RE: [greenyes] Sorry - as a general lurker

[Helen Spiegelman <hspie@no.address>]

Why are our Mayors and Councils willing to spend scarce public dollars to 
clean up after the Disposable Society?

Where I live, Mayors and Councils put their collective feet down and 
insisted that the provincial government (British Columbia) pass regulations 
requiring the producers of specific household hazardous products (paint, 
thinners, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, lube oil) provide programs for their 
consumers at no cost to local governments. Today we don't have to budget 
scarce tax dollars for collectin of these materials -- or for glass 
beverage containers, which are included in our deposit/return program.

Why should cities and towns pay for programs that could and should be 
provided by the producers, as a form of mandatory "extended warrantee"?

Helen.

At 01:56 PM 04/10/2003 -0500, George Dreckmann wrote:
> ya gotta have a budget to afford to add most material.  Toxics demand 
> money to pay for proper disposal and most high volume materials demand an 
> increase in collection or [processing capacity.  So, while you often get 
> long term benefits, you have to put up some cash to get things 
> going.  And, with my budget at least, the Council and Mayor have to choose 
> between garbage and child care or some other needed social program when it 
> comes to new spending.