 |
City Sues Man For Reducing Waste, Cancelling Garbage PickupYou just cannot win. |
67 Comments |
| By Michael d'Estries in Green Living, Recycling | January 30, 2008 | ||
53 year-old Eddie House was proud of his efforts to reduce his waste. Being concerned for the environment, the single bachelor found that his sustainable habits left him with near-zero garbage. With nothing left to throw out that couldn’t be recycled or composted, he did what any individual might do to go the next mile: canceled his garbage service. As a reward for reducing his impact on the planet, House received a lawsuit from the San Carlos Deputy City Attorney claiming he was in violation of not maintaining garbage service. Wow. From the article,
The lawsuit claims House broke the city’s municipal code requiring all residential, commercial and industrial properties to contract with Allied Waste for pickup at least once a week — a standard requirement in most cities, San Carlos Deputy City Manager Brian Moura said. “It’s just me and my dog, so I don’t have a whole lot of garbage to begin with and I recycle everything,” he said.
House recycles paper, metal and plastics, regularly hauling them in his pickup truck to a recycling center and collecting the refund, he said. What little backyard waste he generates is ground into powder by his wood chipper and food scraps are either pulverized by his garbage disposal or eaten by his dog. House’s larger items are either sold or given to people on Craigslist, he said.
Sometimes, I seriously wonder if we’re too wrapped up in silly laws that seek to govern our every step. It’s almost as if we live in a country that believes it will behave in exactly the same way 200 years from now. Change and the rights of the individual are covered in layers of codes and red tape. This is a perfect example. And was it truly necessary to sue? Couldn’t there have been some other action taken to resolve any issues between the city and the homeowner? Ridiculous.
via the examiner
Thanks to Shea for the tip!
Loading ...
Don said,
Reeeediculous!
EddiE House said,
Don NOOOOOOO Doubt Thanks for your support
EddiE House From Not So Green San Carlos.
Kyle said,
Whenever i read these things i always thing there is more to the story like it was a know fact that everyone had to have trash pickup. Its a stupid law but if he knew about it then then he should be in trouble but if he didnt know about the law then i dont think he should get fined or anything
Xen said,
Well, Kyle … thing is – ignorance isn’t an excuse for any law … it’s just a dumb law to begin with which should be changed. If you have your own way of dealing with trash, kudos to you. It only becomes a problem if that involves fly-tipping, or dumping it in a river or something. But yeah, there might be more to the story, but it does highlight the issue in this particular case. I’m sure if it goes to court it’ll be thrown out.
Mike said,
That is asinine. If it is against the law to cancel his garbage service, WHY did they let him cancel his garbage service?? San Carlos = fail.
wtf man said,
what the fuck did Kyle just say?
Another Kyle said,
To the other Kyle:
Actually he really shouldn’t be in trouble – I don’t care about municipality laws, it’s a man reducing garbage and, effectively, wasting less of the garbage truck’s gas.
But what I find interesting is that there’s no recycling pickup down there. I live in Ontario and almost every place here has a recycling pickup with the garbage pickup. I guess we’re just ahead of the times, as usual. lol
Todd said,
I have nothing constructive to say.. but yeah, San Carlos = Fail.
Sqrlking said,
My grandfather dealt with a very similar issue, but in Simi Valley, CA. He signed up for trash service for the first time after living on his property since the 40’s or 50’s. Same sort of thing as Eddie; he used or recycled everything, so he had no need for trash service until recently.
When they brought his trash cans, they left them 1/2 mile from his house, so he had a mile walk to pick up or drop off his trash cans. Who wants to drag rash cans for a mile? It seemed a little ridiculous, so he tried to cancel, and the city told him that wasn’t an option. He fought with them and ended up getting the trash cans picked up at his door, instead of down the road.
It’s beyond ridiculous that a government agency can force you to pay for a service that there are alternatives to. I don’t know about San Marcos, but I know that in the city my grandfather lives in, you don’t have a choice of who takes your trash, you’re forced to sign up with the company the city gives the job too. Sounds like a monopoly to me.
All of these laws that take away our right to choose, impede the normal competition between business, or otherwise “nanny” us, need to be looked at. I hope Mr. House comes out on top of this mess.
B Dear said,
I just can’t believe that it has come to this. Receiving a violation for canceling waste disposal service? Eddie should be given a medal for his efforts.
I’d also like to say that it should be made mandatory for all states to provide cash refunds to individuals who recycle their aluminum containers, etc. It would probably motivate more to take part.
Eddie my hat is off to you!
PF said,
Seems to me Sqrlking has it right — this is a monopoly. It’s the same type of thing that was happening in the privatized water supplies of Argentina and Bolivia. Having rain barrels deprived the companies of their profits, hence rain barrels were illegal.
“Under the proposed GATS rules, not only will governments face added pressures to deregulate and privatize their water systems, but once a city’s water services have been taken over by a foreign-based corporation, efforts to take these services back into public hands will invite severe economic penalties under the WTO. As Tony Clarke and Maude Barlow wrote in 2003: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/waterbattle.html
“Leading the charge for privatization are three big transnational corporations based in Europe: Vivendi, Suez, and RWE…. There have been other private-sector fiascoes in places like Johannesburg, New Delhi, Manila, and most famously in Cochabamba, Bolivia….
“The big water companies are now … concentrating their operations and their investment on more secure markets in North America and Europe. Eighty-five percent of all water services in the U.S. are still in public hands…. Within the next 10 years, they aim to control 70 percent of water services across the United States.”
baracuda said,
What’s he do with his dog’s poo?
Eat it, chuck it over the fence(littering), or let it build up?
Maybe some sort of fertilizer…
DAW said,
I too reuse/recycle/compost virtually all waste, but my city of residence (East Palo Alto, near Mr. House’s city) enforces Allied Waste fees by impounding it in property assessments.
Segwyne said,
Baracuda, If one knows how, it is possible to compost dog poop. Or perhaps he is able to flush it down the toilet.
Hats off to Eddie.
lynstly said,
Our tax dollars at work…
Michael said,
I know I’m in the tiny minority here, but if you start allowing people to cancel their garbage pick-up then you’d have problems. It would become uneconomical for that company to do it, and I imagine that there would be people who would cancel and then either dump their garbage on their neighbors pile, or illegally dump their garbage.
On The Other Hand said,
Being able to cancel might lead back to trash burning and ditch filling.
Mish said,
To Michael, doesn’t that defeat the whole premise of innocent until proven guilty though? We should all have the opportunity to either make the extra effort to dispose of our waste and reduce garbage, or have to pay to have someone do it for us. Its not fair to assume that the entire nation is so inept that we are forced to pay to have the city do it for us. If we refuse and then act illegally, only then should we face punishment.
Joy said,
I believe the “spirit of the law” was meant as a deterrent to filthy homes, such as those individuals who collect (a.k.a. collectors, those with obsessive-compulsive disorder to collect everything from garbage to stray animals). You could put an empty trash can out every week and still have trash pickup. The law was probably written decades ago when having weekly garbage collection was a sign of good hygeine. Common sense says if you aren’t living in filth and aren’t producing garbage, there isn’t any use in paying for a garbage pickup.
We are in the process of moving off the grid with solar energy and we fully expect the electric company to try a similar move.
TJ Rogers said,
Way to go Eddie.
Here in Austin Texas we have curb side recycling pick up, along with the trash.
We sort all recyclbles out of the trash.
Austin is about to cancel plastic and paper garbage bags.
They are already selling the fabric bags for just under a dollar a bag.
I have a fabric bag I can use over and over.
3 live in my house, and I use the smaller of the garbage cans, which is a cheaper rate.
Many times my garbage can is only half full, yet I have two recycling containers.
I compost kitchen wastes, with some cardboard and paper food containers, as well as yard wastes like leaves, tree trimmings, dead garden plants, and weeds I pull, as I refuse to use herbacides.
It all rots nicely thanks to the worms I got from a bait shop that are happily eating all the garbage. I just add a little soil from time to time, and keep it moist.
Compost is used on my front yard vegatable garden. Much better than fertalizers you buy from the store.
The more you do this, the more you learn how to improve your methods. Thank you. TJR
mokey said,
i can beat that from the other side, a guy near where i live (the UK) got banned from the recycling centre for get this, Recycling too much. apparently his 2-3 trips a week to the site was classed excessive and a drain on town resources and he was banned. plus if our bin lid is not tightly shut, the bin men refuse to take it. lazy lazy lazy
VicinSea said,
I am impressed at the level of social responsibility this man is showing. After looking at the San Mateo Recycling Works website, I can see I would probably not be able to cancel trash pick up even though I too, do all I can. The list of non-recyclables is just too daunting: no Styrofoam, black plastic, nursery plant containers, buckets, baskets, crates, plastic grocery bags or other film plastics, or clear hinged containers.
So, has Eddie House figured out how to avoid the wrapper on cauliflower or lettuce, bottle caps, frozen food bags, prescription bottles, product packaging and all the other stuff that is not allowed in the recycling bin or is he just tossing all plastics in and contaminating the whole bin?
It only counts as recycling if the plastics that are returned are ready to be processed. If he is adding other plastics then his batches will probably be rejected and end up being burned in an energy plant in some Third World country.
I am very skeptical that any American can produce zero non-recyclable trash.
VicinSea said,
You conveniently left out part of the original article: Moura said House’s lack of garbage service was brought to the attention of city officials after neighbors complained that House was causing FOUL SMELLS BY BURNING HIS GARBAGE.
Shame on you for ripping off part of the story while ignoring the rest of the facts. You are now added to my ever-growing list of FAKE GREEN!
Jennie said,
Come on VicinSea, follow your own advice, the rest of the article after your quote read,
“House acknowledges that the fire department was called to his house several times, but says that each time he was simply burning firewood.”
Alex said,
Heh, reminds me of a old, unused law Boston just got rid of.
Native Americans weren’t legally allowed in Boston!
USA BLOWS said,
America is officially a police state. No officials know how to pass proper legislation and most American citizens let them get away with it.
Andy said,
It would be nice if more waste services offered a ‘green plan.’ Which would be a package deal of sorts. You could choose if you wanted weekly, monthly, or every six month pick ups. Recycling only pick ups (scheduled, again).
The only thing is, how do you show that a person is like House? There could be people who burn trash, or fill ditches and ruin it for those of us who do reduce. And that would mean either an honor system or inspections randomly.
I can see both sides of the argument, and I can see why cities fear. Imagine the slums of the early industrialization, who really wants a micro-world version of that next door? But at the same time, there are people like house who should get the freedom from the sanitation that they deserve.
I guess the question becomes: Can people be trusted with the responsibilty?
Phil said,
Mr. House seems to have far more patience with his local government than I would. Where I live, in western North Carolina, we have been under a severe drought. As citizens, we have been asked to conserve water and have been rewarded for our efforts by having our water rates raised because the “sale” of water is income figured into the Charlotte/Mecklenburg budget. Though the drought has been hammering us for a few years, none of our civic leaders saw this problem coming. It sickens me beyond words.
m said,
too bad recycling wastes more resources than throwing shit away. get a clue. that also goes for anyone who says america is a police state while you sit in your homes under the worst CCTV in the world. whatever makes you feel better.
cody said,
the 14th amendment ie slavery abolition has been used in jurisprudence for the last 50 years or so as preventing the government from requiring a person to perform an act against their will. The question here is the amount of power the court would be willing to invest in the state. Generally speaking laws cannot be overly broad and there must be a compelling state interest in order for a law which requires action or inaction to be deemed constitutional. In other words why does the state have an interest in forcing him to hire a garbage collector. In my opinion the state’s interest in preventing littering or environmental damage would be better addressed with a law which makes it unlawful to dispose of garbage in an unauthorized manner. Which I’m sure a law with that requirement already exists in the state. The municipal law is redundant and forces a monopoly which could be challenged by the individual here in question. Although in his better interest if he loses the original suite he should pay the fine and then seek relief through the court system.
jerk said,
photoshopped
cribcat said,
If everyone did that there would not be a lot of garbage. Everything is reusable.
Roman said,
Our tax dollars at work =]
Ramon Casha, Malta said,
>>> Sometimes, I seriously wonder if we’re too wrapped up in silly laws that seek to govern our every step.
Yes, but this is different. You live in a capitalist society, and that can only function as long as people keep buying. It’s up to you to find a demand to match the supply. You will receive a list of your mandatory expenses shortly. In the meantime, you have already been debited for your lifetime supply of lavender-scented pink toilet paper, lifetime supply of liquorice and annual subscription to Adventures in Accountancy.
Josh said,
While I think this is rediculous, I think the option to sue was the best way to go, at least for Eddie House. Now he can embarass them in front of a court of law. And if this lawsuit has put him out in anyway (which I honestly think it hasn’t, as long as they don’t win it) he could always counter sue.
Earth said,
Thank you Mr. House.
-The Earth
Alice Ribot said,
When my hubby, new baby and I lived in a cottage with a wood-burning stove (to heat the home), we produced very little garbage. We brought our own reusable grocery bags to the shops, bought very little packaged food, went to the butcher’s for meat (where they wrapped everything in butcher’s paper – which was thrown on the fire) and to a green grocer for veggies. We used our bread maker and made most everything we ate from scratch. The packaged food we bought had mostly recyclable packaging (glass, metal, recyclable plastic, cardboard) but we still ended up with a little plastic film from time to time (about a garbage bin full every 6 months). We used cloth diapers for our baby and bought farm eggs from places where they would take the styrofoam or cardboard containers back and then reuse them. We even found that cloth diapers dry much faster on a rack by the wood stove than they do in the dryer. We used washable tupperware rather than cling film to store leftovers or pack sandwiches for lunch, and composted food scraps (which were significantly less after figuring out the correct cooking proportions for each person as well as shopping for fresh foods weekly, since nothing went to waste in the fridge because it wasn’t used in time). When my parents came for a 3 week visit, they somehow created 3 large green garbage bags of waste before they left. Seriously, that was 1 large garbage bag of garbage for 2 people a week. If you don’t buy items that make garbage, you won’t end up with garbage to throw away.
may said,
Yay for stupid big government penalizing sensible citizens!
” if you start allowing people to cancel their garbage pick-up then you’d have problems. It would become uneconomical for that company to do it, and I imagine that there would be people who would cancel and then either dump their garbage on their neighbors pile, or illegally dump their garbage.”
On my planet, there is more than one garbage company. So any citizen could sign up for any trash company (or none at all). It does not cost me more if my neighbors cancel their trash pick up.
This is the problem with over-socialist government.
Danny Smith said,
Go Eddie, greetings from across the pond!, no consolation i know, but we have the democratically challenged officialdom here too! Give em hell and save the planet.
PS, Don’t let the Ba*%ards grind you down, you’ll have to pay for your own removal!
Tara Burner said,
How stupid.
Sue a man for being socially and environmentally responsible???
Truly
Tax dollars hard at work I see.
Tara
knox bagwell said,
While there is public health safety concerns in requiring sanitation pickup of all occupied dwellings, as well as discouraging using other’s collection containers or the backroads, cities should off varying size trash containers, down to the five gallon size at apportionment reduced costs from larger sizes.
Jeremy said,
Good Point Mike,
If it is illegal to not utilize the garbage service…WHY did they even let him cancel his garbage service?? That is absolutely ridiculous.
ATOzTOA said,
Country Atrocious !!!
ex-USarmy said,
i only offer one thing. if you don’t like it, get out of america and see how your luck improves, say, in mexico. the more people that leave because of this, the less all of us will hear all the bitching from you weenies who decide to complain about stuff until we are all sick of your voice, instead of actually doing something about it. so- step up, or step out. you lazy commies. and shut your pie hole cuz i’m tired of listening to your shit.
Be Green, but not too green…Unbelieveable! « Craig Greenies’ Weblog said,
[...] Be Green, but not too green…Unbelieveable! Posted August 17, 2008 Filed under: Green, Home | Tags: eddie house, lawsuit, wastefree | 53 year-old Eddie House was proud of his efforts to reduce his waste This dude had the nerve to take to heart his love for the earth–thereby producing no waste requiring pick-up by a garbage truck. Guess what his punishment was??? a lawsuit. Egads! Read on… [...]
Anissia said,
Truly the city is at fault. I think Eddie here should start a blog on how he reduced his waste that much and offer us all tips. As for the city, I think they should take him into their hearts and pay for him to make the blog to help clean up the city as much as possible. Maybe even give him a job writing articles on how to be more aware.
Ken said,
Ok almost everybody agrees! Mandatory Trash Service is a SCAM period, BUT sombody please give us a solution!!!!!!!!, I am pissed off about it just being enacted here in my town of Kent Wa, and I have talked to at least 10 attourneys about it, but still NONE of them willing or able to TAKE ACTION ! Why have citizens been played as pons, having no way effective way of pushing back on these local government puppets or mafia or “deal makers” or whatever you want to call them. Just left to Vent on this stupid web site. Well I guess I should just sign over my soul to the establishment right now, or maby commit a shooting rampage in the intrest of the “Greater Good” after all They know whats best for us better than we do.
Terry said,
I think Eddie did great, and if I were him, I would counter-sue the Allied Waste company and the city of San Carlo for NOT providing a way to recycle within the system they require. That would shut them up.
Stephanie said,
I disagree with a lot of posters here. There is a reason for mandatory garbage pickup. Before my city had it, people were dumping all sorts of stuff into my garbage cans OR dumping it on the sides of the roads or in commercial dumpsters. There were times when there was no more room in my own garbage can that I PAID FOR because it was filled with other people’s trash!
The law in San Carlos has no exceptions to mandatory garbage pickup, so the city correctly cited him. It is up to a judge to provide him a one-off exception to the rules which s/he can do, not the city.
Our law actually provides for exceptions and a way to ‘get on the list.’ For instance, two single people households can combine garbage service in one can for one pickup, which is renewed annually. One person accepts responsibility for the bill. This has been quite workable.
organic brian said,
http://www.stopsayingfail.com
Lance said,
I believe the more or most important fact is that we as citizens of the free are losing rights as the days go by… I want to be green but have to pay for services i wont use…. not fair and against my free rights…
rf said,
Its all about city revenues.
Laim Mahoney said,
The waste management companies are running amuck. I live in an apartment complex
where I am being charged $26/ month for “disposal of garbage”. I dunno how they came
up with this magic figure. Even if I do not throw away a single piece of garbage away I
still have to pay this amount each month ( I automatically get this bill ). Taking into
consideration the number of people getting billed that is a big amount. The whole
place just has under 10 garbage dumps. The waste management company makes
a fortune. Common citizens are being robbed each day and when they question these
bills – they say that this is the rule.
SJS said,
I think Stephanie’s got her finger on it.
One of the great things about modern civilization is waste disposal. Living in, around, or near filth is unpleasant, unsanitary, and dangerous. Trash disposal is a GOOD thing.
One of the downsides of the rule of law is that laws are static and inflexible; it’s impossible to cover all of the potential variations in a written document. That’s okay, that’s why we have judges — they’re supposed to bring wisdom and common sense along with an understanding of the law, to handle such variations. That’s just how the system works.
Further, the government is very limited in the courses of action it may or may not take. If the government believes that you’re breaking the law, then it really only has two choices: to arrest you, haul you off to jail, set bail, etc.; or it can sue you. If you’re breaking the law — even a bad law — then we expect the law to be enforced, *without* *fear* *or* *favor*.
Remember, we live under the rule of law. We should not forget this. The alternative is far more unpleasant and unjust — those in power, their relatives and cronies, get to do what they please, and everyone else is likely to lose their job, their possessions, their status, and sometimes their life.
The law isn’t — can’t be — perfect. But it can be improved, and this is an opportunity for the law in San Carlos. The question we should have isn’t “why is the law screwing this guy?”, but rather “what are the reasons for this law, and given those reasons, how could I rewrite this law to avoid this situation, keeping in mind the reasons for this law?”
It’s not as easy as you might think.
Jeremy said,
Okay, so I’ll play devils advocate here: as a municipality, how would you go about implementing a law that allowed for exceptions to having trash picked up? How would you do this efficiently (without the expense of valuable man-hours)? What if you made trash pickup strictly voluntary? Would all people do the right thing all of the time, or would you find that there was suddenly a lot of garbage in the streets of your city? If you made the law address dumping, what would stop people from dumping covertly? It’s plainly easier to just require all residents to have trash service.
Much of the time, bureaucracy is the side effect of the desire for efficiency. I know this is counter-intuitive, but zero-tolerance policy is generally a way to avoid having to think or apply common sense. It’s more efficient for an administrator to apply blanket rules, than to interpret every individual situation based on the facts at hand.
As for freedom, we have always lived in a society where our freedoms are subject to the will and needs of the greater society. It is plainly in your interest to live in a society where there isn’t trash all over the streets, and thus it is the duty of government to require people to dispose of trash in an organized way.
With that out of the way, I agree that the situation is nuts. He should have been notified before anything like a suit was filed. Further, it seems reasonable that if you can show that you produce no trash, the law should be waived in your circumstance (but the onus must be on the individual).
Casey said,
Although the city is wrong in this particular instance, they probably have the law to keep people from dumping their trash in the woods behind their house.
This guy should certainly be able to get a refund, as he legitimately does not need trash pickup. Maybe they should rewrite the law to say “You must dispose of household waste properly.”
Chris said,
When I lived in FL my then fiance (now husband) and I refianced his house. It worked out better for us to take it out of his name and put it in mine. Garbage service was under his name. A few years later we received a $350 bill in my name from the garbage company for payment from the time of refinance because pick up was “mandatory” and I never signed up. I showed that we had been paying under a different name and they cancelled the bill but jeez…mandatory pick up is ridiculous.
Gher said,
Yeah, it sounds dumb, but you have to think about it. What happens when someone decides that they don’t want to pay for waste removal services (whether to save a buck or they really can’t) and they start dumping somewhere? Maybe it piles up in their backyard. That’s unsanitary, and the law has to be there to make sure that people don’t do that. It’d be great if he could work out an agreement with the city, but the law makes sense. Unfortunately.
kelley said,
Just for the record, where I live in Montana (don’t know about statewide) we can choose to have or not have trash service. We don’t hear of cases where there is public dumping and there are a lot of us who choose to not have trash service because we have nothing to throw away. I currently live in town where I literally have almost no yard and cannot compost, so we are actually using a garbage service after not having one for several years. (For produce debris that the dogs and cats won’t eat.) I am very careful to buy things that come packaged in recyclable containers, and for health safety reasons we don’t use plastic wrap or baggies or aluminum foil, etc. At our previous house in the country I needed some firestarter paper so we’d use meat wrappers- all else was recycled or reused or composted. Presto – talk about feeling good !!! So my point here is that THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE ! Giving people big garbage cans to fill every week promotes the idea that we live in a throw-a-way society and landfills will never fill up – let’s get real about the problem and be a part of the solution !
Brian Parker said,
Unfortunately our cities aren’t set up to accommodate the individual user, but rather the system as a whole. I applaud Mr. House for his efforts, and I am sure that there would be no shortage of lawyers willing to take his case. Hopefully this will lead to an “opt out” clause on garbage pick up in his area.
Mr House should be commended by the city for his efforts, not only is he decreasing his waste, but decreasing the work load on the landfill as well.
Heather said,
I would have to agree with Jeremy and Gher. The rule sounds dumb on the surface level, but for every Eddie House being responsible as his reason for canceling trash, there are many not so responsible individuals who cancel trash pickup to save a buck and then dump their trash on the environment (burning, or dumping in a ditch, forest or river), their neighbors, or on taxpayers (use the city trash cans in the park for depositing the bulk of their waste). The city could set up some sort of “opt out” program for citizens such as Mr. House, but the cost to enforce it would likely be fairly hefty, and would leave the city with the burden of proof that someone was not producing waste (vs. dumping on the environment, neighbors, etc.). It would also leave the city liable when neighbors sue the city for drop in their property value due to illegal (unproven and difficult to enforce) dumping by their neighbor.
The lawsuit may give Mr. House his day in court. Would be interesting to see the results of that case.
Theresa said,
This is a good example of when government has the chance to change for the better, but instead just adheres to a barbaric way of doing things. How is it that we get incentives to install new energy saving gadgets in our houses, but when we reduce to the extent that we don’t need anything, the government steps in and sues? It’s all about money, no matter how we look at it. I applaud Mr. House and hope people follow in his footsteps responsibly, which will give the government more reasons to re-evaluate their laws.
Recycling is not easy said,
For certain: Reducing waste is not easy. Reusing items requires a organization. Recycling takes effort. Not everything has to be analyzed down by a microscope. This man is doing something great. There are plenty of people who can do similar things, because they are just one person living alone or just don’t consume a lot of stuff.
There has to be some solutions. No one should feel harassed or be pressured to buy into the consumer services that they don’t need on a large scale. How rigid to expect him to pay when he barely needs the service!
Our society needs to work on more flexibility and understanding for situations that don’t fit the “buy junk, get rid of more junk” waste mantra. Packaging is outrageous these days and everything is a fad. Electronics items are packaged in ridiculous ways for marketing. When you purchase an item these days, it’s mostly packaging — excessive packaging that cannot even be recycled or reused.
This township should be paying this man for not contributing as much as others.
Yes, there are abusers who don’t pay and then illegally dump. But, in that illegal activity, there is a problem that needs to be analyzed. Maybe the community can call a meeting to figure out how to solve some of the problems. Does the carting service even cart it all and recycle it all appropriately or does the stuff just go into the local landfill?
Claudia Micher said,
Greetings from Guadalajara, Mexico!
I wander if the City Code states this without considering the posibility of someone turning his garbage output to zero. You know, if a standard citizen cancelled his recolection service, town would become a throw-away zone! So maybe Mr. House has a chance to win this legal battle on legal grounds… by arguing the posibility of not needing the recolection service.
Another conflict point might be on the argument that the city gets an income from the fees from the recolection service… so Mr. House could point the savings on recycling and composting, both for the city and the citizens.
Good luck on this journey! I trully believe it’s worth the effort…
Melanie said,
It’s probably the price that needs to be paid for living in an urban or suburban area–giving up some personal rights for the good of the whole community. It’s just not feasible to police something like that on a case by case basis where population density is high. In lower density areas, trash service is often not mandatory. I live in a rural town where trash service isn’t required. For awhile there was a problem with people burning their noxious crap, but they’ve since cracked down on that. It seems to work quite well. I’ve never seen trash in ditches, etc. Personally, I’ve reduced my output to almost nothing and go to the landfill about once per year. Out here in the boonies, landfill costs are next to nothing. In the cities, landfills charge outrageous prices and surely are justified because of space limitations.
I feel for this guy–I would be mad too–but what else can you do in a city? It’s bound to become more of an issue as the green movement catches on. There WILL be more and more people creating zero waste. There should be some way that these people aren’t penalized, but what is the solution?
Maybe a start would be to give everyone smaller receptacles as standard issue (those enormous things they give out now are just irresponsible!) and then penalize people who requested larger bins. It would set a new norm, at least. Not sure it would accomplish much else (or help the zero-waste folks), but it would be a step in the right direction.
Ricky said,
I live in San Jose, CA and tried to cancel my trash last week. They said that it’s illegal to cancel my trash but I was transfer 3 times and put on hold for a total of 20 minutes just to tell me it’s illegal to cancel my trash. Couldn’t the first person I spoke to on the phone tell me that’s it’s illegal. I still think it’s stupid that it’s illegal to cancel your trash. I’ve take out my trash probably once every 3 weeks and I paying over $50 for that service. My parent owns a store that have a large trash box that I can throw away my once a month trash so I don’t really need my trash to be pick up. I recycle about 90% of the total trash. GO GREEN.
BridgeBuilderKiwi said,
I find that story sad and I regard the stated law as being contradictory to what the US media have promulgated for years as being an important component of The American Dream.
Residents of the United States of America have claimed for years that capitalism is good, and that anything tending towards socialism is bad, yet here is another case of Government outlawing capitalism. It’s clear that a successful way to make money in the USA is to weasel your business’ service provision into being declared a state sanctioned monopoly. Then consumers will have no choice but to use your service, even if someone else can do the same job you do, but with them providing better customer service, higher efficiency, and superior workmanship to what your business provides.
Good on you, Eddie, for treating our home, the environment, with respect.