I have uploaded the most recent iteration of the Recycling and Refuse Proposed Law. The LUSJ and the Buffalo News reported on it. The public comment period on this version will be next Wednesday, August 17th.
Some sticking points:
...The city is offering 35-, 64-and 96- gallon wheeled garbage cans, or “totes.” The larger the can, the higher the user fee.
Smith noted that a single-family home that needs more than one can must take two 96-gallon cans, not a 96 and a 35, for example. Every unit in a three-family dwelling must take a 96-gallon can for each unit.
“When you get to a [a two-family home], you get your choice. I don’t understand it,” Smith said. Mayor Michael W. Tucker said the Council can alter the rules later...
-----------
Kibler said he agrees with Smith on the multiple-can issue and also opposes charging snowbirds full price.
“There’s an awful lot of people in Lockport who are gone six months of the year. If you can put exceptions in for certain people, why can’t you compile a list of snowbirds?” Kibler asked.I feel this should be voted into law so we can get it started. It's gone on long enough. Any tweaking can be done after several months of seeing how the system works. Nothing is ever perfect from the start.
I can see the desire to add a second smaller cart after reaching the 96 gallon size for a unit. The extra complication in pricing may be worth it. But the ability for a two unit to choose a different sizes to start for each unit is not that huge of an issue to hold everything up. Below is the portion of the law. Any units looking for multiple containers has to go with multiple 96 gallons. Any "unfairness" seems small to me.
Variable Cart Selection Options
Single, Two, Three and Four Family Residents/units and individual tenants will have the option to select from three varying capacities for disposal of solid waste on a weekly collection schedule:Single Family:
Single container service of 35, 64 or 96. Multiple container service will not exceed four (4) total 96-gallon carts. Only 96-gallon carts are available for multiple container service.
Two Family: Property owner may select two (2) individual container sizes (35, 64 or 96 gallon).Service selection greater than two (2) refuse carts will default to three (3) 96-gallon refuse carts.Multiple container service is not to exceed four (4) total 96-gallon carts.
Three Family: All units must subscribe to a minimum of three (3) 96 gallon refuse cart service,not to exceed four (4) total 96-gallon carts.
Four Family units must either present appropriate documentation of service contract engagementto City or select a minimum of four (4)-96 gallon refuse cart service
As for the "snowbirds", they are paying for a year round service now (through general taxes) and I don't see the need for change. It's a novel idea but most likely not worth complicating the system.
Last trash discussion is located here: Garbage Rabble.
UPDATE:
Reading over the mailer sent out, it appears the two family structures
have the "same" options as the single family but doubled: two 35, two 64
or two 96 totes. There is no pick and choose (i.e. one 35 and one 96)The wording of the law may need to be tweaked to make the intent clearer.
List of recyclables from page 6 of the proposed law to answer question in comments:
105 comments:
I have used the large containers before and when full they are difficult to move, especially in the winter. If someone wants to pay the extra they should be allowed to have two of the smaller carts.
Right on!
if you have a multi-family building that you rent out, you should be required to supply the large cans. if not, it'll just be a loophole exploited by bad landlords
Reading over the mailer send out, it appears the two family structures have the "same" options as the single family but doubled: two 35, two 64 or two 96 totes. There is no pick and choose (i.e. one 35 and one 96)
The wording of the law may need to be tweaked to make the intent clearer.
And I agree, larger structures (3 or 4 unit) should be prepared with the largest totes to avoid abuse of the system.
What I would like to see is more specificity in regards to recycling. What can be recycled and what can not be. Yes, it is in the proposed law, but it would be a lot simpler if a single sheet be put together with what can be recycled and what can not. Make that sheet so it could actually be put up as a reference so it can guide people, especially in the beginning of the program when it is instituted, so there is no ambiguity. Like others, I would not knowingly want to violate the ordinance.
I mean unknowingly, sorry about that.
Click on first link (the proposed law) and go to page 6 for the list of Recyclable materials by definition.
I'll add the list to the main post.
Thanks for the info, MJ. Don't you think this list should be more prominately displayed? I feel the list should be put on something like a fairly robust cardboard or a laminated sheet and given out as a guide for people. Recycling is a fairly big leap for folks and anything to clear up questions would help. I'll bet alot of people have the same questions/concerns.
Most likely it will be sent out/added to the main recycling website when the law is finalized/carts are delivered etc. Until then, nothing is really certain.
I'm all for preliminary info put on the website and marked as such. The earlier the better. Always best to answer the questions you know are hanging out there even if something is not final. There will be those that complain about any changes from prelim to final but you will have them regardless. They will just be part of a larger group complaining they are (so far) uninformed.
I'm looking forward to getting a pink cart! :)
I totally agree with you, MJ. It just seems even this piece of the program is sitting in unfinished business of an overall program that appears unfinished and being put in place as it goes along. You’d think they would have their act together and have things ready. Ambiguity and incompleteness should not be the hallmarks of a program that impacts the entire city.
Everything will be "unfinished business" until the law is passed and the system is put into use.
Any well working process goes through iterations. It's not a mark against anyone when things change/get refined/etc. Continual improvement is the mark of a high quality system.
People looking in at the formation of this program may see it as chaotic, but coming from an engineering/process background it looks normal to me.
No doubt the system will need some tweaks moving forward. As it stands, it looks like a promising system. We just need to get it finalized, inform the users and start it up. 6 or 12 months down the road send out some questionnaires, take the feedback and use it to better the fledgling system.
Unfortunately Push-back, negative feedback, and people who just don't like Change or any new idea. Orwellian "chips", Nixonian, tapes they hear a catchy phrase and they repeat it, but they're knowledge runs shallow on the topic, not deep.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and you're seeing the result when everybody thinks they're an expert. Welcome to the INFORMATION AGE.
I'm surprised no one has asked this one:
Does the trash in the Modern container have to be put in bags first, then in the container?
Can you imagine..just raw food, old meat, creating one giant 96 gallon "witches brew" !
And what about storage? Are we going to become a city where the BIG garbage contains are on everyone front porch? Nice concept....
Does anyone here even bother skimming the proposed law document linked above? Maybe the questions do not need to be asked since they are in it? Are we looking to fear-monger or are we just lazy?
"All refuse and recyclable containers, receptacles, bags and bundles shall be stored in the rear or side yard, as that term is defined in the Lockport City Code, and shall not bestored in the front yard of any residence, business, commercial or industrial site, exceptwhen placed at the curb line for collection"
Too true, MJ. This definitely should not be a "set it and forget it" program. Follow up and feedback are essential. And that the feedback that is constructive be put to use. I understand that the proposal is a living document. But, in any good plan or proposal you should answer as many questions and cover conitingencies as possible, and hopefully avoiding the pitfall of bogging down into minutia. The question I posed about the recycling seemed to me to be a valid one since it is one of the main objectives of the program and to me not clearly presented. It was in the proposal and thanks again for posting it, but that should have not have been your job. It should be the task of the people making the proposal. Perhaps I'm showing my frustration as you are, if we are going to to do it, let's do it. Like it or not, its coming because they stopped budgeting for garbage pick up.
MJ you should censor yourself for the nasty answer you made! I believe the question being asked was do you have to put your garbage in a bag then in the tote or can you just throw garbage into the tote? I think the latter is the correct answer.
And just as I firmly believe secretly taping a confidential meeting is unethical, I also am not too happy to hear about these rfid chips in the garbage with the potential to track things.
It doesn't seem right.
MJ...let me see if I understand you correctly. Your position is don't ask questions because you're expected to know and read everything before you can comment?
Don't start quoting ordinances and suggest that because they exist, people are going to follow the law. Their are cans in the front of house now!
Do you need another week off?
how dare anyone bother to read the law when you can randomly speculate and fear-monger. ignorance is the american way!
Thank you, MJ.
I neither need nor want the huge refuse cart - but, apparently, that's what I'll get as my house is a double. My neighbors have a lot more garbage than I do and I, also, will have trouble dragging the big cart out to the curb due to my decrepitude. It would be much easier to have the mid-sized cart for me and the larger one for them. If needed, I can always buy a ticket, or bag, or whatever. (Not that I like tthis scheme, either.)
As to recycling, while I'm totally in favor of it and recognize it will cut down on my garbage (another reason I don't need the huge refuse cart) where the he11 am I supposed to put it? Out in the yard somewhere? On the front porch?
They need to be much more specific and NOT make us do what they think we need to do. We have a much better idea of our garbage than they do, don't you think?
They must allow for individual situations and not lump us all together cause it's convenient for them. Sounds like obama...
Just a thought.
Pol, I'm sorry are you here making comments about other peoples' comments? or the topic?
You're the fist idiot to sound off and take a shot at another poster. Congratulations loser.
and you are the second!!!!
While you two kiss and make up, I still want to know why a single family home ( like mine) can't have 2 64's if that's what they want. The choice should be extended to all users of the system, not a selected few.
Any intelligent comments would be much appreciated.
If you haven't spoken with Jack Smith about the trash issue I suggest you do. His NO vote has merit, and makes a lot of sense, and it has a lot to do with the issue rather than Container size, and micro chips. It has to do with the dysfunctional group that currently runs the City. They can't get their act together. They make bad decisions, and want to put laws on the books first, and figure out what they mean later.
Why? so that the Mayor can brag about being the Man who brought recycling to Lockport? Right now the program and the Mayor have very few bragging rights connected with this trash program.
Smith is not just against issues because he likes to vote NO. He has reasons; good reasons.
Don't know Jack?
You should.
i know trash has to be bagged but does recyclables?
much better to attack MJ than make a generic statement on how MJ took the time to post the law (something that nobody else has bothered to do), and instead of reading it which would answer most of the questions, some people would rather wildly speculate and perpetrate the false rumors.
and my theory as to why if you want multiple cans, you have to get the big ones is that modern wants to limit how many pickups per residence.
regardless, it is a far better thing to do than what we are doing now. it's about time finally start catching up to what the rest of the country is doing today, and to stop living in the past.
smiths no vote has as much merit as any of his other no votes for the sake of voting no. he's like the cool kid in the room that liked the band before you did, but now the band sucks because everyone likes them.
pol
Thanks for setting the world straight, and being the new Blog Police.
The new program is better? How do we know that? The people running the City don't know how to manage any programs including the new trash program.
Smith's no vote is a vote against the practice of running roughshod over the citizenry. The administration runs our City like a cheap traveling carnival ..
Game on.
My guess is that it is based on simplicity. Over complicate the tote selection and you'll have just as many people complaining about how over complicated the system is thus wasting money. Does any other municipality in WNY offer the selection of sizes at this time?
Turning the garbage transfer into a political battle over a couple fine points of the law tells me the program itself is pretty solid. You can sit with a piece of paper in front of you making revisions for the next decade for every specialty group or you can get it rolling and make changes off of how it actually ends up working out. That's what leadership will do.
john, j think you have some misplaced anger against me, and your sarcasm betrays you.
but back on topic, if you look at this objectively, privatizing services, like garbage collection, has lead to things running cheaper and more effective around the country. it's a simple matter of incentive. there is no incentive for a government to do something effective. zero. because they can always raise money, or stand in front of the cause of the day to get votes (besides, it's the parties that have the power)(even when they do get voted out, they have income, healthcare, and jobs for life). when it's privatized, the employees could be fired, the management can be fired, and when the contract comes up for renewal, they could lose it.
you yourself said "The people running the City don't know how to manage any programs including the new trash program.". wouldn't this include the old trash program? wouldn't privatizing the trash collection be taking the daily management tasks away from the government?
with regards to smith, you state it very clearly that his no vote (according to you) is more about how the mayor runs the city. sorry, if you are going to give a stump speech, expect someone to call it out as such.
"Game on."
what game? is this a threat?
If the poster would have posed the question with out the imbedded sarcasm I would have commented differently. I don't think it is unfair to ask someone to take the time to look something over before making rude remarks about it.
I took the time to acquire it and post it. The least a commenter can do is attempt to find their answer and then pose it in a way that shows a true quest for knowledge and not a reason to mock something they took no initiative to learn about.
Recyclables are not bagged. The automated sorting systems used today require them to be loose.
OK..the "New Blog" has all of these litmus tests all of a sudden, no questions, no sarcasm, and an expectation of total knowledge of the subject.How about the least a commenter can do is expect a civil answer. The question was not being asked of MJ, it was there for the community to answer. If no one wants to give an answer I guess the poster will be forced to do more search.
Because after all; questions come from a lack of knowledge, or time to study all of the issues. Not all of us are retired and have time to read all of your posts MJ.
Your new level of expectation should eliminate about 90% of the people that post on this blog.
"how dare anyone bother to read the law when you can randomly speculate and fear-monger. ignorance is the american way!"
love it ;)
"Game on."
what game? is this a threat?
It's a challenge to debate What are you? over sensitized?
There is something in the water around here. I'm glad John Lombardi found something to do in his spare time.
John A.
Stop the political mob mentality BS. The only victims are those who set themselves up to be.
If you took the time to read my post above your question has been answered.
I answer valid questions where I can. I don't think it is all that burdensome to expect a (I'm assuming) grown adult to do a little research first. Especially if they are choosing to comment with the objective of rabble rousing.
I'll make a note of it.
Thanks for the "life-lessons" MJ
I especially liked the quote about being a "victim"
Too sarcastic?
sorry john, when i debate, i try to facilitate the exchange of ideas, not to challenge someone with 'game on' thinking that there is some ultimate 'winner' based on how much weight, false rumor, and misleading insinuations i can throw around.
sure, i might through around a joke or two, but i do my best to avoid getting into mud-slinging.
Not sarcastic at all. It is a martyr/victim scenario. Make an uninformed trolling comment and then act like an injustice has occurred because the comment is deleted or called out. I answered the recycle comment nicely. The front yard post I did not. Read them to see what elicits a certain response. It should be obvious.
I'll admit that I was a tad nasty back. One can only take so much. Maybe I do need more time off ;) If the immature, add-nothing, trolling comments keep up I'll gladly take another.
Is it too much to ask to make an intelligent comment (or question) without bashing someone else? Is it too much to expect to keep it on topic. It's about garbage collection. It is not about good vs evil or a place for political grandstanding.
And anymore game on/threat BS I'll delete all those too. Please just keep on topic. Maybe I'll make a grievance/commenting post today. I'm tired of it clogging every post up.
MJ
I hear what you're saying.
But it's ALL about politics. Questioning politicians motivation is standard fare. Politics is the dirtiest of all games.
If I make further comments I'll try to keep your suggestions/guidelines in mind.
I feel the "front yard" comment was legitimate. During a trip around the area the other day I was put off by the number of bright blue, and green, trash containers I saw in the front and visible on the side of homes. ( not here yet).
My comment about the ordinance controlling placement was also valid. The point is people don't follow the law today. Why would a change in container or method of collection change an established bad habit of displaying your trash for everyone to see.
If you say sprinkling my comments with a bit of sarcastic humor, and some political "food for thought" is taboo, then I think you're being too sensitive about content at the moment.
It doesn't have to be about politics. It's part of what stops anything useful from getting done. The past decade you can see how (on a national level) democrats have moved right. Do those who were always there say "about time coming over to our ideas"? No, they move further right and speak against stuff they used to be for. Why? In order not to be the other guy. It is ridiculous and needless. Do your best to show a true political connection or relevant comment, but the generic political babble at 8/14/11 is not it. There is no food there to chew on.
The questions on front yard placement are fine. The commenter just needs to pose it as something coming an adult. Especially when taken in the context of the overall comment.
I used to be very lenient and had no problems here. I went several months at a time without having to moderate. Get enough rabble rousers causing trouble and everything went down hill. I much rather not spend my time cleaning up messes. Sarcasm, humor etc is fine in some regards. Doing so to poke fun or draw commenting down hill is not.
Lets move on. Please keep commenting issues in the new post.
it should be noted that there's a website as well, www.curbsidelockport.com , and they have a facebook page (you can find it on the site) where someone is responding to questions
Thanks for the heads up.
It is permanently linked at the left under Garbage Pickup. Original post was here:
http://lockportforum.blogspot.com/2011/07/garbage-website.html
Nice to see the FAQ is starting to be filled in.
1. Not sure it's going to save the city any money in the short-term.
2. Don't think the whining will EVER stop because it seems our friends have a real problem with change of any kind.
3. I think that the program (at least the cost) should have been 100% ready when it was introduced.
4. I don't think Smith's objection to the program has anything to do with a Marxist conspiracy like Patti says.
5.I think there will be a learning curve like everything else.
6. I think recycling is good.
7.I think can left in plain view is bad.
8.I think a change in our trash collection program is long over due as are other changes that must be initiated.
8. I don't think we're doomed
-I hate to agree with joe but I do on a few things, especially the 100% ready when it's announced. I think it was very stupid of the city leaders to not have everything set up ahead of time. I think a lot of these complainers would be silenced if the city had their garbage together before they announced it!
-I am not a 'conspiracy' type of person, but I don't like the rfid chips, which have the capability of tracking your garbage habits, included in the cans. Of course there are ways to make them inoperable, including a hammer and nail/screwdriver! LOL
-Why couldn't they have started doing this like the town does it; max number of bags and a cheap recycling bin, no threats of $100 tickets if you recycle wrong, no worries about trying to wheel big totes, basically no hassles. I guess in the town you can rent a large tote if you want one, but very few do. it is a lot quicker to throw a few bags in a truck then winch a tote in it too. Just saying - but it is too late to reverse direction now for us.
- There are many houses in the city where these large totes will be very difficult to drag on the side of houses, that will be interesting.
3. the cost was dependent on what type of participation
4. Argumentum ad hominem
7. true, but not a new issue
regarding rfid chips, you better believe i want my can tracked, so when someone steals it, i can get it back.
Typical politician (pol) LOL-
3- The cost was estimated, not exact. It is a minor variation, but it gave people a chance to complain.
and are you really comparing locating your stolen car compared to a garbage can???? Plus rfid chips are not used for locating stolen cars, you obviously don't understand the technology. rfid are only used with short distance scanners, like doorways in stores. gps systems are used in cars so they can be located anywhere. Unfortunately if someone steals your garbage can Onstar won't be able to find it for you!
strawman
this was not an argument that i made
I do apologize. I read the thread on my phone and misread can for car, I'm sorry.
But they state rfid chips could be used to monitor how much garbage you are throwing out. I stencil label with your address is good enough to locate a stolen can, because as I said rfid chips are long distance.
The chips are there to collect personal info - not needed or a good idea.
wow did I mess that up, I hate my phone!
It shold have said "A stencil label.." and "rfid chips are NOT for long distance.."
and "should" not shold. I quit till I can get on my computer! lol
pol
3. no your wrong
4. it's an opinion better Google it again
7. it's a new big bright blue issue
3. if i am, it is only because that's what i have been lead to believe. i cannot find any quotes right now, but that's always been the reason that i have heard. do you have any references to show otherwise, as if the reason that i heard was not correct, i would be intrested to know if there was a reason given.
4. putting words in someone's mouth to that extent sounds like an argumentum ad hominem to me. even worse when the person you are referring to did not even post, so not only is it an argumentum ad hominem, it's rather uncalled for within this contents of this thread.
7. so, it's still the same issue, but now related to the off chance that the new cans will be brighter than the ones left out already? rather close to a non sequitur.
Earlier in the week I was roundly chastised and called a "fear monger" by suggesting that the new program will dot the city with large BLUE trash containers in the front and on the sides of homes.
If you watched or were present at the special "Trash" meeting last night you heard people say that they would keep their trash containers "in the front" because of the snow, or they had no where to store the containers, or their was no room to wheel the carts between their house, and their neighbors house.
Poor planning all around.
I hope you all like the color Blue.
that would be a code violation just like it is now, and it is something that is not specific to the new law. the fact that more people are admitting that they are lazy does not have any relevance to anything besides that they are lazy.
Pol you Latin is GREAT. Are you a Catholic Priest?
it's apparently an un-enforceable current code violation. Does the fact that it's not a new problem make it any less offensive?
does the fact that it has nothing to do with the change in garbage collection make it relevant to the change in garbage collection?
ya I think it does. It's now a 96 gallon 4' tall problem.
pol, are you going to keep yours in the front?
to tally up the objections so far :
-the ordnance that people are already are breaking is still going to be broken
-the cans are blue, which may be more visible than the cans currently in use
-there's a chance that the new can will be larger (so more noticeable) than the garbage can(s) that are already placed in violation of the ordnance
is this a fair representation of one of your objections?
If people have their cans stored out front and it is/will be illegal then it comes down to enforcement. Call the city, give the address etc.
Most violations come from residences reporting what they see, be it nuisance dogs, housing code violations, improper trash, etc. The city does not have the inspection/police/etc power to catch a majority of infractions.
Be a part of the enforcement of code violations on your street. 20,000 eyes are more effective than 100.
This whole debate is getting out of control. It's RECYCLING. Not heart surgery. And democratic candidates jumping on the bandwagon just to have a cause to stand on against Tucker? Pathetic. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/lockport/article525921.ece
We're the last city in this area to do it! This system has been in use by Buffalo for YEARS!!! It's not a new invention. This is just a sign of so little progress in this city that once something for good is finally going to change, everyone is up in arms.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Tucker AT ALL. But Smith? You haven't got my vote either. Jumped onto the bandwagon of Flintkote clean up. What's happened since? Oh right, nothing. Jumped onto the band wagon of no more concert series simply because Tucker brought it here. This is one of the few things that actually brings people here! Yes, let's do away with that please, we wouldn't actually want people in our city spending money. And now this. It's RECYCLING. Something I learned about in Kindergarten some 25 years ago. We can't get even recycling right??
Someone, anyone, with some integrity and GOOD IDEAS for this city PLEASEEEEEE get in the race for mayor. Otherwise I'll be forced to vote for our corrupt incumbent.
As for recycling. Seriously people, there are more pressing issues in this city to be concerned about. Get your cart, wheel it down to the edge of your driveway, the magical truck comes and picks it up, and you wheel it back. If you CHOOSE TO RECYCLE (that's right, it's voluntary, which I do NOT agree with, but baby steps) then put those items in the recycling can so your grandkids aren't living on top of the landfill of our refuse that we were too lazy to place into a separate can. And if you recycle a LOT? Well, then you can go ahead and get a smaller can and reduce your cost on the larger garbage can. What is so freaking hard about this concept?!?! Can we get back to some more serious issues now and stop freaking out about RECYCLING?!
Smith - you reject recycling, you will NOT get my vote. And I really don't want to vote for Tucker. So please, find some real issues to stand on.
1. Liz..Smith has not rejected recycling. He has rejected the process the current administration used to develop the New trash program.
2. like you said ( I think) we could have had recycling, should have had recycling long ago. A full blow "garbage paradigm shift" wasn't necessary.Just a recycle bin.
3. It's only my opinion but I don't think Smith rejects "things" because Mayor Tucker is for them. I just don't see that.
4. There are a lot of people with a lot of great ideas living right here in Lockport. Mayor Tucker has locked those people out of the process for petty political reasons. Any talented open minded person who challenges Mike Tucker is immediately vilified by his 'crew".From what I can see Smith will open his administration to all the people. I see that as a very positive initiative.
5.If your mind is made up that we're doomed, then we probably are. I on the other hand; see what's ahead of us as a challenge not an obstacle. I like challenges. They bring out the best in most people.
I've spent a bit of time today catching up on the thoughts of the people who contribute to this Blog, I note with alarm and, even, anger that GIJoe has stated that I'm seeing "Reds under beds" in the garbage/recycling debate by attributing to me a claim of a "Marxist conspiracy."
I won't lower myself to his level by slinging arrows at him in the same vein, but feel compelled to state, without equivocation, that I am NOT a Marxist and am appalled that this person, with whom I often agreed, felt it necessary to engage in libel/slander and toss Smith into the discussion when I haven't commented in this thread to date.
If GIJoe is, in fact, Smith or a close cohort, come clean with that and quit beating up on anyone who isn't for Smith. I was invited onto the Historic Preservation Commission despite the well known rift between Mayor Tucker and myself. Where does that fit into your "paradigm?" Everything you and/or Smith do or don't do strengthens my resolve that Tucker is the only man for the job.
Patti..I think if you go back and look, MJ commented that your remarks on that day on that post we pretty remarkable. So if you're reviewing, review your remarks too. My comment about Maxisim was in reply to what you stated about Smith, It was not a comment about you being a Marxist. So before you get all sideways, read it again.
I don't beat up on anyone. I do however defend Smith when I feel that "out-of-bounds" remarks are being made against him. That day, your remarks were extraordinarily harsh even by your standards.
So that's my Mia Copa. I feel if you vote to retain Mike Tucker you deserve what he brings to the table. More of the same.Mike is the poster boy for term limits.
"He has rejected the process the current administration used to develop the New trash program."
What is that process and what is the complaint?
The volunteer committee and help from the county was the wrong way to go?
A fully modern system that will save money long term?
The more we recycle the more we save?
An actual choice in tote sizes?
Ensuring all trash is properly contained to reduce rodents/etc?
The ability to bid the collection every few years to make sure we are getting the best price?
The removal of additional city pensions down the road?
Being conscious of what we actually sending to the landfill?
Making people pay based on their use of the system instead of their assessment?
It is not a perfect system or will make every single resident happy. There is not one that will. And it will get better and it is put into use and refined. But what are the major issues here?
are you not going to publish my response?
Super Groupie
GI Joe Topic page... I'm flattered.
If it's not Patti beating up on me, it's MJ not publishing my post, or you calling me a groupie.
Being Popular...priceless
OK I'll try it again.
MJ asked: "What is the process and what is the complaint'
1.If you are paying attention you would know that Jack Smith feels that a "referendum" may better served the community when it comes to a change as huge as waste collect.This position has appeared in print and was broadcasted on the radio.
2, He also feels that a program with serious consequence should have a specific cost attached to it. That cost should not be a point of conjecture. How can you or anyone else criticize Jack Smith for voting NO on a program without knowing the true cost. To the contrary. I think anyone who voted YES should be seriously scrutinized for being so irresponsible.
anonymous 8:43 must be that funny guy "George" on the TV broadcast of the Common Council Meetings.
You know him
He's the know-it-all that doesn't know anything?
ya that's him alright
What post?
What date?
Marxist? I'm probably the most anti-Marxist person in this town having benefited from American Capitalism my entire life. I also worked damn hard and earned everything I had and have.
You don't beat up on anybody? "Marxist" is a lousy thing to call anyone for any reason.
If ANYONE "involved" in this conversation has more than a smack of the Politburo and/or Pravda about them it's Smith and his secret taping of his colleagues and regular old people like me. Having GIJoe as his mouthpiece or nom de guerre is puerile and not emblematic of a resolute candidate for the Office of the Chief Executive of a multi-million dollar operation.
It's Mea Culpa, by the way - if you're going to run with the big boys at least get it right.
It's there. Not on this page on the Smith recording page. Look for it you'll find it. I was going to cut and paste it for you, but you're so beside yourself I decided not to do it.
And so now you can stop the name calling and the insults right.?
You obviously have a problem with Jack Smith that goes far beyond the recordings or his position on trash collection. It's too bad it has to manifest itself in a display of public hatred for the guy.
If Smith does win you will be resigning your position on the Historic Preservation Commission?
No.
good you shouldn't. and ya know what he'll be much more appreciative of your input and talent than Tucker ever was.
That's a fact!
It's not about recycling. That's just the excuse being given to force this on us. The city has let the problems associated with the current garbage collection system go on for so long, it's become untenable to continue, so they're throwing up their hands and walking away from it, then giving it to a private entity.
Their excuses, collection from tax-exempt properties, 7-day collection at businesses, trucks getting old and needing replacement, and failure to implement a curbside recyclables by the city's own department, is all mis-management. Instead of solving these problems and cutting costs of the program, they sat on their hands and let costs spiral out of control while they debated the merits of bins vs. stickers. Now they are cutting out an essential city service and telling you they are great money-managers because they cut taxes by 3.5%.
"are you not going to publish my response?"
as you can tell there is no pre-screening of posts. As of the time you posted this I had deleted nothing at all yesterday. Copy it and make sure it does actually post.
I did clean up some today with the name calling etc.
Isn't it Smith's notion that council is there for the people? If that is the case no referendum is/was needed.
Most other municipalities in this country are privatizing services to be able to bid them regularly. Especially with the large burden public pensions place on a tax base. Every town people like to point to as having lower taxes uses private collection. Providing services through the city was cost effective 100-50 years ago but current cost structures show the reverse to be true in many cases.
It was well noted and publicized last budget cycle that when included, the trash fees would give a small overall raise in taxes. No secrets there.
No essential city service is being cut. It is still provided.
Most complaints here comes across as political posturing. The rest are understandable (some concern on large size for elderly etc) but it is no reason to hold up everything. Those can be worked out. If you can't list any of the merits of the system, you show your hand of using the criticism as a political/rousing tool instead of truly critiquing the system.
An as for the "true cost", the margin was around $20/yr or $1.60 cents per month per residence. If we would of all been forced to have large carts the city could have gave hard costs. But as it is people are asking for more cart choices than are already given. They are interconnected. You can't ask for both.
1.well..in my business.... estimates aren't accepted If I told a client " well I think it's going to cost you $000.00, but I'm just not sure yet". I would be summarily throw out of their office. I also deal in multi million dollar contracts. It's not the way I like to see things executed by people in power especially when they're using my money.You and others can make all of the excuses you like for them. I don't buy it.
2. The city is being run by several people with no private sector business management experience, and it shows.
3.My complaint of a "fuzzy cost" should be an exceptable objection to the program. To continue to try and justify it is laughable. To continue to criticize me for bring it up is political hacking.
4. the container size and choice is the only other problem I have. Some of you keep trying to connect the political dots and all of these other fantasies you have about Jack Smith and trashing Tucker. give it a rest
with all the fear and panic, i couldn't imagine this as a referendum.
but it's nice to know that at least someone else seems to recall that the cost was directly related to the choices in container size.
you mean the estimate cost?
Projected savings? (Estimated)
1.There's always fear and panic here. "Why do you seek the living among the dead"?
2. "Why do you continue to try and play chess with checkers players".
3. You're expecting the impossible.
4. If you said red, George will argue with you about the shade of red.
5. It's an uphill battle to get anything accomplished around here without starting a full scale war.
6. some of the comments at the Public Hearing were childish, embarrassing and argumentative solely for the sake of arguing and seeing yourself on TV.
7. Referendum? At this point we Own the program for the next 5 years.
8. It's a common mistake to say the "people" want to see something changed. The loud outspoken people may want the change. Sometime the only way to be sure might be to put it on the ballot.
If the city is being reimbursed for recycling and charged for tons dumped how is one supposed to know what citizen's are going to throw out over the next 5 years? We have hard costs for $/ton dumped etc. The incentive is on us, the residents, to drive down the system cost as much as possible.
As for the totes people need to choose them before we know the make up. As I said, what's so big about $20/yr range?
The biggest issue was that they gave out too much information. I mentioned it before and others have brought it up. They should have just given the high figures and surprise us with lower costs.
It's nothing to hold up the new system over.
-Pol I don't see how you still can't understand they didn't give exact dollars, just min and max costs PER container size.
-Joe you are working too hard for Smith. Just assume it's the higher cost (which they should only have given out) and deal with it.
This garbage issue is the stupidest argument you can have, it had to be done.
I think it is stupid that they are being so extravagant with totes (should have done it like the town, kept it simple), I don't know why they are being so inflexible on multiple tote sizes (what the big deal billing more than one?) and the fact that we are going to not save any money because we are going to just transfer the 10 workers to other non-existent duties (sorry, but if we were surviving without these extra 10 bodies we don't need them now). It seems to me the powers to be got sick of argueing and decided to just say it is what it is.
Anyways, it's here, deal with it, and everyone should quit complaining about the little things.
I think this would be a good thread to freeze MJ, nothing new is being discussed.
I agree.
It's a dead issue. It's what we have for the next 5 years. If "they" can tweak it a little concerning choice of container size that's great.
Defending Smith too much?
I think his decision to vote NO for the reason he gave and I've stated was a good decision for him.
The End
anon above, no, i do understand it, and the reasoning behind it, i don't think i said anything different.
agreed
cleaned up. stop attacking/insinuating.
Cleaned up. I've done my best to clean things up. Don't start them back up. Take any complaints to the "Commenting Rules" post at the upper left under FAQ.
Ok, so I see Yard Waste on the list above of approved recyclables, but when I go to the Modern Waste website, their household recycle poster does not include yard waste.
So when I trim my bushes, or pull my weeds, where do I put them?? In my recycle can with my newspaper, cardboard and the such???
Just wondering....
Why does all the info come from dawn Timm and not a city employee? Does she spend full time on Lockport?
When we had a city highway supt he worked on this, I guess garabge is 'above' our new "engineer'!
This isn't a "Poor Mike Hoffman" thread.
Check on Mrs. Timm and you will see her education and experience - as well as her job duties - make her the perfect, and best qualified, person to comment on this issue.
MJ - shut this down. It's going farther to the depths with every comment. (Except this one, of course.)
I think the question was not whether Dawn Timm is qualified to comment, or whether or not she has an Ivy League education, but whether or not she is a spokesperson for the City of Lockport.
She fills in all of the dead sports in Ms Pasceri's sentences.It's annoying.
She's obviously very bright,but unless she's going to be around to take the heat if for some reason the program doesn't perform as it's creators have promised it would, she should start to wean herself out of the spotlight.
Dawn Timm was one of the lead people on the committee and has the most experience in it. She should be invaluable in discussing the finer points. If we want the best answers we should be happy that the person best to answer them is there at our disposal as we start it off.
Yes but should county taxpayers be paying for her to be the city spokesman or should she just be consulting? It seems like she is working for the city.
And it isn't a poor Hoffman thread but isn't it funny that the guy who replaced him doesn't seem to interested in the garbage?
3 cheers for Dawn Timm..stay as long as you like!
As far a Hoffman's replacement being "invisible" during this discussion/implementation, this area is obviously new to him. I guess we call that OTJT. Where can I get a gig like that?
I'd like to tie in what Jack Smith said last night. Maybe the department heads need to be in attendance at the "open" meetings and maybe they should be held in the main room and answer questions, and accept praise or defend criticism from the people who are paying their salaries.
The process as it stands now is: people complain, or ask questions, and generally get no answers.
But then he is going to have to re-negotiate the dept heads contracts. Remember they only work 7 hour days. You make them attend a 2-4 hour meeting and that will all be overtime for them.
I believe that is why they don't attend meetings now.
Dawn Timm's duties include consulting with all the municipalities in the County. We're very lucky to have her!
I didn't notice her interrupting - seemed like she was "called on" by Mrs. Pasceri when Pasceri knew Dawn could provide an accurate, concise answer - not that Richelle couldn't. Some folks just won't listen to the politicians even if they do provide the correct information, which Richelle is aware of. I'll bet she thought that if the info came from the expert - the citizens would actually listen to her. Listen and, hopefully, comprehend. Listen to all of them, please.
P.S. I've dealt with Tom Prohaska for 20 years. He hasn't improved since I first spoke with him (the story came out backwards and incomprehensible) he's gotten worse. No wonder the BEN keeps him up here.
with you on both observations
Actually no matter if someone doesn't know afterward its up to other users that they will help, so here it happens.
Also visit my website - wine bottle labels
Hi there! I could have sworn I've been to this blog before but after checking through some of the post I realized it's new to me.
Anyways, I'm definitely delighted I found it and I'll be bookmarking and checking back often!
Stop by my web page ; http://pixocool.com
These labels are a Bang-up way to in having to handwriting write
their address each fourth dimension they need
to post a letter of the alphabet or software program.
My blog - see post
Post a Comment
Please be be respectful. Diverse opinions are welcome and encouraged. Trolling/baiting/personal attacks/spam will be deleted on sight, as will respnding to one that has yet to be deleted. Do not encourage the behavior.