WINNERS
If landlords are required to provide trash bins for their single-family rentals as the City Safety Committee intends, the obvious winners will be trash haulers. No longer will they need to solicit business from these residences, worry about collections, nor attend to the problems of families who use these “free” bins. All this will be provided by the property owners.
Trash haulers would not have to start and stop services as renters move in and out, set up new accounts, close out old accounts, attempt to make difficult collections or write off bad debts.
Less work, more profit. And who’s next in line for gifting? - water, electric, gas utilities for their convenience and profit?
LOSERS
The losers are the landlords. Those of us who obey the laws, are good neighbors, try to get good tenants and who run a tight ship. We would be required to pay these bills and we’d take care of it.
But the slumlords, the culprits? They don’t obey the laws now and this won’t change that attitude. Nothing will change, their properties will continue to be trashed, and they will receive no effective punishment.
Landlords will have to increase rents to cover trash, and while that may sound like a simple matter, it isn’t. In the first place, not all renters require trash service; under this system they’ll pay for it anyway. Their defense will be to rent somewhere out of the city.
A higher price tag for rent - no matter what you include among services - is a higher price tag. This tag has already - or should have already - been increased because of the increased school property taxes being felt this year.
Code enforcement costs will hit city taxpayers harder when trash-bin policing begins, if it does - which I doubt. Here’s why: If enforcement is to be certain, uniform, and fair, the city will have to set up a data base, a clerk, and a foolproof way to coordinate with the haulers.
The winners would be the trash haulers. The losers would be landlords (not slumlords), renters, and taxpayers.
---------
CORRECTION: Legislation regarding trash bins will not come before City Council for consideration as early as I believed. Councilman-at-large Dave Rhodes said that the proposal is in the hands of City Law Director Doug Sassen and that it likely will go back to a Council committee again 2/22/10 before it goes to full Council the following Monday, 3/1/10. I have made corrections in the previous two essays on this subject.
---------
NEXT & LAST: GET RID OF TRASH BY ENFORCING THE LAW
Showing posts with label trash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trash. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Time for a trash confrontation
Lesa Best has done her best to get this city to use its power sanitize slumlords, their trashy tenants, and their crappy-looking, and often unhealthful properties. She has incessantly photographed and publicized this problem on the Internet and has presented her concerns to Newark City Council. She is an advocate of a cleaner, better Newark like none before her, that I know of.
Not just her interests are at stake, however. The community wants to have slumlords brought under control. Meanwhile, citizens are are paying city employees to do just that.
City employees, however, won’t do that. It’s not because the city doesn’t have the right ordinances in place, not because the city doesn’t have a good property maintenance code, not because the city doesn’t have administrators charged with enforcing these and other laws, not because the city doesn’t have a police department nor legal prosecutors, and not because it doesn’t have a mayor in charge of all this.
So why isn’t it working? Because the city has a mayor who has no grip, who has failed the city in his responsibility to enforce the city’s ordinances; who has not challenged slumlords with the enforcement tools he has. It’s that simple.
Not all of us who rent dwellings to tenants are slumlords. Some of us take care of our houses and our tenants. Some of us have as much pride in our rental properties’ appearance and safety and sanitation as we have for our own homes.
Lesa, after having embarrassed the city administration on its failure to confront slumlords hundreds of times in words and pictures, has convinced members of City Council’s Safety Committee that landlords and slumlords should be required to provide trash containers to tenants.
It will do no good and it will put an unnecessary and intrusive burden on landlords. If the mayor and his administration won’t enforce the Code and get their hands dirty handling slumlords, is the addition of this ill-conceived requirement is going to change that?
No, it won’t. What will change that is for the community to confront the mayor and his administrators and insist that the laws be enforced.
NEXT: NEWARK’S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND WHY IT DOESN’T WORK
Not just her interests are at stake, however. The community wants to have slumlords brought under control. Meanwhile, citizens are are paying city employees to do just that.
City employees, however, won’t do that. It’s not because the city doesn’t have the right ordinances in place, not because the city doesn’t have a good property maintenance code, not because the city doesn’t have administrators charged with enforcing these and other laws, not because the city doesn’t have a police department nor legal prosecutors, and not because it doesn’t have a mayor in charge of all this.
So why isn’t it working? Because the city has a mayor who has no grip, who has failed the city in his responsibility to enforce the city’s ordinances; who has not challenged slumlords with the enforcement tools he has. It’s that simple.
Not all of us who rent dwellings to tenants are slumlords. Some of us take care of our houses and our tenants. Some of us have as much pride in our rental properties’ appearance and safety and sanitation as we have for our own homes.
Lesa, after having embarrassed the city administration on its failure to confront slumlords hundreds of times in words and pictures, has convinced members of City Council’s Safety Committee that landlords and slumlords should be required to provide trash containers to tenants.
It will do no good and it will put an unnecessary and intrusive burden on landlords. If the mayor and his administration won’t enforce the Code and get their hands dirty handling slumlords, is the addition of this ill-conceived requirement is going to change that?
No, it won’t. What will change that is for the community to confront the mayor and his administrators and insist that the laws be enforced.
NEXT: NEWARK’S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND WHY IT DOESN’T WORK
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
More Magic Nanny trash
Mayor Bob Diebold would like us to believe he can create public wealth at no charge to citizens. Just give him whatever he asks in the category of individual rights and he’ll take care of us. Behold: Newark Ohio’s very own Magic Nanny.
It is not surprising therefore that he has again presented for approval one of his pet projects: a monopolized trash-hauling system licensed by the city. Each time in the past citizens have overwhelmingly opposed this idea. But, like a teenager growing pimples, Diebold keeps it always just under the surface or on top and neither rational thought nor explanation works as defense.
Diebold’s determination to limit free enterprise among trash haulers has been now framed as “win-win” in the 1/11/10 Advocate report. This is because, Diebold says, “The city could charge an administration fee to manage the trash contract and fund the property maintenance department, and residents still would save money.”
Here’s what I wrote about citizen reaction on 5/1/08:
In spite of the wonderfulness of this proposal as presented by the Advocate, lots of on-line readers thought otherwise. Such reaction should be enough to end any discussion, even if were only the comment by "paul" who said, in part, "Without exception when competition is removed or governmentally controlled, price fixing, gouging and general rate abuse is imminent." If you don't think he's right, just consider cable TV and how its evolved under its city contracts.
Nothing has changed since then, but the Advocate reporter bought it, since no balance was offered. Apparently the Advocate reporter does not know the history of Magic Nanny Diebold’s promises for great things to come of his other “money-making” schemes for which citizens pay dearly.
Take, for one, “billing of insurance companies” for rides to the hospital in city trucks manned by city employees, a shell game he pushed time and time again until it became reality while he was still a councilman. This won’t cost citizens anything, only insurance companies, he said in his sales pitch. This turned out to be a multi-million-dollar scam which is costing - and will cost - citizens dearly forevermore, most likely. Read the shake-out of it here: Riding to the hospital with your city employees: Bend over taxpayer ...
Consider another of Magic Nanny Diebold’s miracle solutions for the ever-short-on-cash Newark Ohio. This was the rise in cost of driving by $10 per vehicle per year, tacked to the purchase of auto licenses. This was sold as the absolute only way we could ever maintain our streets decently. I suspect that most of this (by switching lanes in the underground labyrinths of the treasury) went to our employees because there is no noticeable improvement in street repair or maintenance and much whining about having no money for much of anything and least of all those projects important to Newark taxpayers.
So now this same mayor - whose term can’t be over soon enough - would have us believe that the city would be richer - and the prices to residents would be lower - if the Magic Nanny were permitted to select and license for all citizens a single trash hauler.
If Diebold’s plan gets implemented, here’s a prediction. I predict that citizens will have absolutely no meaningful input regarding which of the haulers is given a Newark monopoly. I predict that the contract will be awarded to the company - Big O Refuse - that is managed locally by the son of Newark Councilman Don Ellington. Not that there’s anything wrong with that company, and I’m not accusing anybody of anything illegal but, if I were betting, that would be my pick.
For a review of the performance of Bob Diebold, and how the Magic Nanny rides roughshod over citizens go to this link Then go to it again before you vote for a mayor.
It is not surprising therefore that he has again presented for approval one of his pet projects: a monopolized trash-hauling system licensed by the city. Each time in the past citizens have overwhelmingly opposed this idea. But, like a teenager growing pimples, Diebold keeps it always just under the surface or on top and neither rational thought nor explanation works as defense.
Diebold’s determination to limit free enterprise among trash haulers has been now framed as “win-win” in the 1/11/10 Advocate report. This is because, Diebold says, “The city could charge an administration fee to manage the trash contract and fund the property maintenance department, and residents still would save money.”
Here’s what I wrote about citizen reaction on 5/1/08:
In spite of the wonderfulness of this proposal as presented by the Advocate, lots of on-line readers thought otherwise. Such reaction should be enough to end any discussion, even if were only the comment by "paul" who said, in part, "Without exception when competition is removed or governmentally controlled, price fixing, gouging and general rate abuse is imminent." If you don't think he's right, just consider cable TV and how its evolved under its city contracts.
Nothing has changed since then, but the Advocate reporter bought it, since no balance was offered. Apparently the Advocate reporter does not know the history of Magic Nanny Diebold’s promises for great things to come of his other “money-making” schemes for which citizens pay dearly.
Take, for one, “billing of insurance companies” for rides to the hospital in city trucks manned by city employees, a shell game he pushed time and time again until it became reality while he was still a councilman. This won’t cost citizens anything, only insurance companies, he said in his sales pitch. This turned out to be a multi-million-dollar scam which is costing - and will cost - citizens dearly forevermore, most likely. Read the shake-out of it here: Riding to the hospital with your city employees: Bend over taxpayer ...
Consider another of Magic Nanny Diebold’s miracle solutions for the ever-short-on-cash Newark Ohio. This was the rise in cost of driving by $10 per vehicle per year, tacked to the purchase of auto licenses. This was sold as the absolute only way we could ever maintain our streets decently. I suspect that most of this (by switching lanes in the underground labyrinths of the treasury) went to our employees because there is no noticeable improvement in street repair or maintenance and much whining about having no money for much of anything and least of all those projects important to Newark taxpayers.
So now this same mayor - whose term can’t be over soon enough - would have us believe that the city would be richer - and the prices to residents would be lower - if the Magic Nanny were permitted to select and license for all citizens a single trash hauler.
If Diebold’s plan gets implemented, here’s a prediction. I predict that citizens will have absolutely no meaningful input regarding which of the haulers is given a Newark monopoly. I predict that the contract will be awarded to the company - Big O Refuse - that is managed locally by the son of Newark Councilman Don Ellington. Not that there’s anything wrong with that company, and I’m not accusing anybody of anything illegal but, if I were betting, that would be my pick.
For a review of the performance of Bob Diebold, and how the Magic Nanny rides roughshod over citizens go to this link Then go to it again before you vote for a mayor.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Trash solution: Use laws on the books
Yesterday, the Advocate - again - editorialized in favor of a city contract with a trash hauler to solve the piggish behavior of certain residents who soil their yards and sidewalks with trash.
The last time the Advocate did that, I suggested that newspapers be licensed, since Gannett is so willing to take away freedom of individuals and give it to the Magic Nanny. Such a license might require Gannett to move its printing operation out of Newark as a means to save wear on the city’s streets. Read it here.
Trash-talking is an on-going pastime in Newark Ohio and its disciples are preparing another dopey offensive on free enterprise. Trash is a favorite avenue by which local meddlers attempt more regulation on private affairs, as I said in the most recent essay, 3/9/09, at this link.
Meanwhile, citizens have consistently sent the message to council- and busybodies like the “Trash Talkers” - and the Advocate - to butt out of the trash collection business.
The solution for the pigs among us is simple. The city must enforce its own laws against fouling yards, sidewalks, and streets. The laws are on the books.
Unless something’s changed since I checked it in March, 2009, all the city needs is to enforce 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1). They prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.
Talk all the intrusive and ill-conceived and bothersome “solutions” to trash you can think of, but to clean it up, the administration, the police, and the courts need only to enforce current laws.
The last time the Advocate did that, I suggested that newspapers be licensed, since Gannett is so willing to take away freedom of individuals and give it to the Magic Nanny. Such a license might require Gannett to move its printing operation out of Newark as a means to save wear on the city’s streets. Read it here.
Trash-talking is an on-going pastime in Newark Ohio and its disciples are preparing another dopey offensive on free enterprise. Trash is a favorite avenue by which local meddlers attempt more regulation on private affairs, as I said in the most recent essay, 3/9/09, at this link.
Meanwhile, citizens have consistently sent the message to council- and busybodies like the “Trash Talkers” - and the Advocate - to butt out of the trash collection business.
The solution for the pigs among us is simple. The city must enforce its own laws against fouling yards, sidewalks, and streets. The laws are on the books.
Unless something’s changed since I checked it in March, 2009, all the city needs is to enforce 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1). They prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.
Talk all the intrusive and ill-conceived and bothersome “solutions” to trash you can think of, but to clean it up, the administration, the police, and the courts need only to enforce current laws.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Scoping Today’s News - Horn’s Hill, Recycler, Park National - 6/1/09
HORN’S HILL DEVELOPMENT
Today’s Columbus Dispatch brings us up to date on the development of Horn’s Hill by sports enthusiasts. The new mountain-bike trails, a disc golf course, and two tracks for remote-controlled car racing is drawing lots of visitor-participants, some from other states for downhill racing.
BARCH WANTS NEW SITE PLAN FOR RECYCLER
Saturday’s Columbus Dispatch has a comprehensive report about the status of the fight between Freedom Recycling and its neighbors on the north end of Newark.
PARK NATIONAL TO SELL STOCK
WCLT’s web site carries a confusing report on the plan by Park National Bank to sell common stock and how this may relate to the repayment of TARP funds - or not. If you try to read this, you should first go find out for what purposes TARP funds are supposed to be used. Here’s a link for that.
Today’s Columbus Dispatch brings us up to date on the development of Horn’s Hill by sports enthusiasts. The new mountain-bike trails, a disc golf course, and two tracks for remote-controlled car racing is drawing lots of visitor-participants, some from other states for downhill racing.
BARCH WANTS NEW SITE PLAN FOR RECYCLER
Saturday’s Columbus Dispatch has a comprehensive report about the status of the fight between Freedom Recycling and its neighbors on the north end of Newark.
PARK NATIONAL TO SELL STOCK
WCLT’s web site carries a confusing report on the plan by Park National Bank to sell common stock and how this may relate to the repayment of TARP funds - or not. If you try to read this, you should first go find out for what purposes TARP funds are supposed to be used. Here’s a link for that.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Solve Newark’s trash problems by enforcing the law
If hot air from politicians could solve problems, Newark’s trash would have long ago melted and our city would by now be pristine.
It matters not, however, that politicians have blown hot air at this problem since the days of Mayor Bain. So far, nothing has changed; trash lines the streets of Newark in many, if not most, parts of town; residents freely use sidewalks and curbsides to store unconfined junk and litter without regard for how it looks and smells, or whether it emits germs and vermin, nor into which neighbors’ yards it blows.
And hot air is all we get from these helpless public employees whose solution is not the least hidden in city ordinances. As I wrote 8/29/08 There is a solution for curbside trash. It’s called police work - enforcement of city laws by the mayor, the safety director and the policemen.
The most recent report by the Advocate that I’ve seen was 2/8/09 Property owners could feel trash burden in which this group called “trash talkers,” (defined in the article as “a group of concerned citizens along with local trash companies”) assigned by the “city administration” to make recommendations to council. Surprise! These folks are STILL hashing the idea of limiting the way and the areas specific trash haulers could do business. That, plus burdening landlords with trash bills for renters, which would be another brilliant intrusion on the conduct of private business. That’s only about an inch away from requiring every homeowner to buy trash services whether they need it or not. Trash is a favorite avenue by which Newark yearns to intrude on private affairs.
This is just more of a rich tradition of foolish, bureaucratic ideas to solve a problem which has years ago been solved. I have written about them 5/1/08 Trash is fertilizer for Newark government and 5/7/08 Let’s license newspapers and 12/5/08 Are trash dumping centers feasible?
Here it is, 3/9/09, and these people still haven’t figured it out. It goes right back to my solution of more than a year ago which is the solution put in place long ago by Newark City Council. That solution is evident and obvious where it’s dealt with in Newark City Ordinances.
Look at 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1) What you will find is that Newark’s laws already prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.
And what that means, clearly and simply: laws are not being enforced by the people we pay to enforce them.
This city needs a mayor and a safety director who will order officers to get out of their cruisers and solve the trash proliferation by enforcing city ordinances. How simple can it get?
It matters not, however, that politicians have blown hot air at this problem since the days of Mayor Bain. So far, nothing has changed; trash lines the streets of Newark in many, if not most, parts of town; residents freely use sidewalks and curbsides to store unconfined junk and litter without regard for how it looks and smells, or whether it emits germs and vermin, nor into which neighbors’ yards it blows.
And hot air is all we get from these helpless public employees whose solution is not the least hidden in city ordinances. As I wrote 8/29/08 There is a solution for curbside trash. It’s called police work - enforcement of city laws by the mayor, the safety director and the policemen.
The most recent report by the Advocate that I’ve seen was 2/8/09 Property owners could feel trash burden in which this group called “trash talkers,” (defined in the article as “a group of concerned citizens along with local trash companies”) assigned by the “city administration” to make recommendations to council. Surprise! These folks are STILL hashing the idea of limiting the way and the areas specific trash haulers could do business. That, plus burdening landlords with trash bills for renters, which would be another brilliant intrusion on the conduct of private business. That’s only about an inch away from requiring every homeowner to buy trash services whether they need it or not. Trash is a favorite avenue by which Newark yearns to intrude on private affairs.
This is just more of a rich tradition of foolish, bureaucratic ideas to solve a problem which has years ago been solved. I have written about them 5/1/08 Trash is fertilizer for Newark government and 5/7/08 Let’s license newspapers and 12/5/08 Are trash dumping centers feasible?
Here it is, 3/9/09, and these people still haven’t figured it out. It goes right back to my solution of more than a year ago which is the solution put in place long ago by Newark City Council. That solution is evident and obvious where it’s dealt with in Newark City Ordinances.
Look at 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1) What you will find is that Newark’s laws already prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.
And what that means, clearly and simply: laws are not being enforced by the people we pay to enforce them.
This city needs a mayor and a safety director who will order officers to get out of their cruisers and solve the trash proliferation by enforcing city ordinances. How simple can it get?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Are trash dumping centers feasible?
Among the shabbiest sights in Newark are trash bins, often overflowing with garbage, plastic, and stink. They represent a costly and clumsy method of trash disposal. It may be time to return to trash-transfer stations to serve individual citizens and small haulers.
The lengths to which citizens of other nations are willing to go to clean up after themselves is revealed in this report by the Washington Post. If the Japanese can work at it this hard, Newark residents can do better than pay their trash-collection bill and deposit their crap on the front sidewalk.
In the past I've preached against any city ordinance that limits private companies from practicing free-enterprise trash hauling. I've recently realized, however, that what we have in Newark are a few big companies in ever-bigger trucks, ones that can afford - by virtue of large loads of trash - the long trip to a faraway landfill. Little guys in little trucks are no longer in competition and prices reflect that.
Instead of this, why couldn't we set up within the metro area a few city and/or regional dumping centers for residents? I think most folks would haul their own stuff to save money if such centers were conveniently located, kept clean, safe, fast, and were reasonably priced. Incentive prices for sorting could be used to encourage recycling and composting.
Citizens could still hire people to haul their trash, but not from the front sidewalk. Haulers would have to use small trucks because they would would pick up from alleys, driveways, or garages - as they did in the old days.
Outlawing trash bins from city sidewalks would provide self-employment opportunities, lower heavy truck traffic on city streets, while beautifying and sanitizing residential neighborhoods.
The answer for whether this is a dumb idea or not is found at the bottom line. Could it be done with little or no more expense to residents than we're paying now? That's a question for the experts.
The lengths to which citizens of other nations are willing to go to clean up after themselves is revealed in this report by the Washington Post. If the Japanese can work at it this hard, Newark residents can do better than pay their trash-collection bill and deposit their crap on the front sidewalk.
In the past I've preached against any city ordinance that limits private companies from practicing free-enterprise trash hauling. I've recently realized, however, that what we have in Newark are a few big companies in ever-bigger trucks, ones that can afford - by virtue of large loads of trash - the long trip to a faraway landfill. Little guys in little trucks are no longer in competition and prices reflect that.
Instead of this, why couldn't we set up within the metro area a few city and/or regional dumping centers for residents? I think most folks would haul their own stuff to save money if such centers were conveniently located, kept clean, safe, fast, and were reasonably priced. Incentive prices for sorting could be used to encourage recycling and composting.
Citizens could still hire people to haul their trash, but not from the front sidewalk. Haulers would have to use small trucks because they would would pick up from alleys, driveways, or garages - as they did in the old days.
Outlawing trash bins from city sidewalks would provide self-employment opportunities, lower heavy truck traffic on city streets, while beautifying and sanitizing residential neighborhoods.
The answer for whether this is a dumb idea or not is found at the bottom line. Could it be done with little or no more expense to residents than we're paying now? That's a question for the experts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
