RE: [greenyes] price v bans

["Wayne Turner" <WAYNET@no.address>]

Chris Cloutier wrote:

"banning a highly-recyclable material from disposal is going to be far
more politically
palatable than an across the board increase in disposal costs which
will be
communicated back to voters as coming out of their pocket-book."

Even this scenario (I think) carries the underlying assumption that the
solid waste collection and disposal costs are coming from the general
fund.  There are some jurisdictions that organize their solid waste
programs under an enterprise fund in order to reap the benefits of being
independent of the political whims of tax rate pressures and gaining the
benefit of establishing user fees.  I would venture to guess that many
enterprise fund solid waste programs don't charge the full cost of solid
waste services to their customers (voters) but use the private sector
revenues from tip fees to subsidize them.  On the other hand, across the
board disposal bans may raise the ire of the most influential and
organized sectors of the local economy - businesses.  A disposal ban on
say, OCC, would ultimately place the resonsibility on the generator
(businesses mostly) to source separate the material in order to avoid
violations of the ordinance.  Source separation means added costs which
in turn means businesses have to adapt and pay more for services.  In
addition, if there is keen competition in the local disposal
marketplace, a disposal ban may act just like a tip fee increase by
incentivizing  more haulers to take their waste to other landfills that
don't carry the ban.  A material ban, is, in its effect, an increase in
the cost to users of the facility.




B. Wayne Turner
City of Winston-Salem
Utilities Division
phone: (336) 727 8418
email: waynet@no.address

"Experience is what allows us to recognize repeated mistakes."