It's Our City is a project that uses TV, Radio and Web
to promote civic engagement in the Philadelphia region.Is it time for Philly to "Pay as you throw"?
Friday, March 6th, 2009 at 11:30 am - by Matt Campbell. Filed under: Budget.
Editor’s Note: This story was originally published on Feb 15th just after the first budget workshop finished. At that time, the city’s proposed trash fee system was going to be a straight “pay as you throw” system. Later the plan morphed into making Philadelphia residents pay a flat fee for trash pick-up. When that happened, support for the plan nosedived. Now the city is considering a hybrid plan with a two-tiered fee (cheaper for low income residents) and a per bag fee. I’m re-posting this pro-con debate to gauge whether you think the new hybrid plan is a good idea. The current plan could generate $100 million a year for the city which would cut in half the projected budget gap that on-average runs $200 million per year over the next five-years. The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a very helpful article this morning that details how the plan would work. It also includes quotes from supporters and opponents of the current plan.
One of the revenue generating ideas the City of Philadelphia is currently proposing, to help tackle a projected budget gap, is charging residents a fee on the amount of trash they produce. It is estimated that this could raise $26.4 million in Fiscal Year 2010, if put into place by final quarter. After that, could raise $106 million annually. Average household would pay $260 in fees a year. In the first of four citizens budget workshops, participants overwhelming supported this plan. It will be up to the mayor and city council to ultimately decide whether the plan is adopted. So, here’s your chance to weigh in with your thoughts. We are presenting two views here to help get the conversation started.
Yes:
Dan Pohlig
I admit it. I’m in love with the idea of pay as you throw (or save as you throw or puppy dogs and lollipops or whatever euphemism the city is using for it these days). That should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog who also know me as the guy who wants parking meter rates raised so high you need a co-signer to use them. I may be the most liberal believer in market forces you will find, preferring to pick and choose specific issues on which to unleash “the invisible hand.” Congestion-based tolling, high cigarette taxes, carbon taxes, parking meter rates and now pay-as-you-throw are all places where this guy wants the market to finally carry its own weight around here.
Think about it. When the city comes along and picks up all of your trash for free - and with an 8 bag limit per week, it’s pretty much ALL of your trash - they are artificially holding down the cost of this service - to zero - thereby encouraging people to consume, waste and toss to their heart’s desire. But if these budget forums have taught us anything, it’s that trash collection, like “free parking,” is never free. It comes with costs associated with hauling, paying workers, servicing trucks and finally dumping. And that doesn’t even get to the environmental costs of storing the garbage which the landfill owners don’t have to pay.
Institute a simple pay-as-you-throw charge, and suddenly, folks are forced to stop and think before tossing that banana peel or the packaging that came with the new television or the plastic soda bottle or (public enemy number 1) the plastic grocery bag! There are a number of ways to put this in place: keeping track of number of bags and billing later, weighing garbage and charging per pound, or my favorite - selling special, easily identifiable, difficult-to-counterfeit trash bags that everyone is required to use for their trash. The city could give out 26 such bags per household for free after which people would pay $5 per bag. And these would be pretty big, sturdy bags. Not that “Hefty” crap.
The effects of this ripple backwards. Folks would think real hard about what goes into that bag and what can go into recycling. Even before that, many people would think twice about their purchasing decisions and take steps to demand products that come with less wasteful or non-recyclable packaging. If a household can get by with only using one of those bags every two weeks, they would pay nothing. Heck, use even less than that and you have a nice hot commodity to sell to your more wasteful friends and neighbors, kind of like our own little trash cap-and-trade system.
Of course, the city could help this out by expanding the number of things that they recycle so that we don’t all have to drive up to Pottstown to drop off our #5 and #6 plastic. Ideally they would start to include the full range of plastics (including styrofoam), batteries, textiles, wood scraps, food waste. If food waste is unlikely, the city could teach folks a thing or two about urban composting. I typed those words into Google and it took all of .23 seconds to find stuff like this. Frankly, if all of that goes into recycling, I can’t really think of what would be left for the trash.
Best of all, contrary to popular complaint, this system is actually more fair. I’ll let the EPA explain why:
One of the most important advantages of a variable-rate program may be its inherent fairness. When the cost of managing trash is hidden in taxes or charged at a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent waste subsidize their neighbors’ wastefulness. Under PAYT, residents pay only for what they throw away.
So yes. My hard work, my tax dollars and the fact that my household only produces about 3/4 of a bag of garbage per week can stop subsidizing the guy down the street who seems to be running a small meat processing plant out of his basement.
I understand that people have reservations. The “worst case” scenarios of litter, abuse of public trash cans, and midnight dumping always get thrown out there as reasons why we should not do this. No one in Philadelphia ever seems to worry about people doing guerrilla street cleaning at midnight. But, as naive as this sounds, I’d like to put a little faith in my fellow Philadelphians and believe that, faced with these challenges, we’ll rise to the occasion.
No:
Stephanie Marudas
Trash pick-up is a service the city should provide to its residents for free. I’d like to think that our taxpayer dollars support this basic service. To me, core city services include fire, police, snow removal, and trash collection. Because of the budget crisis, the city has already scaled back its snow removal to primary and secondary streets only, which basically means the main roadways. As a result, our local side streets were a mess during the most recent snow storm.
I understand that our city is in a budget crisis and it doesn’t snow that often (after all this isn’t Buffalo), so we’ll live. But as a Philadelphia resident, I’m against the cost-saving idea that we should pay the city to take our trash away.
Here are my reasons why.
Reason One: paying for trash removal today could lead to government in the future charging us for other services we’ve received for free until now, as well as jacking up other fees on services we currently pay a small fee for.
Reason Two: if people have to pay for trash pickup, they will look how to save money and might offload their trash. As a result, some people might resort to dumping their trash in their neighbors’ cans, in bins belonging to commercial enterprises, in public trash cans on the street, down the sewer or simply on the street and sidewalks. These scenarios could lead to bad neighborly relations, overflowing garbage cans on the streets and foul odors, increased litter and more polluted sewers than before.
So let’s talk answers.
One solution to counter the idea of paying for trash removal: While we might all love being able to recycle every week now, let’s go back to recycling every other week or even once a month. That way, money being allocated to send around recycling collection crews and fleets could be diverted to weekly trash collection. After all, non-organic products you recycle (especially if you rinse them out with soap and water) don’t stink up the house the same way that food waste does.
Even better, in order to make residents like me less bitter about a pay-as-you-throw charge, the city should continue weekly recycling and provide free drop off sites for food waste that can be used for composting. This option would a.) help residents cut down on trash weight and save money b.) provide organic material to be given out for free or at a nominal cost for use in personal and community gardens, as well as for city-funded landscaping needs.
February 15th, 2009 at 8:59 am
How would this work for people who live in apartments? Mine is in a house so the city still picks it up but it’s the landlords responsibility. Would he be charged $260 per unit? Obviously, the rent would simply go up that much.
Also, this is the 2nd time you’ve mentioned weekly recycling - does most of the city have that? I live in West Philly - just West of Penn - and ours is bimonthly. It seems to work fine and I don’t think that would be such a hardship for people.
I don’t know what my answer to this is. I’m inclined to say no because I thought city taxes already paid for this and it’s yet another fee that I can ill afford. I’ve also been recycling all along and don’t generate that much trash. I do fear that people would start dumping trash all over. On the other hand I am for taxing negative behaviors - especially ones that are bad for the environment. For it to really work, the city would need to provide composting areas and easier access to certain recycling facilities.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I’m on the fence on this one.
I agree with Dan that market forces should punish, those that abuse and reward those that underuse. But I cannot think of an effective way to enforce this. Would the revenue generated off-set the newly introduced enforcement costs?
Like Kim (post #1) said, “i thought city taxes already paid for this” city residents who also work within the city already pay 0.5% higher city wage tax, not to mention the +1% sales tax that is tacked on when you purchase something in the city. Charging for services may lead to urban flight. Residents who are tired of getting taxed for every little thing will move outside the city. This will reduce the tax-base and have a negative impact on city budgets, leading them to possibly charge for services. A Classic negative feedback loop.
What is best for philly? I don’t know. But articles like this and open debate definitely helps. Who knows, there may be a genius idea out there that effectively balances pros and cons. We won’t know until we debate.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
No.
First, as mentioned by someone else, this is a core service from the City. I already pay taxes to have trash picked up. I expect this from the City. Pay as you throw is a tax increase that across the board. It would be one thing is they charged for “exceptional amounts” say over 4 bags, but why should people have to pay more in taxes for something as basic as picking up a bag of trash?
Second, the city has a horrible illegal trash dumping problem that they are lax in enforcing. When you start charging for trash pickup, it is easy to avoid the fee - just dump your trash in one of thousands of vacant lots in the City. We have lots that are city owned and only cleaned up when the neighborhood gets together to do it. Add in the talks about cutting other sanitation budgets and even less chance of the city dealing with the likely increase in illegal dumping.
Third, the City needs to build an infrastructure to do this. How much of the money collected would be lost in doing billing, collections and arbitration? People complain about getting incorrectly ticketed for parking, lack of property tax collections and others. What will be gained for increasing the size of government (again). If they want to save money, privatize sanitation and let companies bid against the union.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Theoretically the higher wage tax that I pay for workng in the city should be going towards paying for services like these - otherwise what am I paying more for?
On the other hand - the idea of charging wasteful people more is appealing - I am one of those households that makes 1 bag of trash every 2 weeks because of recycling, composting, and buying in bulk and fresh instead of prepackaged junk.
I think the only way to really make this work would be to have people buy bags - charging at time of pickup would create too many problems and enforcement would be difficult (like if people on my block notice we don’t put trash out every week and decide to start putting some of theirs on our curb to defray some of their costs).
I’m honestly torn - but if this were to happen I think the only way I would be happy about the implementation would be purchasing special bag (and these bags would need to be available to buy everywhere . . because the city sucks at distributing just about anything.)
Oh - and Kim - According to the city recycling website (http://64.78.36.115/) that as of January 5th recycling is every week city wide.
February 15th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Privatization makes the most sense. The city would be best off getting out of the trash collecting business.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
@Steph: I’m with you in that I could probably get my trash “production” down to one page every two weeks and like I said in the post, the city could make enough bags available for free such that a household that cuts their production of trash (through recycling, composting, changes in consumption, etc.) would essentially pay nothing. And imagine having leftovers of the initial allotment of free bags. If the city is selling them for $5 per, I could turn around and sell them for $4 and make a nice little sum. Like I said, our own trash cap and trade system.
@Chris B.: A bunch of smaller municipalities around the region already charge for trash pick up separate from other taxes. I can’t cite any at the moment but I’m sure other readers could help.
@Adam Lang: The simplest way to set up the infrastructure would be selling special, difficult-to-counterfeit bags that would be only thing one could use to throw trash away. Bulk items would have to have a special pick up or a special maybe 3-times-a-year pick up.
Just some additional thoughts.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
To correct myself, we should stop even using the word “free” when we talk about whether the city should charge for trash collection. We’ve already paid for it with our taxpayer dollars. Just the way we’ve paid for police, fire and other city services.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
what was once free now has an fee,they want to nickel and dime us to death.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Comments below this one reflect views of people based on the city’s latest trash revenue plan. It would be a hybrid plan that includes a two-tiered flat fee (cheaper for low-income residents) and a per bag fee. The more you toss, the more you pay.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Initially I was for this idea but after further thought I have concerns - 1) we already pay for this with our taxes so really this is more of an additional service charge 2) can the city really come up with a plan that will deal with the individuals that can’t afford pay 3) if they don’t solve #2 how will they deal with all the illegal dumping that will happen. The city is already pretty trashy in a # of areas.
March 6th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Privatize or pay as you throw, either way this city will become a litter zone as lower income citizens dump their trash in abandoned lots, shopping center parking lots and anywhere else because they refuse to pay for the service..
4
There was a fire in the city yesterday where two people died - the cause of the fire was jumper cables attached to a neighbor’s house as they stole electricity.. they were poor or refused to pay for the juice.. i think the city’s poor won’t pay for trash pick up and the city will become litter central… except for center city, of course.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
NO No No. My wife was sited last yeard for having a trash bag out on the day before trash day. The bag in question was filled with leaves that she picked up in the street! Trying to keep our street clean. She along with other neighbors would routinley clean our street. No more It is time we put the blame on the fiscal problem were it belongs. The democratic party that has been in poweer for almost 60 years. And due to patronage jobs and pay increases for the city council and the mayor. have boruoght this city to its knees. By the way why not do away with City Council. that would svae the city about $25 million a year ( if you count thier staffing and veheicle use)
March 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
@John
Code enforcement is such a touchy issue. It always seems to me that people either complain that (a) there’s no enforcement at all or (b) that enforcement is too strong and that the “wrong” people are being penalized. Yes. I agree, on a moral level penalizing your wife was unjust because she had the best intentions. On a legal level, however, she was in the wrong for putting her bag out one day early. The choice we have is: do we ask for lax enforcement so that folks like your wife are not at risk for getting nailed when they make innocent mistakes or do we want strict enforcement that hits everyone no matter whether they were being lazy, dirty or just forgetful?
Also, the patronage jobs you’re talking about make up a very tiny percentage of the city’s overall budget and are under the control of elected officials like the Register of Wills and the Clerk of Quarter Sessions, over whom the mayor has no direct authority. On the one hand, these elected officials should be allowed to choose their own staffs but that does leave us in a position where they often choose friends and relatives over the best qualified people for the job. In the grand scheme of the budget, however, those salaries and benefits are very small. Also, patronage jobs at place like the Parking Authority don’t even touch the city’s budget except that it takes away from the money that PPA should be sending the city’s way. So overall, patronage jobs, is one of those red herring terms that gets people’s ire up but its actually not what’s driving this budget deficit.
We have to face it. The problem is us. And now I’m not picking on any individual, especially not John. I’m talking about all of us together. Just to use the trash example. All of us together throw away too much trash and cost the city too much money in landfill fees. So ALL of us together have to figure out a way to make that cost go down and the most efficient way, in the economic sense, is to connect an individual’s garbage production to a cost. It’s the only way to solve that problem. All of US collectively have shown that we aren’t willing to change our trash production habits without that economic incentive.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
@Mike Smith
How is the scenario you describe any different than what happens now? People dump illegally in lots. People throw litter on the ground. People don’t sweep their streets. And they do it even though they legally and without direct cost throw a nearly unlimited amount of trash away each week.
At least if the PAYT system were in place the Sanitation Division of the Streets Department would finally have the resources to actually enforce and clean the short dumping, clean the litter and sweep the streets.