Jefferson City voters take trash issue to curb

Proposition A defeated by 74 percent margin

Arthur Brown, chairman of the committee which gathered the signatures to put Proposition A on the Jefferson City ballot, tells supporters not to be disheartened by early returns Tuesday evening at the Eastland Plaza Banquet Center. The proposal went down to defeat, but Brown said he was pleased that it was put to a public vote. Photo by Kelley McCall.

By Ben Yarnell

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

For Arthur Brown and the Citizens Action Committee Against Ordinance 14487, victory on Jefferson City’s Proposition A did not come Tuesday night.

It came Tuesday morning.

“We are just overjoyed that we got it to a vote of the people,” said Brown, the chairman of the committee. “Our mission was to get it to a vote, since it was not done the first time. Now, the people have spoken.”

In Tuesday’s election, Proposition A was defeated soundly by 74 percent of the vote, with almost 5,670 voting against it. The measure would have eliminated the requirement that trash be collected only by an authorized collector.

As for the Citizens for Responsible Progress, Tuesday night’s vote reinforced what co-chairman Jim Crabtree said has been evidenced from the beginning of the research process for the city’s trash contract.

“We put so much time in preparing for this trash system, and every time we went to a survey — and there were three independent surveys — the numbers were 70 percent or more, ‘We want it,’” Crabtree said. “After we did the pilot, the same said, ‘We like it.’ So, I am not surprised, but I am relieved.”

Is this the end of this issue? Find out what both sides have to say about the possibility of "tweaking" parts of the current trash contract as the new city council is installed. See our newspaper or e-Edition for Wednesday, April 5, 2011.

Other election stories today:

Two incumbents re-elected to Jefferson City council

Youngest candidate takes most JC school board votes

Walker, Stumpe get the nod for JC municipal court positions

Holts Summit approves sewer bond

Cole County school districts, towns pick officials

Siegel re-elected to Board of Aldermen in New Bloomfield

Two new school board members chosen at New Bloomfield

Incumbents return to South Callaway School Board, Laughlin takes open seat

Lake of the Ozarks area issues and tax initiatives decided

More like this story

him 2 years, 1 month ago

Wow! I am amazed there are that many people wanting local governments telling you what you have to do. People were to be given a choice and they chose not to.

TheRickster 2 years, 1 month ago

What you aren't admitting is this IS the people saying that this IS what they want! Time for you folks to move on. There are things that need dealing with but this is a 74% right issue!

newone 2 years, 1 month ago

I think the reason it went the way it did was because of the scare tactics that they used by saying how high rates would go if it passed, I know of several people who voted no because of that very reason.

RetiredOne 2 years, 1 month ago

Yea, TheRickster, you are right, it is time forget about the seniors and others that are negatively affected by this ordinance. They are in the minority and are not important. What is important is that some Jeff City residents can pay a lot less for their city trash service than they do for their property at the lake. Let's move on to the next important issues. Why don't we have a beerfest down town and celebrate?

RetiredOne 2 years, 1 month ago

I used to put out a bag every 5-6 weeks. Many of my neighbors did likewise. People on fixed income are having a hard time making end meet. Seniors and people on disability don't have the extra cash to throw away. Elect rates went up 10.4% last year and UE is looking to increase the rate another 11%. Sewer rates in JC are jumping to nearly 45%. Water rates will be jumping soon. Fuel rates a jumping at record rates and that affects everything else. Medical expenses. Try managing this on a fixed income. (Actually, I wish is were fixed -- my buying power decreases on a daily basis!) The quality of life for many seniors is declining because of all of this. The $15 trash bill can pay for 5 meals at the Senior Center. I am glad you are fat and happy with the trash ordinance.

misshoneybee 2 years, 1 month ago

I am SOOOO tired of hearing conservatives griping about this government debt that will "impact" the children and grandchildren. WE inherited government debt and have survived. Chances are pretty doggone good that those children and grandchildren will survive too. We can live with it and so can they.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Good point. They are the GREATEST GENERATION who lived through the Great Depression and who worked hard and saved through two World Wars.

Blaming the seniors is crazy. The problem is the politicians who keep robbing Social Security money to pay for other stuff, and all the welfare people who keep pumping out babies to get bigger and bigger welfare checks.

listening 2 years, 1 month ago

It was pretty much a done deal, after some Council member said that trash rates would go up a whole lot, if the voters opposed the current plan. That intimidated me, whether it was true or not.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

I hated how the city put the trash system in place. It should never have been forced on the citizens. But that's not reason enough to vote to stop it when it's otherwise been a pretty good thing. Are there people that it was a detriment to? Of course. But the majority wanted to keep it. And isn't a vote what the proponents of prop A wanted?

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

No, government is not responsible for removing trash. Individuals who generate trash are responsible. Quit trying to make everyone dependent on the government for cleaning up their messes. Time to take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Sounds like a good argument for banning smoking too.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 1 month ago

But it is a nusiance on the street and in public places. So I guess they are comprable.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

It is very comparable. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

City governments are very much responsible for waste management, as much as for streets, power, water and police. Farmers can dig pits but the city must provide these services.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

Perhaps I should have said, "It should never have been forced on the citizens in the one-size-fits-all program." I agree the city has the right to say, "All people must properly dispose of their trash." As in, not burn it in the back yard or allow it to pile up. I disagreed with them saying, "Everyone must pay $15 to Allied Waste for trash service."

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

We probably need to take another run at it- especially for the one-size-fits-all service. Speaking of rates- I recall that our rates essentially DOUBLED, but we got only one pick up instead of two. Also, they downsized the number of gallons picked up each week with the smaller dumpsters and going to only one pickup.

As for higher rates in the county- that is apples and oranges. County rates are higher because of the farther distance that the trucks have to drive, and the longer time it takes to fill the truck due to the much lower housing density.

We also need to take a closer look at the higher road taxes that we taxpayers are paying through our trash bills. The current contract has Allied paying the city additional road taxes because the trucks are tearing up the roads that the city is lax in maintaining. However, everyone knows that this is just a pass-through tax that the customers/taxpayers are paying, not Allied.

No mention of the full-time position Allied is also forced to pay for at City Hall to encourage recycling either. Most costs just passed on to the taxpayers/customers through the current trash contract.

The current trash contract is a very bad one in many ways. So much PORK is buried in it as tax increases to the taxpayers that provide essentially SECRET BENEFITS to city hall, but are not seen by the taxpayers. The City and Allied have set up a very clever situation where the City can blame Allied, and Allied can blame the city, but there is no accountability to the people who have to pay for this huge waste of buracracy and mutual back scratching by the City and Allied. This is truly governance at its worst.

Yes, scare tactics were used when the coucil forced this current system on the taxpayers, and scare tactics were used to defeat the vote yesterday. Scare tactics will be continued to be used as long as the voters/taxpayers do not demand an open government with free discussion and accountability for the millions of tax dollars that are spent.

We get exactly the type of government we deserve because we elect crooks and do not hold them accountable.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Where do all the procees from the sales of the recycled products go? Why are these monies not used to reduce our monthly fees?

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

I know the answer. My bill has not been reduced. Has yours?

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

You raise real points, some of which I'd disagree with but your issues are immediately valid being laid out rationally. The worst problem IS the one-size-fits-all pricing, but every option to tailor fee to waste stream size results in dumping. This is why sewer rates are either flat or tied to in input cost (water supply). I'm not as cynical as you about where the money goes or who benefits from this process, since it has actually been fairly publicly discussed, if not entirely. And no, we can't all go to all the meetings or lunches or other places of decision. Your particiation in this forum is more useful than your vote, but only if you remain rational.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

I didn't like how the service was put in place, but I don't think the $15 per month was excessive. The only thing I didn't like was that it was forced on people. I also don't feel the service decreased. JCLifer said "I recall that our rates essentially DOUBLED, but we got only one pick up instead of two." But you have two bins now and I really didn't even notice the size difference. So if you put out one bin twice a week before and two bins once a week now, it's the same. The only difference is you have to sort it a bit so that one of the bins is recyclables. I was kind of shocked to find out that more than half my trash was recyclables. (But if that bin is full and the other isn't, guess where it's going anyway.)

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

The one bin we used to put out twice a week was much bigger than the two little bins we put out once per week. How can you not see that we are getting 1/2 the service for twice the price?

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

As best I can tell, we lost 30 gallons of capacity per bin. You get 130 gallons per week with the two bins instead of 190 total with the larger bin being picked up twice a week. So yes, less total capacity. But I don't think I paid less than $22.50 every three months either. I don't recall exactly what I paid, since I couldn't look any further back than late 2009 and I was paying $45 then, but I think it was more than that. I think saying it costs twice as much is an exaggeration.

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

The debt is too large, we get it. So we hear that waste management costs are an example of an overbearing nanny islamo-socialist liberal monster government bleeding us to death in order to destroy America (yes that is said here in these forums daily). How about everybody, including corporations, paying their share of taxes. The present budget kerfuffle is an excellent opportunity to trim and adjust government spending at all levels, but revenue adjustment must also be on the table. Let's start with all the individuals (including corporations) who qualify for the 35% "highest tax rate on Earth" paying at least half of that. We'd be trillions ahead, literally. Take part in the process, quit saying it's evil. Be rational and you'll be heard more clearly.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Yes, the customer pays for everything.

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

Not true. My taxes could go to buying more goods from corporations, since GM and I are both people, it's a cycle. When a corporation actually makes money on the tax system, does the customer gett a break? Maybe, but not usually. Corporate tax lawyers went to a lot of trouble to make their clients actual people and not all taxes are passed on as prices. Prices are a result of many inputs, but taxes don't always make the formula. As long as your points are "proven," and you call government services addictive drugs and it's clients (including corporations) addicts, and call for the tear-down and re-building of a system needing little more than constant adjustment and participation in by all who want a stake, your words are dilluted and your credibility reduced.

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

Passing on costs to customers or profits to shareholders are two horses ridden by different jockeys. We are in fiscal straits caused by poorly regulated greed, and that problem should be addressed. Not meeting your incredibly narrow moral standards is not my definition of bankrupt.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

How about getting the lower 47% of taxpayers to pay some (any) taxes? It does little good that 47% of the population is slurping at the government teat but not paying any income taxes at all.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

Generally, I feel like taxes for the upper classes should be increased. But you know, I once had a friend who drew social security disability and a bit of government aid. She paid no income taxes out of any of her income. Yet, she filed income taxes and got a refund! How does that work? I have no real problem with the fact that those on disability and aid don't pay income taxes, but I do think they should fix it so that you can't get more back than you pay in!

muleman 2 years, 1 month ago

EARNED INCOME CREDITS

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

Nobody pulls more teat than the top corporations, and in answer to JMO's issue of the negative income tax, I agree to a point. But I'd include ALL individuals, including the wealthy and the corporations in that $0 minimum.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

$0 minimum? I don't think I understand what you mean by that. Are you suggesting no one should pay income taxes?

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

No, I'm saying it bugs me to see credits and deductions allow a taxpayer to get money out of the tax system rather than paying some or $0 in taxes, hence the term negative income tax.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

Ah, thanks. I agree. My family does get a refund every year, but it is much less than we pay in. No one should get back more than what they pay.

justaword 2 years, 1 month ago

A few of us have been indulging in too much Koch, (pronounced coke.) Although pulled like a pistol by the radical right, it is not true that business can pass along cost to the consumer. One only need read the Wall-Street Journal to find this is an all but a daily concern of corporations.

Many of us are hitting on the correct idea when it comes to raising revenue, however. There was a time long ago in a land far away called the USA when the national treasury actually had money in it. To drain it dry, taxes on the rich were lowered, unwinnable wars were fought on borrowed money, an expensive drug program was passed on more borrowed money.

Meanwhile the rich got richer. Then came the Great Recession. Once again, the USA borrowed/printed money to help. The rich have recovered! The stock market is approaching its pre-Recession highs. Corporations (meaning the rich that own them) sit on almost 2-trillion in cash. Check your financial portfolio!

Late last year, the lame duck session of congress, it came time to replace the temporary tax on the rich and resume the status quo. What happened? Think the Henny Penny store here: “Not I said the pig, not I said the rich.” The rich political party actually held 15-million of us hostage saying “no reduced taxes- then no unemployment for you government teat suckers.” What are we going to do then? The rich will have payback come from the poorest of us.

Trash service? That’s just another government service say some, no more needed than education or the other functions of a nanny state. But seriously, doing away with social security and medicare, we will need someone to remove the dead from public view. Seriously again, this sad situation exists in third world countries.

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

Spending is part of the problem, but revenue has been slashed too far. some of everybody's money is the government's. We do control the government, and it is supposed to control us to an agreed upon extent. Social Security is not broke, it is well funded for many years yet. Once some spending cuts to pre-recession rates are in effect, and revenues are adjusted by asking the wealthiest to pay their share, SS will be good for many more years.

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

I disagree on some of your points (suprise!). spending is not the entire problem. Spending has outstripped revenue, a lot the last few years due to wars and recovery. SS is NOT broke. Much is owed and changes to it's revenue and payouts will be needed soon, but it is sound for years. The wealthy are not asked to solved the problem, just to chip in a reasonable share like the rest of us; but strictly speaking, the private wealth in this country FAR exceeds the federal/state/local tax stream.

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

"The wealthy are chipping in more . . . " of course they are, they HAVE more! But, they contribute REALATIVELY less. SS debt can and will be paid. I said spending is A problem, not THE problem, that's your line. Manageable debt is an investment in the future, not living beyond our means. Generally, If our debt is too great, we adjust spending AND revenue, not slash services to the neediest and then lower taxes at the same time. I use the term wealth more generally than you do. We already tax wealth, mostly locally for local services through real estate taxes, but it's hardly tyrany . . . shame on your choice of inflamation.

xhepera 2 years, 1 month ago

Thank you, asb, for your rational and objective assessment. It's obvious to anyone who has studied the history of taxation and the tax code in our country that over the decades the bulk of the burden has fallen on the middle class in a shift away from that burden being predominately shouldered by the wealthy. Although, as you point out, spending is PART of the problem, it's clear that the revenue stream has its flow quite unreasonably restricted when it comes to corporations and the wealthy.

3blindmice 2 years, 1 month ago

i had a good laugh. the truest wealthiest americans pay less than 15% in taxes due to loop holes written by their friends in congress. want fairness. lets make those tax brackets past 2 million progressive like they do to the bottom 30%.

bluesfan13 2 years, 1 month ago

I find that hard to believe. Do you have anthing to back that up? Yes, there are lots of deductions out there, but "loop holes" on personal income tax don't really exist in the volumes that some seem to think.

Why make a tax bracket higher than 35%? If these loop holes exist, simply close them for your results.

queue 2 years, 1 month ago

There is actually more capacity with the new pair of containers. If you have the 65-gallon size then you have a total of 130 gallons of capacity versus the 95-gallon dumpsters that were in place when the old system was in place. Regarding the comments about the city roads, taxes, etc. I believe this piece of the contract was removed -- the part where the contractor would pay the city a set amount per ton of material collected.

GoneBabyGone 2 years, 1 month ago

One more reason to kick Jeff City to the curb. I moved out of that backward town a month ago and never looked back.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Another young professional gone...

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

He doesn't have to look back if he can see happiness by looking in the rear view mirror.

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

I'd like to take this opportunity to get back on topic and say "Good Job Arther Brown!" Nobody worked harder, or was more willing to spend his personal energy, on this issue. He should feel good about his effort, getting what he saw as a railroad job to a public vote, and being, um, out standing in his can . . . Would that only one in fifty of us would stomp and work as hard as Mr. Brown.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

despite the results, Mr. Brown did what few people would do. hopefully this will cause some changes, because some people don't need trashed picked up every week. hopefully there will be some flexibility on this. the retired folks are hurt by this contract. was the contract legal? i'm not a lawyer. not many people voted, even the the turnout was higher than expected. democracy inaction.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID