Tag Cloud
Saturday, May 18, 2013
PART I - Sacramento City “Green” Waste Proposal Selectively Punishes Central City Residents
by Dale Kooyman, published on December 4, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Storyline: city issues
Community Tags
politics
It is now expected that the Sacramento City Council will decide in mid or late January whether it wants to place on the ballot the repeal of 1977’s Measure A, which prohibited the city from requiring property owners to containerize waste.
If the repeal is placed on the ballot and citywide voters pass it, then council has the legal authority to force residential property owners to containerize “green” waste. Never mind that most of it in the central city (CC) is not green at all but brown from the city’s year-round falling tree leaves. Advocates of containerization, please note that important distinction as you drive or bike by because heretofore you muddied it—either by lack of observation, in ignorance or by deliberate obfuscation.
Of course, council could choose to ignore a passing vote and continue the voluntary program it now has, however, why would it spend thousands of dollars to put it on the ballot if it has no intention of mandating containerization?
The self-appointed “committee” and staff did a very poor job of analyzing the history and consequences of this monumental change in services to reach its quick-fix one-size-fits-all mandate. It ignored the seven-year effort and study that was done to eliminate the problem of dirty streets, which resulted in determining the need for claw services! In fact if this proposal is mandated in the central city, claw elimination will take us decades back to those previously determined unacceptable conditions.
Further, the proposed mandate citywide reflects the committee’s failure to recognize the diversity in housing, streets, tree plantings, design and age of our city’s residential neighborhoods as well as the great differences in contents of the leaf and rubbish piles. It fails to admit that the term “green” waste is a misnomer for many areas of the city.
Perhaps the most egregious omission was that the committee organizers failed to reach out to a mix of folks who will be affected by this major service change. For example, the committee chose not to invite any central city residents to join them, whose input would conflict mightily with their predetermined decision. They chose not to invite any low income, seniors, disabled, ailing, leaf allergy-sufferers who are homeowners and would be affected by this shallow proposal. In my opinion these omissions were deliberate because members feared that such individuals might interject some reality into their fantasy
Recent public comments on this site and homeowners discussions reveal that this proposal and its consequences have far more complicating and adverse effects than the narrowly formed committee ever envisioned.
Since I started this article, I called some friends in the suburbs about containerization and how they felt about a one-size-fits all mandate for their neighborhoods. I explained the reasons as to how it would punish many of us in the central city. I was surprised that they too said they would be punished because their low-income elderly, disabled, allergy sufferers, etc. would also be unable to lift their yard and tree waste into bins.
So it appears staff has forgotten these folks all over the city. On the other hand, maybe they haven’t because staff has said that they’ll just charge those folks more for claw services. Looks like these people need to file another ADA suit against the city like they did the handicap ramps.
Because the differences in neighborhoods heretofore was not taken into consideration by the committee and city staff seem unclear about those differences too, it is important at this time to describe Sacramento’s three major different kinds of neighborhoods and variations within each. There are:
1. recently developed neighborhoods with expansive green lawns soaking up much our water supply to keep them green and newly planted, if any, trees. Their lawn clippings are green waste from the property owner’s front, back and side yards. These single family “snout” houses are built with two and three garages with large areas in the driveways to park their cars and considerable water runoff from rains and sprinkler systems.
Apartment houses, if any, are multi-building complexes—largely two and three story. Few if any sidewalks exist since these neighborhoods were designed to discourage walking and facilitate driving. There is very little street parking because of the availability of space to park in wide driveways. The residential streets are narrow, the collectors wider and expressways the widest. There are no business properties in the residentially zoned areas. Drains are flat abutting the curved curbs and clog easily;
2. the first wave of suburban development was in two phases—the older neighborhoods immediately surrounding the central city and the newer ones just beyond. Both of these have narrow often-curved streets, cul-de-sacs, T intersections or dead end streets. Trees are mature but most grow in front yards next to the narrow sidewalks, which are immediately adjacent to the rolled curbs. These trees may be city or property owner owned depending on distance from the curbs. Building styles vary but include single-family “snout” houses. Many have garages attached to the sides of the house with driveways running from the street to the back of the lot. There are a few apartment houses and there is a mix of parking on the streets and in driveways. There may also be some small businesses here and there. Drains are usually flat abutting the curved curbs and clog easily.
3. the far different older and historic CC, the streets of which are lined with Park Strips in which the city’s trees are planted. Lots are small, often no more that 40x60 or 40x80 where single family homes, duplexes, triplexes and four-plexes cover as much as 90% of the lot. Most have tiny front or back yards with side yards as narrow as five feet. There is room for few if any trees, but some have shrubs. There are few garages, depending on the neighborhood, and most residents compete for parking on the street with residents of single or double lot “shot gun” apartments, sometimes several existing in a row on a given block. Most of these apartments were given parking variances and have carport or garage space for half the units—if that. Advocates also mistakenly believe all home owners are as young and physically able as they are.
There are many vacant lots, parking structures and lots, and businesses dotted throughout, including houses that were permitted for full time businesses with no living quarters whose employees often must park on the street. Some drains are flat and others are combinations of flat and hollowed out gutter spaces, the latter clogs the least.
Lacking knowledge and failing to consider these vast differences throughout the city, the self-appointed committee, including city staff members, decided that they should ask council to punish all property owners in the central city, including seniors, disabled and those with lung conditions by raising their rates if they do not containerize the “green” waste. Obviously, they mistakenly believed that central city “green” waste was the same as where they lived (River Park, Natomas, Greenhaven, etc.) where property owners have large expansive green lawns with privately owned trees and gardens.
As they raced in and out of the CC in their cars polluting our air, they drove on streets which are extensions to the commuter highways or off and on freeway ramps, and apparently did not see that year-round the CITY’S trees drop non-green leaves, twigs, various sized seed pods, tree blossoms, et al.
They didn’t notice either that irresponsible, careless and drunken humans litter gutters with paper, plastic bags, articles of clothing, candy/cigarette packages/wrappings, flyers, loose pages of the SN&R or BEE, plastic and paper coffee cups, hypodermic needles, partially consumed soft drinks in plastic or glass bottles, liquor and beer bottles/cans, half eaten discarded food in plastic or Styrofoam fast food or convenience market takeout containers—all of which attract, rats, flies, roaches and other vermin not to mention an assortment of broken glass, pieces of lumber, dead squirrels and birds, dog doodoo and human feces occasionally mixed in. Compost advocates apparently don’t know that this mix of contents does not compost; or if they do, expect homeowners to sort out these health hazardous discards.
Because none of those committee whizzes live here, they didn’t know either that many residents sweep this crap into a pile to keep the gutters relatively clean and drains unclogged so the claw can pick it up, making central city waste “polluted” and unfit for city composting sites unless sorted at the dump sites. Nor did they know that their suburban neighbors bring their non-green waste down to the CC to dump in the streets in front of vacant lots. So they decided to punish aforementioned CC property owner residents by forcing them to gather all these health hazards up by hand, dump them into their containers and store them on their property until pickup day arrives.
Please read Part II for even more bizarre inequities and punishment.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
PS. Just because I do not live in the central city doesn't mean I can't continue to write about it.
After renting here for a year, he has decided not to buy a house in Midtown but buy in Curtis Park because he said that there is too much noise, litter, drunken behavior,etc. here, and as a midtown property owner he would have to clean up after all that whereas he would not have to do that in Curtis Park.
That is not the case on many many blocks in Midtown, but he and his girlfriend just didn't want to take that chance.
I personally agree with Dale on this subject.As an inner city resident i love the ability to pile my green waste in the street as well, shutter at thought of the cities falling leaves going un collected ( as many residents will not voluntarily pick them up) I also agree that there are parts of the city that do not deserve to have to pay for street pick up / cleaning etc. when they dont need or recieve the services .
There needs to be a comprehensive study on individual neighborhoods, additionally the Utility department , who wants to raise our rates further ,needs to be audited & overhauled (publicly) so we as rate payers can decide what services we are either willing to pay for or live without.
Dale who or how was this comittee created ? I heard nothing of a comittee ? did they ask or consult with you or anyone you know ?... lots of questions & i will see you @ council
(still in need of sp. chk.) sincerely Shawn Eldredge
http://www.southsidepark.org/claw
I believe that Cohn's office knew about the committee and possibly other council members, but I'm not sure about that. It did not include customers per se other than mosquito control and some other agency representative IF they happened to live in Sacramento, which I doubt. I can't find the email from the biker who organized it.
Please read both again with whatever questions you have in mind to see if they are answered. Or direct them in your comments and I'll be glad to address them.
All I can say to you is, if you don't want to put your yard waste into a bin, then vote "no" when it's on the ballot. Last I checked, this is a democracy we live in and the majority wins.
Your conclusion couldn't be farther from the truth. Sadly, this attitude and belief shows how little the young and healthy really know about the various physical limitations people of any age can have, what caused those limitations and what such afflicted individuals can and cannot do without suffering pain or set backs. Although your statements are vague and general again, you seem to imply that "handicapped" means a person who is only mobile in wheel chairs. In fact, these folks' handicap is severest but they only comprise a small percent of those who have restrictive mobility.
I will give you only one example. Have you ever heard of back malformations, injuries and surgery? Do you also know that aging normally exacerbates these conditions? These individuals differ greatly in what they can or cannot do without inflicting pain on themselves. Bending over to lift from ground or floor level , is one of the most damaging. The frequency and weight of what they lift are also factors. Further, turning or twisting with even a few pounds in their hands coupled with reaching, can trigger severe pain if not spinal disc de-location. However, merely pushing a broom or simple raking--minus the stooping bending maneuvers are very doable for many.
Even such a simple thing we take for granted that no one would think could exacerbate a back situation is sitting. Some folks will dislocate their back from repeated and continuous sittings on very soft chairs, sofas or heavily padded seats--too little support. BUT others' backs cannot tolerate sitting on firm seats or straight or folding chairs.
As to your vote comment. I do believe that is all you have to say. Certainly, it reflects your shallow knowledge of a complex and far reaching effect on others. It is likely that there is a majority who, like you, have no knowledge or sensitivity to other people, so yes the majority can win. That is why there are civil rights and ADA suits and resulting decisions rendered against the majority, That is also why the courts forced the city to spend millions of dollars to construct handicapped ramps when the city contended it did not have the money to accommodate their mobility.
It is amazing how a little common sense and understanding can go along way toward solving disagreements.
What gets me is that of all of the cities I have lived in, all across the US, Sacramento is the *only* city that requires their citizens to place their yard waste in the street and the only city whose citizens feels that it's their god given right. Environmental and finance issues aside, on the streets which do not have parking restrictions on the days that yard waste gets picked up, the residents must put their yard waste in the bicycle lane despite being in violation of the California Vehicle Code.
In regards to the environment and finances issues: containerized yard waste prevents sewer overflow (the EPA ruled that the September '04 overflow was caused by yard waste clogging the system); containerized yard waste is billed at around 22% less than the on street pick up; streets need to be repaved/repaired more frequently due to pavement damage caused by the claw; using containers would lessen the amount of money spent by the city as only one vehicle would be needed (one vehicle would also improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions); not having the blocked drains caused by street dumping would reduce the mosquito population since there'd be less standing water, it would improve parking because residents wouldn't put their piles out whenever they feel like it but, instead, put out their container on the designated day; etc. etc. etc.
But to say that this is a civil rights and/or ADA issue? If so, why do the vast majority of cities in the US have containerized yard waste? Like I said, this is the only city that I've ever heard of that does not have containerized yard waste. And if you want to bring up civil rights, I as a bicycle commuter, have every right to ride my bicycle down the bike lane without fear of that lane being illegally blocked.
Again, you misinterpret. I did not say the claw was a civil rights or ADA issue.
You wrote, flippantly I thought, if you don't like it, then vote against it and the majority wins. As soon as you introduced that majority rule concept, I pointed out that such rules have been opposed and won in the courts because the majority sometimes imposes rules with which some people are physically unable to comply or the requirement is unjust.
I too have never lived in a city where the claw was used. However, none of those cities like SF, D.C. Chicago, Long Beach (all in the city centers when I lived there) had that many deciduous trees and the city swept the streets.
I just called friends and relatives who live in nine different cities in Calif, Colorado and midwestern and eastern states. None of those cities have claws but almost all except Calif cities use a machine with a vacuum type apparatus that sucks up the gutter leaves and debris. That would be a welcome change here and would not require people to buy bags or the city to buy containers.
Some of those cities I surveyed have burn days and folks put private tree or city tree leaves, sticks, branches in their metal burn barrels or loose in their yards burn area. There is an option to rake the leaves into large plastic sheets or bags and place them in the gutters for pickup. Sometimes, like this year, there is an early snow and one city's leaves leaves fell into the snow which is picked up by snow shovel machines. Only two of the nine required property owners to containerize in a bin for pick up. In one city, there is an arrangement with the nearby college that the students sweep and bag the city's leaves.
So streets are cleaned and leaves collected in a number of ways throughout the country. But since we are second only to Paris in the number of trees none seemed to have the number of city trees that Sacramento midtown has. If you are concerned about mosquitos, you should have lived here before we had the claw when city tree leaves collected year round and clogged the gutters. There was more standing water then than in claw years. But only long time residents remember that. Your other arguments have little merit too.
In regards to some of you not knowing anything about this, you must not be paying attention; I knew about people pushing for this ballot initiative over a year ago.
Regardless, the fact remains that the current use of the claw, and residents piling their waste in the street, is a hazard to cyclists, damaging to the street (and costly to repair), harmful on the environment, etc. and for those reasons I am in favor of containerized waste.
If any of you would like more information on any of this, I encourage you to check out http://www.sacbike.org/greenwaste/
To help you, please visualize an elderly homeowner asking, each week "assistance" from you, the tenants in the apartment houses next door or someone walking down the street to gather up into a box or dustpan the leaves, twigs, sticks, and other debris (see the article) then use their saw to saw up the small branches into two foot-long pieces dump into the 90 gallon "green" waste bin. You know the answer than any one of those would give.
You only helped your neighbor with her yard waste? Yard waste is very little of what most of us have. But that is good of you to do that small amount for her. Will you be helping that neighbor each week to do all her yard, sidewalks, parking strip and gutters from now on for free? What if you move? Your neighbor didn't have you to ask or another her neighbor said, "see you later??
Oh, yes, we are all well aware of how long "people" have been pushing for the yard waste long before a year ago but had a chorus of opposition, so "they" secretly went around the most affected this time, using city budget, and fake phony environment as excuses. Bikers really need to stop thinking about themselves and consider the everyone in the community. My neighbor bikers are considerate, and they don't agree with you or the person who headed up this effort..
A) If it can happen in every other city I've ever lived in (several dozen in six different states), it can happen here.
B) If you, or anyone else, is unable to do something, it's all a matter of asking for assistance or hiring someone to do the work for you.\
Your "which is what you are homeowners to do" statement confuses me, I'm assuming you mean that it's only homeowners that have to deal with any of this. Well, I'm a renter, and I deal with this on my own. I also assist a friend (who is a homeowner) with her yard waste because she isn't able bodied enough to deal with it (it's called "community").
When one, for any reason whatsoever, is unable to do something on their own, they hire someone to do it for them (it kind of makes the world go round). For example (since you seem to be all about examples), please visualize a technologically declined individual getting a virus on their computer. In this world, one has to have one to get by, even to interact with their elected officials they need one to get by. Now, what does this technologically declined individual do? Do they change the world and make everyone go back to a pen and paper, fax machine, whatever? No, they hire someone to assist them in removing the virus from their computer.
You seem to think that having to put your yard waste into a bin is the end of the world failing to realize that by NOT putting yard waste into a bin you're making your world worse. More smog, more flooding, more mosquitoes, more dangerous roads, etc.
Really, I don't want to stop with just putting yard waste into bins. I want to continue this change along. I want any street that is a designated bike route or that has a marked bike lane to have parking restrictions on garbage days so that their bins are place on the curb and NOT in the bike lane. Visualize, if you will, driving your car down the street (I'm sorry, let's make that "speeding in your car down the street" as 99.9% of the motorists do not abide by the speed limit) on a random evening, you round a corner and BLAM, you smack headlong into a dumpster that has been placed in the middle of the lane. That, Dale, is what cyclists in Sacramento face every day despite it being against the State law and City law.
I've spoken to SPD about this, about residents placing their waste bins and yard waste piles in the bike lane and on designated bike routes (where they have to be placed or they wont get picked up) and they told me what I already knew, that it IS against the law. Now, why aren't they doing anything? Well, their response is "since we didn't see who put it there, we can't do anything about it". So what we have is a city requiring it's citizens to break both State and City law and the citizens having to hope that an officer does not see them do this.
So I'm sorry, Dale, if I want some change in this city. I'm sorry if I want the city to NOT force it's citizens to break the law. I'm sorry if I want the city to NOT waste money paving the roads more frequently due to damage form the claw, by having to have two trucks instead of one, by having to send out crews to clear clogged drains.
You want a livable city Dale? So do I. I'd like to be able to ride my bike in a bike lane without fear of crashing into a pile of yard waste or into a waste bin. I'd like to be able to walk to the corner store in the rain without having to go a half block out of my way to avoid a massive puddle caused by a clogged drain, I'd like to have a Summer without mosquito bites caused by the standing water due to clogged drains.
And by the way, I agree with LittleTart. This article is so scattered and disorganized it is barely readable. It should at least start with some kind of summary of the issue. I felt like I was walking into the middle of an argument, and a not very clearly articulated one at that.
It is clear from your comment that you equate dropping a small bag of kitchen garbage into the garbage bin or a magazine or milk carton one at a time over a period of a week into the recycling bin to raking, sweeping the city's tree droppings, sticks, boards and human litter (yours?) on the sidewalks, park strips and gutters into piles and then lift all of that box by box or whatever container is available to gather and then dump into the proposed nearly shoulder-high 90 gallon containers.
Have you thought of taking a course in remedial reading, understanding and comprehension?
No, these are not "personal". The first is a question and the other merely a possibility and the other is a question unlike your biased and stated opinion about the articles and their contents, which you stated as accusations. Your mind was made up from the onset and your dialogue has demonstrated that there are no facts which would change it.
You are right about one thing though, you did come into the "middle of an argument" and from nearly the first sentence stated your bias. When that attitude is demonstrated there is no basis for meaningful exchange of ideas or opinions.
You also say that "...from nearly the first sentence stated your bias. When that attitude is demonstrated there is no basis for meaningful exchange of ideas or opinions." "II live in this area and would like to see the bins implemented." So, you closed your mind because my opinion disagreed with yours. I don't see how merely disagreeing with someone demonstrates a lack of basis for the exchange of ideas. I thought it WAS the exchange of ideas. No?
As far as your reply not being a personal attack, I think you may have lost your perspective. You use the pronouns "you" or "your" seven times; I did not use them once. Please reread your comments and reconsider their possible meanings. It my be useful for me to reword a couple of your comments and see what you think:
"The issue also requires writing skills in order to articulate the complexities and far reaching adverse effects--something you may not have done heretofore."
"Have you thought of taking a course in remedial writing, reasoning, and comprehension?"
Do these consider these personal? I would. One last point. I can tell from this and other articles that you are passionate about the problems in your neighborhood, and I commend that. But if you want to get people to listen -- and come to your causes -- you may want be less hostile and thin-skinned.
The number of times the words "you" or "your" is irrelevant. What you wrote (oh, my, I used that word again) I revise to passive "what was written is not "merely disagreeing" so further discussion is a waste of time.
On my ride to work this evening I noticed that you had several bags of waste covered by loose leaves placed out for "claw" pick up. This somewhat renders your concerns moot as you obviously are able bodied enough to place your ward waste in a container, don't suffer a leaf allergy keeping you from getting too close to your yard waste, etc.
What you saw in the red zone, including the bags, I did NOT place there! Those wet leaves and plastic bags full of leaves came from the property owner across the street. They were carried and heaped there by the six foot four former football line backer and his muscular helper. They accumulate (year round from the city trees surrounding his property--wet in winter) on the top of his building. He places some in bags and brings them down the ladder on to the back deck, floor by floor. There were also leaves from his back yard, sidewalks and gutters in front of his tenants as there are today. I guess you didn't notice the trees in front of his property!
Did you notice that there are never any leaf piles of any size on the side of the street abutting his property? He does not want to limit parking for his tenants' (one of whom you know well) customers and asked if he could put them on my side of the street. Being a good neighbor, I said he could, and he has ever since he bought the property.
Once again, you did not have all the information when you stated falsely that I carried the leaves there. In the future make sure you have all the facts, which so few of the container advocates have. So you owe me an apology and correction for spreading false information on this site and to you your fellow supporters.