INC NEWS - trashy thoughts

[RW Pickle]

I suspect Barry is right as to the participants in the current yard waste
plan. But I do not see an equitable assesment based on the property value
system. Rich, poor, good neighborhood or bad neighborhood, yard waste and
domestic trash is a common denominator. That is unless you have no trees
or grass on your particular property. Then I guess you could get an
exemption.

What this does for rental property is (if included as a $1 fee a month
across the board and billed and collected through a program such as
water/sewer billing) is that it puts the funds out there to force
landlords to see that tennants keep their property in order. Whereas if
tax based, the landlord pays it and just ends up passing the cost along in
higher rent and never has to enforce any cleanup. Any new thoughts on
administering some sort of fee structure has to put the burden of it on
the person who is on the property. If it's an owner, then it'll be on
him/her. If a rental property, then on the individuals living there. I
would also like to see it attached to a time frame to cut down on some of
the boarded houses (no water use; no fee payments). If after a year of not
having any water to a property, it would set off a chain of events that
would get the house reopened again. Even billed as a yearly fee (like our
cars are) doesn't bother me. It would have to be done to the property
owners in that case and could easily be done a tax time as an assesment.
It may take an act of the legislature to do it that way though.

Our taxes went up this past year and our services went down. There's my
initial problem with the system. I pay for an educational system yet I
have no kids. Everyone has a yard or a tree in it. Why shouldn't everyone
pay for that as well? From what I read in the news, our educational system
in Durham is still on the upswing (from its poor conditions several years
ago). Maybe if everyone payed "trash fees" it would improve as well.
Something needs to change.

I don't have a problem with the charge for carts if that is a problem. It
can be divided in the same monthly fashion. It has to be on the person on
the property and not based on percentages of property value or included in
propety taxes. Otherwise there seems to be no way to enforce anything.

Randy Pickle
Forest Hills


> the amount of revenue generated by the yard waste program in FY 04 was
> approximately 19,000 (participating households) X $50, or about
> $950,000. In FY 05 it appears to be declining (14,000 x $60 = $840,000).
>
> To generate that much revenue from each of Durham's approximately
> 80,000 households would mean about $12/household, if it were divided
> equally without regard to property value. An equitable assessment based
> on property value might require a property tax hike of $20 - 30/year on
> the most expensive houses, and $2 - 3/year on the lowest valued
> property. I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that most of the
> households that were participating in the yard waste program were in
> the higher assessment range.
>
> Personally, that seems reasonable to me, though I can't speak for the
> Neighborhood Association at this time. We will discuss this at our
> February meeting.
>
> barry ragin
>
>
> On Friday, January 21, 2005, at 05:56  PM, Richard Mullinax wrote:
>
>> In my official position with PAC II, I contacted Al today to ask what
>> his proposal for yard waste would be. This question came up at our
>> last PAC II meeting. He is looking at a new plan that would include
>> curbside pick up for all yard waste, including vacuuming the leaves
>> from the ROW(not the street). This plan will be part of the new solid
>> waste service that will offer curbside for all items with no
>> additional pick up fees or calls. Everything placed at the curb would
>> be dealt with one day a week. The City Clean Up days would be obsolete
>> in the new systems because every week one could set out all they
>> wanted. This day of the week would be a Mongo bonanza!
>>
>> This plan will more than likely be offered in two payment methods. The
>> first being to add it to the general budget. A tax increase by % of
>> property value. The other is to modify the current voluntary fee to be
>> mandatory. This method charges each customer the same regardless of
>> ability to pay.
>>
>> There are always more than two options. We could keep the system we
>> have which encourages illegal dumping, and illegal set outs that must
>> be cleaned up at City cost. It also discourages people from raking
>> because of the barrier of bagging all in paper.
>>
>> I am not happy with unlimited service, due to landfill issues, but I
>> can no longer stand the trash in our neighborhoods. Nor the pressure
>> to cut trees to limit the yard waste.  We must tackle the issue of
>> recycling separately.
>>
>> I wholly support doing this in the general budget. To add a fee would
>> be a regressive move on our poorer neighborhoods. This service if
>> installed by fall of '05, which it could be, would be a huge increase
>> in service and worth the tax increase. Al has not stated what the cost
>> of the improved service would be. I am sure he will offer it as soon
>> as possible. It could be as high as  the current fee per person in the
>> voluntary program.
>>
>> The current fee service for yard waste is not functioning well. Nor is
>> the fees for set out of larger items as these litter our neighborhoods
>> for weeks at a time. Increasing the fees to all would fix the physical
>> problems and hide the true tax increase in language only. We are
>> facing a tax increase(or not if we stay the same). Do we put it in the
>> % of property value or on the per person?
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> --
>>
>> Richard Mullinax
>> 921 N Mangum St
>> 680-3883
>> Housing Chair, Old North Durham PAC II co-chair
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>


======================================================================
This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) or
entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this electronic  transmission in error, please notify
me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic  mail to the sender of
this email, RW  Pickle (pickle at patriot.net) immediately.
=====================================================================