Re: [greenyes] WM vs THE SMALL RECYCLERS Re: [greenyes] Waste Management an...

[RJayW2@no.address]

In a message dated 7/24/2003 3:23:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
RicAnthony@no.address writes:


> The problem in California is not the 50% requirement, although it should be 
> a 
> zero waste goal. But that 939 provided a legal definition of waste which 
> allows franchises to control commodities like metal or cardboard or concrete 
> when 
> they are called wasted.  Companies who had long term removal contracts for 
> those commodities were in some communities threatened by commercial 
> franchise 
> holders.


While I never implied or stated that the 50% requirement was a problem, the 
problem arose very soon after AB 939 was passed by the Legislature in that 
panicky local governments opted to hand over responsibility for implementing AB 
939 to big national companies who promised to basically handle the problem of 
IMPLEMENTATION for cities in exchange for a long-term contract.  I'm not certain 
what is meant by recyclers being "threatened" by commercial franchise holders 
by I am assuming in a legal sense.

> 
>