Their population density is many times ours. As a result, they lack the landfill space to bury stuff.
If you would look at recycling rates within the United States, I would guess that regions where there is low population density–like in Alaska–and places where the stuff which goes into landfills does not have an economic use for industry–like in Alaska–you would find very low recycling rates. By contrast, I would expect that the most densely populated parts of the U.S.–like Boston, Philly, NYC, etc–have the highest recycling rates, due to necessity. (Some crowded cities can create “room” for landfills by shipping their waste to distant landfills, the way San Francisco does.)
There are so many significant differences between Japan and the U.S. and between Japanese and Americans that a comparison claiming our “bad attitude” regarding green recycling has anything to do with a sense of “entitlement” is a little silly.
You’ve listed a few big ones. When we were there, we carried our stuff to the recycle collection lot three blocks away–no house-to-house collections involved. We walked by a factory that began each day with group exercises for all of their 40 or so employees. Pretty much everyone is courteous to everyone. We’re different.
Geography and culture drive their lifestyle. That’s true in the U.S. too, and one needs to look deeper at the comparisons before suggesting that Davisites who question this proposal do it out of some sense of “entitlement” that is exposed by pointing to Japanese recycling practices.
When I was a kid and complained about the food my parents made for dinner, they would say, “Be grateful you have food, there are kids in Africa that are starving”.
There was no suggestion that U.S. was Africa or that we faced similar problems. Their point in making this statement was to give me a perspective on how lucky we were to have food to eat.
This is similar to the point I was trying to make in this piece. I think some in Davis have a skewed perception on waste disposal. By comparing our policy’s with those in other places around the world in and this country, I hope to put the “inconvenience” caused by moving to a containerized program into a broader perspective.
When I was a kid and complained about the boiled broccoli my mom made for dinner, she would say, “Be grateful you have food, there are kids in Woodland who are starving.”
Now, fortunately, everyone in our county seat is fat.
When I was a kid and complained about the food I was told about the starving kids in Europe. Africa was little more than the land of Tarzan, but the effects of WWII were still being felt in Europe. That’s how old I am.
My entitled children each get their meals made to order. The complaints around this house revolve around them having to share an iPad. I tell them to think about the poor children who are stuck using Kindle Fires.
Thanks for attempting to give people *perspective*. routines will die hard.
If yard management is difficult for residents, then they can move into a multiple-housing unit, or they can re-evaluate their landscaping motifs and innovate (maybe, even utilizing green waste on-site!). Lawns are passe anyway and most people putting efforts into maintaining them never seem to lay out a blanket and have a picnic.
I don’t have a picnic in my trees either, should I cut them down?
It is interesting that all the comparable situations used by the author are large and hyper-dense high-population areas.
Which leads me to a point that the do-gooders of Davis are well-served by the corresponding demand to prevent growth.
It is like they can’t enjoy life without telling others how to live their life and density provides them greater justification for doing so.
We make the argument that bikers are impacted by piles of green waste. And Davis has a larger percentage of narrow streets and concentrations of bikes in a small geographic footprint.
The fact of the matter is that we do NOT NEED to go to containerized green waste. It is much more inconvenient and if there is NO NEED, then it should NOT be pushed on us. Instead, we should push education so that more people deal with their green waste in ways that reduces the impacts and is more environmentally-correct.
From a cultural basis, unlike Japanese, Americans are fiercely independent. We do not like being told what to do unless there is a justification. If there is a true need, we will make the choice to support the change. But if we feel that we are being told what to do based on an opinion or preference, we will resist.
Going to containerized green waste is just a preference and opinion of some. Today, it is not a need. There are ways to mitigate the impacts used to help justify the change. For example, limit the size of green waste piles. Prevent when and where piles can be made. Educate the population for composting and green waste disposal best-practices with flyers in the city services bill.
And when comparing Davis to other places, I say KEEP DAVIS QUIRKY!
>> Going to containerized green waste is just a preference and opinion of some.
Yup. As is keeping the system we have now. Doing nothing is just as much a choice as choosing an alternate action. Your choice to do nothing is “telling others how to live their life” in the way that you deem appropriate.
My preference is to increase the safety and aesthetics of our town.
Yes but our inertia requires less effort.
As I like to say, the “Status Quo” is the strongest force in the universe.
“The fact of the matter is that we do NOT NEED to go to containerized green waste. It is much more inconvenient and if there is NO NEED, then it should NOT be pushed on us”
Yes, we need to, or we will not be able to renew our storm water permit.
Instead, we should push education so that more people deal with their green waste in ways that reduces the impacts and is more environmentally-correct.”
No going to disagree with you here, but I think these two things need to be done in conduction with each other.
“Yes, we need to, or we will not be able to renew our storm water permit.”
You don’t know that for sure, I think that you are using that as a red herring.
An you G.I. are using a Double Standard when you make that argument. When it is convenient for you, you take positions that do not have “data support” and pooh-pooh any attempts to call you out for a lack of supporting data, but if someone else does the same thing you are one of the first to “cry foul.”
You can’t have it both ways.
Multiple different people with multiple different perspectives on this issue have stated that our storm water permit will not be renewed if we continue with a loose-in-the-street-collection method.
It is not clear when the permit will be up for renewal. I think I’m being conservative when I say it will have to happen in the next 5 years (can anyone who knows more confirm this).
Council members did mention to staff at the last meeting that city needed to step up it’s public outreach regarding the Storm Water Permit renewal issue, so hopefully more accessible information regarding this will be available soon.
Frankly
It appear to me that you are making an argument for not dealing with Davis as it objectively exists. Let’s take your own statements. You have made the claim repeatedly that Davis is a very dense community. Not that you favor this, but that this is our current reality. Then you state that dense communities seem to be the one’s that stand to benefit the most from recycling and containerization. Then, you state that “we” do not like to be told what to do without justification. And yet, Michelle and numbers others over years have presented justification for their position.
Instead of presenting data to support your “lack of need” claim, you present no supporting information but merely use electronics to shout what you claim is “fact” but what in reality is merely your opinion. Your own statements would not appear to support your conclusion.
We are fake dense. We are dense because of the collection of people that make a career out of blocking development. We are not like Japan, China, New York, San Francisco, Seattle… in that we have thousands and thousands of acres of peripheral land that we could build on.
Fake density.
False comparisons.
Keep Davis quirky.
Keep curbside green waste pickup.
My wife tells me that I can be incredibly dense when I want to be.
Very interesting comments about Japan. Here are links to how Roseville handles recycling as well as rates.
http://www.onebigbin.com/
https://www.roseville.ca.us/eu/billing_n_new_service/rates.asp
Here is a link to disposal costs in various cities around the world. Looks like we will have to drastically raise our rates if we are to have any chance of beating Japan! We can’t let them win!
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/solid-waste-management-cost-for-selected-cities_1143#
Wow, I wonder why its so much cheaper in Roseville. Is waste management a public utility? Is it because they have more homes and can get economies of scale? Does their more diverse economy generate more revenue on the commercial side? Are they not using incentives to try to increase recycling? Do the have a shorter haul? Does their one big bin system work more efficiently?
I have no idea why it is cheaper in Roseville but if our goal is a higher recycle rate then having professional sorters/machines is the way to go. I know I don’t bother to sort recyclables anymore and wasn’t very good at it when I did. Maybe we can hire the homeless to be sorters since they already have the job skills. I would think a regional sorting/compost center at the current landfill would be more economical than hauling trash away from the four large Yolo population centers out to Zamora. Or we could go the way of Japan and sort everything 10 ways to Sunday. The only problem is I already have a full-time job.
Mr. Toad, from a conversation I had with John Bencomo a while back, he explained that Davis requires a significantly higher level of service from DWR than is required from Waste Management in the cities it serves (which I believe include both Woodland and West Sacramento). If you provide less service the price can be lower.
Matt, I don’t see how someone sorting our trash for us could be considered lower service than what we currently have. I think we should take a hard look at exactly what we are paying for. What is this significant higher level of service and who exactly benefits? Are we subsidizing some third party or protected class?
I do not know the answer to that Realist. I only know what Bencomo told me. Perhaps they only get pickups every two weeks. I really don’t know.
Put it to a vote.Let the people decide what they want,at lest the majority would get their wish.
Should we maybe educate the voters before handing them a ballot? I’m still hearing, “the danger to cyclists isn’t valid” far too often.
Yes Darelldd, Davis voters are in need of education as evidenced by the last presidential election where over 80% of them voted for Obama.
Great link Realist. Summary……….Roseville’s One Big Bin program uses one single garbage container which collects residential and most business waste and transports it to a material recovery facility where all recyclables are sorted out. They have one of the highest recycling rates in the state. Roseville currently charges $23.39/month for refuse collection. Davis charges $37.07/month which is about 1.6x as much as Roseville.
Time to put the waste management contract out to competitive bid. We are being overcharged.
Woodland rates: http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=11765
W. Sac rates: http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3322
A funny blog post on this topic:
http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/2012/08/01/In-Japan,-best-to-know-your-garbage