Tag Cloud
Collection day morning in Midtown. Heralded once again by the clatter of shopping cart wheels, arguments over territory rights, and cans and bottles strewn about makeshift recycling centers upon the front yards of residents.
The Police are powerless. Worse, the City of Sacramento’s utility code unwittingly encourages marginalization of the Homeless. By providing residents no choice in how their recyclables are reclaimed, and no alternative to a monthly fee for recycling pick up, Sacramento residents automatically subsidize the burgeoning activity of scavenging. Leaving many recycling bins nearly empty well before pick-up time, and many residents with increasing—and misplaced—animosity toward the Homeless.
It’s time to re-write this city’s utility code and the processes that it supports. And to redirect the average $1.00/week fee that residents are now charged toward social services assisting the Homeless.
Only in this way can we halt the creation of a quasi-legal business that divides the Homeless against themselves, divides residents against those who have none, and encourages violation of the very laws of our city, including those which subsidize scavenging in the first place.
True, a large percentage of the Homeless population falls through the ever-widening tears in our tattered social service safety net. But others fashion tools and contrivances, and keep regular and rigorous schedules, in pursuit of something very different than subsistence: profit outside the system. Most residents have seen ample evidence of this while going about their daily business, while others have actually been approached directly and ‘encouraged’ to form an exclusive scavenging contract between themselves and a scavenger.
Utility code reform is a chance for us to assist everyone in need. Regardless of their gender, age, and—especially—their physical ability to scavenge.
The environment suffers, too, from the current situation. In an effort to reduce scavenging and trespassing, some Midtown residents have ceased recycling entirely and now bury their recyclables in the trash. Others redeem recyclables on their own, but are forced to pay for services unused. Still others, acting primarily on fear of trespassers, hide the bins far from the street, covered in blankets or tucked into dark corners, unused.
Let us now fulfill our responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves, and do so in a manner that does not directly undermine the laws that we all, the Homeless included, rely upon for our survival.
Let us encourage the City of Sacramento to re-write the utility codes that currently mandate fees for recycling collection, regardless of use, and let us direct those revenues toward immediate support of Homeless social services.
We must now end the perpetuation of ill-conceived and outdated processes that divide—with ever-increasing acrimony—the people against themselves.
Then...I thought...I would PREFER that the homeless get the money than the City! The City CHARGES us to take our recycling which they then sell to make revenue. The City has enough revenue, they don't need one more additional dime from the tax payers...they need to live within their means just like citizens do.
If anything, we should support the State raising the redemption values to .10 cents and above, like some other states have.... it dramatically increases recycling...some states have as much as a 97% recycle rate on these containers.
Oh yeah, and if the homeless don't have a legal way of making some money by recycling...more of them will turn to criminal activity to survive....
My idea simply shifts that little fee tacked onto the utility bill directly towards programs that, I hope, could reduce the number of people who need to scavenge. If this is really about food and not profit, then it should be pretty effective, right? If it's not, then we've another problem entirely.
Being homeless doesn't do anyone any good, including the person who is homeless. That's what worries me most.
It's better for everyone if we address the problem directly, instead of just ignoring it, padding the General Fund's coffers, and creating a recycling free-for-all on the streets. It's no good when programs piss off people and turn them against one another. And right now scavenging is a pretty hot issue that doesn't have to be.
Bullet proof recycle containers?
There is no reasonable or inexpensive way to stop it.
Its not clear that all of the homeless scavengers are homeless. I know for a fact that one guy in particular that very efficiently visits bins all over the city (including mine) is not homeless. This treats scavenging as a full time job, and probably makes enough for a modest living, although with a lot more competition in the last year or two.
Secondly, I think its tenuous at best to make a connection between additional money directed to homeless social services and a decrease in scavenging. This is partly because of reason 1 above (not all scavengers are homeless) and also because there will always be subset of the population that sees recyclables for what they are... free money. Additionally, increases social services for the homeless will draw more homeless to the Sacramento area.
So its difficult to to see how the "scavenger pool" would decrease from your proposal.
I know, I'm terribly old fashioned, but this I believe.
The other part of my proposal, not yet elaborated upon, has to do with a re-think of the recycling process itself. This is turning out to be a valuable resource, far more than anyone anticipated, perhaps collection processes have not yet caught up with this reality?
I'd like to see us honestly try to separate those who truly need and want aid (through attractive and robust social service programs with the promise of a future geared to their needs and abilities) from those seeking an alternative way of living. If we can accomplish that, it might be possible address each issue more successfully.
I used to live near the Michigan UP / Wisconsin border. Both sides of the border is rural with a fair amount of rednecks who toss beer cans along the highway. But its noticeably cleaner on the Michigan side, where Michigan has had a 10 cent deposit as long as I can remember (certainly back to the early 90's).
Michigan also required that supermarkets etc accept Michigan marked bottles and cans for a deposit refund. It had its positives and negatives. It was convenient, you could return a case of empties and get $2.40 off you next case of beer. But it was clearly burdensome for the stores, who would have to staff up to count, move and store empties during peak beverage purchasing hours on Friday & Sat night, in addtion to operating their business. But bottomline, few bottles in Michigan end up in the garbage can or the recycling bin....
When I visited friends in one such state, large three or more machines standing in a covered outside-store appendage, accepted the whole cans, glass and plastic bottles. The recycler inserted the whole (not crushed) can, glass or plastic bottle and the machine calculated the credit which people then presented to the cashier who rang up the credit on the purchase. Shoppers placed carton intact empty six-packs (of which there were few) into shopping carts and cashiers credited the customer for those. The customer then wheeled out their shopping basket (along with purchased groceries) dumping the six-packs into a large opening in a covered bin. I'm sure different states have different systems to do it.
One thing that would help in the central city if bins were not put out until people went to work in the mornings. Pickup on many streets is from 8 to 12 on posted days. Putting them out the night before as the city instructs in its citywide flyers only invites graffiti, vandalism and recycling theft.
The Police have recommended to me that neighborhoods band together, block by block, and agree to cease placement of recycling bins for a week or two at a time. Subsequently, the schedule should be randomized and adhered to by everyone involved.
This, however, does not address the fee we'll all continue to see on our bills—whether the containers are emptied by the city or not—which again seems to point towards utility code reform.
and this is despite the fact that the regulars in my neighborhood know that i don't put cans and bottles into the containers at all - i hang entire bags of cans and bottles from my fence and they disappear within minutes
Natalie, Your heart is definitely in the right place, but your idea of using recycling fees toward helping the homeless won't work. The fees are needed for the extra steps needed to process recyclables. Also recyclable materials do not have the value that they did before the recession/depression hit. In California, recycling companies are loosing money; hence you will see more and more redemption centers closing. Learn more by visiting www.bottlebill.org. Keep up the good work and the good thoughts Natalie. We need people like you who are constantly looking for solutions and envisioning a better world!!
I sincerely hope this assertion doesn't offend you, but I believe—more and more strongly as the discussion contiunes—that it is now time to remove *entirely* the value we're adding to recyclables by eliminating the CRV and [ahem] shuttering all redemption centers statewide. My proposal will allow only municipalities and other authorized parties to participate in the redemption process.
To help combat the scavenging issue, last year, the City Council passed stricter scavenging rules and it is illegal for scavengers to pull waste out of any bin. If you see scavenging progress, you should call the City of Sacramento Police at 264-5471.
Residents and businesses can recycle bottles and cans at a redemption location, if they so chose. They are not required to put them in the bin. There are many other items in the home or business that are recyclable and cannot be taken to a redemption location, thus making it unappealing to scavengers to be in the bin. These include paper and certain types of glass or plastic and metal items with no CRV. You and your neighbors might want to consider this as an option to optimize your recycling while limiting the scavenging.
I do agree that we have recycling options, as you've pointed out. However, the problem is that we're charged a flat fee for recycling services by the City, regardless.
Also, the Police admit freely that, outside of writing a small nuisance citation, there's not much they can do. What's odd with recycling is, it's no longer personal property since it's been intentionally left out on the street, and isn't really the City's property until it's in the truck. While it's waiting to be picked up, it's pretty much fair game, legally (except for those little citations). Even if it's seen being taken from a Toter and placed into a vehicle, the Police still have no additional legal tools to work with (possession of stolen property, etc.)
And trespassers—a thankfully more rare permutation of scavenger—are usually gone by the time the Police arrive. Believe me, I have more personal experience with this than I care to admit.
Stay tuned, I'll soon be following up with another article, exploring the relationship between the creation of the CRV, redemption centers, and the rise of the scavenging profession.
I believe the ultimate solution is to eliminate any sort of redemption value and all redemption centers, statewide, and allow only municipalities and other authorized parties to receive money for retrieved recyclables.
First off, though, it's time to stop treating recycling like trash, which is what we do now. But locking Toters and other theft-deterrent solutions are, clearly, not the answer.
As a Boulevard Park resident, like Natalie, I've wondered about the impact of scavenging too.
I'd like to see how this trend extends out of midtown/downtown where homeless and other CRV collectors may not be as prevalent. Is the city making any money off CRV in these parts of town... or perhaps those residents are more likely to take their own bottle/cans in for money?
I
While I do appreciate the fact that I have never had such clean garbage bins as I did in Midtown, here in S. Natomas the noise and disruption between 3-5 AM every week is quite unappreciated. What to do? I don't really know, free enterprise is free enterprise and the blue bins offer it on a silver platter.
At the risk of repeating myself, it's now time to eliminate the CRV and redemption centers which cater to individuals. This, I believe, is the ultimate solution to the problem. The RV, as I see it, was added quite some time ago to encourage recycling. We've come a long way since then.
It does bother me, though, that I'm billed a recycling fee even if I don't put the Toter out weekly and instead redeem the cans myself. That doesn't seem right somehow, and it's what prompted me to write in the first place. But I'm realizing that the problem is much bigger than this one issue.
my two cents .. i also agree with eliminating the crv in the inner city or totally.. this was my belief from the start ( we as humans seem to be good recyclers now after years of training) then as i read the comments i saw natalies conclusion and was happy to see some concurrence.. Jessica could you elaborate on how the money recieved from selling recyclables offsets rates.. is the money recieved based on crv or raw materials???
thanks , (still in need of sp.chk) Shawn Eldredge ( jessica i will probably be asking you more ??'s concerning this subject as i despise the scavenging )
Do you know how the city is doing in meeting the 50% rule for diverting waste from landfills?
I am wondering if the scavenging is actually jeopardizing the city's ability to meet the 50% requirement.
Seems like it could be an issue since on trash day many of us put out a recycle bin that has more in it then the garbage... But by the time city picks it up, the trash is heavier then the recycling bin (<50%).
I often watch the guys going through the recycling bins along K St while the Police (in cars and on bikes) watch - if they don't enforce the rules there, they sure as hell won't in Curtis Park.
Having grubby people snooping around my house while I'm asleep or out to work is an obvious threat to security - people who encourage this behavior by giving the ok to 'their' friendly hobo should have more sense.
Letting people take your cans and bottles is taking the cream of the top of the whole recycling program. You dont think the City gets much money for your old flyers and copies of the sac bee do you? The cost of providing recycling collection is offset by the money they get from the materials - you do the math!
People, you should also think about Identity theft - who says the scavengers are just after your cans? what about all those credit card offers, statements, utility bills?
And I entirely agree about equating homeless with scavengers - We had a lady drive around at breakneck speed in her grey Datsun, coming onto all my neighbors property to get her swag.
Increased enforcement, in any manner, I don't think is the answer; even the Police admit as much. Recycling falls into a gray legal area: since it's left out on the street, it's no longer the property of the person who leaves it out, but it's not completely the City's property, either, until it's placed into the truck.
The reality of it is, the Police will now write small citations for scavenging offenses, but even if they witness cans being taken from a Toter and placed in a vehicle, they still can not treat it as stolen property. And establishing ownership of recycling on a can-by-can basis seems virtually impossible, and terribly cumbersome at best.