Residential garbage

No, really – trash. I’m talking about the stuff we put out at the curb as waste from our homes, not the cookie-cutter out-of-context construction going up in many neighborhoods.

Perhaps others, like me, saw the headlines saying the Portland City Council had sent Commissioner Dan Saltzman’s garbage and recycling plan back for more work, and missed the fact that the majority was unhappy only with the business component of the proposal. It wasn’t until I saw a letter in yesterday’s Oregonian that I went back to the Office of Sustainable Development web site, and found the Council passed the parts regulating residential trash and recycling. The “August Revision” Plan is here (pdf).

The letter in the O said:

“Earlier this month, the Portland City Council approved a recycling plan that appears to offer a more efficient way to recycle our garbage and yard waste, but which appears to me to restrict recycling options for many ratepayers, while increasing the cost per household by $31.20 annually. This flawed and poorly conceived plan was approved based on the results of an awkwardly designed questionnaire sent by the city to customers. The plan should be recalled and revised with creativity and yes, intelligence.

The recycling plan mandates a one-size-fits-all-needs solution to a disposal situation that could be mitigated by many individuals exercising their own creative solutions to garbage recycling, such as home composting, community garden composting, paper shredding, and by limiting their purchase and use of commercial packaging and plastics. The council ignored the burden this recycling plan imposes on small families, individuals, and the elderly who may not dispose of quantities sufficient to fill the proposed containers. Add to this inconvenience the prospect of garbage and food wastes waiting for pickup in the summer heat for 13 days, and you have a smelly, fly-filled, and now more-expensive scheme for dealing with waste disposal.”

Thank you, Mr. Magill, for paying attention and taking the time to write to the O.

My brief summary of the main points I noticed when skimming the “Portland Recycles! Plan”:
(Did we really need the cutesy exclamation point in the middle of the title?)

* Yellow bins for recycling will be replaced by roll-carts, which customers will pay for (and keep paying for) with an increase in rates. That’s Phase 1, coming soon.

* In Phase 2, the City wants us to put food scraps in the yard debris cart, which will be picked up every week instead of every other week. By that time (2009), they think most households will be recycling so much every week that trash pickup will be reduced to every other week.

So, are the points made in the letter accurate?

Well, readers who like me are still waiting for the numbers on who paid what in South Waterfront won’t be surprised to hear the “Portland Recycles! Plan” document doesn’t seem to say how much customers will pay for the new service. The Plan lists the current prices for various options of can size/pick-up frequency, but I don’t see a new rate table. It says:

“With the implementation of Phase One (recycling roll cart and yard debris cart), most Portland customers will see a rate increase of approximately $2.50/month. This cost covers the addition of the new carts. For most customers, the cost can be offset completely by switching to a smaller can size or reducing frequency of garbage service. Adjustments may have to be made in the rates to avoid penalizing current mini-can and once-a-month customers who cannot further reduce can size or frequency.”

The letter is incorrect in saying the plan mandates a one-size-fits-all solution, if I’m reading the Plan correctly. It sounds like there will still be options for less-frequent pickups at lower cost. But $2.50 extra per month is $30 per year. The letter says $31.20, which is $2.60 per month. If it’s $2.60, why round it down in the Plan summary to“approximately $2.50/month”? Tell it like it is -we are adults, we can grasp the concept of 60 cents just as well as 50 cents.

The Plan says the food-waste collection doesn’t start until “Phase 2” in 2009, when food, yard debris, and other recycling will be picked up every week, while trash collection will switch to every other week. Trash placed in plastic garbage can liners can sit a month between pickups without smelling – I know, because our household of five currently has once-a-month trash collection, with weekly recycling. In the UK, many local jurisdictions provide a year’s supply of trash can liners to customers. Supplying everyone bags to keep the trash from emitting odors, in case buying bin liners is unaffordable for some households, would be cheaper and more energy efficient than having the garbage trucks drive the entire route every week. I don’t think that’s part of the plan, though.

I question leaving food scraps sitting around even for a week before pickup for composting, even if households are supplied with containers with tightly-fitting lids. My experience with decomposing food is that it becomes very yucky, very fast. I’ve hauled enough stinky yard debris at neighborhood cleanups, too, to know that can be slimy and nasty when kept in airless bins, even without other food waste. I agree with George Magill that adding a component in the plan to encourage composting at home would have been better. Many single-family homes have enough yard space to accommodate a small composter.

It seems some of the facts of the letter the O printed are incorrect, or at least require more explanation. Given that most readers likely wouldn’t do what I just did, and check it out, I wonder why the letter was printed without footnote editorial corrections. I remain grateful to the thoughtful citizen who took the time to bring the issue to readers’ attention.