Time to take out the trash

I always worry when bureaucrats and politicians try to "improve" services:

Although the potential for a new trash fee has surfaced in connection with the city's current financial struggles, Councilman Chris Nevitt said he wants to talk about how the fee could also create an enhanced trash pickup program that is ecologically friendly, financially sustainable and more equitable. He said the fee could pay for improvements to the city's recycling program, a citywide composting program and enhanced curbside service.

I have news for Councilman Nevitt: there is no government program that can be "ecologically friendly, financially sustainable and more equitable" for everyone.  Somebody will end up paying for it, namely Denver residents who were supposedly already paying for city trash removal services via taxes.

The punchline comes in the next paragraph:

"It's not just, 'Gosh, should we charge for trash to get more revenue?' " Nevitt said. "I'm a sustainability freak and a fiscal hawk."

If Nevitt really wants to earn his bones as a "fiscal hawk" then he could do Denver residents a favor and propose ending the city's trash pickup and recycling programs altogether, and allow them to contract with private companies on the open market for these services, as commercial customers already do.  The city would save millions of dollars a year (it currently spends more than $24 million annually on trash services, recycling and graffiti removal), and residents could enjoy a wider choice of services at competitive prices.

This would also allow residents to choose what kind of trash services to use, since not everyone wants to deal with the hassle of separating trash for recycling or composting purposes.  If you're on a mission to save Mother Gaia, be my guest, but don't make me subsidize it.

Of course this brilliantly simple idea hasn't occurred to a socialist like Nevitt, whose idea of being equitable means charging wealthier customers a higher fee.  You know, like an income tax.  Aren't we supposed to get to vote on these things?

There are many ways to eliminate budget deficits; the only method government should consider, particularly during a recession, is to cut services.  And non-emergency services like trash removal should be at the top of the list.  I can't think of anything easier to privatize, and it would result in improvements not only for the city's bottom line, but for its residents' quality of life.

Comments

[sly G 1]

personally, I feel that recycling should be mandatory for a country that creates most of the world's waste. We should pay for it. Services such as this will help to promote a ecological responsibility that our generation and those before us lack. Government should be responsible for making sure that te world we live in is in better condition than the one we inherited. It may sound like solcialist ideaology...but people do not always do the right thing...sometimes they need to be pushed in the right direction. This includes separating the trash.

LeMont

[severin]

LeMont,
If the government had the ability to make the world we live in a better place then shouldn't it follow that places with the most government should be the best places to live and work, should be the most environmentally sound, etc.? That would seem logical, but the evidence suggests otherwise and the places with the most government are the worst places in the world. One problem is that whenever the government gets involved in something (no matter how noble the intent) it is likely going to be the wrong approach and will defeat the purpose you are seeking out. For a great example of government effort to save the environment look no further than Ethanol. The government loves that stuff, and you have to be drinking it to think it is a good idea.

[Brian Martinez]

LeMont, if you believe we need government to "push" people in the right direction for recycling their trash, then don't you think it would also be useful to push them in other areas of their lives? After all, people make poor decisions regarding their health every day; they eat too much, drink too much, smoke, don't exercise, etc. It seems we'd all be better off if we had a government overseer telling us what to eat and drink and make sure we don't engage in harmful behaviors, like having unprotected sex, or not flossing, or talking on our cell phones in traffic.

You see where this is headed? Your argument is a justification for government to completely take over every aspect of our lives. Even when it's well-intentioned, this sort of intrusion inevitably leads to totalitarianism.

Not to mention that many of these proposed environmental regulations are based on junk science and unfounded assertions. For example, the U.S. is not running out of landfill space, as some recycling fanatics would have you believe. We're nowhere CLOSE to running out of landfill space. And it actually consumes MORE energy to recycle some products than it does to create new ones.

We're being lied to by the government and mainstream media every day in their efforts to push the enviro-socialist agenda, and don't think these people have our best interests at heart. All they're interested in is control: over you, me, and our entire way of life. I'm not willing to give that up quietly.