I think you need another choice - contract independently for that service. Unless you think that the 'user fee' option covers it.
I think that implies that the city still provides the service.
As i said when I spoke at the meeting last night. In Saratoga Springs (pop ~26,500) the city has NOTHING to do with waste disposal. Residents and businesses contract independently for that service with the vendor of their choice.
Simple answer to all the problems.
We're suffering from paralysis by analysis.
Can someone give me ONE GOOD REASON why the city needs to be involved in trash collection?
Dave, I think user fee covers it. Either it's on the tax rolls or it's not and people pay the hauler based on level of service.
Also, I'll have a quote in my story from a rep from Allied. He said 90 percent of all residents in WNY are on a single-hauler system, either through contract or municipal owned service (such as Tonawanda).
That's what he said on the record.
Personally, the libertarian in me agrees in a free market option, to an extent -- it's a tempting option, until you look at it closely.
The businessman in me understands scale. In a city the size of Batavia, a multiple vendor system will inhibit any one vendor from achieving scale so the cost for each individual resident would be two or three times the price of a single-hauler system. I know there are those who say now they're OK with paying more -- either to support ARC or because, gosh darn it, the principle of a free market is more important than their pocketbook. I don't really believe it. You're not much of a libertarian if you vote to charge yourself more money over a viable alternative to lower costs for yourself and others. Collective bidding is a free market solution, too, you know. Right to assembly is part of the Bill of Rights. There's nothing anti-liberty about a bunch of people, either as an independent organization or through the power of a government agency, banding together to get themselves a better price.
None of that is to say ARC shouldn't be the vendor, even at a higher price -- there's a strong case to be made for keeping it local -- but I reject the idea that pooling our resources, through the city or not, is "big government" or "anti-free market."
The proposed system will eventually cost me more money (when we own the place we're lease-to-own on now) and I'm OK with that because I don't think Mr. Kahn on Narramore Drive should subsidize my garbage collection. But I'm not OK with paying two or three times more just so we can have some illusion of a free market vs. the free market of pooling our resources to get a better deal.
To me, this poll question boils the issue down to the primary question -- who should pay? The rest is details that either get worked out now, or get worked out after (if) this gets voted down.
I guess we''ll agree to disagree because I see no reason why, if the city simply gets out of the business and ARC says, "Hey Batavia residents - we're in the trash collection and recycling business" that
A) their costs would be significantly different and
B) most residents would probably opt to simply stay with the status quo and pay the ARC directly.
That would certainly be my choice.
Please tell me why if ARC was still operating the trash collection as a 'private entity' their costs and therefore the fees they would have to charge would be SIGNIFICANTLY different.
Even if they were a little higher, I'd still go with them.
I guess I'm not buying the 'economy of scale' argument that your guy from Allied is selling. He's saying that because he wants a piece of the pie.
Town Resident here. I hope you City folk are able to figure this out, but.....
Howard said:
"You're not much of a libertarian if you vote to charge yourself more money over a viable alternative to lower costs for yourself and others."
Please don't think you even know how much of a Libertarian I am. Out here in the Town we use the free market. When I lived in the Town of Pembroke we used the free market. When I lived in the Town of Alabama we used the free market. I get pricing from companies, and I decide which one I will use. If I have to pay more or am willing to pay more, that"s my decision. I may find that the higher pricing has added benefits that I find attractive. If the Town offers a compactor service for a fee, I will consider that option also. The bottom line is I have a choice and am not mandated by someone who thinks they know what's good for me.
Dave, I'm not buying anything Allied is selling. That's nonsense and you know it. First, I've written about the scale issue before, weeks ago. Second, it's common sense that anybody with a modicum of business knowledge understands.
What would be ARC's motivation to keep prices down in absent of a franchise agreement and much higher prices from any potential competition? They were already the highest bidder in the current process despite their non-profit status and they were under bid by a company with union labor.
Nothing against ARC, obviously, but they have their mission -- a very worthy mission -- and just like any business, they will want to maximize revenue to support that mission.
You might want to pay higher prices, and Don might want to pay higher prices, but most people want to pay lower prices. Let the best deal win in the market place. That's what business is about.
Howard, the collection of bids received by the city are based on a specific manner of collecting the trash. Using a uniform tote and placing it so a mechanical arm can lift it up and dump it into the truck bed. You may or may not be getting the "best deal" that way, who knows? If the city gets out of the process and allows the free market to work, there will be other methods of collecting trash employed. You can't say that making it totally uniform is going to lower costs over-all. I'd think it would be cheaper for a resident to go buy a trash receptacle wherever they choose and have it emptied by whomever they want, including themselves. I do understand the economy of scale theory, there is far too many stipulations in this one however to make a fair comparison, it is only true if the city passes a law requiring everyone to have a tote meeting the same spec's and only allowing trash collectors to use the same type of equipment. In the end, I don't live in the city & doubt I ever will so y'all can do whatever for all I personally care. It's a government mandate of behavior anyway you slice it, and we have way too many of those already.
I said "I'm not buying what they're selling". I didn't say anything about you or your beliefs so don't talk to me like I'm 6 years old. Simply because you've "written" about something doesn't make it gospel.
You can't say what ARC's pricing structure would be absent a franchise agreement and neither can I. The fact is, that's immaterial.
Maybe I and other city residents would like to support them and maybe we wouldn't mind paying a small premium because of the work they do. Call it charity...call it what you want.
The bottom line is it would be a free market resolution to the problem and the city would be out of another business they don't need to be in.
Dave O., the high fixed cost of providing trash service isn't going to change based on totes are not -- it's the truck( s ) and the infrastructure that goes with it. After that, it's how many stops can be squeezed into an hour that plays into scale (from there it's a matter of determining the speed of automated, one-man vs. the expense of three-man crews).
Dave. M., I'm merely responding to, "I guess I'm not buying the 'economy of scale' argument that your guy from Allied is selling. He's saying that because he wants a piece of the pie."
Howard; I quite understand how the pick up and delivery industry works. Your seeing the City of Batavia as a stand alone business area. Trash companies are already working in the surrounding towns near to Batavia and would just add on to existing routes. Some will want their totes to be used, others won't care. It's all about how the routes are functioning now, and what the perceive their customers want. Doing this the way the city is doing it, is creating the need for trucks to be dedicated to Batavia. Then yes, you are right, it only works if they get the whole pie. Also, it would free up ARC to go after business in the Towns nearby which I'm guessing they don't have time or people to do right now. I'm surprised, I guess, that you think Batavia stands alone in it's own trash vacuum.
Anyway, the people (taxpayers) should be the ones deciding this, not the Manager, not the Council and not Dave Olsen.
All this back and forth just tells me one thing.... The City Council seems very motivated to push this through despite fully explaining all the in and outs to the public. This despite a heavy outcry from the public that says NO regardless of the reason.
Howard made a good point with..."Collective bidding is a free market solution, too, you know. Right to assembly is part of the Bill of Rights. There's nothing anti-liberty about a bunch of people, either as an independent organization or through the power of a government agency, banding together to get themselves a better price" Which I fully agree with, however the City Councils has said no one can "opt out" That to me isnt collective, nor does it seem to jive with liberty at all. The "Mandate" really has to go, but why does the city seem insistent to force it's will on everyone. Practically begging to invite a lawsuit which will not only cost money but if successfull will topple the whole city plan like a house of cards. Leaving chaos.
All in all I think keeping things as is and doing a more comprehensive look at this instead of rushing into it seems to be the prudent thing to do.
Kyle,
If the City collectively gives a bid, I doubt it is illegal, since it would have been taken to court already. Remember, most areas have this type of arrangement. And as noted before, there is no opt out now, with ARC, you are mandated to have them. If you want on opt out, then the current ARC arrangement would have to go.
That really is a good point Kyle and Howard have brought up. When you have so many people getting involved in a city council meeting that the fire chief has to maintain the proper occupancy, it can only be a good thing for Batavia. How ever this goes, good for you Batavians, take your government back!!
Interesting about the poll from '09. Do you remember, Howard what brought that up then?
Dave, I think John Roach used public comments to preach the per-bag fee system. John might remember better. And I think prior to that the subject had come up in comments on another item.
This debate is about 20 years old, at least, I believe.
I wish we could get half as many people at other council meetings.
correct me if i am wrong, the current means of paying for trash removal is based on your property value...if that is the case, it stinks...everybody needs to pay for their own trash removal...or is batavia a "tax the rich" city..you losers need to stop complaining...i can't believe how big of an issue this has become......stop the worry about some handicap person....you want to help them out? send them a check once a month...stop expecting someone else to pay your bills,pay your own,i pay mine and i don't ask or expect anyone to pay mine..nothing free coming in my house,i pay my property and school taxes,my phone bill,my electric,i buy my groceries and yes i pay for my garbage disposal...
Interesting to read the comments on the 2009 poll. Same arguments, sort of. I saw a bunch of commenters who used to comment regularly, but don't anymore. I remember the one (who shall be nameless) who melted down and loudly pronounced her exodus. But the rest? What happened to my man George, he was extremely entertaining to say the least.
I got an e-mail from George several weeks ago. I'm not at liberty, of course, to discuss why or why not somebody might not be participating. Not that I even necessarily have an answer. That said, just saying, I have heard from him.
When I lived in LeRoy, there was a pay per bag system and it was a huge inconvenience and extremely unsanitary. The bags needed to be set out to display the pay per bag sticker....meaning they could not be in a garbage can. We had a growing family and unfortunately had multiple bag of trash that could not be left outside until trash day because of the animals. We tried leaving them in the garage/putting them in a trash can for the week, but on trash day the bags would be covered in maggots. I don't know many people that want to handle maggot covered trash bags. Plus if you ran out of stickers/ forgot to buy the stickers, as a busy mom might sometimes do...you could not throw out your trash that week. It was a horrible system and was not worth the savings. We decided to pay for a private company that used a tote system. This was about ten years ago and Waste Management at that time charged $75 per quarter....so this new tote system through the city sounds like a good deal to me.
Like the water bill, based on
Like the water bill, based on actual use (no estimates, no monthly contracts, no peanut buttering to subsidize others, fully opt-outable).
I think you need another
I think you need another choice - contract independently for that service. Unless you think that the 'user fee' option covers it.
I think that implies that the city still provides the service.
As i said when I spoke at the meeting last night. In Saratoga Springs (pop ~26,500) the city has NOTHING to do with waste disposal. Residents and businesses contract independently for that service with the vendor of their choice.
Simple answer to all the problems.
We're suffering from paralysis by analysis.
Can someone give me ONE GOOD REASON why the city needs to be involved in trash collection?
Pssst Dave, dont ask Mr.
Pssst Dave, dont ask Mr. Molino to answer that LOL
Direct billing or user fee,
Direct billing or user fee, not in property taxes where the true cost is hidden.
Dave, I think user fee covers
Dave, I think user fee covers it. Either it's on the tax rolls or it's not and people pay the hauler based on level of service.
Also, I'll have a quote in my story from a rep from Allied. He said 90 percent of all residents in WNY are on a single-hauler system, either through contract or municipal owned service (such as Tonawanda).
That's what he said on the record.
Personally, the libertarian in me agrees in a free market option, to an extent -- it's a tempting option, until you look at it closely.
The businessman in me understands scale. In a city the size of Batavia, a multiple vendor system will inhibit any one vendor from achieving scale so the cost for each individual resident would be two or three times the price of a single-hauler system. I know there are those who say now they're OK with paying more -- either to support ARC or because, gosh darn it, the principle of a free market is more important than their pocketbook. I don't really believe it. You're not much of a libertarian if you vote to charge yourself more money over a viable alternative to lower costs for yourself and others. Collective bidding is a free market solution, too, you know. Right to assembly is part of the Bill of Rights. There's nothing anti-liberty about a bunch of people, either as an independent organization or through the power of a government agency, banding together to get themselves a better price.
None of that is to say ARC shouldn't be the vendor, even at a higher price -- there's a strong case to be made for keeping it local -- but I reject the idea that pooling our resources, through the city or not, is "big government" or "anti-free market."
The proposed system will eventually cost me more money (when we own the place we're lease-to-own on now) and I'm OK with that because I don't think Mr. Kahn on Narramore Drive should subsidize my garbage collection. But I'm not OK with paying two or three times more just so we can have some illusion of a free market vs. the free market of pooling our resources to get a better deal.
To me, this poll question boils the issue down to the primary question -- who should pay? The rest is details that either get worked out now, or get worked out after (if) this gets voted down.
I guess we''ll agree to
I guess we''ll agree to disagree because I see no reason why, if the city simply gets out of the business and ARC says, "Hey Batavia residents - we're in the trash collection and recycling business" that
A) their costs would be significantly different and
B) most residents would probably opt to simply stay with the status quo and pay the ARC directly.
That would certainly be my choice.
Please tell me why if ARC was still operating the trash collection as a 'private entity' their costs and therefore the fees they would have to charge would be SIGNIFICANTLY different.
Even if they were a little higher, I'd still go with them.
I guess I'm not buying the 'economy of scale' argument that your guy from Allied is selling. He's saying that because he wants a piece of the pie.
Town Resident here. I hope
Town Resident here. I hope you City folk are able to figure this out, but.....
Howard said:
"You're not much of a libertarian if you vote to charge yourself more money over a viable alternative to lower costs for yourself and others."
Please don't think you even know how much of a Libertarian I am. Out here in the Town we use the free market. When I lived in the Town of Pembroke we used the free market. When I lived in the Town of Alabama we used the free market. I get pricing from companies, and I decide which one I will use. If I have to pay more or am willing to pay more, that"s my decision. I may find that the higher pricing has added benefits that I find attractive. If the Town offers a compactor service for a fee, I will consider that option also. The bottom line is I have a choice and am not mandated by someone who thinks they know what's good for me.
Peace to all of you.
Don
Dave, I'm not buying anything
Dave, I'm not buying anything Allied is selling. That's nonsense and you know it. First, I've written about the scale issue before, weeks ago. Second, it's common sense that anybody with a modicum of business knowledge understands.
What would be ARC's motivation to keep prices down in absent of a franchise agreement and much higher prices from any potential competition? They were already the highest bidder in the current process despite their non-profit status and they were under bid by a company with union labor.
Nothing against ARC, obviously, but they have their mission -- a very worthy mission -- and just like any business, they will want to maximize revenue to support that mission.
You might want to pay higher prices, and Don might want to pay higher prices, but most people want to pay lower prices. Let the best deal win in the market place. That's what business is about.
Howard, the collection of
Howard, the collection of bids received by the city are based on a specific manner of collecting the trash. Using a uniform tote and placing it so a mechanical arm can lift it up and dump it into the truck bed. You may or may not be getting the "best deal" that way, who knows? If the city gets out of the process and allows the free market to work, there will be other methods of collecting trash employed. You can't say that making it totally uniform is going to lower costs over-all. I'd think it would be cheaper for a resident to go buy a trash receptacle wherever they choose and have it emptied by whomever they want, including themselves. I do understand the economy of scale theory, there is far too many stipulations in this one however to make a fair comparison, it is only true if the city passes a law requiring everyone to have a tote meeting the same spec's and only allowing trash collectors to use the same type of equipment. In the end, I don't live in the city & doubt I ever will so y'all can do whatever for all I personally care. It's a government mandate of behavior anyway you slice it, and we have way too many of those already.
Howard....read WHAT I
Howard....read WHAT I WROTE.
I said "I'm not buying what they're selling". I didn't say anything about you or your beliefs so don't talk to me like I'm 6 years old. Simply because you've "written" about something doesn't make it gospel.
You can't say what ARC's pricing structure would be absent a franchise agreement and neither can I. The fact is, that's immaterial.
Maybe I and other city residents would like to support them and maybe we wouldn't mind paying a small premium because of the work they do. Call it charity...call it what you want.
The bottom line is it would be a free market resolution to the problem and the city would be out of another business they don't need to be in.
Dave O., the high fixed cost
Dave O., the high fixed cost of providing trash service isn't going to change based on totes are not -- it's the truck( s ) and the infrastructure that goes with it. After that, it's how many stops can be squeezed into an hour that plays into scale (from there it's a matter of determining the speed of automated, one-man vs. the expense of three-man crews).
Dave. M., I'm merely responding to, "I guess I'm not buying the 'economy of scale' argument that your guy from Allied is selling. He's saying that because he wants a piece of the pie."
Bottomline: There's no easy
Bottomline: There's no easy answer here. No solution is going to please everybody.
Some people think it's OK that the richer property owners subsidize the less affluent property owners and non-profits. Others think that's wrong.
Some want to pay by bag; some a flat rate.
Some only care about ARC, but even some of them think it should be gotten off the tax rolls.
Others are complete free market idealists and want that solution even if it's two or three times more expensive.
Some people want the convenience of totes, others thinks they have no place to store totes and don't want them.
Some people want to increase recycling, others don't care so much.
No matter what the City Council decides, a lot of people are going to be pissed off and say "they're not representing the people who elected them."
Howard; I quite understand
Howard; I quite understand how the pick up and delivery industry works. Your seeing the City of Batavia as a stand alone business area. Trash companies are already working in the surrounding towns near to Batavia and would just add on to existing routes. Some will want their totes to be used, others won't care. It's all about how the routes are functioning now, and what the perceive their customers want. Doing this the way the city is doing it, is creating the need for trucks to be dedicated to Batavia. Then yes, you are right, it only works if they get the whole pie. Also, it would free up ARC to go after business in the Towns nearby which I'm guessing they don't have time or people to do right now. I'm surprised, I guess, that you think Batavia stands alone in it's own trash vacuum.
Anyway, the people (taxpayers) should be the ones deciding this, not the Manager, not the Council and not Dave Olsen.
But........
Free markets work. Every time.
Just for comparison sake,
Just for comparison sake, from a poll we did in Sept. 2009
http://thebatavian.com/blogs/howard-owens/todays-poll-how-should-garbag…
How should garbage collection be paid for in Batavia?
The current system, part of property taxes, is fine. 50.38% (199 votes)
There should be a per-unit (dwelling or business) fee. 24.81% (98 votes)
People should buy bags or stickers for collection 18.99% (75 votes)
No Opinion 5.82% (23 votes)
All this back and forth just
All this back and forth just tells me one thing.... The City Council seems very motivated to push this through despite fully explaining all the in and outs to the public. This despite a heavy outcry from the public that says NO regardless of the reason.
Howard made a good point with..."Collective bidding is a free market solution, too, you know. Right to assembly is part of the Bill of Rights. There's nothing anti-liberty about a bunch of people, either as an independent organization or through the power of a government agency, banding together to get themselves a better price" Which I fully agree with, however the City Councils has said no one can "opt out" That to me isnt collective, nor does it seem to jive with liberty at all. The "Mandate" really has to go, but why does the city seem insistent to force it's will on everyone. Practically begging to invite a lawsuit which will not only cost money but if successfull will topple the whole city plan like a house of cards. Leaving chaos.
All in all I think keeping things as is and doing a more comprehensive look at this instead of rushing into it seems to be the prudent thing to do.
Kyle, If the City
Kyle,
If the City collectively gives a bid, I doubt it is illegal, since it would have been taken to court already. Remember, most areas have this type of arrangement. And as noted before, there is no opt out now, with ARC, you are mandated to have them. If you want on opt out, then the current ARC arrangement would have to go.
That really is a good point
That really is a good point Kyle and Howard have brought up. When you have so many people getting involved in a city council meeting that the fire chief has to maintain the proper occupancy, it can only be a good thing for Batavia. How ever this goes, good for you Batavians, take your government back!!
Interesting about the poll from '09. Do you remember, Howard what brought that up then?
Dave, I think John Roach used
Dave, I think John Roach used public comments to preach the per-bag fee system. John might remember better. And I think prior to that the subject had come up in comments on another item.
This debate is about 20 years old, at least, I believe.
I wish we could get half as many people at other council meetings.
correct me if i am wrong,
correct me if i am wrong, the current means of paying for trash removal is based on your property value...if that is the case, it stinks...everybody needs to pay for their own trash removal...or is batavia a "tax the rich" city..you losers need to stop complaining...i can't believe how big of an issue this has become......stop the worry about some handicap person....you want to help them out? send them a check once a month...stop expecting someone else to pay your bills,pay your own,i pay mine and i don't ask or expect anyone to pay mine..nothing free coming in my house,i pay my property and school taxes,my phone bill,my electric,i buy my groceries and yes i pay for my garbage disposal...
Interesting to read the
Interesting to read the comments on the 2009 poll. Same arguments, sort of. I saw a bunch of commenters who used to comment regularly, but don't anymore. I remember the one (who shall be nameless) who melted down and loudly pronounced her exodus. But the rest? What happened to my man George, he was extremely entertaining to say the least.
I've asked about George
I've asked about George before. I hope he's okay. He always made me laugh.
I got an e-mail from George
I got an e-mail from George several weeks ago. I'm not at liberty, of course, to discuss why or why not somebody might not be participating. Not that I even necessarily have an answer. That said, just saying, I have heard from him.
I'm glad to hear that.
I'm glad to hear that. George - if you're reading - we miss you.
Howard, I have been an
Howard,
I have been an advocate of the per bag system and spoke for it at Council many times. But it never received support.
Glad he is OK. and yes, I
Glad he is OK. and yes, I miss his humorous take on things
When I lived in LeRoy, there
When I lived in LeRoy, there was a pay per bag system and it was a huge inconvenience and extremely unsanitary. The bags needed to be set out to display the pay per bag sticker....meaning they could not be in a garbage can. We had a growing family and unfortunately had multiple bag of trash that could not be left outside until trash day because of the animals. We tried leaving them in the garage/putting them in a trash can for the week, but on trash day the bags would be covered in maggots. I don't know many people that want to handle maggot covered trash bags. Plus if you ran out of stickers/ forgot to buy the stickers, as a busy mom might sometimes do...you could not throw out your trash that week. It was a horrible system and was not worth the savings. We decided to pay for a private company that used a tote system. This was about ten years ago and Waste Management at that time charged $75 per quarter....so this new tote system through the city sounds like a good deal to me.