STORYLINE Scavenging

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

City's ill-conceived utility code encourages scavenging, marginalizes Homeless.

by Natalie Anaston, published on December 1, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Storyline: Scavenging RSS Feed

1 of 2
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 2
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image

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.
 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

December 1, 2009 | 12:42 PM
At first thought, I was thinking that I could care less who was taking my recycling, as long as it was recycled.

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....
5 4
REPLY
edited on  December 1, 2009 | 1:02 PM
I agree with your observation of increasing redemption values. But scavenging only perpetuates a bad situation, I believe, and we certainly seem to have the funds and raw materials to put an end to it.

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.

3 0
REPLY
edited on  December 2, 2009 | 11:20 AM
Natalie... how do you propose to stop the homeless from "scavaging?"

Bullet proof recycle containers?

There is no reasonable or inexpensive way to stop it.
1 2
REPLY
edited on  December 14, 2009 | 8:53 PM
I never knew people dug through the trash until we moved to Saramento in 2007. We moved from Seattle, where if you see someone going through your trash, you call the police and they come running, because it is a crime. There, recycling is not an option, and your trash sorting is audited and you can get a $50 fine if not sorted. There are no bottle or can deposits, and no trash diggers.
0 0
REPLY
December 1, 2009 | 12:58 PM
Natalie, great article on a relevant topic. A couple thoughts:

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.
3 0
REPLY
edited on  December 1, 2009 | 1:24 PM
Thank you. I'm actually envisioning something larger than the shelter/free food concept, one where work (of any sort) is involved. Organization and structure and work, finding self esteem in a job well done—no matter how humble—is, in my opinion, very important. It wouldn't be a freebie in the way it's traditionally thought of.

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.
2 0
REPLY
December 1, 2009 | 2:14 PM
Jim Knapp / Natalie

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....

4 0
REPLY
December 1, 2009 | 3:32 PM
Cogmeyer, California grocery stores had enough influence by using scare "bugs and crawlies" TV ads to sink the original state proposal which followed many other state's requirements which you describe Michigan has. In fact, in those states, recycling works very well I am told by friends and relatives who live in those states.

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.
5 0
REPLY
edited on  December 2, 2009 | 11:14 AM
I agree, timely placement of recycling containers does help the situation. I fear, however, that the most savvy of scavengers, perhaps the most egregious of all violators, know route timing very, very well; even a few hours of exposure on the morning of pickup is more than sufficient.

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.
0 0
REPLY
December 2, 2009 | 12:34 AM
one of the hidden costs associated with scavenging has to do with the rest of the trash/recycling no longer being sorted - scavengers go through my containers so thoroughly that they transfer the material between the containers while searching - by the time the containers are emptied by the city, the contents of each no longer resemble what i put in them, either in terms of individual items or in terms of their condition (bags are ripped open and emptied)

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
3 0
REPLY
December 2, 2009 | 1:11 PM
I work within the redemption industry. Because of California's budget crisis, many redemption centers that the homeless took the recyclables too are closing. What most people don't know is that grocery stores that are not serviced by a redemption center, meaning they are not in a convenience zone, have to take back the empty containers. Like it or not. But because redemption centers were paid out of the unclaimed deposit fund by the state, most stores were able to avoid their responsibility. Well, that is rapidly changing. In Oregon and Michigan, as noted, which have excellent bottle bills, the stores are all required to redeem containers. Most use Reverse Vending Machines in order to deal with this responsibility. New York just past a law requiring that all stores that sell beverages, are a chain of 10 or more and are over 40,000 sq. ft. have 4 RVMs, 60,000 sq. ft. have 6 RVMs and 80,000 have 8 RVMs. That's every Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, etc. Also, other states that have return to retail have a daily limit on the amount that can be returned per person. In Oregon, only 144 containers can be returned daily.
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!!
3 0
REPLY
edited on  December 3, 2009 | 12:20 PM
I humbly agree with you, I think the issue is lots bigger than the redirection of funds citywide.

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.
1 0
REPLY
December 2, 2009 | 2:15 PM
I can admire your thought process, but unfortunately the City is constrained by several things... We are required by the State to divert more than 50% of our waste from landfills. It is because of this requirement that City Council passed an ordinance making recycling containers at all homes and businesses mandatory. Additionally, by State law, the City cannot charge a customer for a service that is not provided to a customer, so we cannot charge customers a fee or use a portion of the rates that we charge to help fund a homeless work program (as great as that would be!).

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.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  December 3, 2009 | 12:13 PM
Thanks for your input, I appreciate it very much.

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.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  December 2, 2009 | 3:04 PM
I'd also question some of the assumptions in Natalie's opinion, but I'm glad she had the guts to post. This is perfect type of story for Sac Press, addressing potentially faulty policies in our communites.

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
0 0
REPLY
December 2, 2009 | 3:57 PM
Exactly, Ali. The fact that she gave so much thought to an everyday situation that many Sacramentans might take notice of or deal with and suggested solutions for change is a great step forward.
0 0
REPLY
December 3, 2009 | 10:01 AM
I moved from Boulevard Park to South Natomas/Garden Highway, what has changed from there to here in the process is people cruise the streets in one car and two or three people go through cans on both sides of the streets. Followed be lesser industrious people pushing rickety grocery carts down the street in the middle of the night.

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.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  December 3, 2009 | 12:21 PM
To be honest, I'm questioning my own views, too; the writing process and the opinions I'm reading here are part of that process. I thank you all.

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.
0 0
REPLY
December 2, 2009 | 3:38 PM
The City doesn't make money per se on the recyclables. The money that is received fom selling recyclables is used to offset the rates customers pay for collection.
0 0
REPLY
December 5, 2009 | 6:43 PM
i am thrilled with this article ( mostly with the positive discourse that has taken place , by far one of the best i have ever read on sacpress !!!)

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 )
1 0
REPLY
December 2, 2009 | 4:08 PM
Jessica

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%).
0 0
REPLY
December 3, 2009 | 4:31 PM
The City is currently meeting the diversion requirement. Besides recyclables, we also divert yard waste from landfills by composting it.
0 0
REPLY
December 2, 2009 | 4:38 PM
Scavenging is a curse in Sacramento - the Police do nothing - there are plenty of rules against the practice but no enforcement. Read the notice on the front of any shopping trolley sometime - have you ever seen the cops confiscate a shopping trolley?

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.
4 0
REPLY
December 3, 2009 | 11:56 AM
When I moved to Midtown I was approached by multiple individuals—all of them in automobiles—asking for exclusive 'rights' to my recycling.
0 0
REPLY
December 2, 2009 | 9:55 PM
Rather than redirecting utility fees to become handouts for the homeless how about simply making it illegal (with hefty) fines for a recycler to accept material from someone other that the owner of the goods.
3 0
REPLY
edited on  December 3, 2009 | 12:06 PM
You're onto something, all right! I shall more formally propose that we consider statewide elimination of the CRV and redemption centers, and allow only municipalities and other authorized parties to receive money for retrieved recyclables.

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.
3 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background