The release goes on to explain that the city will be blocking the bike path and southbound cyclists will be directed to use the southbound bicycle lane. Northbound cyclists and pedestrians will be directed to cross Lake Boulevard and use the eastern path.
But there is more still, there is going to be a public meeting early in January “to discuss possible long-term options for the bicycle path.”
The release reports, “Staff, with community input, will work to develop and implement a plan that may or may not include renovation of the path. The plan will be considered and approved, after public input, by the City Council. Details for the community meeting will be shared as soon as they are finalized.”
That got me wondering exactly what is the story behind this. At first I thought perhaps this was a budgetary issue and the city could not afford to repave this section of bike path. But that turned out not to be the case this time.
Instead, the story is a battle between the city and the neighbors about those pine trees, the roots of which have damaged the bike path to the point where it is unsafe. According to city officials, the neighbors have thus far refused calls to remove or thin the trees and there has been a protracted battle with the city – which has necessitated the public meeting.
To an outsider this would be a weird and bizarre battle. After all, Davis is supposedly the bike-friendly city and the home of the National Bicycling Hall of Fame.
To me it simply illustrates the duel nature of Davis. Everyone in this city pays lip service to its bicycling roots. But in terms of actually enacting bike-friendly policies that are inconvenient to other small groups of people, bicycling suddenly becomes an afterthought.
A few months ago, someone visiting from out of town was riding in the passenger seat of my vehicle and asked why people had dumped a huge amount of tree trimmings right in the bike lane. They thought it was stupid and pointed out that in their town, they have big green containers for green waste.
I sighed. I explained that this was a long and protracted battle that was lost over containerization of green waste. They just looked at me, shaking their head like I was speaking German.
To this day, that is the policy that grates on me the most, that makes the least sense. For all of Davis’ reputations, the most idiosyncratic of them all is that small groups of loosely-organized people can prevent very commonsense policies.
Observe this: Davis is supposed to be the bike-friendly capital of the US. And yet, we dump tree branches and leaves into bike lanes that cause serious hazards to bicyclists, both in terms of having to maneuver into traffic to avoid the trimmings and in terms of risk of injury from the trimmings themselves.
Most other communities utilize big green waste containers and they have no problems. But in Davis, when this was even posed as a pilot project, too many people got up in arms and the pilot failed. Instead, we had to enact a secondary plan, which was to use an inner stripe for the bike lane in hopes that people would dump their tree trimmings there and bicyclists could utilize the bike lane.
The final point I make is the state of Fifth Street. They are finally moving in the right direction on the Fifth Street redesign. For years, people tolerated one of the central east-west corridors in Davis, the bike capital of the country if not the world, to be problematic at best for bicycling.
To this day, people will argue that bicyclists should be banned from Fifth Street (which is not legal). The Bicycling Hall of Fame is less than two blocks away from a major street that is as unfriendly to bicycling as any.
Changing Fifth Street has taken years. It has been on our radar since the start of the Vanguard and it was on the radar well before the Vanguard came into being. It has received opposition from the business community and many have accused critical city staffers of slow-playing the project.
And yet, before every council election all of the councilmembers and hopefuls play homage to bicycling. This year, Stephen Souza had his reelection announcement on the steps of the Bicycling Hall of Fame and then took his supporters and media on a tour of the city.
Each year, we have questions about how to make Davis more bicycling-friendly, and we hear about bicycle-sharing programs, handy storage, ways to get students to bike to school – at the same time, we have policies in this town and sacred cows that no one has attempted to change.
I will watch with bemused curiosity as to how the bike lane versus pine trees situation plays out on Lake. I sympathize about the trees, which are a huge asset to the community, but am perplexed that we are unable make bike lanes and trees be able to coexist, much as I am that we cannot put leaves and tree branches into big green waste containers.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Bikes vrs. pine trees
What a quandary for the Davis feel gooders
Green waste containers work for grass clippings and limited amounts of dropped leaves. They do not work for large amounts of leaves from mature trees and the pruning that is necessary. Green waste containerization would be a boon to the businesses that are large enough to truck away this material and would end homeowners tending their own mature trees and those who earn a living caring for homeowner’s trees but do not have the equipment of the large mechanized operations.
“To me it simply illustrates the duel nature of Davis. ” This simple misuse of a homonym speaks volumes about your town’s character .
Green waste containers also keep the gutters and storm drains clear. I see contractors and homeowners dumping the green waste directly into the gutter, and sometimes the storm drain itself. In some cases these drain lines go directly to storm drain stations, which have bar screens that collect this material, which is then manually cleaned by city employees, sometimes by hand, sometimes using equipment such as a backhoe or vacuum truck. Limbs larger than a few inches must be seperated by hand. Standard practice is for employees to bag the greenwaste by hand at the stations then put the material into dumpsters.
Or we could use geenwaste containers.
In addition to street side dumping of green waste being a real safety hazard causing multiple serious bike accidents a year, it is a huge fiscal drain that easily costs the City in excess of a million dollars a year compared to green waste containerization. For instance, it requires two vehicles to pick up green waste on the street (the “Claw” and a tote vehicle) compared to only a single truck when green waste is containerized. Additionally, it necessitates street sweeping every week to pick up the mess left behind by the Claw. Just converting to street sweeping once every two weeks by itself would save the City about $400,000+ per year.
Both Sacramento and Woodland have converted to green waste containerization over the past 5 years and everybody is still alive in both of those cities – no plagues and pestilences as predicted by the opponents of containerized green waste. They solved the problem of huge accumulations of leaves every fall by bringing the claw back in service for 2 months every fall to pick up the leaf piles.
A proposal to convert to green waste containerization was put before the previous Davis City Council about 6 years ago by the NRC but a band of about 30 citizens showed up on the night of the Council hearing demanding the City not take away their inalienable rights to throw their green waste right on the street. As usual, our then spineless Council backed down and the can was kicked down the road…again.
The NRC is expected later this year to again put the issue before the Council but this time back it up with good statistics on bicycle accidents caused by the street piles of green waste and documentation as to how much money can be saved by converting to containerization.
[i]”Most other communities utilize big green waste containers and they have no problems”[/i]
We like lots of bikes, we like lots of affordable housing, we like lots of trees, we like narrow roads… all these things conflict with each other.
Speaking for myself and my neightbors, we have small lots. Many Davis residents have small lots. Frankly, I do not have room to store another waste container.
My trees and shrubs store the material for most of the time. Then when they shed it or I trim it and move it to the gutter for a few days before it is picked up. I don’t have stuff there all the time. Finding room on on the side street is even difficult with all the street parking.
What is laughable about this new container idea… we would still need to roll it to the gutter and it would still impede bike travel.
Here is a better idea… reduce the obscene pay and benefits going to city employees and use the savings to double or triple the frequency of green waste pickup.
Alanpryor, sit down, are you ready for this? I agree with you on the containerization of green clippings. Wow, that was hard to type. I’ve always felt that the piles looked like crap, created a hazard and containers were a much better way to go. Being that it should result in an overall savings for the city, as you point out, does that also mean that our garbage/green waste rates will go down?
While it may seem interesting to lump together three separate and distinct issues to forward a generalized pro-bike agenda, it would seem to me each issue should be weighed on its own merits.
1) Bike path on portion of Lake Blvd – this is an issue of trees versus bikes. In order to permanently solve the destruction of bike path at that particular location, some trees would have to be removed. If the neighborhood is in love with those trees, or the trees offer crucial shade, or any number of other reasons, those advantages of the trees have to be weighed against the fact that these trees are ruining the bicycle path in their immediate vicinity. The position of this article seems to indicate bicycle considerations should win out every time as opposed to a reasonable balancing between opposing considerations. Perhaps there is some middle ground that can be reached on this issue…
2) Containerization – as some have noted above, containerization of yard waste is not a perfect solution by any means. There are less obtrusive and cheaper solutions, such as plastic bagging yard waste so it won’t scatter in the winds and can be strategically/better placed out of the way of bicyclists. One more large green container just won’t fit into a garage which is already filled with two huge containers. Not to mention rotting yard waste in a garage will smell to high heaven. And a large green container in the middle of a bike path is just as much problem as a pile of yard debris in the middle of a bike path. I think conflating containerization with placing obstacles in bike paths is inappropriately conflating two distinctly different issues. Containerization is not necessarily the best solution to bike path obstruction.
3) Fifth street redesign – is an issue about bicycles sharing the road with cars in a way that is safest for both. It is not even clear the redesign will work, altho modeling and other evidence seems to point in that direction, but only time will tell if the plan will work at that specific location. Businesses have a legitimate concern that the redesign might chase potential customers out of the downtown (altho I suspect their fears will not be realized, but rather things will IMPROVE for business w the redesign).
Davis as a town is pretty forward thinking about bicycle usage compared to just about every other town I have ever visited. Some bicycle enthusiasts can point to even better models, which certainly gives Davis some potential ideas to emulate. Nevertheless, Davis has done a great job in making the city extremely bicycle friendly, and the TAG group has plans to make it even more bicycle friendly than it is currently. But the conclusory nature of this article IMO totally misses the mark: [quote]Everyone in this city pays lip service to its bicycling roots. But in terms of actually enacting bike-friendly policies that are inconvenient to other small groups of people, bicycling suddenly becomes an afterthought.[/quote] I do not think Davis is paying mere “lip service” to enacting bike-friendly policies. The TAG (of which I am a member) is currently working hard on making sure considerations for bicycle use is front and center. But that does not mean every other consideration will take a back seat to bicycling at all times…
O K folks, here’s the upside of street piles . If the city composts all of your greenwaste, and I hope you do, containerization offers a much greater opportunity to contaminate the waste . Here’s a benefit that should interest thrifty Davisites, those 90 gallon Toters cost about $50 each and require nearly annual repair or replacement and the purchase or lease of sideloader trucks to pick them up . By the way, you’ll still have to maintain the claw and rear-loaders for leaf season, hazmats and street clean-ups of illegal dumping, etc. I suppose the containers might be more visible to bicyclists, but they are at least as unyielding to collisions, weighing well over 100 lbs. if filled with wet grass or leaves . The biggest benefit in Sacramento, when they changed over, was to the logistics service, contracted to deliver the containers and the vendor supplying them .
Here’s what Woodland actually does:
“From [b]Feb 2nd through October 31s[/b]t, Waste Management will provide [b]monthly green waste street pile collection[/b] along with weekly green waste cart collection.
From [b]November 1st through February 1st,[/b] Waste Management will provide [b]weekly green waste street pile collection [/b]along with weekly green waste cart collection.
Woodland residents are asked to fill their green waste carts first before placing their green waste in the street.
Please remember: Grass clippings MUST NEVER GO IN THE STREET and MUST ALWAYS GO IN THE CART.
Residents may place their green waste out on the street up to seven days prior to their collection date. Please see calendar provided with cart, on back page of quarterly newsletter or call Customer Service for clarification of the service date for your neighborhood.”
This was developed in response to significant public opposition to cart-only pickup, and seems like a workable solution to me.
It’s too bad the Stone pines turned out to be an unsuitable species. The best answer in the long run is gradual replacement with a suitable fast-growing species. City arborists and local nursery owners have suitable suggestions. Usually professionals can assess which individual trees are the worst and make a replacement strategy that minimizes loss of shade.
BTW-Home composting has saved me a fortune in soil amendments and lots of water over the last 20 years . It’s easy,(especially for the young)and is a big way to reduce waste and save water . Here’s The City of Davis site: http://cityofdavis.org/pw/compost/
To: ERM re: “…a large green container in the middle of a bike path is just as much problem as a pile of yard debris in the middle of a bike path.”
This is incorrect. A green waste container takes up a far smaller footprint than a pile of green waste. Additionally, it can be strategically located closer to the curb thus allowing bicycles to pass it more easily without veering into the car traffic lane. Plus, the green waste containers are far more visible to bicyclists particularly at night. This is because of the bright green color and because they sit up much higher from the street level making them more visible. Davis Bicycles! and other cycling advocates have been strong proponents of green waste containerization for years for these same safety reasons.
To ERM re: “There are less obtrusive and cheaper solutions, such as plastic bagging yard waste so it won’t scatter in the winds and can be strategically/better placed out of the way of bicyclists.”
Actually the city used to allow bagging of green waste but it got to be a huge problem because the plastic bags had to be manually split open and the contents spread out to dry before being trucked to the composting facility. Then you have to retrieve the plastic bags and throw them away after this single use. Plus you still have the two vehicle pickup requirement – the Claw and tote vehicle. Bagging green waste is more clearly more expensive and not as sustainable as green waste containerization.
[i]”To me it simply illustrates the duel nature of Davis.”[/i]
[b]”This simple misuse of a homonym speaks volumes about your town’s character.”[/b]
Really? Our town’s character? That conclusion speaks volumes about anyone who thinks a simple spelling mistake speaks volumes.
Just so the former Cal Poly student understands, a homonym is two or more words which are spoken the same but spelled differently and have different meanings. Dual–which you ought to have written because it means “copmposed of two”–and duel (as in the maniac Aaron Burr murdering Alexander Hamilton over the bluffs of Weehawken, New Jersey) make up a homonym. It is the same with right, write, rite and wright.
When I type, I will very often screw up homonyms. There and their (but never they’re) is a pair my brain processes incorrectly. I know the difference between there and their. But when I type, that fact is not apparent.
CORRECTION: “… it means ‘copmposed of two’ …”
Make that composed of two. My bad.
ALAN HYPERBOLE: [i]”In addition to street side dumping of green waste being a real safety hazard causing multiple serious bike accidents a year …”[/i]
Do you have a source for this claim?
[i]”It’s too bad the Stone pines turned out to be an unsuitable species.”[/i]
Agreed.
You may not agree with me on this, Don–I concede you know 12,467 times as much as I know about the topic–but pine trees seem to me as less than ideal for most purposes in Davis. If you have a healthy pine or two, they can adequately provide summer shade for your house or yard. That is good. But very often I will see pine species around town which have gaps and thus don’t really provide great shade, at least as they have been pruned. Also, if you have a pine tree on the south or west side of your house, you pretty much get that same amount of shade year round, which is not helpful when the weather is cooler and you would be better off getting the sun to shine on your house.
It’s more-less the same with the great number of redwood trees in Davis, though they tend to be thick with foliage and thus provide good summertime shade.
My recommendation–take Don’s word on this over my own, of course–is that leaf-bearing trees are in most circumstances in Davis a superior tree option for shade purposes. I have a fruitless mulberry–a horrible tree due to its roots–in my front yard, which provides excellent shade for my house. With only mediocre 1960s construction, my house (save on the west side) almost never gets hot inside. I attribute a lot of that to that one tree. (We also have a city hackberry in the front yard. That tree is wonderful, but further from my house.)
[i]”BTW-Home composting has saved me a fortune in soil amendments and lots of water over the last 20 years”[/i]
I has cost me hundreds of dollars in equipment, more flies, more rodents and the smell of decaying material in my side-yard.
However, I still do it because it is cool to make useful stuff from garbage.
I have enjoyed this discussion on an important safety issue for bicyclists. A few points:
1. Where double striping has been used (e.g. Oak and 14th in front of the High School) the problem of green waste in bike lanes has essentially disappeared. Unfortunately not all the streets with bike lanes (or streets without bike lanes on which bicyclists ride) are wide enough to have double striping (think B Street north of 8th or Drexel east of L).
2. Green waste in streets is not a safety hazard for cyclists on most streets. It is a non issue on neighborhood streets because they have low traffic volumes and people can ride in the middle of the street. In fact, there are relatively few streets in the city where green waste poses a safety problem for bicyclists AND on which double striping cannot be used.
3. As I understand it, the TAG to which Elaine referred is developing a map of “bikeways” that represents arterials and feeder streets that are most heavily used by bicyclists. I would suggest we use this map (or something like it) to identify streets or street segments where double striping cannot be used and where green waste piles in bike lanes or near curbs where cyclists ride are a problem (let’s designate these streets “safety corridors” much like CALTRANS does on dangerous rural roads). Again, think B Street north of 8th or 8th Street between B and F or Alvarado. We could work with neighbors, apartment complex owners and DWR to come up with choices to make sure green waste is kept out of bike lanes or bike riding areas on these streets. For example, people could have the choice of placing piles on designated side streets or other designated areas, have multiple pick up days, use containers or hire landscape companies to haul it away (in some cases they have contracted to do just that but do not fulfill their contracts). I think working on the problem this way will enable us to move greenwaste off streets most heavily used by bicyclists and not be a large burden on most homeowners. Having analyzed the situation a bit I can say that the streets concerned would be relatively few in number (sorry no exact numbers yet). We could focus greenwaste enforcement efforts on them (yes, we already have an ordinance not allowing greenwaste in bike lanes.)
4. The foregoing only deals with greenwaste as it concerns bicycling safety. As for Rich’s question about accident statistics there are virtually none because bike crashes that are not car related are typically not reported. However, I can say that I have personally spoken to 6 people within the past year who have had bicycle accidents in that period related to greenwaste. This includes one adult with a broken arm, two involving children and one involving an adult resulting in serious face and forehead lacerations. To me this indicates a problem. But, as I have stated, I don’t think the problem is widespread and unmanageable.
Finally, I think it is perfectly normal in a city our size to have competing needs/interests. The conflicts raised in David’s article do not point, in my view, to insurmountable issues but require all of us to consider the tradeoffs involved even as we seek solutions.
Robb Davis
Sorry, Rich . Doctor Freud’s assertions and the various referenda, initiatives and recalls not withstanding, I don’t know where I got the idea that Davisites are a contentious lot .
Jeff-“However, I still do it because it is cool to make useful stuff from garbage. ” I dig that too, especially the fact that microbes do the work . It’s like having a staff of billions . It cost me about $20 for the chicken wire and wood . I already had the shovel and rake . I haven’t had the rodent problem, but I keep some four legged companions around that seem to discourage rats and mice . Here’s a site that might help with the odor: http://green.yahoo.com/blog/care2/397/how-to-keep-a-compost-pile-smelling-good.html
What about a hybrid solution where bins are required on main bike traffic streets lacking double lines (e.g., definitive bike lanes outside the area where green waste is placed on the street)? On side-street residential areas and other roads that get little bike traffic keep things the same.
Also, I think it makes sense to require bins on any street where parking is not allowed. Thinking about this… it makes the argument about green piles being a safety hazard for bikers seem very silly when cars park in the same place. Since you should not ride a bike over the top of parked cars, the green piles between the cars should not be a problem.
I would be okay with a hybrid solution that makes rational sense. Bins are a major PITA, but green piles do present a hazard on some roads.
Note that homeowners requiring bins will probably be grouchy about it. So will their landscape maintenance workers who today don’t have to scoop leaves and branches into a bin.
I don’t think we need to reinvent this. Woodland has already been through the process and has a workable solution.
I agree with your assessment, Rich. Pines are mostly ornamental. Stone pine is unusual for its spread and density, but still doesn’t provide the shade value of deciduous trees.
Stonegate is interesting in that more conifers were used there than usual: pines, coast redwoods, deodar and atlas cedars are much more prevalent than in other parts of Davis. i don’t know why that happened, but it does make the area distinctive. However, you get much more shade value from trees like sycamores and plane trees, Chinese pistache, deciduous oaks (especially the non-native species), etc., and you get the winter sun. It would be pretty easy to come up with a tree replacement plan for Lake Blvd.
A Woodland-designed solution in Davis? Egad!
A hybrid solution was suggested as part of the pilot on the last go-around on this issue, but was also soundly rejected by the opponents.
It should be noted that greenwaste bins are required, and used, in Davis on parts of 8th Street. How many of you knew that?
[quote]My recommendation–take Don’s word on this over my own, of course–is that leaf-bearing trees are in most circumstances in Davis a superior tree option for shade purposes. [/quote]
Not in my book. I love, love, love pine trees. There are a wonderful tall grouping of them on the corner next to my house that offer wonderful shade from the sun as it sets in the west. And the smell of pine is just gorgeous! And pines are green all year round, which is great – they look beautiful all year round, even in the winter!
To Robb Davis: Thanks for a wonderful compromise suggestion on the containerization issue. Your comments were extremely intelligent and thoughtful…
[i]”There are a wonderful tall grouping of them on the corner next to my house that offer wonderful shade from the sun as it sets in the west.”[/i]
Yet you are getting that shade in winter, too, when it would be far nicer to have the sun warming your house this time of year.
That said, some pine trees are quite cute:
[img]http://daddytypes.com/archive/air_freshener_costume.jpg[/img]
Just for the record, I agree with city arborist Rob Cain that some root pruning or grinding could probably be done, with proper supervision (as described, with him on site) as a temporary solution. I haven’t looked on site, but he knows what he is doing.
In the long run, the trees will need to be gradually replaced. Evergreens have their place. They’re not as good for shade, but they are effective windbreaks and provide winter interest. Coast redwood is fine if it gets sufficient moisture. I like Deodar cedar and Incense cedar in drier settings, among others.
[i]”Davis is supposed to be the bike-friendly capital of the US.”[/i] It is also a Tree City USA. The city’s tree canopy is a big part of what makes it livable and comfortable.
[i]For all of Davis’ reputations, the most idiosyncratic of them all is that small groups of loosely-organized people can prevent very commonsense policies.[/i]
Sometimes, David, you are myopic. You live in an apartment. Landscapers, professional gardeners, homeowners, and avid gardeners would disagree with your assessment that requiring them to cut everything into container-size units is “commonsense.” I have run a landscape business. It would be impossible for most pruning or yard maintenance to function that way. Most would, I imagine, be willing to work with a once-a-month pickup schedule, with adjustments for the higher volume of bulky yard waste created in the winter pruning season.
Have you ever pruned a fruit tree? How about a back yard with a dozen or more? Unless you want all those maintenance companies and homeowners hauling their yard waste to the dump, we will devise a sensible policy that accommodates their output, that of homeowners with backyard orchards, and also creates a safer environment for bikes. Please don’t disparage as lacking commonsense activities you aren’t familiar with.
[i]For all of Davis’ reputations, the most idiosyncratic of them all is that small groups of loosely-organized people can prevent very commonsense policies. [/i]
You often crow about Davis’ involved democracy and citizenry. Sometimes, the result is the tyranny of the minority. In my travels in California, it seems clear that Davis’ reputation for lack of common sense policies far outweighs its reputation as a biking capital.
I lived in several other cities in the last 15 years before moving here. Some were larger and more dense than Davis, others were similar. All had containerized green waste, or it was hauled to a composting facility if you needed to dispose of more than the container would hold. In addition to the danger mentioned, the piles of leaves and branches are a significant nuisance around the elementary schools where abundant street side parking is needed on school days.
“For all of Davis’ reputations, the most idiosyncratic of them all is that small groups of loosely-organized people can prevent very commonsense policies.”
Or small groups that can create unneeded policies like plastic bag bans.
[i]”the piles of leaves and branches are a significant nuisance around the elementary schools where abundant street side parking is needed on school days …”[/i]
A better solution would be for kids to ride their bikes or to walk to school. It’s shocking that anyone thinks its reasonable to clear out “parking” zones explicitly for those parents whose children would be better off getting some exercise.
This phenomenom of hundreds of SUVs pulling up at every elementary school to drop off students who are capable of walking or biking is beyond me. It seems to have started in the mid-1990s and grown from there. I get it if you live five miles out in the country or your kid goes to a magnet school (like Chavez) and you live in S. Davis. I get it if your kid is handicapped. I get it if it is snowing. What confuses me is why so many parents with healthy tots think their kids can’t bike two miles or less to school in Davis? I am also confused by those Greenpeace stickers on the parents’ gas-guzzlers.
[quote]Yet you are getting that shade in winter, too, when it would be far nicer to have the sun warming your house this time of year. [/quote]
Actually the way the trees are placed doesn’t really effect the sunshine in my living room until quite late in the day, so it really isn’t a problem. The pine trees themselves are so beautiful, I would hate to see anything else put on that corner. They offer a rich green canopy/scenery all year round. I just love, love, love them. Different strokes for different folks! As Don Shor wisely said:
[quote]Evergreens have their place. They’re not as good for shade, but they are effective windbreaks and provide winter interest. Coast redwood is fine if it gets sufficient moisture. I like Deodar cedar and Incense cedar in drier settings, among others. [/quote]
[quote]You often crow about Davis’ involved democracy and citizenry. Sometimes, the result is the tyranny of the minority. In my travels in California, it seems clear that Davis’ reputation for lack of common sense policies far outweighs its reputation as a biking capital. [/quote]
Amen!
[quote]Or small groups that can create unneeded policies like plastic bag bans.[/quote]
LOL… right on!
[i]I get it if you live five miles out in the country or your kid goes to a magnet school (like Chavez) and you live in S. Davis.[/i]
Agreed. Of course if we have more kids biking and running into piles of sticks or sliding in wet leaves, the problem that we are trying to address still exists
Here is an idea all the conservative, small government types on this blog should support: how about the city doesn’t pick up green waste at all? If you grow it, you should plan to compost it, or haul the wood to a central location yourself. Stop depending on government to take care of your yard.
sure, if you reduce my garbage fees accordingly.
Then I can create a company that will provide this service to the wealthy. Just pile your green piles on your front yard, and I will send a truck to pick it up for a fee.
Here is an idea all the liberal, big government types on this blog should support: instead of just a weekly pick up the city goes to a daily schedule, consumers get charged $100 for a new container that’s only worth $25, the city buys more trucks and hires more workers, puts four employees per truck, one working, two sleeping in the cab and the other guy is the supervisor, takes picked up green waste and first delivers it to the EPA for inspection, then takes it to an electric plant that produces energy at a cost five times higher than the current rate but justifies the losses because it’s renewable.
Just for the record, trash service is out-sourced in Davis.
Rusty49: LOL! Thanks for that. I needed it today!
[i]”Just for the record, trash service is out-sourced in Davis.”[/i]
True. However, it’s very often hard to find a real distinction between a government-owned monopoly and a privately owned company granted monopoly status, as the DWR Co. has in Davis*. I suppose the one benefit to the City of Davis of having a private outfit operate our waste removal services–since SB 440 of 1999–is that the taxpayers are not stuck with a huge bill for the retiree healthcare and unfunded pensions of the DWR workers.
*A brilliant (though quite strange) British-born economist, Robert Crouch, who I had the pleasure of studying under as an undergraduate at UCSB, had a famous joke about such [i]private[/i] enterprises: “You know how you can tell you are in the offices of a publicly regulated monopoly? Each of the directors will have two secretaries–one who can type.”
Here is a picture of the strange professor, glorying in his own weirdness:
[img]http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/fpics/rlcc.jpg[/img]