Starbucks 'Trenta': How The New Size Compares To Your Stomach
Famous Death Row Last Meals
The City of Oakland, located just across the bay from San Francisco, has passed legislation to place a tax
on the businesses that it believes create the most trash. The tax will not be determined on waste created in the
ordinary operation of a store or restaurant, but on the amount of litter that is generated by the sale of goods. The
city's legislators agree that fast food restaurants and other stores that sell convenience foods need to be held
socially responsible for the litter that is caused by patrons failing to properly dispose of the wrappers and other
food packaging. The tax would pay for crews to remove litter, mainly from areas around schools and bus stops. A council
woman said, "You can see the paths students take to lunch by the trail of litter."
The fee is opposed by the entire Oakland Chamber of Commerce, as well as many businesses and community organizations. Packaging, say store managers and owners, is necessary to sell goods - particularly food items - in a safe and sanitary manner. Stores cannot police what customers do with their purchases once they leave the premises.
Frankly, students seem to be the biggest problem in the city, in no small part because the City of Oakland considers schools to be problem areas. The "trail of litter" leads to students and they are the ones putting it there. A more diplomatic move on the part of the council would have been to use the tax money to pay for additional trash bins and educational material in the schools and only made the tax a temporary or one-time fee. Cleaning up after litterbugs with cleaning crews only teaches them that whether they litter or not is irrelevant. Teach them to clean up their own mess, instead.
Jane Seymour's Modest And Modern Style
Broke Stars: 11 Celebrities Who Went Bankrupt
LOOK: Amazing Underwater Photos Of Dogs
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought
PHOTOS: How You Can Get The 'Miracle' Dress
Man Says Starbucks Discriminated Against Him Because He Has Half An Arm
Chris Brown, Grammys 2012: Embattled Singer Slams Critics
Janice Dickinson's Outrageous Style
Ford's clever Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ad features phantom model
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
Photos Of Dead Lacrosse Player's Injured Body Shown To Jury
Trace Adkins Reunites With College Crush, 30 Years Later
Van Gogh's Starry Night modded into beautiful interactive light and sound show (video)
PHOTOS: Model Falls At Dennis Basso Show
'Hooker Teacher' Forced To Resign, Now Can't Find Work
Lauren Scruggs Goes On Ski Vacation
WATCH AND LAUGH: Cops In 2-Hour Standoff With Empty Car
New Clues, Details Emerge In Powell Case
Woman's Dead Fiance Is Behind Her Disappearance: Cops
Stephen Wiltshire Draws Cities From Memory
PHOTOS: Remembering The People's Ballerina
We Meant There WERE Nukes In The Fire
2-12-2006 @12:42PM Mike said... In my neighbourhood, a large proportion of the mess is generated by people scavenging through trash cans and scattering whatever's found therein onto the sidewalk/street/etc. Is the author advocating further penalizing the homeless? Taxing the homeless? Educating the homeless on proper sanitation techniques?
The proposed solution is far from perfect, but there's an element of pragmatism to it. The targeted establishments are national chains (KFC, McD's, etc) and depending on the size of the business (lest there be fear of overburdening small franchisees), the fees, IIRC, are as low as $.69/day. *IF* the funds are applied directly to supplementing cleaning crews around the city, then the money will be well-spent.
For the business' part, biodegradable wrappers and utensils (go cornstarch!) are a responsible alternative to the paper and plastics they're currently using.
Reply
2-12-2006 @1:27PM Marc said... I hate litter, but am not convinced that a targeted tax on business is a good approach. A city-wide or county-wide tax that would fund anti-litter squads (which includes enforcement) would be a fairer approach. A new tax on adults might encourage them to educate their children on the evils of littering, whereas a tax of a few cents on a slop-burger and cup of high fructose corn syrup won't have much impact on a 16 year old's behavior.
I asked this before, but will try again: does anyone know of studies on the psychology and sociology of littering?
Reply
2-12-2006 @7:51PM jmchez said... Perhaps Mike would like to be taxed or fined every time a homeless individual rumagges through his trash and litters the remains. I know that most people would find that to be terribly unfair and would start being very resentful towards the homeless, being as sympathy stops once the downtrodden downtrod on you.
This reminds me of a "field trip" that New York state legislators once took to Kodak and GE facilities in Upsate. For years they had been attacking those companies as polluters and trying to impose excessibly onerous penalties on them. After the field trip, the most ridiculous, yet sadly not surprising, statement was one that essentially said "Geez! We didn't know that these companies hired so many people".
It is my experience that big city councils are the worst legislative bodies in the country based on their ignorance of business practices and just plain common sense. They might even be worse than NY State legislators.
Reply
2-13-2006 @2:08AM Mike said... I wonder if jmchez might propose a solution to the problem of excessive litter on the streets of Oakland. I acknowleged in my initial comment that the approach listed in the article is certainly not ideal, but does contain an element of pragmatism: alleviating, in part, the symptom, if not addressing the root of the problem.
Reply