SF Bag Tags

Ted Doleman | Dec 02, 2020

When I looked at the information supplied to us by the Municipality and the media, I was surprised that the present tag system might change. Thank you, Frontenac News, for telling us this was a consideration as I am at a loss as to what the goal was of changing the present system. To just say “user pay” sounds like it should mean something but I think it comes from a political philosophy rather than facts. We need to know why this popped up, as it will pop up again as costs rise and incomes don’t.

Municipal garbage collection systems were put in place to prevent regular disease outbreaks in the past when people dumped all waste wherever they could. By providing garbage collection, along with sewage and clean drinking water, we don’t have these types of plagues anymore. We soon forget why government services were developed in the first place and rats, racoons and other animals wish we would when it comes to garbage collection.

Is the goal to keep garbage in dumps? Is it cost recovery? Or, as I suspect, was the goal to encourage more recycling by increasing the cost of not recycling to protect the environment? These are all good goals, but what else will happen along with the user pay solution? Some people think that if you use it you should pay, specifically the more you dump, the more you pay. If we need to recover costs more transparently, then a separate charge for garbage as a fee rather than leaving it as part of taxes is a solution. Finally, if we want to divert more to recycling, increasing the cost of garbage may have that effect.

The direct impact of a purchase tag system will be those least and those most able to pay will pay the same. Libertarians probably support this, others left of them do not. The problem is that if garbage costs are high and/or increasing, or if recycling is not going to recycling, direct charging for tags will have a large number of unintended consequences. Specifically, illegally dumped trash will go up way more than we think and so will the burning of garbage. It isn’t that I don’t support recycling, or using multiple use bags, or that goods should fully reflect their life cycle cost including that to the environment, I do. First, before I commit to a plan, I need the facts.

I would like to see what the cost recovery is on our recycling program, what is put into recycling that can’t be recycled, and what is double and triple handled. Based on data, I would like to have an open discussion on what the role of the nunicipality will be under the new producer pay guidelines. Will everything, like TVs and tires, have a recycling/disposal fee with it? For example, will those lawn chairs that last 2 seasons have a $5 fee tacked on, and what is their fee for the coffee cups or pop tins that lie everywhere I walk? It would then be necessary to agree on what we want to achieve and what their measures of success will be using SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely) goals. Finally, when we try out our solutions, we should do what works, not what we believe or feel.

Ted Doleman