There some things you don’t see every day, for example Alan Pryor dressing up as the “Bag Monster” and tag-teaming with 7-year-old Tess Boutin to deliver a message against single-use Plastic Bags.
Alan Pryor:
Good evening. My name is Bag Monster. I represent the 500 bags the average Californian uses every year of which only 3-5% are recycled.
This is my friend Tess Boutin. Tess wrote a letter some months back to the Council letting you know her views on plastic bags. SOME of you were kind enough to write back and suggested she write to the Cool Davis Initiative which she did, and that’s how I came to meet this remarkable young girl. Another letter suggested that she come to the Council to express her views, so let me introduce Tess Boutin.
Tess Boutin:
(She introduced herself as a second grader in independent study program).
I’m here because I know there is nothing more important than being kind to Mother Nature. Because if we’re not good to Mother Earth, than nothing else will matter…
Today we’re focused on getting away from the single-use plastic and paper bags. There are reasons we should all be using reusable bags instead.
Plastic bags are dangerous for the environment because they’re made from petroleum, they can hurt and kill animals and they fill up the landfills and oceans without decomposing.
Paper bags hurt the environment because so many trees have to be cut down in order to make them, and lots of resources are used to make and dispose of the bags.
It’s better if people decide to use reusable bags on their own – but because most are not, rules should be made to keep the planet healthy. So I really hope that the City of Davis and other communities decide to ban plastic bags and charge for using paper bags.
The next thing that I’d like to do is write a project plan for the website called “dosomething.org” and apply for a grant. If I’m able to get a grant then maybe the money could be given to people who need help buying reusable bags or maybe it could be used for materials to help convince other towns to vote on plastic bag bans too.
I’d also like to get other children to work on this project with me because children represent the future and they can help spread the word to other communities. Doing the right thing may seem harder at first, but it’s worth it to treat our planet right so we can all have a healthy future.
Please make the right decision to help the children of Davis.
Alan Pryor:
About the Proposed Single-Use Bag Ordinance
As you are aware, on tonight’s agenda is an item in which the City will consider adopting a “Zero Waste” resolution under which the City will initially strive to meet a waste landfill diversion goal of 75%. A number of other Bay Area cities are already there.
As part of these efforts, the NRC [Natural Resources Commission] is considering a proposed ordinance that will restrict use of single-use carryout bags in Davis. The proposal is generally in the form that was narrowly defeated in the State Senate last year, but which did enjoy widespread support from environmental groups including Californians Against Waste, a coalition of environmental-minded California municipalities (Green Cities), and the California Grocers Association.
Ordinances similar to the proposed Davis ordinance have been passed by over 16 other California cities within California [stet] that have adopted such ordinances (including San Francisco, Palo Alto, San Jose, and Santa Clara Co., among others, in the Bay Area). There is also a list of the over 50 other municipalities or jurisdictions in the State that are in the process of weighing such restrictive ordinances.
Summary of the Proposed Ordinance
This ordinance, similar to the state bill, proposes to eliminate the distribution of single-use handled plastic bags and to charge $0.10 for paper bags. This is similar to what the Davis Food Co-op has done for years, except they only charge a nickel a bag. This main differences between this proposed ordinance and that defeated last year on the state level are that this currently proposes to exempt ALL retail establishments with annual gross revenues less than $1,000,000. So almost the entire Davis Downtown Business Association membership will be exempt. Indeed, as currently proposed, the ordinance will only cover about the two dozen largest retailers in town, which account for an estimated 90% of the 3,000,000-plus plastic bags distributed in Davis each year.
What will not be covered are the thin plastic bags used in the produce and meat sections of grocery stores for sanitary reasons. Also exempt are restaurants. And low income folks will be exempt from the $0.10 charge also.
The main driver in this proposed ordinance is reduction of local litter. The City of San Francisco spends an estimated 1.7 cents for every plastic bag distributed in that city every year to pick up that small portion of the bags that escape. Interestingly, that’s about the same cost a store pays to buy the bags they give away.
I am providing this information now so that people are aware of what’s coming down the pike and have the opportunity to give input into the process. People can go to the city website and download the information packet from the November NRC meeting and get all the information, and I encourage them to do so to get informed, and to show up early next year at the next meeting at which this item is agendized and let their voices be heard.
“This is my friend Tess Boutin. Tess wrote a letter some months back to the Council letting you know her views on plastic bags.”
Tess Boutin did not write that letter. Her talking points were spoon-fed to her by Alan Pryor or someone like-minded.
And Alan Pryor looked like someone who smokes too much grass.
Frankly your comment should be pulled for making personal attacks and yes, she did write the letter herself.
91 Octane
“And Alan Pryor looked like someone who smokes too much grass.”
This has no relevance and does not belong on any post regardless of who wrote the letter.
I am sure that we all would value any substantive comment you have on the bag issue. This is not one.
Don Shor
I realize that I made a mistake by quoting an inappropriate comment on my post. I request that you pull both my quote, and the initial comment.
Thanks
Loved Alan’s costume and the courage of such a young speaker to voice her opinion. And I applaud Alan Pryor for his civil discussions on various issues, and have great respect for him. Nevertheless I disagree with the plastic bag ban.
1) We already have the ability as a city to recycle used plastic bags or to purchase the reusable bags. I am for allowing people freedom of choice, not having restrictions like this crammed down our throats by a minority view.
2) How are you going to exempt low income folks? Do they have to provide proof of income at the check-out stand?
3) Frankly I believe this is a solution in search of a problem. In all my walks in Davis, I have seen almost no plastic bags floating in the air or on the ground.
I second Elaine’s post.
ERM
1) If freedom of choice were achieving mutually agreed upon goal such as a lack of littering, I would agree. To me it is not working.
On many occasions when I take my noon walk around my work place in Davis I pick up one or two plastic bags. While walking through
downtown with a friend a few days ago, we collected three plastic bags within the space of two blocks. It may be that you walk in areas where
people are less likely to have had their bags escape them, but I guarantee you they are out there. In the Northstar park and bird habitat where
I used to live and walk daily, there were almost daily plastic bags as well as other litter, sometimes where I could easily remove, but sometimes
far it in the water or on one of the ” islands”.
2) As for the practicality of exempting the low income, I also question how that might work.
The details definitely need some work, but I see nothing wrong with some kind of grant to supply reusable bags and maybe not exclusively to low income people.
When I walk or run the city streets and paths I see an occasional plastic bag. I also see candy wrappers, potato chip bags, soft drink bottles and cans, plastic water containers……
So, should we ban all of those too?
rusty49
Of course not. The dirrerence I see with plastic bags is that of the named objects, the plastic bag is the only one with the likelihood of Inadverntent escape from its owner and the ability to blow significant distances from its original location. Just because we cannot prevent inconsiderate individuals from strewing their trash about, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do what we can to lessen the impact.
Actually rusty49, as a waste handler for 25 years an having seen so much recyclable material and hazardous material along the highways, in parks, on beaches and sent to landfills I am constantly campaigning for minimal,biodegradable packaging . As a guitarist, I purchase strings that are packaged in a single cellulose bag . When ever I find a product packed with excess material, I complain to both the vendor and manufacturer . While I would not ban plastic bags or any other packaging material, I stridently encourage my friends, family, neighbors and co-workers to be conscious of what we throw away . BTW when I use disposable bags, I get paper and reuse for everything from shelf liners to junk mail containers for the recyclers.
“The dirrerence I see with plastic bags is that of the named objects, the plastic bag is the only one with the likelihood of Inadverntent escape from its owner and the ability to blow significant distances from its original location.”
Right, I’ve never seen a Snickers wrapper or a potato chip wrapper bowing in the wind?
Re: Low-Income Folks
There is a provision in the proposed ordinance that reads, “Notwithstanding any other law, on and after July 1, 2012, a store shall provide a customer participating in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the California Health and Safety Code and a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, with a reusable bag or a recycled paper bag at no cost at the point of sale.”
Thus, the low income, especially with children, will not incur additional costs for bags. Others can always use reusable bags. All low income people who participate in these subsidized food programs are issued ID cards without which they cannot purchase their groceries or purchase some items at discounted prices. So truly low income people always have these cards with them when they go to the grocery store and would be identified as such by the store. Its actually pretty easy and has been working quite well in those California cities that have already enacted such restrictions on single-use bags.
BTW – Just got a letter from a woman back from a winter vacation in Hawaii who implemented their own restrictions a few years back. She said it was remarkable how little trash she saw compared to her last vist…no more plastic bags on the beaches…no more air-borne plastic bags snagged in and fluttering from trees…no more plastic bags full of trash littering roadways (I guess it is harder to throw your trash out the window when it is not all neatly wrapped up in plastic bags).
These types of restrictions really work to minimize litter and are quite painless to an educated population.
I also second Elaine’s post and would like to add … why can’t pressure be put on the manufacturers to make the damn things biodegradeable? Then everybody would be happy. Some of us actually do reuse the plastic bags and not just for cleaning up after dogs.
BTW, a relative of mine visited me in Davis a few weeks ago and she just called me and said Davis was such a nice city and one of the cleanest she’s ever visited. She said she’s never seen a town with hardly any garbage, it was remarkable to her.
I also prefer chioce – not outright bans.
If the State passed a law preventing plastic bag fees then work on changing that stupid law.
Bag Use regulations belong at the County or State level – it is wrong for individual cities to enact these types of regulations. The regulations should be consistent and all businesses should be treated the same.
The cause, eliminate most single use plastic & paper bags is reasonable and I really do not think it will take much of a bag tax to accomplish 75% to 90% of the goal. Reusable bags are very cheap and that is the way we should be going.
[quote]Thus, the low income, especially with children, will not incur additional costs for bags. Others can always use reusable bags. All low income people who participate in these subsidized food programs are issued ID cards without which they cannot purchase their groceries or purchase some items at discounted prices. So truly low income people always have these cards with them when they go to the grocery store and would be identified as such by the store. Its actually pretty easy and has been working quite well in those California cities that have already enacted such restrictions on single-use bags. [/quote]
Many low income folks are not on such programs and have no such cards to show. You are essentially asking low income folks to give a store proof of low income to get free plastic bags, which in my opinion is downright discriminatory…
To: ERM re: “You are essentially asking low income folks to give a store proof of low income to get free plastic bags, which in my opinion is downright discriminatory”
No, we are asking them to provide proof that they are low income to get free paper or reusable bags. Even the poor folks won’t get plastic bags. Participation in any low income program requires proof that you are low income. Should a store be forced to give you discounted products just because you claim you are poor. Participation in many senior programs also require proof that you are a senior (such as AARP discounts). This is no different and no more onerous. The truly needy will not have to pay. The less needy can always get reusable bags which can be obtained for $.50 or less in some cases and are often given away. For a maximum of a couple of bucks, their problem is solved. And little Tess is also applying for a grant to provide these reusable bags to low income people.
And speaking of discrimination, why should people who conscientiously bring and use reusable bags essentially subsidize the giveaway of plastic or paper bags to other people who don’t bother to use reusable bags. Seems to me that is discriminatory also.
“And speaking of discrimination, why should people who conscientiously bring and use reusable bags essentially subsidize the giveaway of plastic or paper bags to other people who don’t bother to use reusable bags. Seems to me that is discriminatory also.”
Boy, there’s a stretch. The do-as-I-tell-you bunch will stop at nothing when it comes to them putting their beliefs on others.
rusty49
Fair enough. Snickers wrappers do blow about. But they also break down.
I thought I would run a very tiny, one woman completely non randomized, but probably reproducible study yesterday while going in to Sacramento.
From the Mace on ramp to the western end of the causeway, I counted 27 plastic bags caught on the fencing on the east bound side.
Sorry Rusty, at that speed, I was unable to county candy bar wrappers or potato chip bags, so I have no comparison to offer. And, I don’t have a number in my head of how many plastic bags are acceptable per mile. For me, the optimal number would be zero.
” The do as I tell you bunch …..”
It seems to me that this is where the real problem lies. There is one philosophic group in our society that tends to oppose, as a general principle
not ” being told what to do” and another group that would prefer that goals be accomplished voluntarily, but are not adverse to regulations when mutually agreed upon goals are not being met. About a year or so ago NPR ran a very interesting story about a group of self described conservative farmers who, when confronted with what they considered to be onerous restrictions the government was going to impose to protect a threatened frog species took matters into their own hands in a positive manner. First, they agreed that they were well aware that the number or frogs were decreasing since they were no longer hearing them much at night. Some of them agreed that this was an ecosystem problem, some of them didn’t care at all about the frogs. What the community agreed about was they didn’t want a government imposed solution. So by some combination of voluntary changes in their land and water use and in their other agricultural practices ( sorry its been a long time and I’ve forgotten the details) they managed to restore a frog friendly environment in a manner acceptable to the community.
This is what I consider ideal. A problem, large or small ( Elaine I realize this isn’t our most pressing issue)is identified. For those who say they don’t like regulations, great, propose, get support for and enact a solution. If a timely re evaluation shows it is working with voluntary steps, problem solved. If not, I would recommend enough flexibility to be willing to accept some regulations.
rusty49
The do-as-I-tell-you bunch will stop at nothing when it comes to them putting their beliefs on others.
On a separate, but related note, you do not seem to mind others being “told what to do” if their actions do not meet your approval.
One recent example. You seemed in favor of protesters “being told” that they could not pitch tents on the quad. An act which was entirely peaceful until the police came to try to clear the tents. You clearly favor laws to clear what you consider visual blight as you recently posted regarding the Occupy Davis folks. I consider plastic bags in the environment both a visual blight and an environmental hazard. So please explain to me why your visual blight and environmental hazard should be codified, but mine should not ?
“On a separate, but related note, you do not seem to mind others being “told what to do” if their actions do not meet your approval.
One recent example. You seemed in favor of protesters “being told” that they could not pitch tents on the quad. An act which was entirely peaceful until the police came to try to clear the tents.”
Medwoman, camping in our park or on the Quad is against the law. It has nothing to do with what I feel. Once again, it’s against the law. Just because you maybe agree with their cause it doesn’t make it okay for them to break the law.
Rusty: You miss her point – someone decided that camping in our park or the quad should be against the law based on a notion of blight or public safety. Why should they not decide the same for plastic bags when the same arguments apply?
[quote]No, we are asking them to provide proof that they are low income to get free paper or reusable bags. Even the poor folks won’t get plastic bags. Participation in any low income program requires proof that you are low income. Should a store be forced to give you discounted products just because you claim you are poor. Participation in many senior programs also require proof that you are a senior (such as AARP discounts). This is no different and no more onerous. The truly needy will not have to pay. The less needy can always get reusable bags which can be obtained for $.50 or less in some cases and are often given away. For a maximum of a couple of bucks, their problem is solved. And little Tess is also applying for a grant to provide these reusable bags to low income people. [/quote]
Many low income folks will not ask for a discount bc they don’t want to advertise their income status or go through the hassle of proving it in a grocery store. I see this as a very real drawback to your proposal. It would seem to me a better solution is to offer a way for low income folks to be given free reusable bags in private, so they don’t have to show proof of income at the store level.
On a related issue, IMO, reusable bags are available for those who feel strongly about the plastic bag “issue”. But personally I think it is a solution in search of a problem and will cause a lot of inconvenience/costs to low income folks. Those who can afford it will pay for the paper bags. So the net result will probably be a huge increase in the use of paper bags. Question: is any kind of data going to be collected if such a ban is enacted, to see if it really is effective in reducing the number of plastic bags found as litter/reduce the number of paper bags used? Or do the proponents just get to pass this thing without a vote and declare victory, without anyone knowing one way or the other if such an ordinance is truly useful/effective/of benefit?
And by the way, does the public get to vote on this?
Elaine
“Many low income folks will not ask for a discount bc they don’t want to advertise their income status or go through the hassle of proving it in a grocery store. I see this as a very real drawback to your proposal. It would seem to me a better solution is to offer a way for low income folks to be given free reusable bags in private, so they don’t have to show proof of income at the store level.
I agree this would disproportionally affect the low income folks. One way to mitigate this would be to provide (possibly at their time of entry into a program, or by mail) some non disposable bags along with an explanation for their intended use.
Again, this is not a strange, new concept. It is the norm in Spain, Turkey and France for people to carry their own cloth or net bags to carry their purchases. I saw no plastic bags loose in the environment during my stays in any of these countries. Now I’ll admit that this is more than made up for by the fact that cigarette smoking is ubiquitous and a far greater hazard, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t adopt their positive practices.
I would hope that the public could vote on this. And would like to point out to Rusty that if adopted, it would be just as much a law as ordinances against camping in parks. And doubtless enacted for similar concerns. Isn’t that how our system is supposed to work ? If enough people perceive an unaddressed problem, then it is their prerogative to advocate for regulations to address it.
“Isn’t that how our system is supposed to work ? If enough people perceive an unaddressed problem, then it is their prerogative to advocate for regulations to address it.”
How about the countless people who don’t see it as a perceived unaddressed problem? Do we count? Or only what you and your ilk feel is right for everyone?
rusty49
Isn’t that why we vote either directly or through our representatives ?
What about the “countless people”who do not believe an ordinance against camping should be a law ? What is that law except a means for telling people what they can and can’t do ?
And my “ilk”…. Really ? What makes you think that you know anything about my kind or my sort ?
You favor a law ( or means of telling someone what to do) that prohibits park camping. I favor a law designed to limit plastic bag litter ( by telling people what they can use). Our positions regarding the right to implement laws would seem to be identical except for the fact that you don’t like my proposed regulation. You seem to feel this entitles you to label me in some way. Very curious.
Sorry Medwoman, nice try but your comparisons of banning plastic bags to illegally camping in public parks are apples to oranges.
rusty49
Please explain what you see as the difference.
[quote][u]”Fair enough. Snickers wrappers do blow about. But they also break down.”[/u][/quote] My, my medwoman, have you tried to open a Snickers bar in recent years.
How does a plastic bag behave any differently than any other piece of crud in a land fill?
I notice there’s not much talk of Davis’ bags getting into San Francisco Bay lately. What happened to that argument?
The attempts to be politically correct (exempting the poor) and to peel off powerful interests (exempting the Downtown Business Assn. members) reveal the ridiculousness of this proposal.
Finally, David, who wrote this article for you and who wrote the testimony for Tess. A little content analysis wouid reveal the answers, but ‘fess up, David. I don’t approve of little girls (or boys) being used as arms of propagandists. Has no one on this commission considered [u]making money for the city[/u] by gathering all the bags along the fences and selling them to Davis fireplace owners to use as fire starters.
Just Saying
My, my medwoman, have you tried to open a Snickers bar in recent years.
You may have me there. I haven”t had a candy bar in many years.
But regardless of whether or not you consider this ridiculous, would you object to a vote if that were an option ?