[Durham INC] Herald-Sun article: Monthly garbage, recycling fee sought
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Tue May 31 16:48:07 EDT 2011
I knew that's what the photo would be~! I've already alerted our Impact
Team, Daryl Hedspeth.
That would once have been an "illegal setout" and Durham had plenty of
them, so the solution was to make them legal! Presto chango... no more
illegal set outs!
On a positive note, we'll only see that pile for a day or two..... in the
old days we'd see it forever in the back yard.
Bill
In a message dated 5/31/2011 4:41:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bragin at nc.rr.com writes:
Geez, Bill, you don't even have to look too hard to find this kind of
dumping. Just head east on Markham about a quarter mile from your place,
and look to your right on Roxboro.
Why would we want to give our crappy neighbors another reason to
increase their demands on the city services that we already pay for?
Barry Ragin
btw - if the attached photo doesn't come through, i've put it and some
others up on my blog.
*http://dependableerection.blogspot.com/2011/05/because-current-system-doesn
t-encourage.html*
On 5/31/11 1:00 PM, TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
> I've always believed that there are a great many illegal yard waste
> dumps annually. These are nearly impossible to see because they blend
> in with the leaves {unless they are in bags}.
> Charge for garbage collection and the resulting dumps won't be
> anywhere near as invisible!
> I seem to recall the figure $450 per ton ~ the amount it costs the
> Impact Team to pick up an illegal dump site. That was many years ago.
> I learned that while serving on a committee to address illegal dumping
> that had become an over night sensation due to a short lived raising
> of the tipping fees at the dump.
> Those fees were instantly reduced, but it took awhile to catch up with
> many of the illegal dumpers who hadn't learned that the fees had gone
> back down because they were no longer visiting the city dump!
> Hope we don't have to learn that lesson the hard way ~ all over again.
> *Bill Anderson*
> REALTOR
>
>
>
> 919 282-8209 Cell
> ------------ ~ -------------
> 919.324.3911 fax
>
> www.SeagrovesRealty.com
>
> In a message dated 5/31/2011 12:25:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> matt.dudek at gmail.com writes:
>
> I also agree, is this something INC can take a position on? I
> really don't want to see an increase in illegal dumping in my
> neighborhood, or anyone else's.
>
> Great assessment Kelly.
>
> --
> Matt Dudek
> *Master's Degree Candidate 2011*
> *Department of City and Regional Planning/*
> *School of Government*
> *UNC - Chapel Hill*
>
> matt.dudek at gmail.com <mailto:matt.dudek at gmail.com>
> 919.381.7577
> Sent with Sparrow <http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig>
>
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Sally Clark wrote:
>
>> I totally agree with Kelly Jarrett's assessment.
>> Sally Clark
>> Prudential YSU Realty
>> 921 Morreene Road
>> Durham, NC 27705
>> 919-270-7558,cell
>> 919-313-3469,office
>> 919-282-1398, E-FAX
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Melissa Rooney <mailto:mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
>>> *To:* kjj1 at duke.edu <mailto:kjj1 at duke.edu> ;
>>> inc-list at DurhamINC.org <mailto:inc-list at DurhamINC.org> ;
>>> owdna at yahoogroups.com <mailto:owdna at yahoogroups.com>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:33 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Durham INC] Herald-Sun article: Monthly
>>> garbage,recycling fee sought
>>>
>>> Totally agree with you Kelly. At least taxes hold the property
>>> owner responsible for the aesthetics in the neighborhood (s)he
>>> hopes to profit from...renters who are temporary residents don't
>>> have such an investment in Durham in the long run.
>>> Melissa
>>>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From: *Kelly Jarrett <kjj1 at duke.edu <mailto:kjj1 at duke.edu>>;
>>> *To: *<inc-list at DurhamINC.org <mailto:inc-list at DurhamINC.org>>;
>>> owdNA <owdna at yahoogroups.com <mailto:owdna at yahoogroups.com>>;
>>> *Subject: *[Durham INC] Herald-Sun article: Monthly garbage,
>>> recycling fee sought
>>> *Sent: *Tue, May 31, 2011 2:46:21 PM
>>>
>>> Durham neighbors--
>>>
>>> I don't know how many of you saw the article in today's
>>> Herald-Sun, but Donald Long (Solid Waste Management Director) is
>>> proposing that Durham begin charging a monthly fee for garbage &
>>> recycling service. I've pasted a link and the article below.
>>>
>>> My initial response to this proposal is: What a terrible idea.
>>> We see how badly this fee-for-service system works with yard
>>> waste. When it became fee based, people opted out. To make
>>> garbage & recycling fee-for-service based in a community such as
>>> ours, with a 50% rental housing rate, is a recipe for disaster.
>>> What happens if residents don't pay the fee? Their garbage isn't
>>> picked up? Whose responsibility is it to see the fee is paid:
>>> the residents? The property owner? The property manager? If a
>>> resident moves, does their trash fee move with them or would
>>> they have to pay again at a new property? Who will insure that
>>> fees are paid and trash is collected for each household? What
>>> happens if a property manager or rental owner goes belly-up and
>>> these fees aren't paid? How will the current legislation pending
>>> that would prohibit rental registries and limit inspections
>>> impact problems with trash pick-up, non-payment of fees? What
>>> happens if owners decide not to pay? Who will clean up after the
>>> inevitable surge of illegal dumping? Handle complaints from
>>> businesses who find other people's garbage in their commercial
>>> bins? Will animal control increase their responses to rat and
>>> pest infestations?
>>>
>>> According to Long, this will enable Dept. of Solid Waste
>>> Management to "reduce its annual demand for property tax
>>> revenues." Bonfield says the move won't reduce the department's
>>> operating needs: "This is all just about how you pay for the
>>> service." This is a kind of "robbing Peter to pay Paul"
>>> accounting in which the losers are taxpayers, who will be
>>> saddled with a non-deductible fee for a service that is now
>>> tax-based and deductible. See the numbers Gronberg provides
>>> below: paying for the service will cost us $35/year; property
>>> tax rollbacks would lower property tax rates by $15--hardly a
>>> deal for taxpayers. I say--stop the smoke-and-mirrors accounting
>>> and don't nickle-and-dime Durham residents with fees for
>>> essential services like trash collection. Keep these services in
>>> the tax-base, where at least they are deductible and you can
>>> insure that everyone will receive the services.
>>>
>>> Kelly Jarrett
>>>
>>> Monthly Garbage, Recycling Fee Sought
>>>
<http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/13496064/article-Monthly-garbage--recycling-fee-sought?instance=homesecondleft>
>>> By Ray Gronberg
>>>
>>> gronberg at heraldsun.com <javascript:return>; 419-6648
>>>
>>> DURHAM -- Solid Waste Management Director Donald Long is telling
>>> elected officials he thinks it's "imperative" for Durham to
>>> emulate other North Carolina cities and begin charging residents
>>> a monthly collection fee for garbage and recycling.
>>>
>>> Long said the move would enable his department to reduce its
>>> annual demand for property tax revenues, which in fiscal 2011-12
>>> will cover $12.5 million of a $21.3 million budget.
>>>
>>> He noted that Durham is an outlier among major North Carolina
>>> cities in not charging a collection fee. Ten of the 12
>>> communities Durham usually compares itself to already have such
>>> a levy, Greensboro and Winston-Salem being the major exceptions.
>>>
>>> A recent accounting change that labeled the Solid Waste
>>> Management Department's operation purely an "enterprise" fund
>>> implies that the department should lower its reliance on the
>>> city's tax-fortified general fund, Long said.
>>>
>>> Long floated the idea during a recent City Council budget
>>> review. His boss, City Manager Tom Bonfield, was quick to point
>>> out that his fiscal 2011-12 budget request doesn't include any
>>> request for a fee.
>>>
>>> "It is not a recommendation" for the coming year, though it is
>>> something administrators are "continuing to explore" for future
>>> years and that might be worth talking about in detail early in
>>> the council's budget review for fiscal 2012-13, he said.
>>>
>>> Bonfield added that a change from tax-paid to fee-paid
>>> collections wouldn't be driven by Solid Waste's operational
>>> needs. "This is all just about how you pay for the service," he
>>> said.
>>>
>>> Long's comments took City Council members by surprise. "Thanks
>>> for waking us up," Councilman Eugene Brown quipped, alluding to
>>> the subject having cropped up fairly late in a daylong meeting.
>>>
>>> Reaction among them was mixed.
>>>
>>> Mayor Bill Bell pointed out that the imposition of a collection
>>> fee would allow a future council to roll back property taxes by
>>> an amount equivalent to the new revenue.
>>>
>>> Long singled out as a potential example for Durham to follow the
>>> $2.95 monthly fee Asheville charges residents for recycling
service.
>>>
>>> He said a similarly sized levy here would raise about $2.3
>>> million, about the same amount as a penny on the city's property
>>> tax rate generate for the city.
>>>
>>> But Councilwoman Diane Catotti -- who's stepping down at the end
>>> of her term later this year -- noted that a collection fee could
>>> hurt lower-income residents.
>>>
>>> "Clearly, fees for general services are more regressive than the
>>> property tax," she said. "I might rather leave [garbage and
>>> recycling collections] in the tax rate."
>>>
>>> Were an Asheville-sized fee on offer in Durham for fiscal
>>> 2011-12, it would cost most homeowners $35.40. A
>>> revenue-equivalent rollback of property taxes would put only
>>> about $15 back in the hands of the owner of a $150,000 house.
>>>
>>> But anyone with a house valued in the neighborhood of $350,000
>>> and above would get more back from a property tax rollback than
>>> the fee would cost. Business owners and anyone else who uses use
>>> a private dumpster collection service would also benefit.
>>>
>>> Durham officials have long chafed at comparisons of their city's
>>> tax rate to those of other cities, such as Raleigh, that rely
>>> more heavily on service fees than their own. Those that do can
>>> use lower tax rates, but the overall, fee-inclusive cost burden
>>> for residents can be a little different.
>>>
>>> Over the years, Long has been more willing than most Durham
>>> department directors to suggest major changes to the financing
>>> of his operation.
>>>
>>> In 2007, he floated the idea of establishing a $51.90 annual fee
>>> to finance expanded yard-waste and bulky-item pickups. That
>>> proposal never made it past the talking stage, as then-City
>>> Manager Patrick Baker declined to support it.
>>> <http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read more:The Herald-Sun - Monthly garbage recycling fee sought
>>>
<http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/13496064/article-Monthly-garbage--recycling-fee-sought?instance=homesecondleft#ixzz1NwKKyFJ5>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Durham INC Mailing List
>>> list at durham-inc.org <mailto:list at durham-inc.org>
>>> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>> _______________________________________________
>> Durham INC Mailing List
>> list at durham-inc.org <mailto:list at durham-inc.org>
>> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110531/e2644a37/attachment.html>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list