Lakewood Refuse & Reclycling Initiative -Thou Shall or $

[Gary Rice]

With all due respect to the apologists on this thread.

Diane makes a good point, as does Brian...

There would indeed be fewer fascist-type nightmare scenarios if...well you know...

And if you think about it, no one can tell a person to refrain from dreams, much less speak of them.

That...would be a real nightmare indeed.

[Kevin Butler]

I had a hand in drafting the new recycling ordinance, which of course I fully supported once our deliberations were complete. If anyone would like a copy of the ordinance we passed, send me your email address in a private message.

In the drafting stage, we relied on a number of ordinances from cities around the country and region (even Brooklyn, Ohio, mandates recycling, for instance, and has for years). Throughout our drafting of and committee deliberation on the ordinance, Council was concerned that the city not approach this process with too heavy a hand -- voluntary compliance and education being the primary objective.

Our statistics show that about 40 percent of Lakewood residents recycle in some way or another. That's a good start. But as I indicated in a recent email to folks in Ward 1:

Why the requirement that we recycle? First, it makes sense that we reduce our reliance on landfills, particularly in a modern age when more materials can be reused. An article in the March 21 Plain Dealer indicated that nearly 33 percent of our trash is paper and cardboard -- two highly recyclable commodities. Knowing that, there's no good reason not to recycle if we are to be proper stewards of the land.

Just as importantly, increased recycling favorably impacts our city's bottom line. Each year Lakewood spends between $800,000 and $900,000 on "tipping fees," which are the costs of dumping our trash into landfills. When people recycle more, we drop that number significantly.

In 2008, for example, the city collected over 1,100 tons of mixed blue-bag recyclables and over 2,100 tons of recyclable paper and cardboard -- a total of 260 tons more recyclables than in 2007 -- which dropped our tipping fees by nearly $100,000. In an age when every dollar and every city service matters, that's no insignificant figure. Imagine how those savings will change if we increase the percentage of households recycling in the city from 39 percent to 100 percent. That's the goal of this ordinance.

The ordinance does a few things: (1) requires residents who benefit from municipal waste collection to sort recyclable materials (right now, everything we currently accept as recyclable) from other refuse; (2) requires those residents to place the recyclable materials for collection apart from their other refuse; (3) forbids people from stealing recyclables; and (4) gives the administration rule-making authority to determine what are the reasonable and practical methods by which we'll be required to recycle. This last item creates flexibility in the event certain materials become recyclable, and in the event our methodology for collection changes.

In addition, the ordinance permits the city to enforce the code against those who are simply unwilling to recycle. After a warning, in its discretion the city will be able to simply leave the person's trash on the lawn with a note that they'll return in a week, giving the person time to sort the materials himself or herself. If that fails -- and once again, I assume a warning in most cases will suffice -- the city has the opportunity to charge a fee for the cost of the city sorting recyclable materials from the rest of the person's trash. I think fees will be rarely levied, frankly.

Materials have already been distributed to households around the city (I got mine on my doorknob), but the main guide to refuse and recycling is yet to come. Those materials will explain a lot. Please stay tuned.

For those concerned about overzealous enforcement, I don't believe your concerns are warranted. Again, the goal of this is to encourage recycling voluntarily more than anything else, and I think you'll find that the city will do everything it can toward that end.

Those of you who currently recycle are already way ahead of the game. The ordinance gives those others an incentive to catch up. For the world's environmental health and the city's financial health, it simply makes sense to do this now.

Hope that information helps.

Kevin Butler
(Council, Ward 1)

[Stan Austin]

Kevin--- Thanks for the post on the legislative process used in establishing these procedures.

You made a reference to a Plain Dealer estimate of recyclable paper. So much of the recycling discussion has been based on facts like those-----second hand.

Like Diane, I am a re cycler. So I am not objecting in any way to the proposition that we must conserve and save.

However, I have to think that as prudent legislators, you had to begin with a base---------specifically what do we throw away? How can you make any kind of legislation without knowing the base facts?

Therefore, direct us to the most recent content analysis of trash in Lakewood on which you based this effort.

Stan

[Jim DeVito]

I had a hand in drafting the new recycling ordinance, which of course I fully supported once our deliberations were complete. If anyone would like a copy of the ordinance we passed, send me your email address in a private message.

Kevin, can you just post a link here for all to see?

[Kevin Butler]

Jim, there's no link -- it hasn't yet been made a part of the online code, which is where all our ordinances are eventually kept. I have a PDF document I can share, but that's the best I can do.

Stan, as I recall from our committee deliberations, somewhere between 35-40 percent of Lakewood households currently recycle. (I've also seen it reported as low as 10% in years past.) In 2007, the last year the Solid Waste District had numbers, the city put 21,000 tons of garbage into landfills, and recycled 13,500 tons of recyclables.

Increasing the percentage of those who recycle can yield only one conclusion: more materials will be recycled, and more money will be saved on landfill tipping fees. That's not second-hand or speculative.

[Kevin Butler]

In 2007, the last year the Solid Waste District had numbers, the city put 21,000 tons of garbage into landfills, and recycled 13,500 tons of recyclables.

I should add that this figure represents not just blue-bag and paper recycling, but includes lawn clippings, yard waste, and large non-landfill items, etc. Hence, the disparity in figures between my first post and my previous post.

[Gary Rice]

Thanks to Councilman Butler for coming on and explaining a few things about this ordinance. That's a good thing.

Still, I wonder how residents can be "required" to perform free labor, such as "sorting" recyclables? And this, for those who ALREADY are thinking that they are in compliance!

(Not to mention those either too old, sick, or not getting a paper, or not drinking canned pop, or etc...)

Wouldn't this also seem to constitute "involuntary servitude" to be performed for a government, pure and simple- and couldn't this be therefore a patently unconstitutional law, on its face?

The ordinance would also seem to extend to the executive branch of government vague and sweeping discretions as to what should be "reasonable and practical" actions regarding future recycling.

I can imagine future fines for not putting out ENOUGH paper, or aluminum, or whatever...

Theoretically, there would be no end to sorting stuff either. It could well be an open-ended future nightmare for all Lakewoodites.

Unless we end this nonsense now.

[Phil Florian]

I mostly stopped posting on this site back during the election when the venom almost dripped off the screen. But the handwringing was a close second!

I guess the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, plain and simple. There are a myriad of regulations on the books in the City and maybe the level of enforcement for that would reflect the likely level of enforcement with future rules.

Past behavior in other cities that have slave labor recycling laws would be good to know, too. They used to have pretty specific guidelines in Westlake (where my mother lives) and about a half dozen buckets to separate stuff into but if I recall there are less now. I would assume that lakewood has done its job and isn't out to reinvent the wheel and will likely go about this as others have already done.

So I am curious where the slave master and Gestapo-like enforcers are with current codes that have put the fear of a fascist state into the minds of the posters. Shouldn't the city screw up and THEN have us complain? Aren't we being a bit pro-active?

[Kevin Butler]

Gary, with all due respect, I don't see how any of this is a "nightmare." Are you not required to maintain your house? To cut your grass? To wear your seatbelt? Are those also examples of involuntary servitude?

Folks who think they're in compliance probably are, and I can't imagine they'll be bothered. Those who don't "get the paper" can't put the paper into the trash with their chicken bones anyway, so they'd be compliant with the law. The city can't force someone to recycle materials he or she doesn't possess.

An ordinance that creates rule-making authority in the executive branch is not new. It's found all over our local code, in the Ohio Revised Code (which has a rule-based companion, the Ohio Administrative Code), and the U.S. Code (whose rule-based companion is the Code of Federal Regulations). Although Congress created the EPA, for instance, it does not control that agency -- it's part of the executive branch, and its rules are promulgated under the supervision of the executive branch.

Finally, with regard to your concerns over future fines, let me share with you a section of an as-yet-unpublished FAQ written by our refuse division. This is how enforcement will probably go:

What will happen if I don't recycle?
Residents will be given time to get into the habit of recycling without concern for penalties. The Division of Refuse and Recycling will provide educational recycling material and encouragement to residents who are not recycling. If these gentle reminders are unsuccessful a Supervisor will investigate and the property owner will receive a warning notification. Continued refusal to recycle may result in the household's garbage being left until the next week so that recyclables can be sorted out and packaged correctly, or lastly, a fine could result.

Does that really sound so terrible, like slavery, like an unconstitutional regime? Or am I living in an alternate universe? Wait, don't answer that.[/quote]

[Gary Rice]

Kevin,

Thanks sincerely for your personal response.

As for the involuntary servitude discussion as would apply to your example? I think that to be an apples-and-oranges comparison.

The examples that you cite (painting, lawns ) are certainly for the betterment of a community, BUT also serve the self-interest of the citizens to paint their own homes and maintain their own properties, so they are serving their own interests and not city profit motivation and so could not be considered in an involuntary servitude argument.

The argument for self-interest becomes more specious when considering this ordinance however, at least to my own thinking, for reasons already expressed.

Thanks as well for the civics lesson as to executive powers. Having an honors degree in that topic, I am familiar with them, but others may not be.

That is however, why we have the judicial branch;

so that we can check and balance the other two branches, if and when they get too heavy handed.

Keven,

Believe me.

I'm not trying to give anyone a headache here.

Especially me.

I'm just attempting to prevent one.

[Kevin Butler]

I don't see the distinctions you create between involuntary servitude and civic obligation so clearly, Gary. Not to mention the environmental impact, basic recycling impacts the city's bottom line, which in turn affects our services. So does home maintenance (steady tax revenues). So does feeding the meter in front of Drug Mart.

All of us gripe at times, but not many of us raise the specter of slavery when doing so, unless we're joking.

I most certainly was not trying to sound patronizing, and I'm sure your credentials precede you. I was alarmed, however, by your concern for unchecked power in the executive branch. This ordinance doesn't do that. Council can always revise it, and the citizens can always mobilize to defeat it if that's what's called for.

I happen to think we have extremely levelheaded, representative officeholders in both branches, people who created and will carry out this legislation in a manner that accounts for democratic norms. You may disagree.

[Jerry Ritcey]

How will they determine if someone is recycling? For example, we almost never have enough glass/plastic/metal to fill one large blue bag a week, so we tend to put one out every other week or so.

[Kevin Butler]

How will they determine if someone is recycling? For example, we almost never have enough glass/plastic/metal to fill one large blue bag a week, so we tend to put one out every other week or so.

Good quesiton. We're the same way, Jerry. I don't think the city will be examining weekly trends per household, but longer-term trends, in order to come up with the initial observation that compels a word to the resident.

[Stan Austin]

Kevin-- Thanks for your response. But,once again, let's get back to basics.

In order to make any legislation, you have to start with a base.

What is our trash content?

You have to have started your deliberations from that base.

Please supply that information.

Stan

[Kevin Butler]

I gave you the "base" of the legislation, Stan, at least from my standpoint. Increase the percentage of those recycling, and you'll increase recyclable materials we're not paying to put in landfills. This is factually and logically sound, and a perfect starting point for a legislative initiative.

Are you suggesting that the recyclables a certain percentage of us are recycling don't exist? Better put: if 40 percent of Lakewood residents are recycling, are you suggesting the other 60 percent of Lakewood residents have no recyclable materials to recycle?