The Observation Deck

While I think it would be a great thing for Lakewood to commit to being 'green', I have to agree with Jeff, LEED certification is expensive...and for what?

I strongly encourage all who have not visited the recycling center to do so. Saturday hours in winter only go to noon.

Have a tour and a talk. You'll be surprised at the types of things collected there.

Frank Murtaugh wrote:Lakewood needs mandatory recycling. Separate yard waste, garbage, paper, plastic, cans, metal etc.. It seems simple. As explained over the last five years in city publications, required recycling would net the city at least one million dollars over ten years. Dumping fees are reduced and more general fund money is received for the recycled items. There are no added costs, loss of jobs, or additional taxes. One can only speculate as to why there has been no legislative activity.

I don't think "mandatory recycling" is necessarily the answer. The Aurora model I mentioned provides an incentive (avoiding the sticker cost) and makes it easy(everything in one bin).

Does the city have a recycling plan for its building and employees? If not, this would be a good place to start "going green." http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Trashcutters/Wi ... anJose.htm

Ed Dickson wrote:I have not heard about waterless urinals. How does that work?

Just add your own liquid?

Corey

Thanks for the correction, Bryan. You are exactly right.

The fact that recycling actually adds revenue to Lakewood's bottom line (or at least offsets the cost of our comprehensive collection program) was discussed in a thread last year/summer. Lakewood sells the paper and cardboard that is collected.

How can the message of the need for a "greener Lakewood" be delivered to the taxpaying public in a way that shows how a specific component - recycling - actually decreases the cost of running Lakewood?

Unless it equals lower taxes or a bigger refund, no one is going to be inspired by "decreasing the cost of running Lakewood." Like it or not, it has to be "what will sorting my trash and carrying extra bags to the curb do for me." That is the way to get the most people on board.

Brad,
I agree with you to a point. I think that there is an attitude of what good does it do me that needs to be overcome. One factor that surprised me in talking to a friend who recently graduated with a degree in this field who lives in Colorado was that the large percentage of renters could make it even more difficult to operate a recycling program at a level above the norm. Sure, we can come up with individual examples of very earth conscious renters but on a whole it is apparently less likely that you would find the follow through from renters than from owners. Just a factor to consider.
As for the cost/benefit of recycling it still seems an awfully abstract concept. I've had the numbers presented and yes it makes sense to lower the tipping fees from the landfill and collect the income from the more valuable commodity materials. The hurdle is making it a habit at the individual level. I've been breaking down paperboard boxes and sorting aluminum and glass into the mixed blue bag, and paper into another pile for the past 3 months or so now and it does take time. I think of it like the seatbelt though. It makes sense to wear, there's a penalty if your caught not doing it, yet still many don't wear them all the time. Unless there is a disincentive to throw all your trash into one bag then we're relying on the remaining 80% of the population to just feel good about recycling.
The breakthrough as I understand it is to eliminate the need to sort at all. We're getting there with the mixed blue bag program and the sorting facility. What would help that is if manufacturers decrease the amount of non recyclable packaging. From the standpoint of Lakewood making a green pledge, I think that it would be a big step forward if they looked at what they are buying at a bulk level and how they could stop it at the source. For instance, recycling at school sporting events. Why not simply control the products that are sold at the concession stand to ensure that the packaging could easily be recycled.
The other area that I think is a major problem is the receptacles at the parks and around town. I have to assume that alot of what goes into those general trash cans could be recycled. Yet since there is only one can and no other option visitors throw their cans and bottles in there and it gets hauled off to the landfill. While I understand that contamination of recycling bags is an issue, those that would do it correctly are not given the option. So the vigilant one take their recycling back home and the average ones accept that the city is not willing to be green and doesn't believe that they are smart enough to put their trash in the right place. Maybe this links back to the renter/owner percentages? Or maybe it's just because we as a city have not been given the opportunity and the proper education on what to do. The other explanation that I've heard is that the pickup would be more of a challenge. So instead of picking up one bag the garbage men would need to pick up three with at least two separate truck runs. Well, if we want to make a pledge and call ourselves progressive on environmental issues then this is an area that would make us stand out. On a citywide basis I have not yet seen a city that provides the option to recycle your trash in public areas. Colleges have them set up, some businesses sure, but cities don't bother. New York City tried it and I've heard that San Francisco recycles such a large percentage of their trash that they must but we would definitely be a front runner if we started.
Sorry for the lengthy post.

"Maybe this links back to the renter/owner percentages?" Yeah, that's it. Right

Shawn, you're right, although I really don't see why owner vs. renter would be relevant. But the bottom line is people who don't recycle don't because it's a pain in the ass. It's not because they hate recycling. If the city asked us to sort our trash, no one would do that either.

When I googled cities with successful recycling programs, they all started with aggressive public education campaigns. Many gave recycling bins to all the residents.

From http://www.cqs.com/erecycle.htm:

Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) – some towns have built community recycling centers to provide a convenient place for drop-off and bundling of recycled goods. In Halton Hills, Ontario, a town of 40,000, residents built a MRF which quickly became a community center. In addition to materials recycling (metal, glass, plastic, etc.) their center serves as a place to bring used household items and furniture, which is then repaired (if necessary) and resold in a year-round flea market. Recycled materials are further separated into fine categories, since the highest prices are paid for pure materials. There is educational literature on household and community composting and other environmental issues. Mainly volunteers - retired people, working people who donate their time, and students - staff the facility, which the residents named WasteWise. Halton Hills recycles or reuses over 60% of their "trash."

Wouldn't the old Giant Eagle be a perfect MRF? Plenty of space, loading docks to haul away dropped off recyclables. I would use it a lot more than Gold's Gym or (sorry Sharon) a roller rink.

I didn't come up with the renter/owner thing, it was something that was pointed out to me as an indicator that could effect the results. In terms of energy efficiency I can understand it. If someone isn't responsible for the bills then why not crank it up in the winter and leave the lights on. Just an analogy and frankly I don't know if it has anything to do with recycling or not but on a grander scale it apparently is something to consider.
As for locations, I would think that Berea road would be better suited. Say maybe the recently renovated, soon to be vacant Hinkley Lighted. Would that be a possibility for this type of facility?

Most renters don't recycle because there is no pickup at apartments for recycling.

A lot of times I'll give my daughter stuff to put on her tree lawn if she's here the day before her trash pickup but other than that there's nothing.

Replacing our current recycling collection system with an MRF seems like it could save the city some money.

If I'm not mistaken, at least three different trucks and crews come down my street every Monday. One comes by for the garbage, another for the plastic and glass and still a third for the paper. I may be undercounting by one.

Would a cost savings result from focusing the refuse department solely on garbage, lawn waste and appliance pickup?

sharon kinsella wrote:Most renters don't recycle because there is no pickup at apartments for recycling.

A lot of times I'll give my daughter stuff to put on her tree lawn if she's here the day before her trash pickup but other than that there's nothing.

Are you sure? Two years ago I was living in an apartment on Edgewater and I put out my recycles and they were always picked up. When I first moved there I just e-mailed the refuse dept and they told me my pickup day.

http://ci.lakewood.oh.us/pw_refuse.html

Tree Lawn Service includes the weekly collection of bulk items (furniture, cut and tied lumber, boxes, miscellaneous household items, excess bags, dried out or empty paint cans with the lids off), blue bag recycle, newspaper, cardboard and mixed paper recycle, appliances and yard waste. Unfortunately, recycle material not packaged properly, or mixed with non-recyclable materials, may be taken as refuse. These items should be placed on the curb for collection by 6:30 a.m. on the regular collection day, but not earlier than 6:00 p.m. the night before. A 50-pound weight limit applies to all boxes, bags, bundles, refuse containers, and yard waste.