Because I just can’t help myself… Between the comments last week on the Vanguard and comments this week by Bob Dunning, I will say it now and repeat it until this issue resolves – If your argument for plastic bags at grocery stores boils down to doggy poop, then you’ve lost the debate.
Now, why is that, you ask? Because it is absurd that we have to provide plastic bags at grocery stores because otherwise people will have no way to deal with the waste products that come from the rear side of their canines.
Bob Dunning clearly overthinks the problems when he writes, “The city, which one day will no doubt ban plastic bags whether we like it or not, has a tough decision to make when it comes to the plastic bags that dog owners use to clean up after their pets …”
He adds, “Clearly, nothing but plastic will do, and just as clearly, these are not bags we wish to have anyone recycle … so, unable to ban plastic pooper scooper bags, the city is going to take the only logical path remaining by banning dogs … or at least banning dogs that poop … hey, it’s about the environment … if you want a dog, move to Woodland …”
Part of the problem, I think, is that he has a mistaken notion of what the ban will entail and also how it would be enforced.
Let us deal with what the ban entails. Grocery stores would no longer hand out plastic bags to their customers. Period. It does not go into other forms of plastic bags.
So the solution to the problem for dog owners is to… I know this is a novel approach, but to buy plastic bags for their dog’s waste material.
Now you say, does this not defeat the purpose of the plastic bag ban? The answer is no. Not everyone has a dog. Most plastic bags from grocery stores are not used for dog poop. The idea is to reduce the use of a wasteful product.
Do those bags cost money? Yes. Guess what, so do the bags you get from the grocery store, you just do not notice it because they simply factor it into the costs of their products.
Those newspaper bags probably are as cheap as anything; I used to have millions of them when I was a paperboy nearly 30 years ago.
If that doesn’t work, there are always the professionals… and even some environmentally friendly solutions.
Now I happen to believe that at some point we will find other ways to dispose of such things, but in the meantime, this is not quite the crisis that Bob Dunning and others are making it out to be.
Moreover, he cites someone else who writes, “Apparently some of the City Council members think the city has money to waste on adopting, enforcing and monitoring new and unnecessary ordinances. Give it a rest.”
First of all, not one person on the council has weighed in on this issue. It has not gone before the city council. It has not been approved by the city council.
Second, enforcing? This is not the wood-burning issue. It is not illegal and would not be under this law for an individual to possess a plastic bag. What would be banned under the ordinance is grocery stores giving out plastic bags at check out.
That is not going to be much of an enforcement problem.
Final point, the low income issue is another straw man argument. There are several good and easy solutions to it. One would be get a company to put their logo on a bunch of usable bags and hand them out. The second would be for the city to get an environmental grant to acquire or purchase a bunch of reusable bags. And under the worst case scenario, the city could make use of non-general fund money that is to go to such programs that aid the environment and again purchase the bags.
Again, a non-problem.
I get it that people do not like to be inconvenienced by government regulations of this sort. But what will be a far greater inconvenience is what will happen if we do not change our ways and how we consume products and dispose of them.
We can debate that, but let us not sink into absurdity.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Final point, the low income issue is another straw man argument. There are several good and easy solutions to it. One would be get a company to put their logo on a bunch of usable bags and hand them out. The second would be for the city to get an environmental grant to acquire or purchase a bunch of reusable bags. And under the worst case scenario, the city could make use of non-general fund money that is to go to such programs that aid the environment and again purchase the bags.[/quote]
Providing reusable bags to the low income would have to be part of the ordinance. It is a problem to the low income.
[quote]I get it that people do not like to be inconvenienced by government regulations of this sort. But what will be a far greater inconvenience is what will happen if we do not change our ways and how we consume products and dispose of them.
We can debate that, but let us not sink into absurdity.[/quote]
Are you willing to put this bag ban to a vote?
Just as an aside, what will you want to regulate next?
” Clearly, nothing but plastic will do”
Does Bob Dunning believe that people did not clean up dog poop before plastic bags were ubiquitous ?
I have owned dogs at various points in my life and have found all of the following to be adequate, if not “the Cadillac ” of poop removal:
Plastic zip log bags, wax paper sandwich wrappers, squares of newspaper, newspaper plastic bags, pages of old magazines, paper towels,
And in a pinch when the said preferred item was forgotten at home, even Kleenex will do ( a don’t leave home without item for mothers).
“Providing reusable bags to the low income would have to be part of the ordinance. It is a problem to the low income.”
I think that we can probably partner with companies to provide re-usable bags period as a way to facilitate the implementation of this. We can also get grant money. So I don’t think it should be aimed at the low income, but everyone.
“Are you willing to put this bag ban to a vote? “
No, as I explained last week.
“Just as an aside, what will you want to regulate next? “
My guess is that we are going to regulate a lot in the next ten years as we belatedly try to forestall complete environmental destruction.
Apparently San Luis Obispo beat Davis to the punch on this – link ([url]http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/01/14/1907807/plastic-bags-hold-a-lot-of-democracy.html[/url])
‘My guess is that we are going to regulate a lot in the next ten years as we belatedly try to forestall complete environmental destruction.”
Can you believe this guy? Complete environmental destruction? Hurry, the sky is falling, ban those plastic bags and we’ll all be saved.
[quote]ERM: “Are you willing to put this bag ban to a vote? ”
DMG: No, as I explained last week. [/quote]
In other words you are afraid a majority would vote this down? So you are perfectly happy to enact an ordinance (imposing the will of a minority on the majority) that [i]you happen to agree with[/i] but the majority probably doesn’t? What if the ordinance was one you didn’t like?
Rusty: I did not say that complete environmental destruction is being caused by plastic bans. But I do believe we are witnessing complete environmental destruction in the form of climate change and I expect we will have to take some rather stringent measures in the next ten years as we belatedly attempt to resolve it. Ironically it is not that the sky is falling so much as its density is increasing.
[quote]ERM: “Just as an aside, what will you want to regulate next? ”
DMG: My guess is that we are going to regulate a lot in the next ten years as we belatedly try to forestall complete environmental destruction.[/quote]
And who gets to decide what to regulate? You? Therein lies the problem – this type of regulation is a slippery slope. The next regulation you may not like…
“In other words you are afraid a majority would vote this down?”
Actually I would expect the council to vote this down as I explained last week when you asked the same question. I just believe this is a matter for the council to decide upon.
I would much prefer to work on making plastic bags truly biodegradable; have recycling at destination (at the trash dump/landfill), as a much more palatable and democratic method. To constantly pass a little regulation here, a little regulation there is cumbersome and does not really get at the underlying root problem.
“And who gets to decide what to regulate? You? “
How would I get to decide what to regulate? Is this is a serious question? Because I used to teach civics and could go through the process with you.
[quote]How would I get to decide what to regulate? Is this is a serious question? Because I used to teach civics and could go through the process with you.[/quote]
The point is that when a minority starts deciding what is best for everyone else, it starts down a slippery slope. You are all for this particular ordinance bc you happen to agree with it. However, suppose you didn’t agree with the ordinance? Would you be so sanguine? IMO, such a restriction should be put to a vote. If you truly care about the environment, it would make more sense to make all plastics biodegradable, or recycle at destination (the land fill), which really gets to the underlying problem much more effectively.
The irony here is I don’t we disagree on end result, just how to achieve that result…
I’m failing to understand your logic here. Is the council or any other representative body not elected by the majority? I don’t expect the council is going to support this because I think there is too much opposition in the community at this point in time. But time is also running out and we will have to impose this and much more stringent measures in the near future and I suspect the public is going to start coming around on it because it is going to have no choice.
Making plastic biogradable is only one small aspect of this problem, I’m frankly more concerned with where we get plastics (petroleum) and how much energy it takes to produce it. In the end, I think we have to move away from disposable products and towards reusable. There is no reason we cannot fund that transition.
ERM
I have a question about what matters you feel are appropriate for city council decision, and which should go to a community wide vote.
Using your logic on this matter, why have representative government at all ? Why not direct vote all issues ?
And as for your idea about biodegradable plastics, I like it. But since we don’t have it yet, why not limit as an interim step ?
We can debate that, but let us not sink into absurdity.
absurdity? lol! this whole proposal is totally retarded.
no further discussion needed.
the vanguard wants to ban plastic bags but leglize marijuana. what is wrong with this picture? lol
perhaps it would be healthier for the community if grocery stores stopped handing out plastic bags and handed out free pot instead to minors.
[quote]I have a question about what matters you feel are appropriate for city council decision, and which should go to a community wide vote. [/quote]
I am really pointing out the disingenousness of the Vanguard’s position. On the one hand it calls for a vote on some issues, then conveniently falls back on the “representative gov ‘t” argument for other issues. You cannot have it both ways…
[quote]I’m failing to understand your logic here. Is the council or any other representative body not elected by the majority? [/quote]
The Vanguard is very inconsistent in its positions; sometimes insisting matters go to a public vote, while other times falling back on the “representative gov’t” argument. As I said above, you cannot have it both ways…
“I am really pointing out the disingenousness of the Vanguard’s position. On the one hand it calls for a vote on some issues, then conveniently falls back on the “representative gov ‘t” argument for other issues. You cannot have it both ways…”
The problem with your view here is that you are ignoring something important. What have I called for an election for? Water. Why is that? We have a public process – the Prop 218 process that I believe to be unfair.
But the second point here, is why does my calling for a public election for water bear on a public election for a plastic bag ban? Can there not be reasons for advocating election on one issue and not another? And more to the point, if we call for an election on one issue, do we have to then call for elections on all issues? I know you will not directly address these questions, but at least others can read them and wonder for themselves.
A final point again, you argued previously that it was an argument of convenience – that I am opposed to an election in this matter because I support the matter. But as I explained before, I fully expect that the council will not approve it. You have dropped that assertion without comment, but without that assertion what is your basis for the charge selectivity?
ERM
Ok, I understand your feeling about the Vanguards position. That does not address your position . Do you have a criteria in mind for what meters deserve a public vote and which matters should be within the decision making scope of the council ?
I am asking you specifically because David has essentially already stated that he judges on a case by case basis and has never chosen to be explicit in his criteria. There could be many reasons for this bedsides “disingenuousness” which is the only possibility you raise. So if you feel that consistency is important in deciding which issues should be subject to direct vote vs representative decision making, then perhaps you have some definite criteria in mind that you believe should be adhered to. I actually would invite anyone to respond, especially those who have followed local and regional politics for a long time.
David, with all due respect, you cannot logically argue your way out of this obvious evidence of hypocrisy and political bias. You demand a vote on the water policy, but do not support putting a plastic bag ban on the ballot. The simple reason is that you know people vote their own self-interest and you also know where the common self interest does not synch-up with yours. Why can’t you just admit this and salvage some credibility? You cannot successfully argue nuanced to defend a position of objectivity on this.
The water, light tower and plastic bag debates have led me to conclude that our human nature is to pick a side and then dig in our heels defending our position. It appears to me that many of us are more concerned about having to admit we were originally wrong than we are concerned about the true facts for optimizing our views supporting policy decisions. The water debate has been very interesting to me because it was one that seemed to transcend identity politics. People lined up on one side or the other despite political leanings. With the plastic bag issues, it appears we have filtered back to our red vs. blue teams. My thinking here is that lefties like the warm fuzzy feeling they would get from approval of their Bay Area peers for banning plastic bags in our community… despite the fact that the negatives outweigh the positives.
Davis is trying to have it both ways. There are any number of council decisions that I disagree with and/or find infuriating, but I do not desire direct democracy. The council creates a slippery slope when it abdicates its leadership responsibility by punting to a public vote. Council members were elected to make decisions based on what they individually believe is in the best interest of the community, not to reflect the will of the majority. If they don’t have the backbone to make tough decisions, they should not stand for election or resign. The proper course is for the council to cast votes. The safety valve for the majority are referendums, initiatives, recalls, and elections.
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
Jeff Boone
Interesting how we think similarly on this one. My thinking is that the righties are simply determined to oppose anyone telling them what to do
despite the positives outweighing the negatives.
Jeff: you miss the point, there is already a vote on water mandated, the only question is what form that vote should be.
[quote]The problem with your view here is that you are ignoring something important. What have I called for an election for? Water. Why is that? We have a public process – the Prop 218 process that I believe to be unfair. [/quote]
Ah, but wasn’t the Prop 218 process put in place by a duly elected representative body? Again, you just cannot have it both ways.
[quote]But the second point here, is why does my calling for a public election for water bear on a public election for a plastic bag ban? Can there not be reasons for advocating election on one issue and not another?[/quote]
That kind of a system is completely arbitrary and capricious.
[quote]A final point again, you argued previously that it was an argument of convenience – that I am opposed to an election in this matter because I support the matter. But as I explained before, I fully expect that the council will not approve it. You have dropped that assertion without comment, but without that assertion what is your basis for the charge selectivity?[/quote]
What does your view that the City Council will not pass this ordinance have to do with the fact that you are against putting this to a vote because you are in favor of the ordinance and are afraid it will get voted down by a majority of Davis citizens? These are two completely different dynamics – one involves a vote of only five elected officials that would go against your view; the other involves the entire citizenry disagreeing with your view. Huge difference…
“Ah, but wasn’t the Prop 218 process put in place by a duly elected representative body?”
I believe it was put together by initiative, but I’m not sure the point either way. My point again is that I’m not in favor in general putting things on the ballot. The water project already has a public component, I’d simply prefer a more fair form. On the other hand, there are some issues I do think should be on the ballot
Do you believe someone should either be in favor of putting all matters on the ballot or no matters? Or is there a gray area for you?
“What does your view that the City Council will not pass this ordinance have to do with the fact that you are against putting this to a vote because you are in favor of the ordinance and are afraid it will get voted down by a majority of Davis citizens? “
I’m not afraid of having it get voted down by the majority of the citizens, nor am I sure that it would, but I’m not exactly sure why the matter needs to go to vote.
[quote]Ok, I understand your feeling about the Vanguards position. That does not address your position . Do you have a criteria in mind for what meters deserve a public vote and which matters should be within the decision making scope of the council ? [/quote]
This is a question I have wrestled with for a long, long time. I’m not always settled in my views on this issue, and recognized there are inherent problems with any opinion on this subject. Generally speaking, I think DT Businessman has summed up my general view fairly well:
[quote]Davis is trying to have it both ways. There are any number of council decisions that I disagree with and/or find infuriating, but I do not desire direct democracy. The council creates a slippery slope when it abdicates its leadership responsibility by punting to a public vote. Council members were elected to make decisions based on what they individually believe is in the best interest of the community, not to reflect the will of the majority. If they don’t have the backbone to make tough decisions, they should not stand for election or resign. The proper course is for the council to cast votes. The safety valve for the majority are referendums, initiatives, recalls, and elections. [/quote]
Where I am having a huge sticking point, and as the Vanguard seems to be advocating, is if the city is going to put some things up for a vote, yet not others, that is a huge procedural problem in my book. Suddenly we get a very arbitrary system that largely becomes meaningless. In fact, what it boils down to is if a group of citizens makes enough noise on an issue, the City Council is more apt to back down and take things to a vote for political cover. This gives inordinate power to particular focus groups, who can generally intimidate as a possibly very vocal minority. IMO, there needs to be definite consistency in the system.
Secondly, I prefer the representative form of gov’t because I think oftentimes individual citizens do not necessarily get themselves educated on the issues nor necessarily look at things in the long term, but form opinions on little or no information and in the short term, especially if the issue is very complicated and requires heavy lifting in terms of reading voluminous documents. Or because of political ideology or steadfastness on one aspect of the issue, e.g. cost to the personal pocketbook, do not look at all sides of an issue. The City Council on the other hand is charged to do just that – get educated on all facets of the issue and plan for the long haul.
But there is another part of me that has seen City Council members run rough shod over political process, and rammed things through that should have been properly vetted. So there needs to be a check on those sorts of abuses, and hence the need for referendums, initiatives, recalls and the like. But nevertheless this circles back around to my concern that there be a consistent process that is actually followed by everyone.
On the other hand, I still like the ballot propositions where citizens are able to vote on certain state issues. Yet I also recognize the inherent weaknesses of that sort of system, in that it often ties the hands of the legislature. As in anything else, there are pros and cons to every system, but whatever system is in place needs to be consist and consistently followed…
This is probably more than you wanted to know, but you did ask! 🙂
“Where I am having a huge sticking point, and as the Vanguard seems to be advocating, is if the city is going to put some things up for a vote, yet not others, that is a huge procedural problem in my book.”
I disagree that there is a procedural problem here. The procedure is that there are laws on the books that mandate public votes for tax measures and in Davis on Measure J matters. There is also a Prop 218 matter that is state law for utility rates. Other than those, the voters can essentially call for a public vote through petitioning for initiative or referendum. That is what happened in the case of water. So I’m not sure the problem here.
David, the problem is that you arbitrarily advocate for the council to NOT vote on certain issues and instead, demand that they send the issue to the ballot (you and Dunning have that in common by the way). Yet, in other instances you say “no, no, no, let the council do their job.” The inconsistency is blatant. Let the council do their job in every instance. If the citizens don’t like it, recall, referendum, initiative, etc. The concept is pretty simple (albeit not perfect).
DT Businessman aka Michael Bisch
So Mr. Bisch: is someone who puts one issue on the ballot, compelled to put all issues on the ballot? Like I said, the only issues I have advocated to put on the ballot are issues that already have a public vote component.
Mr. Greenwald: formal address on a blog? David, I’m not sure what you mean by “already have a public vote component”. If memory serves me correctly, you and Dunning were insisting that the surface water project be put to a public vote before the referendum had even qualified. I think that’s where many, myself included, see the hypocrisy. Why do you take issue with our current system of democracy? Let the council do its duty. If the citizenry takes issue with council decisions, they resort to recalls referendums, and initiatives. That’s exactly what Head and Harrington have done. Why do you insist on setting the cart before the horse?
Michael
Prop 218 means that on water rate issues the public has an automatic means for weighing in. By calling for a referendum, it only shifts the means of the vote, not the fact of it.
David, you and Dunning were insisting that the Council not act regardless of the Prop 218 outcome. You were insisting that they punt and put the matter to a general vote. The council should vote and then the citizens can weigh in with a referendum exactly as Head and Harrington have done. That’s the system that we have in place. It’s not perfect, but it’s good enough. What you have been advocating for is entirely arbitrary and turns the system on it’s head.
Michael
Michael: If we’re going to have a public system in place, I would prefer full voting rights. I’m a renter and do not have the right to protest, but my rent is going up next year if the water rates do, so it impacts me just as much as it does a property owner. But under the city’s interpretation of 218, I have no protest rights. That was the basis under which I advocated a public vote on the water rates.
I understand you may disagree with my rationale, but for the purposes of this debate, such a system does not exist for plastic bags and therefore my positions are not necessarily inconsistent as you and Elaine have suggested.