City starts prosecutions over trash service

connor 10 months ago

Just remember it's not a tax but a penalty.

kanbasher 10 months ago

First, mandatory trash service...what's next? Mandatory healthcare? Geeze... I had no idea Jefferson City even had this policy. Glad I live where I have a choice.

johngalt 10 months ago

GO EDIE! I have always said and continue to say this is unconstitutional. Its time for the socialist in this country to sit down and close their mouths, or find another country to corrupt.

Seems to me that the city government is fighting for an individuals rights(i.e. a business in this case). Nothing more nothing less. They are fighting for the individual to make sure the individuals rights are not stamped on. Isn't this what Republicans want? To make sure an individuals rights are guaranteed?

Republicans can't have it both ways. Scream about something and blame it on the left when the government is abiding by the rules that were set down by a Republican and then expect the government to look away when it is an individual (corporation is this case) ignoring regulations put in place to keep that individual in check.

johngalt 10 months ago

So you now equate socialism with the left, and individual freedom with Republicans? When the government no matter what size mandates that you pay someone for something is unconstitutional. Read Justice Roberts ruling. Flip the script with your double speak for your convenience? Now a big corporation in your words is an individual?

dokeus6 10 months ago

Here John I will make it easy on you.

//money.howstuffworks.com/corporation-person1.htm

MsEMS 10 months ago

ditto kanbasher!

Sequoia 10 months ago

Isn't the purpose of this policy to prevent freeloading? It would be a lot easier and cheaper for me to NOT have a trash bin of my own, and instead to just go throw my trash in the apartment complex's dumpster across the street.

But then, if everybody did that, there wouldn't be any room in the dumpster for the trash of the tenants who actually pay for the dumpster.

So this policy forces me to pay for my own trash disposal, so I don't freeload on the apartment complex across the street. Isn't that the opposite of socialism? Making everyone pay for the service they use?

Maybe you can explain exactly how this policy constitutes "socialism." It seems like just the opposite to me. How again is this socialism? Let's here it. Galt? Connor? Retired? How exactly is this "socialism"? Or is that just a word you've heard somewhere before?

Or maybe you can explain a better idea for how to solve the "tragedy of the commons" problem here.

spelchek 10 months ago

"Isn't the purpose of this policy to prevent freeloading?" -- Pay attention commenters for Sequoia just gave a text book example of a rhetorical question.

Sequoia 10 months ago

Oh, Galt. Really? "When the government no matter what size mandates that you pay someone for something is unconstitutional."

So, I can go down to the convenience store, grab a 12-pack of beer, and walk out without paying. And when the cops (the city's government agents) come and tell me, "Hey, Sequoia, you have to pay the store for that beer," that's unconstitutional socialism?

Having to pay for what you use is unconstitutional socialism?

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

johngalt 10 months ago

That is not at all what I said. Sequoia that is theft and is illegal. The constitution prohibits the government from taking your personal property without due process 5th amendment. By mandating citizens to create commerce involuntarily your personal property (monetary assets in this case) is taken without due process.

Sequoia 10 months ago

Well, I quoted what you said.

So, how do you solve the tragedy of the commons problem? How do you solve the problem of a person throwing his trash in the business owners' dumpster?

Look, I live next to a business, and I see it happen. People drive up in the parking lot, get out of their car, throw a trash bag into the dumpster, and drive off. That's stealing trash service from the business owner. That's theft!

Those folks driving up and throwing their trash in the business' dumpster are already voluntarily creating commerce. Making them pay for it isn't forcing them into commerce. They're already voluntarily creating commerce by requiring someone to haul off their trash... they're just not paying for the commerce they voluntarily create. They're freeloading on the business owner who IS paying for it. THEFT.

I fail to see how my beer analogy is not on point.

Let's do it this way: What's your alternative? Do you have a better idea?

johngalt 10 months ago

I agree with you Sequoia it is theft when that happens. That is not my argument. I have seen the same thing happen after the ordinance was in place. Those people should be arrested. The city already had a perfectly good ordinance in place dispose of your trash legally and responsibly. Your beer analogy is a private citizen not a government. The government is prohibited from doing many things. There is always a better idea.

JCLifer 10 months ago

Put a padlock on the dumpster. Problem solved.

Sequoia 10 months ago

So, the police are just supposed to sit around and watch the parking lots? That's not a cost-effective way to deal with this problem. That would actually cost us all a LOT more money than mandatory trash service.

Put a padlock on the dumpster, and they'll just throw the bags in the parking lot, NEXT to the dumpster. The people who are doing this don't care about making their trash someone else's problem. Problem not solved. Problem worse.

My beer analogy IS apt, because it isn't the private owner who is the one forcing me to pay. The owner asks me to pay, but if I grab the beer and walk out, the little old lady behind the counter ain't doing jack squat to this big ol' tree. It is the laws and the government that FORCE me to pay (if you're busted for theft, the courts FORCE you to pay restitution or sit in jail). Just like in the trash case, the private owner gets the money, but it's the government that forces you to pay for what you use.

The "tragedy of the commons" is called a tragedy because it isn't an easy problem to solve.

One way or another, people need to pay for the services they use. Period.

We could argue about the best way, but no one in this discussion has actually proposed a better idea. If you got one, let's hear it.

JCLifer 10 months ago

If people are throwing bags of trash on the ground, then enforce the littering ordinance. What is so hard? The cops would not even have to catch them in the act-- more than likely there will be bills, magazines, statements, and stuff in the trash bag identifying the perp.

Glad to hear that you are supportive of people paying for the services they use. Makes no sense to charge everyone the same fee regardless of how much trash they generate. Makes no sense to charge a poor businss owner to have trash cans at his duplex when he can just take his one bag of trash each week down to his business's dumpter. Charge everyone for the service that they use.

Sequoia 10 months ago

I do agree it would be nice to pay less for less trash, but it seems like trying to charge everyone a separate rate based on their trash output would make things more complicated, and more expensive. What's the hauler supposed to do, weigh my trash each week? What we're paying for is the service of having your trash hauled away once a week without fail... not so much the actual act of hauling a certain amount of trash away on a given day, but the whole service: when I put my trash out on Tuesday morning, it goes away. That's what I'm paying for.

It is similar to utility service. Your electric bill includes a charge for how much you use, but it also includes charges that pay for all the infrastructure the utility built long ago to bring you the electricity you use. You're paying for what you use, AND what it takes to get you what you use. It's the whole service, not just the commodity itself.

And, like utility service, you don't have a choice. It would be no good to have 50 different power lines running down our streets for different utilities. Similarly, I want one trash company picking up the trash on one morning. I don't want 50 different trash companies out hauling trash all day every day.

JCLifer 10 months ago

Pure cow poo.: "What we're paying for is the service of having your trash hauled away once a week without fail... not so much the actual act of hauling a certain amount of trash away on a given day, but the whole service: when I put my trash out on Tuesday morning, it goes away".

If what you say were true, they would pick up whatever amount of trash that you set out at the curb every week instead of making a huge deal of not taking anything extra and making you pay through the nose for an additional small bag of trash.

There is nothing customer-friendly about this mandatory trash contract. If I recall, there were several kickbacks in it to city hall, such as free unlimited trash pickup at any city facility, paying for an extra FTE or two at city hall, extra money going to city hall (our money) for service charges to help with the billing, etc. This trash contract is little more than an under-the-table TAX INCREASE on the citizens of this town by city hall.

No-one voted for this bloated corrupt mandatory trash contract except the city council and the mayor. No citizen in their right mind would support this if they new all the details buried in the contract, and plainly saw where all the money was going as compared to the last one.

tonto_goldberg 10 months ago

Your elected government (city council) passed an ordinance requiring every house to have trash service, so the town isn't waist-deep in garbage. That's due process.

JCLifer 10 months ago

I wish the consumer had some choice as to the level of service and types of services they could use. One-size-fits-all rarely fits anyone.

My biggest gripe is that this mandatory contract was a huge cut in service and rate increase from what we used to have. We used to get 90-gallon containers picked up twice a week for half as much money.

The ugly blue carts lining the streets of our neighborhoods are quite slummy-looking. They could have at least picked a neutral natural color like brown or gray for the bins instead of blue. Apartments like the ones on Amador and Ventura really suffer with hundreds of blue bins overflowing with trash blowing all over the neighborhood.

I am constantly picking up trash from my yard and in the street that blows out from the automated dumper truck.

A small business owner friend of mine is really frosted that he has to have mandatory trash service at his duplex (where he basically just sleeps) and cannot use his business's dumpster for the small bag of trash that he gets from his duplex every week. That seems to be a very business-unfriendly policy by the city.

copcamaro 10 months ago

Sad part is you only have one Co. to choose from! Here in the Co. Allied was scr--wing us for years, when we said we were going to cahnge pick up Co. (same amount of pickups less money) We were told, OH we will drop your monthly rate to match the other CO's. So that meant, were getting a royal scr-wing for years till we complained.

Littleinvestor 10 months ago

The more dense the population, the more regulation there is. That is a fact. And just think what Jeff City would smell like and how big the rats would be if everyone just threw their trash out the window like the did when the constitution was written. I do live where I have a choice between three companies, none of them cheap because its a rural area. We have big carts and I love them. If we forget to haul it to the road one week, it's big enough for two weeks worth of rubbish and dogs can't turn it over.

Awakend_mind 10 months ago

yeah, cause the city was in dire straights and filthy before the mandatory trash service... The point is a company and city are forcing you to purchase a product/service or face a penalty. They wrote the contract, they forced it down upon the citizens, the mayor, the council, the lawyers etc. Now a "democracy" vote of the majority told the rest of the folks what to do!

JCLifer 10 months ago

The quickest and easiest way to clean up the city would be to enforce the building codes and the trash ordinances.

jeffcitygirl 10 months ago

I still don't understand why trash service is not figured into city taxes like most municipaltiies. I'm just glad I live in an apartment complex and don't have to pay Allied's outrageous rates for their awful service. How's the recycling bins coming along? When I was a homeowner I would note my neighbors throwing regular trash in them b/c the new blue bins were too small, only picked up once a week and overflowing.

tonto_goldberg 10 months ago

You're right about that! I'd forgotten, as most people obviously have. One civic-minded resident got enough signatures to force a vote, and the count was overwhelmingly to retain the service.

Awakend_mind 10 months ago

Go ahead, give up your rights to choose! Let the majority rule you, and tell us all how happy we will be! We don't have to think, we don't have to do anything except "go with the flow"... It's all in our best interest! You can't drink a soda it's bad for you, don't smoke it's bad for you, you can't eat a cheeseburger it's bad for you, don't drink it's bad for you. Buy this it's good for you! Sign this, it's what's good for you! We'll make your life easier! We'll make your life happier! Don't worry, we know what's best for you! We've thought about it, and we've decided that you have to listen to our plans, our thoughts, and our ideas! It's okay, we went to college, we have knowledge! We have learned how to make everyone's life better!!! We are in charge now! You voted us in! Now we are in charge of what happens! We will make the changes, choices, and plans so you don't have to... Oh, don't try to stop us! We have the police, judges, lawyers, and all sorts of people to help us behind the scenes! We'll make sure your life is well taken care of!

JCLifer 10 months ago

Sounds like ObamaCare...

whatif 10 months ago

I was paying for the lesser amount of trash I set out which was maybe 1 trash bag (bag not can) per month if that. I was happy - now I am paying for a trash bin that takes me several months to fill, a new truck that has a gizmo to lift your trash bin, a recycling bin (which I am more than happy to use, as I use to take my recycables to the recycling center (not a problem mind you, I'm all for recycling and have practiced this for years), its costing me 100% more than I use to pay for my small amount of trash I created. I've lived in cities that provided this service, you could use your own garbage can, they did provide a recycling container (smaller than the one we have here) and they picked up once a week - it was never a problem. Never understood why we needed pick up twice a week here, are people here trashier or what? If this farce was voted on I was not aware of it. Also, I compost, making use of fruit and vegetable waste as a way to nurish my garden.

whatif 10 months ago

I believe I made that statement -- you're point being?????

whatif 10 months ago

I'm trying to think back on that and if I recall it was pretty much a done deal even before it went to vote -- so what would be the point???? I read the discussions on this thread regarding this matter from when it hit the paper and I do not recall anybody being in favor of it. And once again why would anybody vote on something that didn't give us a choice -- but to only satisfy those that felt they were making a choice by voting -- NOT and as a way for the good ol boys to look good, as they were being attacked by people who saw through this mess.....you're not one of those are you?????

JCLifer 10 months ago

So the biggest farce is that the City Administrator says that folks who get the citations for not paying for trash service for the past three years won't be prosecuted if they just sign on at this point? You mean we could have all had three years of free trash service if we just wouldn't have paid our bills?

This city government is a true piece of work. Everyone of the clowns need to be replaced.

whatif 10 months ago

Also, isn't there such a thing as competition, seems like this was eliminated when the City forced a company down our throats, and eliminating any chance of another company from coming in here and competing for business, thus there are no options to us except to eat the c r a p that the city feeds us. AND IT DOESN'T TASTE GOOD!!!!!! PLUS I SMELL A RAT OR IS THAT SEVERAL RATS EVERY TIME I AM FORCED TO DO SOMETHING WITHOUT ANY OPTIONS....

Awakend_mind 10 months ago

Awesome comment whatif! Bought time another citizen sees through all the rubbish! LOL! Yeah, follow the money trail... People get paid when deals like this go down (that's for sure)... They win, you lose! What are you gonna do? They have all the cronies on their side! Sad but o so true! Oh, and it's all in the name of "the environment", or "for the good", or in the citizens "best interest"... It's all smoke and mirrors, just so they can squeeze a little bit more cash out of you every month! Then they are happy campers!!!

mmhh 10 months ago

Its about time! My neighbors have skipped paying for trash since the law passed. They can pay for their two pack a day habit and nightly McDonalds so now they can finally pay to haul the trash from their backyard and into a container. Go progress!

mmhh 10 months ago

Whatif: It was voted on. (2010 I believe but may be wrong.) The reason bags were eliminated was reportedly due to the physical cost to trash personnel. You sound like an extremely responsible person who is a good steward of the earth. Unfortunately, not everyone was. Trash workers were getting out at several houses on every block (even in summer heat and icy winter conditions) and slinging bags, some up to 30 pounds, into the back of a truck. Bags were not going to be an option no matter what trash service was hired.

JCLifer 10 months ago

Columbia still has bag service for trash, recycling, and yard waste, all for $15 a month.

gocolumbiamo.com/PublicWorks/Solidwaste/res-coll.php

Awakend_mind 10 months ago

yeah, doing their job and what they were hired to do. What about all the little old ladies and little old men that barley have any trash (maybe one bag a week). They just bought a bag, and they could take it to the curb (easily). They live on a fixed income, and it was easy and very affordable to have waste management plastic bags? Did that cross your mind? And by the way 30 pounds is nothing... Also waste management workers were hired to collect the trash from the curb. By the way, waste management makes money, and so does it's workers. They are not a charity service...

drpepper1885 10 months ago

so a little physical labor is too much for someone making $14-$18 an hour?

JMO 10 months ago

I would like to say I personally didn't mind the switch from the old service a bit. I didn't mind that the "garbage" can got smaller, because splitting off the recycling made up for it. When we had one larger bin, I put it out every other week for my family of three. Now I put both bins out every other week. I didn't mind that it increased in price either, really, for me, I was fine with that.

I did mind that it was forced on me and on everyone else at the same price regardless of how much of the service they needed. I had a friend who put her garbage in her own businesses dumpster. She has to pay for trash service at home and work now. I have a friend who's a single woman who is rarely home and probably doesn't put out a can a month. She used to share with her neighbor and split the cost with her. Now they each have to pay even though they generate very little trash. I know people with four kids who put out both cans full every week. They pay the same as my poor single friend. That's wrong.

Of course you shouldn't litter. There's laws against that. Of course you shouldn't use businesses or apartment building dumpsters without their permission. I suspect there's a law against that. Of course you shouldn't keep bags of refuse in your yard for months. If there isn't a law against it, make one! Prosecute those people.

But making every single home pay the same price whether they need the same level of service, that's just wrong. This isn't the same as a utility service. If I run my air conditioning at 60 degrees and leave all the lights burning, I'm getting a big electric bill. If my neighbor insulates, sets their thermostat at 80, uses candles and unplugs all their appliances when not in use, theirs is smaller. If I'm a single person who is only home to bathe and eat, I'll use less water and pay a lower water bill than the neighbor with six kids and a swimming pool!

In my opinion, that's what's wrong with this whole thing. It isn't the monopoly given to the trash company. It isn't even that everyone has to dispose of their trash or be fined. It isn't the mandatory recycling. It's that everyone was forced into the same service, whether they needed it or not.

Awakend_mind 10 months ago

you got it right. It's called common sense... But it isn't so common anymore! LOL! It's just a bunch of fat cats sitting around making up ways to take advantage of, or take some money from unsuspecting harmless people... It's been that way since the beginning of time, and doesn't look like it's gonna change anytime soon... But they know what's best, RIGHT!

Sequoia 10 months ago

But, JMO, what's the alternative? A utility can charge a variable rate because it is easy for them to track your usage. What's the trash company going to do, weigh your trash?

I put out trash once every other week. I wish I could pay less than my neighbor who puts out a full bin every week. But how would that actually work? How would the trash company track that, without making the whole thing way more expensive? How would the company provide individually tailored service in a cost-effective way? Is there another small city with a service we can point to as a model? It's easy to find fault with anything, but it is much harder to actually get in there and solve all the issues.

Awakened, the idea that "fat cats" are using the trash service in Jefferson City, Missouri, to orchestrate some sort of grand conspiracy against the populace is the opposite of common sense. I'm not saying the city's contract with Allied is perfect, but your hyperbole doesn't do yourself any favors.

And, really... "LOL"? Nothing you posted made me LOL. Unless you're a 12-year-old girl, let's let go of the textspeak. We're all adults here, I think.

JMO 10 months ago

I'm not pretending to have the answers. Maybe the bags were more fair? Maybe people with less need should pay less for the smaller bins? It just seems wrong to charge everyone the same when they don't need the same service.

spelchek 10 months ago

" It just seems wrong to charge everyone the same when they don't need the same service." -- or the service at all.

asb 10 months ago

I don't think there's anybody in JC who doesn't need trash service. Burn barrels may be ok in the county where stench and disease vectors are acceptable, but JC is too densely populated not to need hauling. When there's no means to calculate each person's waste stream, taking an average and charging eveybody that amount is the next best approach. Even utilities that can meter their products do so as the product goes in. Metering trash going out would require a very invasive scheme, and the anti-trash posters here are not going to buy into that. Come up with a way to charge according to need, without going through the waste stream of each source, and you'll have your answer. If people are willing to provide information on number and age of residents, then the old couple could be charged less, but then the rest of us would pay a bit more.

Sequoia 10 months ago

Burn barrels are disgusting and disrespectful. The subdivisions in the county are just as dense as those in the city, and one person burning stuff all day puts an acrid smoke over the whole neighborhood. Moving into the city was the best thing I've done.

As compared to the county, the city's trash service is cheaper, recycling is easier, and the quality of my life is much higher.

The only peeve I have is people who leave their bins out in front of their house or, worse, in the public right-of-way on the sidewalks and streets. You can take a few minutes to pull them up to your house.

Maybe the bags were more fair. Sounds like they had other problems. I didn't live here when the bags were in use, so I don't really know.

Here's an idea: An extra tax on non-recyclable material to help subsidize trash service. That could reduce the cost of trash service overall, and it's also a way to make people pay for the garbage they produce on the front end, and subsidize trash service for those who produce less trash.

JCLifer 10 months ago

An extra tax on non-recyclable won't work, because everyone will just put everything in the recyling container. It doesn't matter to Republic- they take whatever you throw in the recyling container anyway.

Sequoia 10 months ago

No, I mean like a sales tax. You'd pay an extra tax when you bought something that couldn't be recylced.

drpepper1885 10 months ago

fact, it was all about the almighty dollar. the city gets a kickback from mandatory service they get another (separate) kickback for the number of customers.

I wish the city would leave the poor people alone and go after the wealthy.

Did you know you can own $100,000 piece of land and pay less than $250 taxes on it, just because it don't have a residence on it. But a $100,000 house/land combo gets around $900 in taxes. All because the assessed value of land is much much lower. If you can afford a quarter million dollar piece of land you should be paying taxes on the value, not just paying on 5%. . This town is as crooked as the federal government. Making laws for the people, while writing themselves out.

JCLifer 10 months ago

No one would have voted for this abortion if they would have seen the details of the contract. However, the city was very quiet about all the terms of the FTEs, free trash pickup, equipment purchased by Allied for the city hall, and other kickbacks. The trash contract resulted in a HUGE TAX INCREASE of revenues going to the city from the citizens, and the huge majority of the citizens had no idea of what they were voting for, or that they even had a choice to ditch the contract and negotiate a cleaner, more straight-forward contract without all the hidden tax increases. Then, add all the trheats that any other contract would be way higher in cost if the vote wasn't passed, and a bunch of scared citizens voted Yes, even though they hated the trash contract. The city hid the details from them.

wcywing 10 months ago

yet the city wonders why young people are leaving this grand city?

JCLifer 10 months ago

The city isn't worried. They will just forcibly annex them in sooner or later. More taxpayers are all around the perimeter of the city just for the picking and a couple of elections paid for by the taxpayers. Just like shooting fish in a barrel.

City starts prosecutions over trash service

More like this story

Comments

Or login with: