Given the amount of attention this item has received, one would think it has already been to city council and passed into law. However, tonight, the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) will consider whether or not to recommend that the Carryout Bag Ordinance go before the council.
There has been much discussion about the impact of plastic bags on Davis’ local environment. According to the staff report, “Plastic bags make up 50-60% of the litter at the Yolo County Central Landfill (YCCL) and can cause major problems on windy days. The YCCL receives regular citations from County LEA [local enforcement agencies] for litter (usually plastic bags) observed during regular inspections.”
The report adds, “In 2010, YCCL staff estimated that 1,815 hours were spent picking up litter at the YCCL. This equates to roughly $34,000 a year spent for plastic bag litter clean-up costs.”
Back in November, the NRC directed staff to begin researching and developing an ordinance that would restrict the use of single-use carryout bags.
According to the ordinance, the ban would apply to all grocery stores, convenient stores, liquor stores and large drug stores. It limits the distribution of single-use carryout bags.
It places a 10 cent paper bag pass-through fee on all paper bags. Reusable bags may be sold for no less than 10 cents, and cannot be given out for free (except during a time-limited promotion).
Finally, the ordinance carries a low income exemption.
The ordinance would have to go through the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process in order to reduce future legal liabilities. As staff notes, “The CEQA process has been highly contentious for this issue, with ten (10) different jurisdictions being sued to date by the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition. Most of the lawsuits have been based on allegations that the jurisdictions did not follow the proper CEQA process.”
As the Vanguard has noted in previous articles, the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition filed suit in places like San Luis Obispo County.
It is important to note that the enforcement would be on the supply end, not the consumer end. It would not be illegal for a citizen to have a bag. What is banned is the entities listed above distributing bags.
The ordinance stipulates, “The City of Davis may impose civil liability in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for the first violation of this chapter, five hundred dollars ($500) for the second violation, and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the third and subsequent violations.”
The ordinance also contains language that the city would “periodically contact businesses to which this ordinance applies to assess ordinance effectiveness and to provide assistance for ordinance implementation efforts. This would include periodic surveys, outreach meetings and/or written communications with participating businesses.”
On Friday, the Davis Downtown Business Association sent out an email to its membership, advertising the meeting.
They write: “The ordinance will restrict the use of single-use carryout bags (both paper and plastic), restrict the ability of businesses to provide complimentary reusable bags, and require businesses to charge customers when providing 100% recycled paper bags.”
They go on to note: “All of which will have a significant impact on business operations in Downtown Davis and the City as a whole.”
However, given the specific targets of the ordinance, it seems very unlikely that more than two or three downtown businesses will be impacted by this ordinance and it seems likely that the two grocers in the downtown area already restrict the use of single-use plastic bags.
In other words, this ordinance will have hardly any impact on downtown businesses at all.
Furthermore, grocers have generally been supportive of these ordinances in other communities.
For instance, going back to the San Luis Obispo plastic bag ban, one of the major supporters was the California Grocers Association.
According to their website: “CGA is a non-profit, statewide trade association representing over 500 retail members operating more than 6,000 food stores in California and Nevada, and approximately 200 grocery supplier companies.”
Furthermore, “Retail membership includes chain and independent supermarkets, convenience stores and mass merchandisers.”
According to Alan Pryor, one of the chief advocates of the ban in this community, writing in a March 1 Vanguard article, “In its simplest form, the proposed ordinance was quite similar to other municipal ordinances recently enacted in California. The proposed ordinance would only restrict distribution of handled, carry-out plastic bags by Davis retailers with annual sales in excess of $1,000,000.”
He adds, “Restrictions on the thinner, handle-less plastic bags shoppers use for meats and produce within a store were NOT included in that proposed ordinance for sanitary reasons. Further, restaurants and fast food establishments are exempt as are pharmacies when dispensing prescriptions.”
“A 10 cent per bag charge was proposed to be applied to all full-size paper bags distributed by affected retailers to encourage people to bring their own reusable bags. However, those allowed paper bags must be recyclable and contain 40% post-consumer content as is the case with all similar municipal ordinances,” Mr. Pryor writes.
He added, “The 10 cent charge is the presumed estimated cost of recovery incurred by stores for distribution of the recyclable large sized paper bags and is also the most common fee imposed by other municipalities with such ordinances. Davis Food Coop shoppers are well aware of the impacts of this type of ordinance as the Coop has eliminated single-use take-out plastic bags for years but only charges $0.05 for a paper bag.”
While we appreciate that exemptions would be allowed for free distribution of bags to various low income people, we would prefer the city, through either a grant or through the uses of funds available for climate change programs, subsidize free reusable bags to all sorts of residents.
The low income exemption would enable low income customers to avoid additional costs for bags. However, as Mr. Pryor notes, “Others can always use reusable bags and not incur any charges.”
For that reason we question restrictions on the free distribution of reusable bags.
This has been a contentious issue in a number of other communities, and figures to be in Davis as well.
However, it is now a movement in many communities to ban the use of single-use plastic bags and, moreover, many grocers throughout the state have made the decision to stop using plastic grocery bags on their own, according to the California Grocers Association.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
vanguard: “However, given the specific targets of the ordinance, it seems very unlikely that more than two or three downtown businesses will be impacted by this ordinance and it seems likely that the two grocers in the downtown area already restrict the use of single-use plastic bags.
In other words, this ordinance will have hardly any impact on Downtown businesses at all.”
which makes this ordinance seem predjucicial, because it has an appearance of punishing those who are mainly not part of the DDBA.
Your comment makes no sense.
The proposed Davis bag ordinance targets high volume distributors of plastic bags which are mainly grocery stores, convenience food stores, and drug stores. The reason there are few DDBA members affected is because there are few of those types of establishments in the downtown core area. Determining who was going to be covered by this ordinance or not had nothing to do with whether or not they were a DDBA member
IMO, this is a solution in search of a problem. My guess is that even if the bag ban were approved and instituted, it would not change the habits of most people. They will just accept the extra cost of the convenience of plastic/paper bags being handed out, rather than having to remember to bring reusable bags. And if I am correct, the ones that will end up being “punished” are the low income, who must remember to bring reusable bags or “pay the price”. So my next question is are the proponents of this ordinance in search of a problem going to collect data on:
1) How much this may hurt business?
2) If the cost of groceries goes down, to reflect the plastic bags now have to be purchased and are not included in the cost of the groceries?
3) If there is a significant reduction in the amount of plastic bag litter on a windy day?
And once this bag ban is instituted, what will the bag-banners’ eyes set on next to control?
Per Davis wiki, the Yolo County Landfill serves the unincorporated county, West Sacramento, Woodland, and Davis. Davis accounts for 22% of the waste tonnage. Pictures of bags blowing off the landfill are merely spin in support of this Davis ordinance. The landfill will continue to receive more than 75% of its waste from regions not covered by the ordinance.
Can we have the picture of the safeway bag in the trees back? At least that one was local.
Like many Davis families, we use canvas shopping bags whenever possible, and we favor minimizing plastic waste. However, I am dismayed to see [u]paper[/u] grocery bags included in this proposed ordinance, and suggest that that provision be removed.
Paper bags are a very minor part of the waste paper stream. (Looked at your paper recycling recently? How much of it is junk mail and newspaper ads?)
Paper bags are usually made at least partly from recycled paper, and are themselves recyclable, biodegradable, and useful for may other things, [b]They often are used instead of plastic bags[/b] ([i]e.g.[/i] for lining trash cans). For the latter reason, [b]imposition of a charge for paper grocery bags may actually [i]increase[/i] the use of plastic garbage bags.
[/b]
Are there any paper grocery bags stuck to the chain link fence in the photo at the top of this story?
Elaine – Re: “…this is a solution in search of a problem…it would not change the habits of most people”
In fact, the cities that have implemented this ordinance in California have seen dramatic reductions in plastic bag usage and litter. People just naturally have changed their habits and bring along reusable bags. Such ordinances have actually worked quite well in reducing both plastic and paper bag usage and litter.
Re: “How much this may hurt business?”
I have spoken with the Director of Economic Development in Palo Alto (whose ordinace only covers grocery stores) and he claims they have not been adversely impacted at all. And Palo Alto has cities without ordinances directly adjacent to them and not miles and miles away as in the case of Davis so I think we are very well insulated against sales leakage vis-a-vis grocery sales. I also spoke with the Director of Sustainability in Santa Monica whose ordinance is very similar tothat proposed in Davis. She also said they have not seen any sales flight. They even include their Farmers Market in their ordinance and she claims it is bigger than ever.
Re: “If the cost of groceries goes down to reflect the plastic bags now have to be purchased…”
Grocers operate with net margins of 1% on average. The cost of plastic bags is not even on their radar because they only pay a penney apiece for them. For the average consumer who buys $50 of groceries and gets them in 5 plastic bags, the savings to the store will only be $0.05/$50.00 = 1/10th of 1% of the grocery purchase price.
Re: “And once this bag ban is instituted, what will the bag-banners’ eyes set on next to control?”
This question is posed in a manner designed to stir political emotions and is not conducive to constructive debate. But since you asked, recall that the City Council has implemented a Zero Waste Resolution consistent with the intent of the State legislation. The NRC is only implementing what the Council has called for and getting ahead of the curve of what will be State law in a matter of time. Next up, the NRC will try to expand the pilot commercial food composting program to a citywide basis. Indeed, a forum is planned on that topic also at the NRC meeting this eve. Commercial food composting on a city-wide basis is also being pioneered in the Bay Area and is an absolute key to meeting State-mandated diversion rates looming on the horizon. We just can’t sit back and do nothing on these waste issues or we will likely pay a steeper price to implement them later
To: David Suder Re: “Are there any paper grocery bags stuck to the chain link fence in the photo at the top of this story?”
I took that picture of the landfill fence from the adjacent County Rd. The vast majority of the debris was plastic bags. Paper bags are not as much of a litter problem because more are recycled and those that make it to the dump get water-logged and don’t blow as readily. The reason paper bags are included in the ordinance is because early ordinances (such as in San Francisco) only addressed plastic bags and they found that everyone just took paper bags instead as long as they were free. It was only when a fee was imposed on paper bags that people started seriously bringing reusable bags.
BTW – The fee imposed on paper bags ($0.10) only covers the cost of the paper bag to the grocery store. They do not make a profit on them. I think this is fair to the consumer also. Why should people who bring their own reusable bags subsidize free bags for others?
“Re: “If the cost of groceries goes down to reflect the plastic bags now have to be purchased…”
Grocers operate with net margins of 1% on average. The cost of plastic bags is not even on their radar because they only pay a penney apiece for them. For the average consumer who buys $50 of groceries and gets them in 5 plastic bags, the savings to the store will only be $0.05/$50.00 = 1/10th of 1% of the grocery purchase price.”
Alan, now wait a minute. Didn’t you say earlier that everyone was subsidizing the price of plastic bags through higher grocery prices? So now you’re saying that the price of those bags aren’t even on the grocery store’s radar. Which is it? In my opinion these bag banners will say anything to try and force this non-issue of banning plastic bags on us. Remember the fallacy of Davis bags somehow ending up in the ocean? They backed off of that one real quick.
“BTW – The fee imposed on paper bags ($0.10) only covers the cost of the paper bag to the grocery store. They do not make a profit on them. I think this is fair to the consumer also. Why should people who bring their own reusable bags subsidize free bags for others?”
So in one case the cost of the plastic bags doesn’t affect the price of groceries and in the next example somehow people who are bringing their cloth bags are subsidizing the price of those who use paper bags? You can’t make this stuff up. A good compromise would be to let stores give out free paper bags.
I see Alan you dodged Davis Eniphile’s point:
“Per Davis wiki, the Yolo County Landfill serves the unincorporated county, West Sacramento, Woodland, and Davis. Davis accounts for 22% of the waste tonnage. Pictures of bags blowing off the landfill are merely spin in support of this Davis ordinance. The landfill will continue to receive more than 75% of its waste from regions not covered by the ordinance.”
So instead of 50 plastic bags against some obscure country fence there will only be 40 after the proposed Davis ban?
To rusty49: Good points!
[quote]Re: “And once this bag ban is instituted, what will the bag-banners’ eyes set on next to control?”
This question is posed in a manner designed to stir political emotions and is not conducive to constructive debate. But since you asked, recall that the City Council has implemented a Zero Waste Resolution consistent with the intent of the State legislation. The NRC is only implementing what the Council has called for and getting ahead of the curve of what will be State law in a matter of time. Next up, the NRC will try to expand the pilot commercial food composting program to a citywide basis. Indeed, a forum is planned on that topic also at the NRC meeting this eve. Commercial food composting on a city-wide basis is also being pioneered in the Bay Area and is an absolute key to meeting State-mandated diversion rates looming on the horizon. We just can’t sit back and do nothing on these waste issues or we will likely pay a steeper price to implement them later[/quote]
My daughter is currently living in San Francisco. The house she was living in required five different trash cans for five types of recycling. If I can remember: 1) compost; 2) recyclable plastics; 3) recyclable tin cans; 4) other recylables; 5) non-recyclable trash. Is this where we are headed? My daughter found it very disconcerting, having to figure out which can to throw the trash in every time she had to dispose of something. And it was her understanding if citizens don’t recycle, they get fined by the city. I asked my daughter if they had “garbage police” to enforce this. She didn’t know. To me this is lunacy…
I propose a compromise – plastic bag ban if and only if free paper bags are permitted…
[quote]I took that picture of the landfill fence from the adjacent County Rd. Paper bags are not as much of a litter problem because more are recycled and those that make it to the dump get water-logged and don’t blow as readily.[/quote]So the answer to my question, is [b]”no, there are no paper bags stuck to the fence”[/b] in the photo.
[quote]The reason paper bags are included in the ordinance is because early ordinances (such as in San Francisco) only addressed plastic bags and they found that everyone just took paper bags instead as long as they were free.
[/quote]Other places, such as Maui County, Hawaii, only banned the plastic. Like Davis, Maui has an excellent paper recycling program.
[quote]It was only when a fee was imposed on paper bags that people started seriously bringing reusable bags.[/quote]But you just admitted that paper bags aren’t much of a problem. Further, as I have pointed out previously, paper bags are only a small part of the (recyclable) paper waste stream, and they are generally made from recycled, unbleached paper.[/quote]
Davis is not San Francisco. Many of us already bring our own canvas bag to the stores, simply because it is the right thing to do, and I notice more people doing the same all the time. I disagree that “everyone” will just take paper bags as long as they are free. I don’t, unless I forget the reusable bags or have more to carry out than can fit in those I brought. And every paper grocery bag I do bring home is used at least once for another task before being…[i]recycled[/i]. I assume you don’t use paper bags at all, and don’t subscribe to any newspapers or magazines (which inevitably produce much more paper waste than grocery bags).
I notice that you did not respond to my comments about plastic trash can liners replacing paper grocery bags for that purpose.
If the NRC is determined to recommend an ordinance requiring a $0.10 charge for paper bags, I would suggest that it be proposed as a separate ordinance. Separate the issues, so that the Council can separate their votes.
To Rusty 49: You are confusing the wholesale cost of a plastic bag ($0.01) with the wholesale cost of a paper bag ($0.10). There is quite a bit of difference. Yes, people who bring their own reuseable bags are subsidizing both types of bags if the stores do not charge for it. In the case of paper bags, though, the subsidy cost is just much higher.
To Elaine: You think it is lunacy to have 5 different types of waste containers and it is disconcerting to your daughter. I think it is lunacy to waste and squander resources needed by future generations so some people are not inconvenienced. You and your daughter may as well get used to it…this mode of waste reduction and recycling is coming everywhere soon.
Or perhaps we should just use the 3rd-world developing country model where we throw away everything in one big pile and then use the lowest caste citizens to sort through it at the dump. They are actually quite efficient at gleaning anything of value from their landfills.
Alan Pryor:
“Or perhaps we should just use the 3rd-world developing country model where we throw away everything in one big pile and then use the lowest caste citizens to sort through it at the dump. They are actually quite efficient at gleaning anything of value from their landfills.”
Alan, what’s good for the goose….
“This question is posed in a manner designed to stir political emotions and is not conducive to constructive debate.”
[quote][u]David[/u]: “In other words, this ordinance will have hardly any impact on downtown businesses at all.
[u]91 Octane[/u]: “which makes this ordinance seem predjucicial, because it has an appearance of punishing those who are mainly not part of the DDBA.
[u]David[/u]: “Your comment makes no sense.”[/quote]I’m not sure we need laws targeting a couple operations.
Of course, I don’t think the city staff or city council should be wasting its time on mandating this kind of thing at all. Most of us either use reusable bags, reuse or recycle the bags that stores provide or put them places where they cause no problems.
The fact that this discussion has gone from saving wildlife in the Pacific from Davis bags to keeping the land fill staff from cleaning up bags (along with everything else from throughout the county) that blew onto their fence on the windiest day of the year is illustrative of solution in search of a problem. [quote]”[u]E Roberts Musser[/u]: “And once this bag ban is instituted, what will the bag-banners’ eyes set on next to control?”
[u][u]alanpryor[/u][/u]: “This question is posed in a manner designed to stir political emotions and is not conducive to constructive debate.”[/quote]The answer, of course: wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.
Nearly every effort to pass laws to control behavior of a few others is posed in a manner to stir emotions. Is it not odd that your comments are “conducive to constructive debate” and those that disagree with your point of view are not? Lighten up a little, please.[quote]”Plastic bags make up 50-60% of the litter at the Yolo County Central Landfill…1,815 hours…$34,000 a year….The YCCL receives regular citations from County LEA [local enforcement agencies] for litter (usually plastic bags) observed during regular inspections.”[/quote]Why are we paying someone more than $70,000 a year to pick up litter at the dump and still getting “regular citations”? This sounds like a minimum wage job to me. Or, maybe somebody’s exaggerating a bit, a lot like most of the arguments in support of this unneeded law.
“To Rusty 49: You are confusing the wholesale cost of a plastic bag ($0.01) with the wholesale cost of a paper bag ($0.10). There is quite a bit of difference. Yes, people who bring their own reuseable bags are subsidizing both types of bags if the stores do not charge for it. In the case of paper bags, though, the subsidy cost is just much higher.”
So Alan, back to ERM’s point. “So my next question is are the proponents of this ordinance in search of a problem going to collect data on:
2) If the cost of groceries goes down, to reflect the plastic bags now have to be purchased (and paper bags)and are not included in the cost of the groceries?”
I urge the NRC, in considering this ordinance, to recommend the wording change from “single-use carryout bags” to “single-use carryout plastic bags,” thereby exempting paper bags. I also urge that the civil liability be reduced not to exceed $100 for any infraction.
[quote]”I think it is lunacy to waste and squander resources needed by future generations so some people are not inconvenienced. You and your daughter may as well get used to it…”[/quote]And this is the key to it all. We won’t be satisfied with your inadequate efforts to avoid this lunacy and will spend resources passing laws to make additional, minimal improvement over voluntary conservation programs.
If you don’t see, alanpryor, how this presumptuous attitude degrades our society in as threatening a way as our bags do, you [u]will[/u] be back again trying to impose your views on your neighbors by fiat instead of by respectable, reasonable conversation.
with all the city staff time and everything else that is used to enforce this ordinance – pryor and co. could do something more positive and less coercive like doing neighborhood cleanup, which will achieve the exact same thing only less costly and more effective.
This ordinance also has the outward appearance of trying to control business, which we don’t need if we are trying to get the economy moving again.
[quote]”I also urge that the civil liability be reduced not to exceed $100 for any infraction.”[/quote]Who will get fined? And how often? And for what?
And who will be inspecting? And who will litigate?
Please be sure to use the ill-equpped cop cars for these inspections. Or, maybe, have the firefighters share the inspection job when they drive the big trucks to Nugget for food.
As I said above to Elaine, “You and your daughter may as well get used to it…this mode of waste reduction and recycling is coming everywhere soon”. This is because it is a State law that every municipality get to 75% diversion from an average of less than 50% now (I think it is required by 2020 but I am not sure of the date).
Many of the most well-run and respected municipalities in the state have adopted bag ordinances very similar to that proposed here in Davis – Palo Alto, Santa Monica, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Santa Clara and Marin and Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo Counties among just a few. They did so to solve a problem and when they did the litter and waste dropped dramatically in each location without adverse economic impact. If these ordinances were not working,cities would not be repeatedly implementing them…and there are almost 100 other jurisdictions in California considering them. Are they all wrong?
[quote]The reason paper bags are included in the ordinance is because early ordinances (such as in San Francisco) only addressed plastic bags and they found that everyone just took paper bags instead as long as they were free. [b]It was only when a fee was imposed on paper bags that people started seriously bringing reusable bags.[/b][/quote]With this last sentence, Alan, you have demonstrated that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to enforce the use of reusable bags. If it was really a “plastic bag ordinance,” you would not be concerned about people using (and recycling) paper bags.
As you stated yourself:
[quote][b]Paper bags are not as much of a litter problem because more are recycled[/b] and those that make it to the dump get water-logged and don’t blow as readily.[/quote]Paper grocery bags [i]are[/i] reusable – not only as carryout bags, but for a number of purposes that might otherwise be accomplished by purchased plastic bags.
Many paper grocery bags get many uses. I have dozens of them ready for action in the kitchen–not as many as before we started using the “reusable bags” we’ve bought. I see them by the hundreds at Davis thrift shops and Friends of the Library book sales.
And, the only plastic grocery bags that don’t get reused in our house are the once that go back to the stores or are torn and are tied in a knot before disposal. There are those dang newspaper plastic bags that seem useless for second use, but maybe I could mail them to Dunning or some other dog owners.
[quote]”Many of the most well-run and respected municipalities in the state have adopted bag ordinances very similar to that proposed here in Davis – Palo Alto, Santa Monica, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Santa Clara and Marin and Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo Counties among just a few.”[/quote]But, remember, you live in little ol’, environmentally aware Davis. Think locally!
To answer the question repeatedly posed to me, “Will the cost of groceries go down if this ordinance is implemented”
Yes, prices would go down if grocery stores maintain their same meager profit margins of 1%. But the impact this ordinance will have on grocery prices is minimal compared to what otherwise influences grocery prices – food, labor, and fuel costs. Thus I do not think there is any way to do a study that focuses on the small impact on grocery prices due to the stores providing free bags. But reducing store food prices is not the driver in this debate.
The big issues are waste diversion to comply with state law, litter control, and the adverse impacts that plastic bags have on waste and recycling operations due to contamination of waste streams and equipment malfunction due to plastic bags
David Suder:
“With this last sentence, Alan, you have demonstrated that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to enforce the use of reusable bags. If it was really a “plastic bag ordinance,” you would not be concerned about people using (and recycling) paper bags.”
David, you hit the nail on the head. It’s all about a few putting their beliefs on the masses. I don’t want any ban, but I’m willing to compromise and ban plastic bags as long as paper bags are still able to be given out free. How about it Alan? Are you willing to compromise too? After all, paper bags aren’t the problem.
“I’m not sure we need laws targeting a couple operations.”
JustSaying: What makes you think that it is just a couple of operations, the ordinance is not exclusive to the dt?
“And who will be inspecting? And who will litigate?”
My guess is no one will be inspecting. It seems very unlikely some grocer or other business will violate this ordinance if established. I don’t know if it ends up a code violation or an infraction, but obviously it would be enforced by complaint and in this town, we don’t need to fret too much over that certainty.
You see, these guys are having problems trying to justify their plastic ban position along with making customers pay for paper bags at the same time. They have no good argument so they try to come up with convoluted reasons like people who bring their own cloth bags are somehow subsidizing those who don’t. Sorry, but let the stores decide that, not some stupid ordinance.
This ordinance as proposed is a serious over-reach and should be rejected.
[i]“It places a 10 cent paper bag pass-through fee on all paper bags. Reusable bags may be sold for no less than 10 cents, and cannot be given out for free (except during a time-limited promotion).”[/i]
There is no reason to include paper bags at all. There is no reason to tell merchants they can’t give away reusable bags, or to tell them what price they have to charge.
[i]”The City of Davis may impose civil liability in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for the first violation of this chapter, five hundred dollars ($500) for the second violation, and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the third and subsequent violations.”[/i]
These penalties are absurdly draconian. We don’t need to treat grocers like criminals. This is an ordinance that relies heavily on voluntary compliance.
[i]“This would include periodic surveys, outreach meetings and/or written communications with participating businesses.”[/i]
There is zero need for staff time to implement this ordinance. Grocers and other merchants can figure it out.
If you want to ban single-use plastic bags, just do that. The whole ordinance could be one sentence. I urge the NRC to reject this ordinance, and if it is approved by them as written I urge the city council to reject it.
Don:
I agree but also disagree with you.
I don’t like the limitation on reusable bags and think that needs to be removed. But I do get that it really defeats the purpose of the ordinance if people simply shift from paper from plastic. The idea is to move to reusable.
The first fine is a paddy-cake on the wrist for most involved. It appears there as a reminder. Having no fine I think would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the ordinance.
“There is zero need for staff time to implement this ordinance. Grocers and other merchants can figure it out. “
I’d love to see that happen. I’d be willing as a show of faith to have a letter from the city to all grocers and see what happens in six months.
That said, I think some of your concerns could be resolved through edits, that’s the point of the commission process anyway.
I thought the idea of the ordinance was to get people to stop using plastic bags. What harm is caused by shifting to paper bags? Paper bags are recyclable.
Don: I speak only for myself and not on behalf of those who drafted the ordinance. If they are made from recycled paper, I have less problem,but ultimately I would like to see the move to reusable bags.
[quote]But I do get that it really defeats the purpose of the ordinance if people simply shift from paper from plastic. – David G[/quote]Depends on what you believe the purpose of the ordinance is. If it is to reduce non-recyclable plastic waste, then the charge for paper bags is unnecessary.
I agree that for some (most notably Alan Pryor), the idea is to force a move to reusable bags. If that is the purpose of this proposed ordinance, then let’s be honest about it. Ban plastic and paper, and call it the “Plastic and Paper Bag Ban” or the “Reusable Bag Mandate” ordinance. I think you already know how unpopular that would be, and what the odds of its passage would be.
OTOH, if what we [i]really[/i] want to do is ban those awful non-recyclable, non-biodegradable single-use plastic bags, then let’s leave paper bags out of it. Leave the ordinance pure, and I expect there will be widespread support for it.
Davis generates many tons of paper waste per week, and we all know that most of it is junk mail and newspaper (including the annoying “free standing inserts” that are immediately recycled). Paper grocery bags are a very small contributor, and as mentioned above, are often used for other purposes (sometimes [i]instead[/i] of a plastic bag).
Encouraging the use of reusable bags is a good cause, but it is a separate issue from eliminating single-use plastic bags. Let’s keep it separate.
You make too much sense David Suder. The bag banners don’t know how to deal with logical arguments.
Dear NRC Commissioners,
I speak to and support community sustainability (social, environmental, and economic) as much as anyone in our community. I am a firm supporter of keeping plastic bags of all types out of the environment. I am an advocate for dramatically reducing the use of all types of plastic bags. I share your objectives, but I do not support the means that you propose, i.e. an ordinance proscribing mandatory behavior modification.
1. There are plenty of mandatory behaviors that the council could impose upon Davis residents that would have a far greater impact on fostering community sustainability than the proposed bag ban ordinance. Passing a mandatory shop local ordinance would have a far greater positive impact on community sustainability than the proposed bag ban ordinance. The same is true of an eat local ordinance. Or an ordinance mandating that all residents must join a faith-based organization, service club, or other worthy cause. But is anyone even considering making these far worthier objectives mandatory? No, for these objectives we rely on educating the community, messaging, and publicity. And these are the means that should be used to achieve our plastic bag objectives. I urge the NRC to replace the mandatory bag ban ordinance with a far broader waste generation reduction ordinance wherein the NRC collaborates with city staff, Waste Management, the business community, and the broader community. What I’m proposing would be far more effective and have a far greater impact on community sustainability. This is how Davis can truly lead in environmental sustainability and be a positive example to other communities.
2. Four years into a recession, the local business community is struggling to maintain our current level of economic sustainability, let alone make any advances. Adding yet another level of regulation on local businesses is not helpful. Indeed, as was communicated to the NRC very early on, the mere fact that the business community has had to track, review, respond, and attend meetings pertaining to the proposed bag ban has imposed an opportunity cost on the local economy. These are man-hours that we would have otherwise devoted to growing our businesses, generating sales tax and property tax revenue, creating jobs, and working on economic development projects and proposals. This bag ban ordinance process has been counterproductive to fostering a sustainable community. The cost/benefit ratio is clearly out of whack. I wonder, has an accounting been conducted of the expense to the community that the bag ban ordinance process has accrued to date and is expected to accrue by the time any such ordinance might pass, including hard costs and staff time?
Regards,
Michael Bisch
Davis Commercial Properties
Mobile: 530.256.6412
michael@davisproperty.com
[quote]JS: “I’m not sure we need laws targeting a couple operations.”
David: “What makes you think that it is just a couple of operations, the ordinance is not exclusive to the dt?”[/quote]How many businesses are targeted by this proposed law?
Michael Bisch: Dozens of communities have done it, I have not seen any indication of negative impact as evidenced by the support from the CGA. I also suspect that within five years, the ban goes statewide.
JS: I would say dozens: grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores and drug stores.
[quote]”…obviously it would be enforced by complaint and in this town, we don’t need to fret too much over that certainty.”[/quote]You’re joking, of course. Once approved, certain people will be walking the streets (Alan, for one), turning stores in to city officials, complaining that it isn’t being adequately enforced and that we need more “periodic surveys, outreach meetings and/or written communications.”[quote]”Encouraging the use of reusable bags is a good cause, but it is a separate issue from eliminating single-use plastic bags. Let’s keep it separate.”[/quote]Who decided a heavy brown paper bag is “single use” and not “reusable” and a cheesy one that we have to buy (illegal to get free!) is better for the environment? Will we rely on “Consumer Reports” for testing the number of useful shopping trips for various quality “reusables”? How biodegradable is a $.99 bag compared to the two, three or five paper bags that would equal the cheap, “reusable” bag’s lifetime.
What happens when someone invents a “reusable bag” that sells for $.09 and we toss it out when we get home because it isn’t as durable or as easy to reuse as our “more expensive” paper bags.[quote]”Encouraging the use of reusable bags is a good cause, but it is a separate issue from eliminating single-use plastic bags.”
“That said, I think some of your concerns could be resolved through edits, that’s the point of the commission process anyway.” [/quote]Sorry, encouraging reusables wouldn’t require a new law. That said, this commission has proved particularly interested in wasting time on this kind of mandate. This is all about power over others, not about using our brains.
“You’re joking, of course. Once approved, certain people will be walking the streets (Alan, for one), turning stores in to city officials, complaining that it isn’t being adequately enforced and that we need more “periodic surveys, outreach meetings and/or written communications.””
That’s actually my point, I think places will quickly recognize that they can’t get away with trying to cheat.
“Who decided a heavy brown paper bag is “single use” and not “reusable” and a cheesy one that we have to buy (illegal to get free!) is better for the environment? “
I disagree with that portion of this ordinance that prevents giving out reusable bags, but I think there is a clear difference between a heavy brown bag which has limited usage and a cloth bag that can last a long time.
All of the provisions in this proposed ordinance regarding paper bags and reuseable bags have been in almost every single bag ordinance to date and in the proposed Davis ordinance since its first draft last year. We are not breaking new ground here at all
The reason not to give away reusable bags was to not give the largest
grocery store chains a competitive advantage over smaller stores because the
big guys could afford to give reusable ones away free. Smaller retailers
have been very vocal and adamant about this up and down the state. This
provision is explicitly supported by the Ca Grocers Ass at the request of
their smaller members.
The charge for paper is because when SF tried to just ban plastic without
charging for paper everybody just said give me a paper bag for free and
their paper bag usage went up dramatically. The intent of the ordinance is
to reduce all waste. Besides, what’s the problem with charging a consumer
only the cost-of-recovery of the paper bag. The grocers don’t make a penny
on it.
[quote]”This is because it is a State law that every municipality get to 75% diversion from an average of less than 50% now (I think it is required by 2020 but I am not sure of the date).”[/quote]Come back in 2020 then. Speaking of volume, what percentage of Yolo County’s landfill is composed of plastic bags? Of paper bags?[quote]”I also suspect that within five years, the ban goes statewide.”[/quote]Do you really, really think that biodegradable, paper bags will be the subject of a state law? That there will be a state mandate for “reusable bags only”? Come back in 2017 then.
Does this include those fancy Macy’s type of paper bags? What’s the difference between a paper box and a paper bag, other than that the volume of boxes than ends up in the landfill probably exceeds that of paper bags?
Will this law be targeted at any “qualifying” store doing business in Davis? In other words, will we allow Nugget’s to continue to do business here unimpeded if its Woodland store continues to give away bags?
Why aren’t we banning the ubiquitous paper, plastic and foam cups and requiring everyone to carry around a reusable cup to get drinks or be jailed? Now, there’s a law I could support.
Speaking of drinks, did we ever ban those nasty plastic collars on six-packs that end up around birds’ necks and other parts of other wildlife bodies? I could go on….
[quote]”The reason not to give away reusable bags was to not give the largest grocery store chains a competitive advantage over smaller stores because the big guys could afford to give reusable ones away free….Besides, what’s the problem with charging a consumer only the cost-of-recovery of the paper bag.”[/quote]Is it possible you don’t see the contradiction here?
Competitive advantages result in increased profits. For what else would you like to charge the consumer “only the cost-of-recovery”–electricity, free samples, labor costs?
At least have arguments that are consistent with each other. And, be honest that the reason to require a charge for paper bags simply is to discourage consumer use. (Then, the actual unit cost of paper bags will increase to more than “only the cost-of-recovery” as economies of scale collapse.)
P.S.–From where did this term come, anyway?
“Michael Bisch: Dozens of communities have done it, I have not seen any indication of negative impact as evidenced by the support from the CGA. I also suspect that within five years, the ban goes statewide.”
David, what are you saying here? Are you saying adding another layer of regulations has a positive impact on operating a small business? Tracking the number of bags purchased and sold and reporting said sales has a positive impact on operating a small businesses? Charging a customer for something that the business owner would prefer to giveaway has a positive impact on operating a small businesses? Reviewing/analyzing the 2 or 3 versions of the ordinance, providing comments to staff and the NRC, and attending all these meetings has a positive impact on operating a small business? Staff and council not working on economic developement matters because they’re busy working on the bag ban ordinance has a positive impact on operating a small business? Spending $14,000 on the bag ban ordinance EIR instead of downtown visitor directional signage or destination marketing has a positive impact on operating a small business?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Alanpryor: “All of the provisions in this proposed ordinance regarding paper bags and reuseable bags have been in almost every single bag ordinance to date and in the proposed Davis ordinance since its first draft last year.”
When did ‘everybody else is doing it’ become the standard for deciding what is best, let alone a good idea?
There is no justification for this ordinance. It is just a ‘feel good’ but ‘do nothing’ proposition. Alan, why not spend some time thinking about ways to improve the economic environment in Davis, rather than wasting my time and money on things that offer no benefit?
If this ordinance is an example of the NRC’s work, maybe it is time to have one less commission in town.
Mark West
[i]Besides, what’s the problem with charging a consumer
only the cost-of-recovery of the paper bag. The grocers don’t make a penny on it. [/i]
That should be the grocer’s choice. Stop trying to micromanage things.
At this point I hope the NRC sends this back to make it simpler. I strongly believe the penalties should be reduced. Overall, I urge the Council to reject it as proposed. I also think the city council really has more important issues to deal with at this time.
[i]”Many of the most well-run and respected municipalities in the state have adopted bag ordinances very similar to that proposed here in Davis – Palo Alto, Santa Monica, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Santa Clara and Marin and Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo Counties among just a few. They did so to solve a problem and when they did the litter and waste dropped dramatically in each location without adverse economic impact. If these ordinances were not working,cities would not be repeatedly implementing them…and there are almost 100 other jurisdictions in California considering them. Are they all wrong?”[/i]
Are lemmings wrong following each other off the cliff?
That point is certainly overly dramatic, but since when did Davis progressives ever care about what another city is doing. All these other cities have a Home Depot, so are we going to copy that policy too?
[quote]The making of paper can waste many thousands of gallons of water, as can the recycling of paper. The human and mechanical efforts and costs are very high, not forgetting the physical cost to loggers and those who work around the numerous chemicals. Plastic is, by comparison, efficient and low energy to produce, and, easily and efficiently recycled. Plastic reduces, recycles marvelously, and in that, is reused. After contrasting the efforts behind the making of paper and plastic, it is our unbiased opinion that plastic is indeed more beneficial to the environment, in that it is less harmful. The next time you are asked the dreaded question, “Paper or plastic?”, you can answer knowing that you are making the informed choice.[/quote]
Let’s hope our city council sees through this solution in search of a problem ordinance and clearer heads prevail.
rusty49, by the time “clearer heads prevail” at the city council, $14,000 will have been spent on the CEQA report and who knows how many hours of staff, council, and community time. Doesn’t anybody understand the concept of opportunity cost? And who is setting the priorities to determine how community resources are being allocated/spent?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[quote]Many of the most well-run and respected municipalities in the state have adopted bag ordinances very similar to that proposed here in Davis – Palo Alto, Santa Monica, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Santa Clara and Marin and Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo Counties among just a few. They did so to solve a problem and when they did the litter and waste dropped dramatically in each location without adverse economic impact. If these ordinances were not working,cities would not be repeatedly implementing them…and there are almost 100 other jurisdictions in California considering them. Are they all wrong?[/quote]
LOL And at one time environmentalists thought plastic bags were the preferred solution to the “paper bag problem”. What solution in search of a problem will environmentalists think up next?
Secondly, San Francisco just expanded its bag ban to include all stores. See [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/san-francisco-plastic-bag_n_1261327.html[/url]
[quote]by the time “clearer heads prevail” at the city council, $14,000 will have been spent on the CEQA report and who knows how many hours of staff, council, and community time. Doesn’t anybody understand the concept of opportunity cost? And who is setting the priorities to determine how community resources are being allocated/spent?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)[/quote]
Outstanding points!
Why is the City going ahead with the CEQA process, to the tune of $14,000, before the City Council weighs in on the proposed ordinance. This does not make financial sense.
Alan — I have many qualms about the unsanitary nature of reuseable bags for unpackaged food, and I have not heard a good response for this concern.
I don’t believe they will Robin.