Mandatory Recycling Tax Approved (Bountiful) (Update)

I had warned that vigilance was needed on the recycling issue.  Even so, there wasn’t much anyone could do about it as the City Council members (Holbrook, Tolman, Knight) teamed with the Mayor (Johnson) to force everyone to pay for another interest group’s convenience under the guise of a “Recycling Discussion” listed on the City Council Agenda I was able to obtain.  Evidently NO public comment was taken.

Bountiful residents will now pay an additional $36/year on top of all the other tax increases and “power tax” increases which have been layed on residents backs.  One day I will need to sit down and check how much Bountiful taxpayers have been burdend over the last 5-10 years…doing some quick math, I think they are looking at about $200/year.

Of course, rising energy costs, a slowing economy and looming inflation mean nothing.  Plus all those on fixed incomes and the poor really don’t matter that much.  After all, gandpa can skimp on the heart meds so that I can wheel recycling to the curb rather than putting a minor amount of effort to take it to the appropriate, conveniently located dumpster.

Moving on, here is something of interest, from the article (second link above):

Reasons cited were a change by Allied Systems, the previously chosen provider. It wanted a guaranteed minimum participation level and a four-year contract, and would start charging the city to maintain the 200 West recycling bins, at an estimated cost of $30,000-$35,000 each year.

It turns out Allied Systems OWNES is affiliated with Rocky Mountain Recycling.  That was something I did not know when I wrote my post on the issue last week.  That being the case, I think Allied made a strategic move to bluff charging the city for the 200 West bins in an effort to give Councilmembers an excuse to force everyone to pay Allied for the service, whether they use it or not.  Allied now has a fully government-mandated and approved monopoly in Bountiful. It looks like Allied may have screwed up and given their competator (Waste Management) a government mandated and approved monopoly in Bountiful.

What I would like to know is if the supporting City Council members fell for this stunt or if there was some type of collusion going on behind the scenes as the recent ‘bin charge’ development and rapid reaction using the cloak of a “recycling discussion” a little too convenient.  I think this stinks, but I have no concrete evidence, at this time, to support this suspicion. [And no wonder, I misread the article!]

A quick word of warning: Watch how long it takes until residents start getting fined (here too) or face other consequences (here too) for not recycling…

Ending on the positive: Thanks to Coucilman Moss and Myers for opposing this and noting that the majority of residents opposed mandatory recycling in the recent survey on the issue.

I would also encourage folks to recycle their paper and aluminum through the bins etc. located at various schools and charities (some businesses offer them as well).  At least, they let you do so voluntarily and it goes to a good cause.

UPDATE: I misread the article and Allied did not get the contract, as a matter of fact, they may have shot themselves in the foot (see comments).  Obviously, this evaporates the suspicion of collusion alluded to in the same paragraph.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Mandatory Recycling Tax Approved (Bountiful) (Update)

  1. While I agree there should have been public comment on the issue, you should check your facts before posting on this issue. First of all, I don’t know where you are coming from when you say Allied Waste owns RMR; Allied may contract with RMR for recycling, but I can find no evidence of ownership. Secondly, as a result of the council’s action, Allied will not be the city’s recycling contractor. Waste Management will receive the contract because they had the lower bid for opt-out or mandatory recycling.
    Third, the poll you cite is BS and you know it. It was a self-selecting, non-representative, non-scientific poll. Also, the survey question was specifically premised on the assumption that the city would continue to offer drop-off recycling, which is now not going to happen.
    Finally, I agree with the logic of Mayor Johnson, who finally came to the conclusion that we will not have our landfill forever, and need recycling to extend the life of the landfill for at least another decade.
    I also submit that the program will not be “mandatory” in the way that the examples you cite, and would hope you would be involved in insuring that does not happen. I think the SF example is more likely than fines.

  2. Thanks for catching that. My bad on missing the Waste Management contract.

    Allied is certainly well affiliated with RMR, at least that’s what the Clipper leads me to believe, especially if they have the right to change removal fees and RMR trucks are picking up the waste.

    The survey was non-scientific, and, as far as I’m concerned, likely biased to the proponents as I noted when I first heard about it. That being the case, however, the city and interest groups gambled with it and lost. Now, they want us to disregard it and that isn’t going to happen. I, personally, don’t put much stock in the survey as I think forcing everyone to pay for a specific group’s program is wrong no matter how many support it, but I also think it is indicative of how those in power are happy to use/disregard any polls (scientific or not) for their position. I’m just happy Moss and Myers called them on it (although both probably have done/will do the same).

    The 10 year life extension seems dubious, where did that number come from? Further, if this is going to save so much of the waste, let’s lower disposal bills by the same amount (especially where Waste Management is supposedly making money from the waste). If anything a lot of the recycled waste has a limited market, unless that significantly changes (then, you would actually get paid for it rather than having to pay someone to get rid of it for you), I would expect the waste to fill some other landfill or heavier government subsidies (taxes) to make certain recycled products “cheaper” than their competitors.

    Finally, I hope Bountiful won’t see trash cops but based on how fast the city council acts and is willing to cloak major decisions as “discussions” don’t count on me or anyone else being able to stop it. Besides, the majority of decisions are made before the council or legislature casts their votes.

  3. Pingback: Forced Recycling Fee and Government-Mandated Monopoly (Bountiful) « Utah Rattler

  4. Pingback: Heads Up Centerville: Recycling « Utah Rattler

  5. Pingback: Centerville Recycling: Opt Out « Utah Rattler

  6. Pingback: North Salt Lake Looking At Recycling Tax « Utah Rattler

  7. Pingback: Centerville: The Recycling Monopoly Commeth « Utah Rattler

  8. Pingback: Centerville Recycling Update (Warning To Farmington) « Utah Rattler

  9. Pingback: Local Politicians’ Disingenuous Rant (Bountiful) « Utah Rattler

  10. Pingback: Politicians Pet Project Meets Resistance (Centerville, Bountiful) « Utah Rattler

  11. Pingback: Vigilance: Bountiful Streetcar Boondogle (and kudos to Layton) « Utah Rattler

  12. Pingback: Vigilance: Bountiful Streetcar Boondoggle (and kudos to Layton) « Utah Rattler

  13. Pingback: 2011 Bountiful City Council Candidates (With Incumbent Data) « Utah Rattler

  14. Pingback: Bountiful Raises Recycling Tax On Residents « Utah Rattler

  15. Pingback: Fruit Heights Opts To Crush Entrepreneur (Recycling) | Utah Rattler

  16. Pingback: Bountiful Plays Games To Fund Pet Project Cost Overruns | Utah Rattler

  17. Pingback: Update On Bountiful’s City Hall Cost Overrun (Plus Recycling Fee Extension) | Utah Rattler

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s