Let's Start Rewarding the Recyclers with PAYT, a market based, low cost approach to recycling and waste disposal

Let's Start Rewarding the Recyclers with rates bases on volume of waste. You don't pay less per unit of water if you use more of it, why then should your cost per unit of trash go down if you throw out more. Saint Petersburg is the largest city in Florida that does not offer curbside recycling. Other cities charge less per month than St. Pete yet offer free curbside pickup of recyclables and additional services because they use PAYT.


So how do we start? Citizens can make this happen. The first thing we can do is to stop putting our container out twice a week. This will demonstrate public support and save the city money. Every time a truck stops we wear breaks, use fuel to accelerate and add air and noise pollution.
Saint Petersburg charges those who recycle more to subsidize those who don't. That is the effect of a flat rate for every home. There is a big discount for each extra container of waste and a only small discount for once a week service. When PAYT, or Pay as You Throw is used recycling goes up and trash volume goes down. We all save money and have a cleaner city.

We can all help the city save money by voluntary use of once a week service, and those of us who qualify can have a lower bill. (a link to the application is below)

Only a few of us qualify for the discount but if we help more people do this we then can ask city council to expand it to everyone. To qualify for a lower bill you must have a single family residence with a one-person household, a lot size of 8,500 sq. feet or less, and a water usage of 5,000 gallons or less per month. But everyone can reduce, reuse, recycle, buy less junk and start putting our can out only once a week.


The two most traditional approaches to disposing of municipal solid waste are a flat-rate system or municipal taxes. All users pay the same municipal taxes regardless of how much waste they present for pickup. Under the flat-rate system there is no link between “the actual costs for waste disposal and individual waste production,” so users do not consider the quantity of waste they produce.

PAYT is based on two guiding principles of environmental policy: the polluter pays principle (PPP) and the shared responsibility concept. The rationale for PAYT can be divided into three broad categories:
Economic

Under a PAYT scheme, some or all of the costs of waste management can be removed from property tax bills, providing more independence in the management and financial of residential waste system. Waste management services are then treated just like other utilities such as electricity or water that are charged by unit of consumption.
Environmental

PAYT programs are an effective tool in increasing waste separation and recycling, and also encourage waste minimization. The result is significant energy savings from transportation, increases in material recovery from recycling, and reduction in pollution from landfills and incinerators. PAYT programs also encourage producers to develop more efficient designs and environmentally friendly product life cycles.
Social

Waste collections costs are distributed more fairly among the population, and in proportion to the amount of waste each user generates. Free riders are no longer able to have their behavior subsidized, and PAYT is said to promote community sustainability. Household waste is “generally positively related to household income so poorer families are likely to face lower waste collection charges under PAYT systems.”
Risks

When there is a change to any established municipal service, public resistance is common. Charging for waste can also sometimes result in illegal dumping (fly-tipping) or the waste being passed to unlicensed or illegal disposal methods.
Implementation

Urban communities usually offer curbside collection while rural communities provide drop-off collection service. Both the European Union and the US Environmental Protection Agency have published handbooks for introducing PAYT.
North America

PAYT programs operated in California, Michigan, New York and Washington as early as the 1970s, although The City of San Francisco “had practiced a kind of PAYT scheme since 1932.” By 2000, 6 000 communities in the U.S. (20%) and 200 in Canada had implemented user fees for waste management. In 2002 North Americans disposed of 24 million tonnes of waste, with residential sources accounting for 9.5 million tonnes. PAYT programs resulted in residential waste declining from 9 - 38 % and increased recycling from 6 – 40%.
Europe

Austria was the first country to implement individual waste charging in 1945, but PAYT did not catch on until the 1980s when efficient and secure electronic identification systems became available. The first city in Europe to implement an electronic identification and billing system for waste charges was Dresden, Germany. Since 1991 the European Waste Policy has required that “part of the costs not covered by revenues from material reuse must be recovered on the polluter-pays principle.” Versions of PAYT are present in municipalities all over Europe.
Asia

After being introduced in the 1970s, 954 municipalities (30%) in Japan have implemented PAYT programs. The city of Taipei currently runs a scheme where households and companies purchase specially printed blue bin bags, and place waste in it. The municipal waste management department collects only rubbish placed within these special bags. Called the "Per Bag Trash Collection Fee", this scheme encourages usage of recyclable packaging, as those do not need a special bag and are disposed free of charge. As a result Taipei's waste volume is down 35.08%, and recycling has increased 2.6-fold from 1999. PAYT is also implemented in Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, China, and Taiwan.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_as_you_throw
References at bottom of page


Residential Rates in St. Petersburg

CURBSIDE/ALLEY SERVICE
Twice-a-week Service:


Single Family Residence, Business or Institution

One automated (90 gal.) automated container - $22.33
Each additional (90 gal.) automated container - $12.31*
Multiple Family Residence-per unit - $22.33
Once-a-week service:


Subject to City approval if customer meets all of the following criteria:

single family residence with a one-person household
a lot size of 8,500 sq. feet or less
a water usage of 5,000 gallons or less per month - $17.69

BACKYARD SERVICE

Single Family Residence, Business or Institution

One automated (90 gal.) container or 2 cans, manual system - $53.27
Each additional can or container - $26.10*
Multiple Family Residence - per unit - $53.27

To apply for once a week service click here

http://www.stpete.org/sanitation/residential_collection/docs/1xweek.pdf
References

1. Batllevell, Marta and Kenneth Hanf. “The fairness of PAYT systems: Some guidelines for decision-makers.” Waste Management 28 (2008): 2793-2800.
2. Kelleher, Maria, et al. “Taking out the Trash: How to Allocate the Costs Fairly.” C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 213 (2005): 1-22.
3. Bilitewski, Bernd. “Pay-as-you-throw – A tool for urban waste management.” Editorial. Waste Management 28 (2008): 2759.
4. Reichenbach, Jan. “Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe – A review of pilot research and implementation studies.” Waste Management 28 (2008): 2809-2814.
5. Sakai, S., et al. “Unit-charging programs for municipal solid waste in Japan.” Waste Management 28 (2008): 2815-2825.
6. What I Picked Up About Trash in Taipei - washingtonpost.com
7. Hong, Seonghoon. “The Effects of unit pricing system upon household solid waste management: The Korean Experience.” The Journal of Environmental Management 57 1999): 1-10.

FREE PAYT Webinar December 9 Join the webinar, and Pass the Word!

Register NOW for the webinar at www.paytnow.org.

Click image to enlarge, click Back icon to return

After registering, you will be notified about instructions for the webinar. See the flyer above for more information.

The Econservation Institute is providing FREE assistance through NATIONWIDE webinars, and through workshops and “hands-on” consulting to communities in EPA Region 9. If your community is interested in finding out about new options for recycling and diversion including PAYT and how they can help you reduce costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase jobs, and help citizens recycle then this program is for you!

The webinar is being presented by Dr. Lisa Skumatz, and guest speakers.

How can we save Baywalk from itself?

First Amendment at stake

Baywalk is demanding cash and a public sidewalk from the city. Or else! They tell us they will not make the investment needed to bring new life to their retail complex, so the new owners are holding their own profits hostage until the city caves. And seven members of council are only too ready to cave, as the city had done for decades with Bay Plaza and other costly projects.

The city needs a creative approach, something beyond pouring in more taxpayer money and curtailing free speech. The recession has hit all of downtown as well as Baywalk. Could it be that there is just not enough business downtown for Baywalk, the Pier, the Rays and the many smaller attractions like Shuffleboard, art galleries and museums?

I believe that is the problem and not demonstrations on the sidewalk.

My proposal:

1 Give Baywalk the sidewalk, but only for one year. Then see if this action brings any improvement. This postpones debate over free speech until later when I hope business is much better. Using demonstrators as a scapegoat helps politicians get through this election but its not likely to turn around business. Council has the votes for a permanent giveaway so I see this compromise as the best option for advocates of maintaining the public space.
2 Close the businesses inside the Pier and use the public subsidy to help merchants move to empty space in Baywalk. This consolidates two weak destinations into one stronger one. The Pier can remain a fishing, pedestrian and biking spot at a lower cost while plans are made to demolish or rebuild. Why pour money into the Pier when the deterioration of the structure makes closing it inevitable? Then take an honest and realistic look at the Pier and the rest of downtown. Could it be better to use the budgeted $50 million to rebuild the Pier on the Trop parking lot and consolidate activity closer to the interstate and transit? The waterfront needs no subsidy to get people there, yet the city continues to pour money into unprofitable ventures. Let the market find out what people will pay for and keep free public access open for all.
3 Eliminate parking meters and expand mass transit to make downtown more inviting to visitors from the suburbs and move toward being a truly urban downtown. Our strength is being an actual downtown, not a Disney version. At some point we need to give up on the idea of having a parking spot right in front of everywhere we go and then driving a few blocks to the next stop. For now we need to cater to Pinellas residents who expect convenient parking.
4 Provide free employee parking at off site park and ride lots and subsidized car pooling and bus service. Downtown workers now consume parking needed by visitors. They want their employers to succeed so they will grudgingly go along with this.
5 Take the $700,000 subsidy for Baywalk off the table and use that money to help business on 4th and MLK Streets South. These two streets are gateways to downtown yet have languished for decades. Revitalizing those streets will help the residential neighborhoods thrive, help fill empty condos and indirectly help Baywalk and all downtown business. The area between Central and 22nd Avenue south is a wasteland with a few well kept homes and businesses surrounded by acres of parking lots, weedy lots and run down or empty buildings. This asset has not been managed well, if its been managed at all. The Bartlett Park neighborhood plan of the early 90's was designed to revitalize half of this space but needs an update.

Mark Kamleiter addresses city council on the rights of St. Petersburg residents to use their sidewalk. While focused on the sidewalk city council may not see the bigger picture.

Wasting Money on Job Bidding Wars and Corporate Subsidies

Some States Wasting Money on Job Bidding Wars and Corporate Subsidies

Overall, federal recovery spending is working as intended, helping states provide needed services and avoid layoffs that would be worsening unemployment rates. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that these funds are providing states with 40 percent of what is needed to help their budgets in balance over the next few fiscal years. The recovery plan has provided states with flexibility in addressing key programs and priorities.

Unfortunately, a number of states have wasted budget funds on trying to steal jobs from one another, as highlighted by Good Jobs First. A few of the worst examples:

• A multi-state bidding war for a battery production consortium ended up with Kentucky offering $200 million to subsidize a 2,000-worker facility at a cost of $100,000 per job.
• Georgia paid $100 million to NCR to move its 1250-person headquarters from Dayton, Ohio - its home for 125 years - down to an Atlanta suburb.
• New Jersey has approved a radical new Tax Increment Financing (TIF) law that gives developers a whole range of subsidies.

As Good Jobs First writes, this is part of a long-term trend where "footloose corporations...play states and cities like a fiddle so that small businesses and working families get stuck with higher taxes and lousier public services."

But in a time of economic crisis when state budgets are devastated, wasting money on zero-sum bidding wars is destructive to the overall economy, since it diverts money from investments in people and infrastructure that will actually build long-term economic competitiveness for our country.

More Resources

Housing Crisis Forum

Event Location: Seminole Library at St. Petersburg College
Seminole, 9200-113th St. N, Room C

Event Description:
Forum on the housing crisis, offering possible solutions to those in need. Panelists include Mayor Pat Gerard of Largo, Victor Adamo of the Board of Realtors and Kip Corriveau of the Salvation Army among other experts in the field.
Co-sponsored by Organizing for America (Largo area) and the Largo/Mid-Pinellas Democratic Club.

Thomas Sowell on the housing collapse

The Housing Boom and Bust

by Thomas Sowell

Publisher Comments:

This is a plain-English explanation of how we got into the current economic disaster that developed out of the economics and politics of the housing boom and bust. The creative financing of home mortgages and the even more creative marketing of financial securities based on American mortgages to countries around the world, are part of the story of how a financial house of cards was built up--and then suddenly collapsed.

The politics behind all this is another story full of strange twists. No punches are pulled when discussing politicians of either party, the financial dangers they created, or the distractions they created later to escape their own responsibility for what happened when the financial house of cards in the financial markets collapsed.

What to do, now that we are in the midst of an economic disaster, is yet another story--one whose ending we do not yet know, but one whose outlines and implications are explored to reveal some surprising and sobering lessons.

Human Events

It's a story of venal and short-sighted politicians (on both sides of the aisle), rapacious financial tycoons, and victimized American citizens. Sowell, who has taught economics at Cornell and UCLA, and whose book Basic Economics has been translated into six languages, traces a series of very questionable decisions made by many people in many places, over a period of years. Each of these decisions helped build up the pressures that finally led to a sudden collapse of the housing market -- and of financial institutions that began to fall like dominoes as a result of investing in securities based on housing prices. Sowell explains how "creative" financing of home mortgages, and the even more "creative" marketing of financial securities based on American mortgages to countries around the world, built up a financial house of cards that was inevitably destined to fall.

Sowell also deftly navigates the bewildering twists and turns of the politics behind this disaster, pulling no punches about how politicians of both parties pursued their narrow self-interests, oblivious to the financial dangers they were creating. Sowell then shines much-needed light on how these same politicians later threw up smokescreens and distractions in order to escape their own responsibility for what happened when the whole shaky financial edifice they had built finally came tumbling down.

Synopsis:

The financial tsunami has been followed by a political flood of rhetoric, accompanied by finger-pointing in all directions. Who was really responsible? What set this off?

Order a copy.

More books by Sowell.

LET VOTERS DECIDE ON PUBLIC FUNDING FOR FLORIDA MARLINS STADIUM REPRESENTATIVE STEINBERG OFFERS PLAN FOR MIAMI-DADE VOTERS

TALLAHASSEE, FL --- State Representative Richard L. Steinberg (D-Miami Beach) is offering a legislative proposal to give Miami-Dade County voters the right to approve whether public funds are spent on a Florida Marlins stadium.



“The voters in Miami-Dade County should be given the right to decide whether to commit over a billion dollars of public money for a baseball stadium,” said Representative Steinberg. “If the local elected officials will not allow the people to vote, the Florida Legislature should require them to hold a referendum.”



Representative Steinberg filed an amendment to House Bill 253, a measure concerning public funding of professional sports team.



The bill, as originally filed, limits a voter referendum only to obligations “created before July 1, 2009.” The amendment offered by Representative Steinberg would give voters the right to vote on any obligation created after today, including the proposed stadium for the Florida Marlins.



Representative Steinberg serves on the House Transportation & Economic Development Appropriations Committee, and three other House committees.