Right now in Peoria, there is an incentive to throw everything into the landfill and recycle nothing. You all know why. We pay for garbage collection through our property taxes. Then we pay again through the $6 monthly “garbage fee” (actually a regressive tax) on our water bills. Then, if you want to recycle, you pay yet another bill directly to Waste Management of a little over three dollars a month. When confronted with a choice between throwing away paper and plastic in the regular garbage for which they’ve already paid twice, or paying a third fee to recycle, most people (reportedly 91% of Peoria households) not surprisingly choose the former.
That needs to change.
Recycling is the ecologically responsible thing to do. Plastic, copper and metal recycling are some of the activities that can be done by everybody that can help not only our community but the world as a whole. And with single-stream recycling (where you can throw all your recyclables into the same bin), it couldn’t be any easier. The experts say that 80% of what Americans throw away is recyclable, and I believe it. Since we’ve started recycling, my family of five only has one can of regular garbage a week. Everything else gets recycled.
In light of that, some sort of modified “pay to throw” system would be reasonable and relatively easy to implement. The idea I’ve heard that has the most promise is this: Unlimited recycling pickup every other week; one can of regular garbage pickup every week; and a fee (per bag or per can, perhaps) for any additional regular garbage. This would incentivize recycling without being punitive. After all, we’ll always have regular garbage; not everything is recyclable. It’s only fair to provide some level of regular garbage hauling without an additional fee.
There are some who are worried about illegal dumping. I think there’s a way around that, too. Instead of requiring residents to buy stickers for additional bags of refuse and refusing to pick up non-stickered bags (the system used in some other communities, like Morton), waste haulers would still pick up any/all garbage left at the curb or alley side. Any applicable additional fees owed by the household would be included on that household’s next water bill. This makes it convenient for everyone. If the current $6 garbage fee hasn’t led to illegal dumping, using the water bill to collect additional fees won’t either — especially if the council decides to adopt Councilman Turner’s suggestion of rolling the current $6 garbage fee into the property tax bill.
The council will be discussing the garbage contract at its regular meeting tonight (July 28) at 6:15.
One big problem with “Pay-as-you-throw” program.
There will be a significant increase in garabge dumping in rural areas.
Why pay to have your garbage picked up when you can just go for a ride in the country and throw it in a random ditch?
That already happens…a lot.
It’s frustrating to have to give incentives to people to do the right thing, but I like the idea of having more people involved in recycling in the Peoria area.
Here’s what I’d like to see:
1. Recycling pick-up every week. My recycling pile is, by far, larger than my “regular garbage” pile most of the time, and it would be nice to have it picked up more often.
2. Bigger recycling bins – OR the official “okay” to use recycling stickers on trash cans to signify that this can/big-ole-bin is recycle-only.
3. Some kind of public-awareness campaign about what people can recycle. There’s so much that people throw away, not out of malice but ignorance. I know a lot of people who are still in the “just recycle cans” mindset.
Thanks for this post. 91%. Wow.
If its going to be free unlimited recycling, it needs to be every week.
Waste Management does have ‘recycling’ toters. A few folks in our neighborhood managed to get some from WM but they have been kind of reticent to lets folks know they are available for some unknown reason.
You’re expecting the people picking up the trash, recycling, landscape waste to record for billing purposes how many stickerless or over-the-limit cans/bags were picked up at each house so the residents can be billed on their water bill. Will they be issuing a receipt too?
I would guess that the waste collector’s would simply not pick up trash that doesn’t have as sticker. No sticker, no pickup, no receipt needed.
“waste haulers would still pick up any/all garbage left at the curb or alley side. Any applicable additional fees owed by the household would be included on that household’s next water bill. This makes it convenient for everyone.”
Will the new museum have too pay for garbage pick up?
More tax dollars down the drain…………………………
Apparently Peoria County is doing something right in regards to recycling. There are 14 counties in region 3 of the state and according to a report “Nonhazardous Solid Waste Management and Landfill Capacity in Illinois” Peoria County recycled 35.4% of municipal waste in 2007. This was better than all the other counties in the region. If so few people recycle in Peoria, how does the county do so well?
the fear that people will dump trash illegally should not be given too much weight. anytime a law or ordinance is passed, certain behavior invariably becomes prohibited. the worry that some will disobey a law does not mean the law should not be. if that were the case, peoria should have no littering ordinance because some people might disobey it, no speed restrictions because some might flaunt it, on and on ad infinitum.
yes, some might dump illegally and many will never be ticketed. the numbers are difficult to project, but over time, most will comply. remember when seatbelt use became “law”? most now comply without any sturm und drang.
WM has recycle toters you just call and ask for one. I think that the limit to trash is a great idea but I would also like to see those who do not recycle fined. Instead of charging for recycling charge everyone who dosnt.
People elsewhere recycle without a sticker incentive. All it takes is a bin and free pickup. Nationally, more people recycle than vote!
All of you conservative, small govt types should approve this, and not be for another govt hassle for citizens, a trash sticker (just another tax!) whose price can easily be increased any time the city needs more money.
I can picture the hassles now:
Spouse: I forgot to buy the trash sticker.
Spouse: That’s the last straw! Bang, you’re dead (from the concealed-carry gun.)
Spouse: Stop, don’t shoot! I’ll dump it in the country…..just this once….
WOW Elaine that was the best post I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. Great stuff
I try to bike and/or run a few miles everyday. Along the way I pick up aluminum cans. Three garbage bgs full net me $10-$20.00 [depending upon the price of aluminum]. This is mad-money I spend on local economy. Hopefully the money will not end up in the hands of the museum group, but……………
Maybe we should discuss ways the individual could MAKE money recycling, not spend money?
Seven Misconceptions about Plastic and Plastic Recycling
Misconception # 1: Plastics that go into a curbside recycling bin get recycled. Not necessarily. Collecting plastic containers at curbside fosters the belief that, like aluminum and glass, the recovered material is converted into new containers. In fact, none of the recovered plastic containers from Berkeley are being made into containers again but into new secondary products such as textiles, parking lot bumpers, or plastic lumber – all unrecyclable products. This does not reduce the use of virgin materials in plastic packaging. “Recycled” in this case merely means “collected,” not reprocessed or converted into useful products.
Misconception # 2: Curbside collection will reduce the amount of plastic landfilled. Not necessarily. If establishing collection makes plastic packages seem more environmentally friendly, people may feel comfortable buying more. Curbside plastic collection programs, intended to reduce municipal plastic waste, might backfire if total use rises faster than collection. Since only a fraction of certain types of plastic could realistically be captured by a curbside program, the net impact of initiating curbside collection could be an increase in the amount of plastic landfilled. The Berkeley pilot program showed no reduction of plastic being sent to the landfill in the areas where the curbside collection was in operation. Furthermore, since most plastic reprocessing leads to secondary products that are not themselves recycled, this material is only temporarily diverted from landfills.
Misconception # 3: A chasing arrows symbol means a plastic container is recyclable. The arrows are meaningless. Every plastic container is marked with the chasing arrows symbol. The only information in the symbol is the number inside the arrows, which indicates the general class of resin used to make the container. The attorneys general of 11 states objected to false and misleading claims about plastic recyclability. The recent settlement that they reached with the American Plastics Council paves the way for a first-ever definition of what claims can or cannot be made about plastic recycling and recyclability.
Misconception # 4: Packaging resins are made from petroleum refineries’ waste. Plastic resins are made from non-renewable natural resources that could be used for a variety of other applications or conserved. Most packaging plastics are made from the same natural gas used in homes to heat water and cook.
Misconception # 5: Plastics recyclers pay to promote plastics’ recyclability. No; virgin resin producers pay for the bulk of these ads. Most such ads are placed by virgin plastic manufacturers whose goal is to promote plastic sales. These advertisements are aimed at removing or diminishing virgin plastic’s greatest challenge to market expansion: negative public conception of plastic as unrecyclable, environmentally harmful, and a major component of wastes that must be landfilled or burned.
Misconception # 6: Using plastic containers conserves energy. When the equation includes the energy used to synthesize the plastic resin, making plastic containers uses as much energy as making glass containers from virgin materials, and much more than making glass containers from recycled materials. Using refillables is the most energy conservative.
Misconception # 7: Our choice is limited to recycling or wasting. Source reduction is preferable for many types of plastic and isn’t difficult. Opportunities include using refillable containers, buying in bulk, buying things that don’t need much packaging, and buying things in recyclable and recycled packages
Plastic packaging has economic, health, and environmental costs and benefits. While offering advantages such as flexibility and light weight, it creates problems including: consumption of fossil resources; pollution; high energy use in manufacturing; accumulation of wasted plastic in the environment; and migration of polymers and additives into foods.
Plastic container producers do not use any recycled plastic in their packaging. Recycled content laws could reduce the use of virgin resin for packaging. Unfortunately, the virgin&endash;plastics industry has resisted such cooperation by strongly opposing recycled -content legislation, and has defeated or weakened consumer efforts to institute stronger laws. Plastic manufacturers recently decided that they will not add post consumer materials to their resins used in the USA.
There is a likelihood that establishing plastics collection might increase consumption by making plastic appear more ecologically friendly both to consumers and retailers. Collecting plastics at curbside could legitimize the production and marketing of packaging made from virgin plastic. Studies of garbage truck loads during the recent plastic pick-up pilot program showed no reduction of “recyclable” plastic containers being thrown away in the pilot areas (in fact, there was a slight increase). Due in part to increased plastic use, glass container plants around the country have been closing, including Anchor Glass Container Corporation in Antioch, putting 300 people out of work
Plastic recycling costs much and does little to achieve recycling goals. Our cost/benefit analysis for implementing curbside plastics collection in Berkeley shows that curbside collection of discarded plastics: involves expensive processing; has limited benefits in reducing environmental impacts; and has limited benefits in diverting resources from waste.
Processing used plastics often costs more than virgin plastic. As plastic producers increase production and reduce prices on virgin plastics, the markets for used plastic are diminishing. PET recyclers cannot compete with the virgin resin flooding the market.
Increasing the capture rates of glass, paper or yard debris in Berkeley could divert more resources from landfills than collecting plastics at curbside. The “recyclable” plastic to be collected in Berkeley at most would only amount to 0.3% of the waste stream.
Five Strategies to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Plastics
1. Reduce the use
Source reduction Retailers and consumers can select products that use little or no packaging. Select packaging materials that are recycled into new packaging – such as glass and paper. If people refuse plastic as a packaging material, the industry will decrease production for that purpose, and the associated problems such as energy use, pollution, and adverse health effects will diminish.
2. Reuse containers
Since refillable plastic containers can be reused about 25 times, container reuse can lead to a substantial reduction in the demand for disposable plastic, and reduced use of materials and energy, with the consequent reduced environmental impacts. Container designers will take into account the fate of the container beyond the point of sale and consider the service the container provides. “Design for service” differs sharply from “design for disposal”.
3. Require producers to take back resins
Get plastic manufacturers directly involved with plastic disposal and closing the material loop, which can stimulate them to consider the product’s life cycle from cradle to grave. Make reprocessing easier by limiting the number of container types and shapes, using only one type of resin in each container, making collapsible containers, eliminating pigments, using water-dispersible adhesives for labels, and phasing out associated metals such as aluminum seals. Container and resin makers can help develop the reprocessing infrastructure by taking back plastic from consumers.
4. Legislatively require recycled content
Requiring that all containers be composed of a percentage of post-consumer material reduces the amount of virgin material consumed.
5. Standardize labeling and inform the public
The chasing arrows symbol on plastics is an example of an ambiguous and misleading label. Significantly different standardized labels for “recycled,” “recyclable,” and “made of plastic type X” must be developed.
CJ- sorry, I cut and pasted that article. You might want to clean up that stuff at the end.
anon e. mouse: Why does that happen, do you think, given that our current garbage collection system is “free” — in the sense that it’s unlimited and dumping garbage in the country will not save the person any money? In fact, it’s kind of a net loss, isn’t it?
kohlrabi: What’s wrong with having the garbage collectors keep track of it? They don’t seem to have any trouble keeping track of which houses currently get recycling pickup and which don’t, or billing only certain houses and not others. It doesn’t seem to me that this idea is much of a stretch.
Keith: I have no idea without seeing the report or understanding how they got those numbers. However, like President Obama, I’m going to comment on it anyway. I imagine the difference is that, while only 9% of residents (reportedly) participate in curbside recycling (for an extra fee), they nevertheless recycle a number of materials at free drop-off locations. Furthermore, there are a lot more waste producers than simply residents. Many businesses recycle as a standard business practice. And scrap yards are full of industrial metal waste that they recycle. Like I said, we’d have to see how they arrived at that figure. Perhaps you could provide a link?
Elaine & Stephen: So, people who want to recycle are violent potential murderers? Maybe we should rethink this recycling thing altogether….
Also, Elaine says: “a trash sticker (just another tax!) whose price can easily be increased any time the city needs more money.” This statement presumes that the city can somehow increase services (offering recycling pickup at no extra fee) without increasing taxes or fees. That’s impossible. The additional service is going to have to be paid for somehow. The question is, “How?” If not by establishing a fee on excessive regular garbage, then what? Raise property taxes? If so, what’s the justification for having everyone subsidize excessive solid waste collection instead of just charging the producers of excessive waste a little extra?
Question: What about the size of a household? One can of garbage per week regardless of one occupant or twelve occupants (or whatever the number would be)?
Are the trash/garbage collectors keeping track of which houses pay for recycling now – or do they routinely pick up the recycling from any WM recycling bins that are out of the curb – and trust that the houses that have the bins have gotten them from Waste Management and are being billed for the recycling fee? I’ve seen the garbage trucks operation when I’m walking to work and it’s a pretty fluid operation. It seems like it would slow them down considerably if someone had to be keeping the books on which houses had trash put out – and that they pick up – with no sticker. I don’t think they currently pay any attention at all to the address of each house at which they are picking up the trash. I don’t have a problem with requiring the stickers for excess trash or landscape waste – especially if recylcing was an included base services charge – but I can’t see the trash collectors keeping track of who should owe what.
Widespread recycling won’t happen unless there is a tangible benefit (like the cash people get for cans) for compliance or penalty for failing to do so (fines). The law of basic economics at work.
C.J.-
You have some good points regarding drop off sites and businesses recycling. Peoria does have a commercial recycling ordinance according to the report.
Here is the link: http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfill-capacity/2007/report.pdf
Enjoy 🙂
CJ I thought her little story was funny. The thought of it is funny.
I am one of two people on my entire block that recycle.
My household has weeks where we put out one or less bags of trash a week due to recycling and composting.
If you dont recycle you should be fined.
If a household of 4 or under puts out more then two bags of trash a week they should be fined.
Force conservation and environmental awareness is my take on the matter
I like the combo collection approach. Our family lived in the Naperville/Aurora area in the mid to late 90’s. Paper, plastic etc. was collected each week for free on the same day as the regular garbage, which required a $1 sticker. Garbage stickers could be purchased at the grocery store. We recycled every piece of paper, etc. and typically only have one reg. garbage can and we had 2 in diapers at the time. I think recycled garbage would need to be picked up every week, because it just accumulates too fast if you are dilgent in your efforts. It was a pain at first to get used to recycling but after a while it became a habit and really made you feel better about yourself.
I prefer the sticker, pay as you go approach rather than being billed later.
I use to live in Crystal Lake, IL. The city licenses garbage haulers,maybe 2 or 3 different companies. You as a citizen, got to pick which garbage hauler you wanted to use. You got a monthy bill from the hauler. The city set the fees the haulers could charge, but the city was not involved in the pick up or payment for garbage.
If you put out too much, you would be charged for extra garbage. The city required the haulers that picked up garbage to also pick up recyclables. The city provided every household 1 recycle bin, that was used. If it was out on your garbage day, then the garbage company picked it up.
With all of this talk about recycling going on, can someone tell me what happens to the stuff collected in Peoria for recylcing now? Where does it go, who sorts it, what happens to the materials once they are collected and sorted?
GMK,
Waste Management takes it to Midwest Fiber (by Mossville on Rt 29…people can also take here directly, but only when they are open and that’s while most people are working). I believe Midwest Fiber just bales and transports the recycling to the Chicago area for sorting/processing.
I’m not exactly sure what PDC does with their recycling, but I’m pretty sure they collect from the Peoria County drop off points (behind Northpoint shopping center, etc.)
Eagle Enterprises out of Galva IL (collects for Peoria Heights and some others) actually sorts at their facility and then bales the sorted materials to be sold.
CJ, Great post and Ideas. Thanks!
Stephen: Ah yes, forcing people is always the best motivation. Not.
Wonder if we can identify an area where you are not in compliance and we can determine a penalty and force you to comply???? Just wondering. That is just one of many reasons why Peoria is a mess.
As for voting by provisional ballot — there are times, as CJ stated in that post, you could have voted by a provisional ballot but your vote would not count if greater than 30 days from moving and you did not change your voter registration to your new address.
CJ: Seriously, how does the Garbage Fee for for garbage collection? When enacted some years ago, the city already was under contract with BFI now Waste Management to collect our garbage in the City of Peoria. Then, those wingnuts on this council dreamed up this fee and called it the Garbage Fee which was supposed to go to keeping more police on the streets or at least I though that was what it was for. So, please explain how a fee dreamed up after the fact all of sudden plays into garbage collection.
Emtronics: I too await this explanation. Does it still pay for the police officers?
Emtronics and Karrie: The fee DOES not pay for police officers. The fee pays for garbage collection. In the past 100% of garbage collection was from general revenues. Now, garbage collection is paid for by (1) the revenue from the garbage fee and (2) the remainder paid from general revenues.
The amount generated from the garbage tax (let’s call it $X and note I said tax not fee – same thing in my mind) — freed up the same amount of revenue in the general fund that could be used for other purposes – such as police, code enforcement, etc.
It’s somewhat of a shell game – but it’s somewhat disingenuous to continue to claim that these revenues don’t go toward paying the garbage costs or that you’re paying for garbage collection twice. They do and you’re not. I’ll grant you that the City did it simply as a method of increasing revenue so that existing revenues could be used for something else.
NV said:
“Will the new museum have too pay for garbage pick up? ”
Only if the statues and displays generate some type of trash.
The people on the other hand should pay for garbage collection.
Maybe the Facility can be paperless except for toilet paper.
Elaine has a solution for low voter turn out: Make all the polling places recyling sites.
If you bring in alot of recycled material you can get an extra ballot as long it was for a candidate who was extremely green friendly.
Karrie remarked: …if greater than 30 days from moving and you did not change your voter registration to your new address.
Who moves 31,61,or 91 days before a voting contest and not reregister or update residence address?
PC: As election judges and they will tell you that people do choose that option of not reregistering on time — believe it or not.
Karrie:
so the onus is on the person to be timely in their dealings with electoral responsibilities
13 June 2003 Peoria Journal Star:
13 September 2008 Peoria Journal Star:
Sounds to me like the “garbage fee” pays for police, at least according to published reports.
Well, C.J. — you know that you can’t believe everything as reported in the PJS. It did generate enough revenue to offset the cost of garbage collection that was paid through property taxes that could then be reallocated to other functions.
I’d like to see a complete pay as you throw approach. Charge each according to how much they generate — but that would be more regressive than the current system.
Thank you CJ. I thought I read it somewhere and of course places like OSF, Methodist, and any business for that matter which use city services like police don’t pay this “fee”. Please Mr Peoriafan, explain how that is fair.
Kassie: Thanks for the info, interesting that Waste Management takes it to Midwest Fiber, that property and the surrounding land is owned by PDC! Was the former Mcdougal-Hartman construction company that built the fabulous Route 6 that is famous for its dips on the hill between 29 and War Memorial Drive.
ACHTUNG !!!!!!!! QUOTE from Yerly “-CJ I thought her little story was funny. The thought of it is funny.
I am one of two people on my entire block that recycle.
My household has weeks where we put out one or less bags of trash a week due to recycling and composting. [ must eat out all the Time]
If you dont recycle you should be fined. [ or be whipped!]
If a household of 4 or under puts out more then two bags of trash a week they should be fined. [ Whole Family to be whipped or put in Jail for week-end]
Force conservation and environmental awareness is my take on the matter.
Get a Mind !!
If Peoria Heights can provide free curbside recycling and also normal garbage pick up, why can’t Peoria? It should be very simple. It’s a necessary thing, just do it. Quit farting around with trying to save this and save that. It’s garbage pick up, for crying out loud. Just do it.
bentone, deciding how to pay for it isn’t exactly farting around.
That’s right! Deciding how to pay for it isn’t farting around! There’s flat fee “FF” or Pay as You Throw “PAYT” and these are the basic facts:
FF – government controled, PAYT – citizen controled
FF – punishes small families, single dwellers and low waste producers while simutaneously removing any reason to recycle
PAYT – level playing field for all citizens and gently incentivises recycling
The facts are that all of the concerns discussed here have all been discussed in the 7,200 communities across the United States that have implemented some form of a PAYT program. And of those communities, 95-98% of their citizens liked the system! That includes the same citizens with the same concerns posted here.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/payt/pdf/sera06.pdf
This is not a “Will it play in Peoria?” program. This is a well studied, well accepted way of doing garbage collection. It’s not the wave of the future folks; its becoming the norm.
Kiersten: Anyone who thinks a PAYT program will reduce waste generation is someone who has paid absolutely no attention to human nature. Our entire culture is one of people demanding services, demanding someone else pay for them and punishing politicians who point out that this is impossible. Making people pay DIRECTLY for the garbage they throw out will get some civic minded people to reduce. Most people will just pay and vote the bums out of office. Others will toss it illegally.
Kiersten, I know you and C.J. really, really, really want the world to be sugar canes and gumdrops. While individual people talk a game, the PUBLIC behaves like selfish, spoiled little children.
This thing will BACKFIRE in an ugly and messy way.
Kiersten says:
Billy says:
Let’s see, the documented experience of 7200 communities, or Billy’s personal pessimistic opinion? Which to believe, which to believe…..
Kiersten, you cite punishing small families as a problem with FF. Conversely, larger families would be punished under PAYT.