Privatized apartment refuse collections should end

Ed Dickson · Post by **Ed Dickson** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:35 pm

Lynn,

Exactly my point. Well said.

Thank you

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:42 pm

Ed Dickson wrote: If you have taken the time to take all these pictures of the rampant garbage throughout the city, have you taken the time to call the city so they are aware and can do something about it?

Just wondering.

According to Ryan Patrick Demro:

We already have staff in place to address these issues.

Soooo.... not sure why this job also will be added for residents to perform.

But yes I have made calls to complain about trash.
No idea why residents should have to though. Isnt that the job of the City to enforce its ordinaces?

Or is that something else residents are being told to do under the new "Green" Refuse Initative?

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:46 pm

Lynn Farris wrote:
Call and complain to the building department if the trash isn't being picked up. I agree that it is a health issue. But I also understand that all other commerical establishments including condos have to pay for their own trash pick up.

The City of Lakewood PAYS a private company to have the refuse of condos collected.
For the Goldcoast anyhow.. not sure about the other condos but assume they do.

Danielle Masters · Post by **Danielle Masters** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:26 pm

I guess my complaint is that at least at the apartment building across the street from me I never noticed the trash before. Now it seems to overflow the dumpster. My question is why couldn't the city just charge them more to do the service. I think the city did a better job than the private companies. I don't have a problem with them charging apartments more, I merely thought the city did a better job with collection.

Ryan Patrick Demro · Post by **Ryan Patrick Demro** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:14 pm

There is an employee in the Building Department charged with enforcing the codes with regard to refuse, it is not being left for residents to enforce.

As far as the City being "better" at collecting refuse, it never had to compete. Under private contracts the owner of a building decides how frequently the trash gets picked up. Danielle, it seems like that is the problem in your neighborhood. Call Mary Simon at City Hall 521-7580 and report the problem. Overflowing dumpsters violate Chapter 1700 of the code. When I did code enforcement as an intern we cited these owners and they generally would change the number of pickups to come into compliance. Problem solved.

I have no interest in paying another dime in taxes to the City of Lakewood for trash pickup by city workers. As far as I am concerned, contract it out.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:22 pm

Danielle,

You bring up an interesting point. The City of Lakewood really doesn't have an entrepreneurial spirit.

One of the former employees of the Sewer Department talked about how we could expand a little and address the sewage problems of neighboring cities and make good money, since he felt we were so advanced. There was discussion of building our own crib in Lake Erie and selling water to other cities and provide some competition to Cleveland. I forget what the ROI was for that, but it seemed like a good idea. Building municipal windmills in Lake Erie with or without a partner and using that energy was another idea that didn't go very far.

There are many things that Lakewood does well, but they do not want to compete with eiher other cities or the private sector to make money.

My bugaboo is we do half. We don't outsource the entire water department, we do our own billing and sewer and we pay more than Rocky River and Bay Village. Either outsource it to Cleveland like they do and save money or compete with Cleveland and make money. This half way stuff seems to be the worst of both worlds.

I'm sure the same could be said for trash. However, I think this has had some scrutiny, outsource vs. do it ourselves. Actually, I do think the Fitzgerald administration has done more analyzing of this than previous administrations.

Are you sure that the fees for Trash aren't in the maintenance fees for the condo's on the Gold Coast?

Danielle Masters · Post by **Danielle Masters** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:33 pm

Ryan thanks for the ordinance about the dumpster. The next time I see it overflowing I will gladly call the city. And Lynn I am not sure about the maintenance fees for the condos, I think Shelley brought those up. I do want the city to do what makes the most financial sense. I am not too concerned about automated pickup because I have lived in a city where we had it. I just don't want any of the changes that might be made to cost the taxpayers more.

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:44 pm

Lynn Farris wrote:Are you sure that the fees for Trash aren't in the maintenance fees for the condo's on the Gold Coast?

Page 4-8 of the Lakewood Structual Balance Meeting, Wednesday, April 25, 2007" States:

"Goldcoast-subcontract to BFI-Why is this a city expence?"

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:48 pm

Ryan Patrick Demro wrote:There is an employee in the Building Department charged with enforcing the codes with regard to refuse, it is not being left for residents to enforce.

As far as the City being "better" at collecting refuse, it never had to compete. Under private contracts the owner of a building decides how frequently the trash gets picked up. Danielle, it seems like that is the problem in your neighborhood. Call Mary Simon at City Hall 521-7580 and report the problem. Overflowing dumpsters violate Chapter 1700 of the code. When I did code enforcement as an intern we cited these owners and they generally would change the number of pickups to come into compliance. Problem solved.

I have no interest in paying another dime in taxes to the City of Lakewood for trash pickup by city workers. As far as I am concerned, contract it out.

Kettering one of our peer cities pays 15.58 to Lakewoods cost of 14.01

Lakewood has back yard pick up
Kettering does not

Lakewood gets unlimited bulk removal
Kettering does not

Lakewood places bulk on tree lawn and it is removed
Kettering has to call to schedual pick ups

We have a Cadilac service at a economical cost

Why change what is not broke?

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:58 pm

Ryan Patrick Demro wrote: As far as the City being "better" at collecting refuse, it never had to compete. ... As far as I am concerned, contract it out.

The city has been proven to be "better" at collecting refuse, cheaper then priviatization, and extremely "better" at the preventing the hording of trash and maintaining cleanliness of our streets then any of the private companies now collecting apartments.

Who stands to gain from the privatization you keep pushing for?

Surely not the City nor her residents

Gary Rice · Post by **Gary Rice** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:33 pm

All of the financial discussion here continues to sidestep the collateral damage to the human equation that this garbage issue entails, whether for the apartment people, or residents soon to face the curbside issue.

Lakewood apartment renters should have EVERY BIT as much right for the City of Lakewood to remove their trash, as do Lakewood doubles renters, or Lakewood condo owners.

Chasing non-resident apartment owners down to get trash removed should be every bit as successful as chasing down non-resident landlords has been.

Lakewood's elderly, already reeling from cutbacks to their own services, will soon be asked to load all their trash into a single giant bin, and wheel it to the curb in weather like this.

Yeah, right.

Making allowances for particular exceptions will not change the fact that many older people will go ahead anyway and try to do much more heavy labor than they should be attempting.

It seems that senior quality of life in Lakewood is rapidly becoming an oxymoron.

Banjo aside, would someone please explain to my father and his friends why they should not be thinking that Lakewood's rapidly going to Hell in a handbasket...

Gary Rice · Post by **Gary Rice** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:44 pm

Clarification:

My remark concerning chasing down out-of-town landlords was supposed to refer to some of the many foreclosure issues revealed to my service on Lakewood's Community Block Grant Development committee during their deliberations.

This city, and all others, has a great deal of difficulty at times locating out-of-town landowners. The process is time consumiing, expensive and frustrating.

In fairness, Mayor Fitzgerald's administration is indeed working hard to address this problem.

My only beef here is with garbage.

Danielle Masters · Post by **Danielle Masters** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:46 pm

Gary, as always you are the voice of reason. I do think sometimes we need to think more about people than a few dollars. I just wonder if all options have been considered or if this is an issue of what someone wants and they aren't willing to budge at all.

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:10 pm

Gary Rice wrote:Clarification:
This city, and all others, has a great deal of difficulty at times locating out-of-town landowners. The process is time consumiing, expensive and frustrating.

Heres an idea !!

Maybe the City could post addresses of problem houses and apartments and the names of the owners....and offer say 50.00 reward for the where abouts of these folks. I am sure more then a few residents would not mind helping out tracking them down. And a 50.00 reward would be off-set by the fines and time saved by having the City employees not having to do it!!! Win WIN!!!

Gary Rice · Post by **Gary Rice** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:07 pm

It would be nice if vacant or off-site ownership discovery was as easy as all that. As I understand things however, the ownership trail can lead through out-of-state corporations, second and third party titles, and estate and banking questions. Finding an actual individual that the city can legally go after, can be a daunting task indeed.