This has been knocking around my head for a while, but this video from Shrewsburied bumped it to the front.
">
This isn't a piece of blog fiction. Trash fees came up as one possible revenue-generating device in the sn't my own creation. The possiblity of tacking on trash fees came up in the Revenue Task Force's report.
Among other suggestions, though not prioritized, were an evaluation of annual contracts vs. multiyear contracts, fees and charges for services such as trash collection and the creation of a permanent, voluntary grants committee.
How do I feel about it. I don't really mind the concept, but buying those bags is a pain in the ass.
Here's how things likely will play out. If the debt exclusion doesn't pass, I'd say chances are pretty high we'll be going this route.
5 comments:
Tom,
If trash fees were related to volume -i.e. so much per bag or barrel I think I'd be more OK with it, than if it were a flat fee per household.
Paying by volume of trash would be an incentive to recycle more, maybe compost stuff, etc. While flat fees would have the biggest users,or careless recyclers, being subsidized by folks who were less trash intensive.
Likely it would be tough to implement though.
Ron M
You're right Ron.
That was the approach in my former town, and it definitely encouraged people to recycle.
The only catch was distribution. Only one store in town sold the bags.
what do we pay taxes for if the city doesn't pay for trash pick up, doesn't pave the roads, doesn't fund the schools....its isn't as if the city will lower our taxes now that we're receiving one less service. its foolish.
We I used to live, the trash fee did lower our taxes, ( it was the selling point) and it was by volume and it did reduce our trash.
Nice selling point.
First off, I should come out and say that I think pay as you throw is a sensible policy. It just puts more of the onus on the taxpayer, and I sometimes feel onused-out.
As for the sales job, I don't foresee such a tax break ever being promised here, although it'd be nice.
But what if the argument went, we've budged X for trash removal under the current system. If we went pay per throw we would only have to budget 1/2 of X and the rest of the money would go toward other budgets.
In fact, one could argue that this make such sense that it should be incorporated before any debt exclusion. But it'll be a tough political sell.
Post a Comment