In late July, Ernie Head and Pam Nieberg submitted a letter to the city of Davis indicating their Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition for the city of Davis. Little did we realize at the time, this move may yet set in motion a cascade of voter initiatives that may take us into the next year.
In a recent conversation, it was pointed out that there are now four potential ballot measures looming in Davis on issues of: water rates, fluoride, Cannery, and plastic bags. Here we assess the likelihood of a matter ending up on the ballot and the probability of success at the polls.
Water Rate Initiative
In conjunction with the lawsuit, the water rate initiative is intended to repeal Section 39.03.030 of the Davis Municipal Code which increased utility rates generated on and after May 1, as well as Section 39.03.040 of the Davis Municipal Code, which set the Schedule of Water Supply Fee for those utility bills generated on and after January 1, 2015.
The initiative also would repeal Section 39.03.045 of the Davis Municipal Code, the Schedule of Metered Rate Charges for water used beginning May 1, 2013.
While Measure I dealt only with voter approval of the surface water project itself, this would repeal the Prop 218 process setting the water rates. The target here would appear to be the CBFR structure and the accompanying rate increase.
The low signature threshold of 1165 registered voters means it is likely the measure will make it on the ballot, but its chances for success seem remote. Measure I passed back in March by about eight percentage points and it seems unclear why voters would pass Measure I but then repeal the rate hikes.
The more interesting initiative is the potential Measure J for utility rate hikes, which would create a Measure J-type election any time the city had major utility projects or rate hikes.
Since this is the only sure-fire measure, our assessment here is that the Water Rate Initiative, given its low barrier to entry, will end up on the ballot. There are conflicting accounts of whether the city can avoid the election by a simple repeal of the Prop 218 and then a new process, but at some point they are going to have to face the voters again, it would seem.
At this point, we believe the city would prevail on that vote given the success of Measure I and the fact that the rate hikes are already beginning.
Fluoride
Of the remaining issues, fluoride seems to have the most energy behind it – although after the past week of discussion on Cannery, we may have to reassess that. Right now, we believe there is only one councilmember in favor of fluoridating Davis’ water.
Dan Wolk, on July 28, co-authored an op-ed with former Woodland Mayor Art Pimentel and Julie Gallelo, who is the executive director of First 5 Yolo.
His campaign insists he did this because it was the right thing to do, but at the same time, he has waded into turbulent waters, on an issue that has divided the Davis community for over 50 years.
They argue, “Since the mid-20th century, community water fluoridation – the careful adjustment of naturally occurring fluoride levels in water to strengthen tooth enamel and reduce dental decay – has proved to be an effective preventative public health measure, reducing tooth decay by about 25 percent over a lifetime, per the American Dental Association.”
“Today, Yolo County’s public health community – dentists, pediatricians, public health officials and every major, local health care provider – is united in support of community water fluoridation in Davis and Woodland,” they continue. “These are the folks who are on the front lines of combating dental disease. They know what policies work and what do not.”
We are hard pressed to find any others on the council willing to get behind the initiative. Brett Lee has already come out in support of an alternative, and continues to work toward ways to get low-income children the dental care they need.
In our assessment, fluoridation of the water, if passed by council, would almost certainly trigger a referendum effort and we believe that there is sufficient opposition to defeat fluoridation by referendum.
In addition, we believe the possibility of fluoridation in the future could be detrimental to any future initiatives regarding the water project.
Given the dynamics playing out in Davis, and what would seem to be strong enough opposition to fluoridation that it is likely it would not even survive an up or down vote, if the Davis City Council wishes to save the surface water project from what could be almost certain doom, they have to effectively kill the possibility of fluoridation.
They have to take the fluoridation issue completely off the table. No longer is it enough to table the discussion. The moment the issue of fluoridation was raised it became the poison pill for the water project.
And they have to do this quickly. They would have to pass a measure that the Davis water supply could not be fluoridated for a certain amount of years and that any effort to fluoridate the water would have to be subject to voter approval.
Bottom line: we think any effort toward fluoridation of the water would draw a referendum and fail.
Cannery
As we have reported in the last week, there are multiple possible individuals and groups that would likely put the Cannery Project, as proposed currently by ConAgra, to a vote.
The most critical issue, as we reported yesterday, is the issue of circulation. While Mayor Joe Krovoza has stopped short of calling for an election, he did tell the Davis Enterprise this weekend that he is opposed to the plan as currently designed, due to circulation issues.
Mayor Krovoza said that if the project does not improve the bike connectivity issues, he will oppose the project. He told the paper he wants to ensure “the design… enhances the Davis lifestyle” and that he sees good circulation as lessening the impact on traffic.
The two possibilities for improvement would be a second bicycle access point on the southeastern portion of the project – one of the barriers there is the property owned by Tandem Properties, the same folks who own the Covell Property to the east.
The group, NDLT (North Davis Land Trust), did say that they “would donate easements on the adjacent property and expect ConAgra to front the cost of the work – it appears that the ConAgra project team isn’t interested.”
According to George Phillips, representing ConAgra, and other sources, they have estimated that will cost between $8 and $9 million to make those changes. Mr. Phillips told the paper, “Adding the infrastructure to its proposal would make the project infeasible for ConAgra.”
But the ConAgra team might want to reassess their position, even if they believe it is late in the game to discuss these access issues that have been brought up for months.
Our calculations are relatively straightforward. There is a certain group of citizens that will oppose any housing development. There is another group of citizens who will have specific concerns about this housing development, and who will oppose it.
How large those groups are is unclear. In 2005, Covell Village, during relatively good times for the real estate market, went down 60-40; four years later, a far smaller project, during far worse times, went down even more resoundingly, at 75-25.
The circulation and bike accessibility issue, however, might be pivotal. It brings bicycle advocacy groups and individuals, including the mayor, into opposition to the project.
Our assessment is this: If the plan remains unchanged, there is a good chance that, if council does not kill it outright, the voters will vote it down. Addressing the circulation issue will not guarantee its passage, but it gives it a chance.
Plastic Bags
Of the four issues, the plastic bag issue is the least likely to be placed on the ballot. There seems to be growing support for the idea of a blanket plastic bag ban with no exemptions.
The reasoning behind the idea of exemptions was that you could eliminate 95% of the plastic bag use with those businesses most able to adapt. But fairness issues abound.
Moreover, we were presented with the idea that even banning plastic bags across the board would have minimal impact. For example, many Davis residents are already operating without using carryout bags. Some downtown businesses have estimated that less than 5 percent of customers even ask for them.
Grocers like Whole Foods and the Co-Op are already plastic bag-free entities.
As we argued this weekend, perhaps Davis should put it on the ballot because it is the one way for Davis to put up or shut up. This is a way to find out whether Davis is willing to join its progressive brethren across the state and become the 59th city or county to enact a plastic bag ordinance.
If it passes, then we can keep our name in the conversation as being among the more progressive communities in California – even if we are no longer leading the way.
But if the bag ordinance loses, it is all over for Davis. I have been arguing, for my seven years on the Vanguard, that Davis has the veneer of progressivism, so that if you scrape away you find regressive and downright reactionary policies at its core.
This is a critical testing point. Will the voices of progressivism that still claim to run this community prevail, or will the reactionary voices that gain a home with a certain newspaper columnist ultimately prove to be stronger?
The bottom line here is, despite the complaints by a certain newspaper columnist, posters on this site and a few letters to the editor, we suspect that Davis would overwhelmingly back the plastic bag ban and continue its strong environmental legacy.
And, again, we do not believe this would go to a vote, but if it did, we would expect upwards of 70 percent support for the ban.
To recap, we know that the water rates will have a ballot initiative, we believe that the council will not pass fluoridation and we therefore do not expect it on the ballot, we think if Cannery is passed as currently proposed it ends up on the ballot and fails, and we do not believe that the plastic bag ban will end up on the ballot, but believe it will be passed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David — this sentence is confusing:
“The two possibilities for improvement would be a second bicycle access point on the southeastern portion of the project – one of the barriers there is the property owned by Tandem Properties, the same folks who own the Covell Property to the East.”
First, the access point to which you refer is on the southwest side of the property.
Second, I am not sure what you mean by “a second bicycle access point”. Con Agra’s current preferred option replaces their previously preferred option which runs south along the rail line to the H Street tunnel. The second grade separated crossing that the BACSPAC recommended is to the east of the project near the shopping center.
Perhaps the CC will repeal the rates and put in another structure avoiding a costly election if the petition qualifies. Sorry Matt in Davis no good deed goes unpunished.
Your handicapping on plastic bags is based on conjecture you have no idea how the vote would turn out anyway the CC is eventually going to address this one. We are too far behind other parts of California and the grocers like charging for paper bags. For them it turns an expense into a profit generator.
Cannery is a toss up as to if you can get the signatures especially after the council approves it 4-1 or 5-0. My guess is that the developers give the council everything they ask for and while it won’t ever be enough for many who post here the CC will see how much the developers gave to get it done and approve it.
Fluoride is a toss up but the CC might throw in the towel because of all the other difficulties created by the dogged opposition.
So while we might get 4 election we might just as easily get none.
“Perhaps the CC will repeal the rates and put in another structure avoiding a costly election if the petition qualifies. Sorry Matt in Davis no good deed goes unpunished.”
CBFR is on much safer ground in my opinion than Bartle Wells.
“Your handicapping on plastic bags is based on conjecture you have no idea how the vote would turn out anyway the CC is eventually going to address this one. We are too far behind other parts of California and the grocers like charging for paper bags. For them it turns an expense into a profit generator.”
This whole piece is conjecture, should have started it off, if you don’t like conjecture in mid-August, don’t read this piece.
“Cannery is a toss up as to if you can get the signatures especially after the council approves it 4-1 or 5-0. “
There are two no votes right now, it’s not going to be 4-1 and certainly not 5-0 unless key parts change.
It’s not a toss up.
“Fluoride is a toss up but the CC might throw in the towel because of all the other difficulties created by the dogged opposition. “
I disagree on fluoride but my guess is that the council will not roll that dice.
[b]Fluoride = NO[/b]
We ended bloodletting too.
[b]Water Rate Initiative = NO[/b]
Unless the council decides to out fluoride before and instead of putting it on the ballot. After having been a strong yes supporter on the surface water project, I will put resources into a NO ON WATER RATE INCREASES campaign with fluoride on the ballot.
[b]Plastic Bag Ban = NO[/b]
Davis is not near the ocean, and there is not enough environmental benefit that would result from a ban on plastic bags given the alternatives. This is an environmental extremist agenda void of common sense.
[b]Cannery = Yes[/b]
It is not 2003. After a Great Recession, voters have a much different perspective on the supply of jobs and housing in our city. This is a very well conceived project and it will be approved.
“As we have reported in the last week, there are multiple possible individuals and groups that would likely put the Cannery Project as proposed currently by ConAgra to a vote.”
Please list these people and groups–I guess they didn’t jump out in the earlier report.
“There seems to be growing support for the idea of a blanket plastic bag ban with no exemptions.”
How do you determine this change? Are you talking about public support (even in the face of Dunning’s constant opposition)? Or, are you referring to the city council?
“Please list these people and groups–I guess they didn’t jump out in the earlier report. “
Like I said last time you asked, until people put their names out, I’m not outing them.
“How do you determine this change?”
Council – Based on the comments of Krovoza and Lee.
“But if the bag ordinance loses, it is all over for Davis. I have been arguing, for my seven years on the Vanguard, that Davis has the veneer of progressivism, so that if you scrape away you find regressive and downright reactionary policies at its core. This is a critical testing point. Will the voices of progressivism that still claim to run this community prevail, or will the reactionary voices that gain a home with a certain newspaper columnist ultimately prove to be stronger?”
“All over for Davis”? Who other than Davisites see us in this positive progressive light? After all, we’re commonly known as “The People’s Republic of Davis,” and I never have thought it was a complimentary term.
I’d guess that: 1) nobody’s watching, 2) nobody else cares and 3) we might be judged as a thoughtful community that doesn’t impose unnecessary bans to solve scare problems for which we aren’t contributors (like plastic bags in the ocean) or for which our ban will make little difference in the absence of a wide ban (like litter at the county dump).
Studies show our city has very high voluntary, shopper efforts to limit their use of so-called “single use” bags. This is the last community that needs a ban imposed because we already have an effective conservation ethic at work. Our environmental concern reputation is better enhanced by what we do rather that what we force others to do.
The idea that we we need to require stores to keep records of bag inventories and use and to have city employees available to police the stores shows the Gestapo mindset of those who proposed this bag.
Labeling bag banners as “the voices of progressivism” and those who see the sideshow as a divisive waste of time as “reactionary voices” is neither accurate or fair.
“Please list these people and groups–I guess they didn’t jump out in the earlier report. ”
“Like I said last time you asked, until people put their names out, I’m not outing them.”
So, they’re still skulking around in the shadows somewhere, attempting to influence city policy and public opinion through The Vanguard without revealing their financial interests in stopping the projects?
Why do you feel an obligation to keep secret their identities while advancing their cause? Did multiple people and groups ask for anonymity in exchange for saying they are against the project and “are likely to put it to a vote”? It’s an odd stand for the Vanguard to take. Why would you agree to protect the identities of one side of this issue?
Will you at least characterize them in some way so readers can determine whether to give any weight to the fact the “multiple people and groups” who are feeding information to undermine efforts be the developer and the city? Are they large groups of existing city leaders or a new group of three rival developers? Are they neighbors? Are any members of the city council? Are they in the group that you note oppose any development?
Why are they “likely to put (the project) to a vote”? This is not an undertaking that people can entertain lightly. So, the growing “multiples” probably can’t be depended upon to carry out their threats, only to anonymously threaten using our usually openness-minded Vanguard.
[quote]Water Rate Initiative = NO [/quote]
I’m guessing you mean YES
[quote]So, they’re still skulking around in the shadows somewhere, attempting to influence city policy and public opinion through The Vanguard without revealing their financial interests in stopping the projects? [/quote]
Nothing new about that. Just look at who comments on any development issues here. Most of the proponents of development use pseudonyms.
Don Shor: “[i]Most of the proponents of development use pseudonyms[/i]”
As do most of the obstructionists. Nothing new. Everyone is trying to influence the debate without risking their invitation to the next party.
[quote]Plastic Bag Ban = NO
Davis is not near the ocean, and there is not enough environmental benefit that would result from a ban on plastic bags given the alternatives. This is an environmental extremist agenda void of common sense. [/quote]
Frankly help me understand this, why does a city need to near the ocean for there to be enough environmental benefit from a plastic ban bag?
Flipper ingesting single-use plastic bags is a problem.
But, when you calculate the true, factual environmental impact of single-use plastic bags, compared to the same for the alternatives (paper and re-usable), and then you add the cost and convenience impacts, there is no rational argument to be made for banning single-use plastic bags in Davis… because Flipper is not impacted by it. I like Flipper, and if we were Santa Cruz or San Francisco, the argument for preventing harm to sea life would, in my view, be more worthy of support.
[i]Water Rate Initiative = NO
I’m guessing you mean YES [/i]
Oops. Correct. I mean “no” water rate change, which means I would vote “yes” on the ballot measure.
[quote]Davis is not near the ocean[/quote]
Unless this remark was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the way plastics end up in the ocean. It’s not from a bunch of folks standing on the beach discarding their Safeway bags.
When a plastic bag gets loose — intentionally or otherwise (and I think it’s mostly otherwise) — it gets carried by the wind until it lodges somewhere. If it gets stuck in a tree and stays there until the sun’s UV decomposes it, great, it’s merely unsightly. But all too often it’ll find its way into an uncontrolled drainage, where it gets carried downstream until it flows into the sea. All along the route it poses a threat to birds and marine life.
P.S. Davis is remarkably close to the ocean, given the absence of any beaches in the vicinity. The Sacramento River is less than 10 miles away, and it’s a major conduit of both water and trash to the Pacific.
Comeon Mr. Frame, even the NRC backed off saying our Davis bags somehow make it to the sea.
Frankly is right, our plastic bags [b]DO NOT [/b] make their way to the ocean and the trade-off for the inconvenience for what little good the ban might do is not worth the trouble.
[quote]Frankly is right, our plastic bags DO NOT make their way to the ocean[/quote]
I find this statement laughable. I’ve done no research, I can only report what I see in the field, working all over Yolo County and along the Sacramento River. The big landfill screens catch lots of loose bags, but on a windy day they’re ineffective, and lots of bags get blown downwind. When they land in a a creek or canal, they do, indeed, make their way to the river, and from there’s it’s a direct shot to the Pacific.
I can’t comment on percentages, but to state categorically that Davis bags don’t contribute to ocean pollution just doesn’t stand the giggle test.
I “giggle” at people who use the theory that Davis plastic bags creates a problem for the ocean.
David, you should add to the report the issue of Measure I having two conditions, and the ballot was the only one that the CC has met. The voters approved a two-part measure, not one.
The rates are not final and in conformity with Prop 218, so the CC has no legal, political, or moral authority to proceed with the water project and spend ratepayer money.
I plan to bring this issue to the court in the near future.
“So, they’re still skulking around in the shadows somewhere, attempting to influence city policy and public opinion through The Vanguard without revealing their financial interests in stopping the projects?”
That’s not my call at this point. When there is actually a project approved and a petition, there will be plenty of time for that.
“Why do you feel an obligation to keep secret their identities while advancing their cause? Did multiple people and groups ask for anonymity in exchange for saying they are against the project and “are likely to put it to a vote”? It’s an odd stand for the Vanguard to take. Why would you agree to protect the identities of one side of this issue?”
Until I get permission to publish names, I don’t. That’s why I get good sources. I’m not advancing their cause, I’m raising the issue so that the community can discuss it.
“Will you at least characterize them in some way so readers can determine whether to give any weight to the fact the “multiple people and groups” who are feeding information to undermine efforts be the developer and the city? Are they large groups of existing city leaders or a new group of three rival developers? Are they neighbors? Are any members of the city council? Are they in the group that you note oppose any development?”
I will just say there are separate people and groups involved, and almost all of your questions is answered affirmatively by at least one of the groups.
“Why are they “likely to put (the project) to a vote”? This is not an undertaking that people can entertain lightly. So, the growing “multiples” probably can’t be depended upon to carry out their threats, only to anonymously threaten using our usually openness-minded Vanguard.”
I would say there is a variety of reasons for it based on strictly disagreements with land use policies to competing interests.
“I can’t comment on percentages, but to state categorically that Davis bags don’t contribute to ocean pollution just doesn’t stand the giggle test.”
And why is it so much better if it merely contributes to the delta or river pollution and never make it into the ocean?
“I “giggle” at people who use the theory that Davis plastic bags creates a problem for the ocean.”
That sounds like a personal problem to me. But again, does it matter if it contributes to the pollution in the ocean, the waterways, the environment as a whole or is merely wasteful and unnecessary?
“David, you should add to the report the issue of Measure I having two conditions, and the ballot was the only one that the CC has met. The voters approved a two-part measure, not one.”
We have reported that in the past. Had to abridge this or it would have been too long.
[quote]Michael Harrington: “The rates are not final and in conformity with Prop 218, so the CC has no legal, political, or moral authority to proceed with the water project and spend ratepayer money.” [/quote]
I think they have political and legal authority to proceed. As for a lack of moral authority, I don’t think that Mike has any standing to make this allegation.
[i]does it matter if it contributes to the pollution in the ocean, the waterways, the environment as a whole or is merely wasteful and unnecessary?[/i]
Yes it does matter.
But you don’t have evidence that Davis plastic bags are materially harmful to the ocean, the waterways, or the environment as a whole. In terms of “wasteful and unnecessary” that is as subjective as would be my point that expending all this time and energy attempting to ban plastic bags is wasteful and unnecessary.
Tell that Freshman student without a car and with poor shopping alternatives that he cannot get his groceries placed in plastic bags that he can easily carry on his long walk back to his hyper-dense soviet-style apartment complex. Talk about impact! By banning plastic bags, there would be more harm caused by the destruction of convenience than there would be any gain.
Just because you personally don’t like something does not justify banning its use. Last I checked we were still a free country. The Davis ban plastic bag extremists lack any real data to back their agenda. They just rely on a few bags they happen to find (or place?) in a tree to try and create some emotive reaction.
The only real gain we are talking about is for a minority of people to win their irrational hyper-environmentalist position so they can fluff their ego rubbing shoulders with their progressive peers in these bag-banning coastal communities. It is high time to move on to a more relevant and rational environmental agenda for Davis.
Well stated Frankly, you and I know this won’t do a pimple on a gnat’s ass of good for the environment and is nothing more than some local liberals getting to feel good about themselves all at the expense of the convenience of many local shoppers. But I guess these Davis liberals can hold their head high when they visit SF and SLO.
You realize that a lot of environmental actions do not make a huge difference if looked at in isolation. However, in the bigger scheme, they may make a huge difference.
[i]You realize that a lot of environmental actions do not make a huge difference if looked at in isolation.[/i]
Sure, but then there is the argument that a lot of national or regional environmental actions, when pushed down on a small local scale, don’t fix a pimple on a gnat’s ass (I read that line somewhere and like it!). So, that being the case, why waste any time on it?
Time and personal energy are my most precious resource. I want to optimize where I am spending it during my all-too-short time on this planet. This push to ban plastic bags in Davis is just wasteful twaddle. It is only “feel good” environmental actions that will not net any material benefit while causing material harm.
Time to drop it and move on to the next environmental scare fest.
I agree with your assessments (water rates would stand, cannery would fail, fluoride would fail) and can’t see any reason the bag ban needs to be on the ballot. Just pass it so we can stop talking about it. It isn’t primarily a litter initiative, so I don’t see why it’s being framed as such.
But Frankly while we wait for the state government to act, 57 jurisdictions covering 83 communities, including some of the biggest population bases in the state have acted, you can’t tell me that collectively that doesn’t make a difference.
“This push to ban plastic bags in Davis is just wasteful twaddle. “
That’s wonderful that you have a disparaging viewpoint, but your views are fortunately not in the majority of this city.
[quote]hyper-dense soviet-style apartment complex. [/quote]
Which apartment complexes do you think are hyper-dense and Soviet-style? Do, please, be specific.
” It isn’t primarily a litter initiative, so I don’t see why it’s being framed as such.”
I think there are probably four reasons for the initiative wrapped into one. For me the key isn’t necessarily the litter in the environment as it is the need to move away from single-use products as much as possible.
I believe it was presented dishonestly in the first place, and that the misrepresentation occurred on the Vanguard on more than one occasion. It was not a plastic bag initiative, since it regulated paper bags. Was the picture real? The issue wasn’t ever really litter, or protecting wildlife, or saving labor costs at the landfill.
Single-use bag initiatives are designed to reduce the energy costs of making single-use bags. That’s all fine. Now that the more onerous provisions have been removed, just pass it so we can be done with it.
What I really want to know is, does that lovely lady think she can actually[i] see[/i] the fluoride in the water?
[i]Single-use bag initiatives are designed to reduce the energy costs of making single-use bags. [/i]
Again, No. No data. There is nothing credible out there that proves that the elimination of single-use plastic bags (which by the way are miss-named because many, if not most, are kept and used multiple times before they are discarded) will save energy costs when including all other relevant factors for the energy cost related to the alternatives.
There is no rational, fact-backed, basis for banning plastic bags in Davis.
[quote]That’s wonderful that you have a disparaging viewpoint, but your views are fortunately not in the majority of this city. [/quote]
You might be right, but there’s no way to know for sure. I talk to a lot of my neighbors and I have to say that 3 out of 4 say they’re ticked off that the city is even considering a plastic bag ban.
[quote]It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag. (Film and Bag Federation, Society of the Plastics Industry)[/quote]
But “environmentally-conscious” Whole Foods only offers paper.
Unless you want to purchase bacteria-hold-able reusable bags for $.99 each. And then remember to store them on your bike so you have them available next time you have to shop.
Oh, and here is something that you might not know…
[quote]Plastic bags can be reused as many as 50 times, and can be rinsed clean and dried.[/quote]
And here is another point to consider… many reusable bags are made from recycled content polypropylene. Yes, PLASTIC! And they will eventually be discarded too. And only God knows what the environmental impact of all that extra Chinese paint and dye will be.
Last point. In terms of environmental impact, single-use plastic bags are twaddle compared to the impact of product packaging. So, I go buy a bunch of products enclosed in plastic and put them in my re-usable plastic grocery bag. And I feel so smug in my environmental correctness. Meanwhile I have not done squat to help the environment.
So, why not push an education campaign… including a handy storage/dispenser that can be placed in a car, for making single-use bags more convenient to reuse?
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”I talk to a lot of my neighbors and I have to say that 3 out of 4 say they’re ticked off that the city is even considering a plastic bag ban.”[/i]
GI, if plastic and paper bags were handled the same way as CRV containers are handled, would you and 3 out of 4 of your neighbors still be ticked off?
“So, they’re still skulking around in the shadows somewhere, attempting to influence city policy and public opinion through The Vanguard without revealing their financial interests in stopping the projects?”
“Nothing new about that. Just look at who comments on any development issues here. Most of the proponents of development use pseudonyms.”
Don, I’m not sure of your point here. There’s some balance between Vanguard stories (where anti-development folks are afforded secrecy) and the comments section (where pro-development posters hide behind pseudonyms)?
There’s a big difference between the Vanguard’s loyal secret police and a practice of reporting that anonymous people and groups are saying they’re ready to take an issue to an election IF the council doesn’t vote the way David says the secret sources want the council to vote.
This kind of reporting is intended to give–or simply gives–the impressions of a growing movement of some significance with the money and wherewithal to take on the city leadership. There is no reason that Vanguard stories should be so filled with such assertions without providing some basis. Vanguard posters, on the other hand, are easy to disregard–even the anonymous ones usually predictable viewpoints, as you’ve just pointed out.
Reporting threats from secret sources suggests that those being quoted are using David’s publication to influence the public decisions without going public themselves. Why would this be and why would David allow it unless his own agenda is driving the reports? Do these people demand anonymity in exchange for such minor disclosures or is David just not asking?
The worst suggestion is that these people and groups cannot be named because the sources comes from the reporter’s impressions rather than from other people. This is one reason most media have strict rules about quoting secret sources, and, when they do, they’re sure to tell why it’s necessary and give some insight about the value of the source’s information.
If we can manufacture biodegradable picnic utensils, why can’t we come up with a single-use bag that disintegrates into healthy particles after I’ve used it three or four times (or Frankly finishes using it 50 times)? I’d be for mandating that stores provide such bags. On the other hand, since a majority of Davis shoppers are environmentally moved enough to bring their own bags or decline the free store bags, maybe we really don’t need a law.
Since I keep reading that Nugget’s bags are filling up the Pacific Garbage Patch (maybe even State Market’s, as well?), could someone provide some reference for this claim? I don’t need some theoretical business about how water flows from the mountain to the sea. Have there been any studies that the route from Davis to the Pacific Ocean carries some number of single use plastic bags from our city past the Golden Gate?
“II believe it was presented dishonestly in the first place, and that the misrepresentation occurred on the Vanguard on more than one occasion. It was not a plastic bag initiative, since it regulated paper bags. Was the picture real? The issue wasn’t ever really litter, or protecting wildlife, or saving labor costs at the landfill. Single-use bag initiatives are designed to reduce the energy costs of making single-use bags….”
If we have memories as good as Don’s, we’ll know he’s correct on this main point. Remember when we started getting the “paper or plastic” option? It was a response to educating the people about what it took to manufacture the plastic bags. Later, we found out that paper bag manufacturing wasn’t so earth friendly either.
Therein lies a problem with the way a lot of environmental issues get framed, particularly ones that force people to do or not do things. Mandates on individuals or bans on things require lots of “evidence” to successfully generate the necessary legislation.
The best way to push things through is to list everything remotely connected (nay, exaggerate them all) since, of course, everything is connected and to ignore all competing “evidence” and other options (like a voluntary approach that can’t guarantee 100% compliance).
In our effort to maintain David’s “veneer of progressivism,” we find ourselves fighting over a plastic bag ban that will have almost no impact on the several crises that proponents claim justify city-level legislation. Will it make us feel good?
Good posts JS.
You just caused me to ask the following:
Since Davis is the most liberal and educated little city in the world, why would we not just rely on voluntary rejection of single-use plastic bags?
I mean if Davis is 70% green liberal, and all of those green liberals did what they are fond of shaming others to do, wouldn’t our hyper environmental agenda be satisfied? Seems like Davis liberals would have many more bragging rights achieving near ban-level reductions with only voluntary actions.
[quote]GI, if plastic and paper bags were handled the same way as CRV containers are handled, would you and 3 out of 4 of your neighbors still be ticked off? [/quote]
Matt, I always reuse my plastic bags lining my kitchen and bathroom trash receptables. Now I’m going to have to buy the thicker liners by the box from Costco. So for people like me it’s going to be a net loss for the environment because the thicker bags I’m sure are going to take longer to break down. As far as a CRV for a plastic bag, I don’t think I or 3 of 4 of my neighbors will like that either as they too reuse their bags.
“receptacles”
I didn’t want Mr. Besserwisser to have to correct me.
[quote]Matt, I always reuse my plastic bags lining my kitchen and bathroom trash receptacles.[/quote]
Why? My trash cans work perfectly fine without a liner.
Growth Izzue said . . .
“Matt, I always reuse my plastic bags lining my kitchen and bathroom trash receptacles. Now I’m going to have to buy the thicker liners by the box from Costco. So for people like me it’s going to be a net loss for the environment because the thicker bags I’m sure are going to take longer to break down.”
I follow your first sentence, but your second sentence loses me. If we implement a CRV-like solution, why will you have to buy any liners at all. Single use bags will continue to be available, but with a redemption value assessment using the same kind of transaction currently assessed for beverage bottles and cans. I, like you use the plastic bags I bring home as kitchen and bathroom can liners, and my objection to the proposed solution is identical to yours, I’ll be buying trash can liners at a premium and adding them to the waste stream in place of the current ones I get from the market. Last time I looked those bags in a box had more plastic per bag than the ones the store packs the groceries in.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”As far as a CRV for a plastic bag, I don’t think I or 3 of 4 of my neighbors will like that either as they too reuse their bags.”[/i]
Here too you have lost me. If I reuse a plastic bottle over and over for my transportable water during my occasional encounters with physical exercise, I don’t have to pay an additional CRV payment each time I reuse the bottle. I simply pay the CRV once, at the time that I originally purchased it with its “for sale product” still inside it. Can you help me out of the wilderness?
The store bags are perfect for use in small trash cans (bathroom, kitchen, bedroom, office). We have a half dozen in place at any time. Of course, these cans could be washed, but the convenience of this kind of use has the added benefit of being a reuse that assures the bags won’t end up blowing around the dump or floating around Hawaii.
I notice that hotels and other businesses pretty much all purchase liners for this purpose, single-use bags, I might add. I also see that lots of parks and paths have plastic bag dispensers for dog poop, single-use bags, I presume. Will these bags be outlawed? Every little bit helps, of course.
I realize these other uses are small potatoes in the bigger scheme of things–as, of course, are the impacts of Davis’ proposed plastic bag ban. In fact, the affect on our household will be minimal since we generally take in our reusables and since we will be able to haul off a few plastic bags when we visit Woodland. It bothers me that this practice means that some of our “trash liners” from Woodland Nugget will end up as single-use items, however.
I just had a thought. Costco does not use bags of any kind that I am aware of.
Frank, don’t be a besserwisser. 8>)
Ha! No, actually, that Costco thought hit me. Here I was thinking that the world might end without single-use plastic bags being kept available, and then I realized that Costco does not provide ANY bags. Now, they will put your stuff in reused boxes if you ask them.
But, what is the difference other than the fact you are purchasing copious quantities?
Maybe Davis just needs a Costco and our plastic bag problems will disappear.
Ironically, Costco is the best place to purchase plastic bags in quantity.
[quote]Here I was thinking that the world might end without single-use plastic bags being kept available, and then I realized that Costco does not provide ANY bags.[/quote]
I’ll take your word for it. But yes: the world won’t end. We’ll all be fine. So just pass the bag ban and let’s be done with it. The council should act on this soon, and I see no reason for it to be on the ballot.
Costco does not provide any bags. My father in San Luis Obispo has at times just put groceries in the trunk with no bags at all. It works.
Whole Foods and the Co-op, only have reusables and paper bags. It works.
Just Saying, Joe Krovoza was telling me they have these biodegradable dog bags (he has dogs) and he thinks the city could purchase a six month supply for fairly cheap for the dog park or something like that.
“Single use bags will continue to be available, but with a redemption value assessment using the same kind of transaction currently assessed for beverage bottles and cans.”
Are you serious Matt? Plastic bags still will be available, but we’ll have to pay for each one? And, we’ll get reimbursed when when we return them (instead of just stuffing them into the store’s recycle container)?
I have to admit that I completely misunderstood the proposed ordinance’s impact. Don was correct in saying this was not a plastic bag “ban”–I’ll just have to pay for the option when I need one? How much will we be charged for each plastic bag; how much will be returned to us when we return the bags?
Okay, forget what I’ve said these past months. I didn’t realize what was proposed. Never mind. And thank you for explaining things.
P.S.–This reminds me to complain about the redemption practices in Davis. We get some pittance based on weight at Davis Waste (making it barely worth driving there so CRV items just go into our DWR cans instead) whereas Oregon stores repay amounts equal to the deposit paid. What’s that all about? And, how much does DWR get for each can we give them for one cent or for free?
Don’t pass the bag ban, but pass on the bag ban.
Out of all things that should go on the ballot, a decision to ban plastic bags would be a good choice. Because of the individual tradeoff between convenience and the trumped up environmental concerns, individuals should be allowed to vote on it.
But Costco is still perplexing.
I note the complete absence of bikes in the Costco parking lot. Of course you can purchase a bike there.
Maybe we should just demand that ALL Davis shoppers require a car so they can just dump all their groceries from the cart into the trunk or back seat.
If we allow pedestrians to shop, maybe they should only be allowed to purchase what they can carry in their hands and pockets.
Or how about this… require that all store products be pre-packaged and provide free strapping tape to tape them all together in a bundle. Then we can have classes to learn to balance these on our head like third world shoppers.
Or maybe we just force all stores to provide delivery. That way we can eliminate the parking problems as well as eliminate the use of bags.
Just thinking out of the environmentally-correct box here.
“Maybe Davis just needs a Costco….”
Off topic, Frankly.
“…Joe Krovoza was telling me they have these biodegradable dog bags (he has dogs) and he thinks the city could purchase a six month supply for fairly cheap for the dog park or something like that.”
So, what’s your point? That Davis can require biodegradable “single-use” bags at stores instead of banning plastic bags (or CRV-ing them)? Tat dogs are more important than people to our city council? That I won’t have to drive to Woodland to get my bag supply now that I can get them at the dog park?
In any case, thanks for the options and for providing the trusted source for your Information.
[quote]
Maybe we should just demand that ALL Davis shoppers require a car so they can just dump all their groceries from the cart into the trunk or back seat. [/quote]
Apparently, you are completely unaware of the ability of bikes to carry goods. Quick example – I went to TJ’s last Thursday, purchased a number of items, had the checker load them into my grocery bag pannier sans grocery bag, and rode home. Had I needed more items, I would have used two panniers. Had I needed even more, I would have used my bike trailer, although parking for bikes with trailers is pathetic in Davis shopping centers.
You don’t need to think out of the box…you just need to use what’s already available.
I’m unaware of any proposal for a CRV for bags. This was the proposal:
[url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Recycle/Carryout-Bags-FAQs.pdf[/url]
Council instructed staff to remove the parts about tracking paper bags, and expand the ordinance to all retailers.
jrberg – Don’t forget to wash that meat juice out of your panniers. They tend to be very expensive… especially considering the bike rack needed for them to connect to.
On a hot day with a 15-20 minute bike ride, how will you transport your perishables? Do you ever purchase frozen goods?
I’m not sure I understand your point Don. Can you clarify?
Go ahead city council. Ban those plastic bags so Davis liberals can hold their heads up high as being worth progressives. And charge that $10 per paper bag.
I like shopping for my groceries in Woodland and West Sacramento.
Now you will give me another reason to do so.
[quote]jrberg – Don’t forget to wash that meat juice out of your panniers. They tend to be very expensive… especially considering the bike rack needed for them to connect to.
On a hot day with a 15-20 minute bike ride, how will you transport your perishables? Do you ever purchase frozen goods? [/quote]
Do you live in the real world? Seriously, what informs your world view? None of the above is a real problem in the real world.
Matt: [quote]GI, if plastic and paper bags were handled the same way as CRV containers are handled, would you and 3 out of 4 of your neighbors still be ticked off?[/quote]
JS: [quote] Are you serious Matt? Plastic bags still will be available, but we’ll have to pay for each one? And, we’ll get reimbursed when when we return them (instead of just stuffing them into the store’s recycle container)? I have to admit that I completely misunderstood the proposed ordinance’s impact. Don was correct in saying this was not a plastic bag “ban”–I’ll just have to pay for the option when I need one? How much will we be charged for each plastic bag; how much will be returned to us when we return the bags? Okay, forget what I’ve said these past months. I didn’t realize what was proposed. Never mind. And thank you for explaining things.[/quote]
As far as I know, nobody has proposed a CRV for bags. They’ll just be banned. Paper bags will be regulated. Since that’s what is before the council, I don’t know why anyone is discussing CRV’s. Are you broaching another solution, to replace what is before the council?
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Are you serious Matt? Plastic bags still will be available, but we’ll have to pay for each one? And, we’ll get reimbursed when when we return them (instead of just stuffing them into the store’s recycle container)?”[/i]
Yes I absolutely am serious JS. I do not know a single person who has returned a recycled can or bottle for a CRV refund. They all go into the blue DWR container for recycling. I realize that there are people who collect cans and bottles to get recycling payments, but my suspicion is that they rarely pay CRV fees. From a practical perspective any CRV fee for plastic bags would be a one way fee.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”I have to admit that I completely misunderstood the proposed ordinance’s impact. Don was correct in saying this was not a plastic bag “ban”–I’ll just have to pay for the option when I need one? How much will we be charged for each plastic bag; how much will be returned to us when we return the bags?[/i]
I believe that is the way paper is going to be handled, but plastic is going to be handled as an outright ban.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”P.S.–This reminds me to complain about the redemption practices in Davis. We get some pittance based on weight at Davis Waste (making it barely worth driving there so CRV items just go into our DWR cans instead) whereas Oregon stores repay amounts equal to the deposit paid. What’s that all about? And, how much does DWR get for each can we give them for one cent or for free?”[/i]
Are the redemption practices in Davis any different than in any other cities?
Don, I was responding to this comment:
“”Single use bags will continue to be available, but with a redemption value assessment using the same kind of transaction currently assessed for beverage bottles and cans.”
I’m pretty sure that Matt was the one who broached. Did you miss his post? Or, did I misread it? I thought he was clarifying the current proposal. I’d better go back and review.
It’ll be good to read what the council has to deal with since things seem to be pretty fluid.
I read his post. I don’t understand what Matt is saying. Far as I know, there will be a fee for bags. You can’t redeem them.
[quote]Go ahead city council. Ban those plastic bags so Davis liberals can hold their heads up high as being worth progressives. And charge that $10 per paper bag.
I like shopping for my groceries in Woodland and West Sacramento.
Now you will give me another reason to do so. [/quote]
Not a problem – both places will still feed sales tax back into Yolo County. And assuming your SUV or whatever gets 20 mpg, you will spend an extra $3.85 a trip (assuming you buy gas at Costco) minimum. And you claim to be a smart financial guy, eh? I also remember something about your time being extremely important…..
Hmmm, $3.85 could pay for 38 paper bags….thatsa lotta groceries!
Don, sorry I cannot locate what I think was Matt’s comment. (I’m limited to a cellular phone right now.). But, I didn’t make it up–I cut and pasted the sentence from somewhere. Sorry for whatever confusion it causes.
Matt, my problem with our redemption method is based on my own experience here and in Oregon. The consumer ripoff I described very well could be a statewide one.
Oregon stores and redemption centers repay shoppers their full deposits for each bottle and can. I wonder where the cash deposits end up here?
i used to take my bottles and cans to DWR, but stopped when I realized the tiny return I received might not have covered my gas costs. Now, someone makes the rounds the night before trash pickup; we put the cans in single-use shopping bags and set them on top of the container-only to make life easier for the mysterious stranger/scavenger.
“Yes I absolutely am serious JS. I do not know a single person who has returned a recycled can or bottle for a CRV refund. They all go into the blue DWR container for recycling. I realize that there are people who collect cans and bottles to get recycling payments, but my suspicion is that they rarely pay CRV fees. From a practical perspective any CRV fee for plastic bags would be a one way fee.”
Okay, Matt, I think I understand your context now. Now, you know at least one person who took in both bottles and cans for CRV refunds.
You’re probably right that bags just would go into trash cans (like cans and bottles do where containers don’t go into separate cans/sides) as long as the person who pays the deposits don’t get the full refund.
The lowball CRV payments don’t encourage returns of bottles and cans. It would be a different story if a bag deposit was ten cents and retuned bags garnered a ten-cent payment.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Since that’s what is before the council, I don’t know why anyone is discussing CRV’s. Are you broaching another solution, to replace what is before the council?”[/i]
Simply brainstorming Don. Doing due diligence on possibly better solutions.
[quote]Go ahead city council. Ban those plastic bags so Davis liberals can hold their heads up high as being worth progressives. And charge that $10 per paper bag.
I like shopping for my groceries in Woodland and West Sacramento.
Now you will give me another reason to do so.[/quote]
Frankly, just buy some reusable bags, and save the gas and wear and tear on your vehicle, besides I’m sure Flipper doesn’t want you to contribute to global warming by driving all those extra miles.
jrberg wrote:
> And assuming your SUV or whatever gets 20 mpg, you
> will spend an extra $3.85 a trip (assuming you buy
> gas at Costco) minimum. And you claim to be a smart
> financial guy, eh?
> Hmmm, $3.85 could pay for 38 paper bags….thatsa
> lotta groceries!
The last AAA survey said that the average full size SUV costs ~$0.75/mile (in addition to gas there is depreciation, maintenance, insurance and other costs) so round trop to Woodland is more like $15.00 (or 150 bags)…
I spend a lot of time running and riding around Davis and after gum and cigarette butts most of the trash I see is fast food trash.
Maybe we can make people at the Davis McDonalds, Burger King and In ‘n Out drive through bring their own plates and glasses so we can get rid of paper bag and paper cup trash.
jrberg
[quote]Why? My trash cans work perfectly fine without a liner. [/quote]
Well that’s good for you, I’m so happy for you that you’re such a good steward of the environment. Knock yourself out, do you churn your own butter too? I prefer to use a liner in my household trash cans, it’s much more hygenic and I don’t have to wash the cans everytime I dump them. Is that allright with you?
What possible, this family has gone way past giving up plastic bags and there world has not ended (and they are saving money, and somehow managed not to contract e. coli or Salmonella from their usable bags….)
http://www.sunset.com/home/natural-home/zero-waste-home-0111-00418000069984/
Don Shor
[i]”I read his post. I don’t understand what Matt is saying. Far as I know, there will be a fee for bags. You can’t redeem them.”[/i]
It really wasn’t hard to understand Don. GI said that with the proposed plan “3 out of 4 were ticked off.” I simply asked him if they would be ticked off in an alternative scenario. No more, no less.
What possible, this family has gone way past giving up plastic bags and there world has not ended (and they are saving money, and somehow managed not to contract e. coli or Salmonella from their usable bags….)
Working link:
[url]http://www.sunset.com/home/natural-home/zero-waste-home-0111-00418000069984/[/url]
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Okay, Matt, I think I understand your context now. Now, you know at least one person who took in both bottles and cans for CRV refunds.
You’re probably right that bags just would go into trash cans (like cans and bottles do where containers don’t go into separate cans/sides) as long as the person who pays the deposits don’t get the full refund.
The lowball CRV payments don’t encourage returns of bottles and cans. [b]It would be a different story if a bag deposit was ten cents and retuned bags garnered a ten-cent payment.[/b]”[/i]
Where I see a can/bottle CRV and a plastic bag/paper bag CRV being very different is that cans and bottles really are recyclable, whereas single use plastic bags are much less so. The behavior for bottles/cans is to in-cent people to avoid putting their cans/bottles in the trash. There is no effort to discourage their use because no practical alternative exists for dispensing the liquids. In the case of bags, there truly is a practical alternative, either what I usually ask for at Nugget . . . an “air bag” for small purchases, or what many others use, their own reusable bag(s). The behavior for bags is to in-cent their total non-use.
So I suggest a high CRV payment per bag and no redemption value at all.
You were simply asking a question, but you’re doing due diligence, and brainstorming about alternatives, and now you suggest a CRV payment (which wouldn’t actually be a CRV payment, because by definition you couldn’t redeem it, so the ‘R’ part of CRV wouldn’t apply), so you’re suggesting a high fee per bag, but you were simply asking a question.
This thing has gone through the commissions, been to the council; they’ve given their instructions and it’s about ready for a straight up-or-down vote by the council.
Why are you bringing the Council into the conversation between GI and me about “being ticked”? To the best of my knowledge (which could be very flawed) Council hasn’t had a chance to weigh in on this issue yet, so for the moment they are not an active part/cause of the angst in GI’s neighborhood.
It sounds like you are trying to channel the discussion.
Don in the current system there is a very active “R” part for single use plastic bags. The “R” receptacle at Nugget Market on Mace is almost always filled to over flowing.
Council discussed it in detail before their August break. Brett proposed expanding it to all retailers. There was consensus to drop the paper bag reporting. They indicated they want to act on it as soon as possible. They sent it back to staff with specific instructions, and expect to act on it almost immediately, probably in September if I recall.
My hope would be they just call for the question, vote on it, and move on to other topics. This council has a lot of important stuff to do, and this is a distraction. They shouldn’t be up until 1 a.m debating things like this again when they’ve already made their intentions known.
CRV = California Redemption Value. Redemption means you can get your fee back by redeeming it. The proposal before the council is for a fee for paper bags, and an outright ban on plastic bags. So using the term CRV in the context of single-use bags is incorrect, and I don’t understand why (1) you are using it, and (2) exactly what you are proposing. But again: the staff is nearly done, the council is nearly decided. So it’s pretty much yes or no at this point.
…
“Don in the current system there is a very active “R” part for single use plastic bags. The “R” receptacle at Nugget Market on Mace is almost always filled to over flowing.”
This is a significant barrier to recycling.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Council discussed it in detail before their August break. Brett proposed expanding it to all retailers. There was consensus to drop the paper bag reporting. They indicated they want to act on it as soon as possible. They sent it back to staff with specific instructions, and expect to act on it almost immediately, probably in September if I recall.”[/i]
That is a bit different than what I heard at last Thursday’s Chamber GRC meeting. Two senior staff were making the presentation and a Council member was present. What I understand Council has asked Staff to do is bring back to them a number of options with analysis of each option. That sounded to me like Council still has a long way to go before it makes up its mind.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”This is a significant barrier to recycling.”[/i]
Why? The thought of reimbursement has never entered my mind when I decide whether to recycle or not, regardless of the material. Currently in Davis it is incredibly easy and efficient to recycle single use bags, regardless of whether they are plastic or paper. I would say that over 99% of the bags I come home with get recycled. The 1% are the bags that end up getting things like chicken blood on them. They are too smelly to use as trash can liners and not clean enough to put in the plastic bag recycle container in the garage. Paper bags that get chicken blood on them get recycled regardless.
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7434:council-sends-plastic-bag-ordinance-back-to-looks-at-removing-exemptions-to-apply-more-evenly&catid=88:environment&Itemid=205[/url]
The only thing staff was really directed to present was what exemptions might be merited.
I can only report what I heard. perhaps it would be a good idea for david to contact Staff (Herb Niederberger and/or Jacques DeBra) and get an early copy of the Staff Report they are preparing for Council. The Chamber GRC asked them to do just that, so that they would have as much time as possible to digest Staff’s analysis.
You’re a member of the Chamber of Commerce Government Relations Committee?
Matt- the more complicated recycling gets the more people you lose. The extra step of having to bring the bags back to store to recycle them creates a large barrier for people
If people were recycling plastic bags in significant quantities, would we still see the large number them that we do in the landfill?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”You’re a member of the Chamber of Commerce Government Relations Committee?”[/i]
No, I am not. Topics that were on the agenda of the past two meetings caused me to attend, wastewater and single use bags respectively.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”The more complicated recycling gets the more people you lose. The extra step of having to bring the bags back to store to recycle them creates a large barrier for people.”[/i]
I’m not sure what you mean by “the extra step.” To the best of my knowledge the places one can currently recycle single use plastic bags are the bins in front of grocery store. How do you see that changing?
B Nice said . . .
[i]”If people were recycling plastic bags in significant quantities, would we still see the large number them that we do in the landfill?”[/i]
That is a simple question for which I suspect there is no simple answer. Part of the problem is the very understandable desire by the stores that provide the bag recycling bins that only “clean” bags enter their bins. If one first recycles plastic bags by using them as trash can liners they quickly lose their clean status, and as a result, unless you empty them into the outside trash bin and then bring them inside and wash them before adding them to the grocery store recycling stream, the landfill will still be seeing its share of plastic bags even after all the “clean” bags are recycled.
Of course that is just a guess on my part.
B Nice wrote:
> What possible, this family has gone way past giving
> up plastic bags and there world has not ended
Take a look at the photos of the Johnson’s million dollar + home and you will see that almost everything is brand new.
My friends live near the Johnson’s on Oakdale in Mill Valley and they don’t claim to be zero waste (or make a living off this false claim), but they have not filled dumpsters ripping everything out of their older home to replace almost everything with new stuff like the Johnsons (take a look at the photos of their home in Sunset or any of the other dozen magazines they have been in).
If you believe the Johnsons and read their “zero waste” blog you might want to check out Lance Armstrong’s “zero drugs” blog…
Matt- the extra step is referring to having to bring the bags back to the store vs. putting them in recycling bin at home. (Which you can do with paper).
My impression is that the plastic bags that cause problems at the landfill are the empty ones, which I assume means they are not being used again at home for secondary purposes like liner bags or pet waste.
“If you believe the Johnsons and read their “zero waste” blog you might want to check out Lance Armstrong’s “zero drugs” blog… “
SouthofDavis: Are you claiming the sneak garbage when no one is looking and intimidate people not to rat them out?
As for them profiting: Is there something wrong with profiting off of a good idea that’s actually beneficial to yourself, community and the world? I wish more people and business profited this way.
Instead of quickly trying to discredit them I’d encourage people to take a look at the article and the her blog. She has a lot of great idea’s that anyone (no doping required) can put into action.
B. Nice wrote:
> SouthofDavis: Are you claiming the sneak garbage
> when no one is looking
Yes, I’m in support of producing less garbage, but is it BS that a family of four can end up with a small jar of trash in a year. Just this weekend we were all at two events and had to get special wristbands to get in and wear name tags. None of this stuff could be recycled and would fill half the jar of trash the Johnsons claim to produce in a year. Friday I put a new rear bike tire on my kids bike and that would fill the other half of the jar.
> and intimidate people not to rat them out?
All their neighbors know they are exaggerating how they live (that is how I heard about them), but to their credit I have not heard of any “intimidation”…
> As for them profiting: Is there something wrong with
> profiting off of a good idea that’s actually beneficial
> to yourself, community and the world? I wish more people
> and business profited this way.
I don’t have any problem with them making money, but I don’t like the lies. I recycle and try not to waste, but I don’t tell people we have virtually no trash…
> She has a lot of great idea’s that anyone
> (no doping required) can put into action.
She does have great ideas, but just like Lance Armstrong was not content to be “just” a great cyclist she seems to want to push things so people think her family is “super unbelievably great”…
P.S. Can you explain how they did a $200K remodel of a $1.25 million home and produce zero trash when the home was built in the 20’s and has lead based paint?
P.P.S. Let me know if you find out where to recycle Styrofoam. The guys at DWR treated me like a criminal when a small piece of Styrofoam came out of a box I was tossing in the recycle bin on 2nd St.
[quote]She does have great ideas, but just like Lance Armstrong was not content to be “just” a great cyclist she seems to want to push things so people think her family is “super unbelievably great”…[/quote]
I see your point but I’m hesitant to put these people, who are actively promoting waste reduction, with Lance Armstrong who made millions off of his lies regarding drug use. I’m unsure why the cost of their house matters, I have no idea about any remodeling, I imagine that this might be true considering the houses in this area are old and often in need of updating, but I got the impression from the blog that their attempts at zero waste have evolved since they have moved into their house, (and that that they purposely bought a smaller house, I believe it’s 1500 sq ft. then they could have afforded because they decided they wanted to try living with less).
I don’t understand your animosity toward a family that is attempting, in a very low key way, to promote waste reduction.