Ha, and I thought the MBA stood for Midtown Bar Association. Cheers! Second Saturday might benefit by becoming a weekly event, as has been suggested elsewhere, and in any case it needs to begin and end earlier in the day. Our little neighborhood is simply not capable of accommodating 15-20,000 people, at least not without significant changes to the event and how it's managed. The Mayor says that we, "can't afford to end Second Saturday" but I wonder if the City is really willing to step up and take resposibility for what's happening. Gosh, 20 Police Officers seems woefully inadequate, doesn't it? Why the City continues to neglect this signature Sacramento event is beyond me. It could be a real treasure. But without the care it deserves, a violent sort of anarchy seems to be a foregone conclusion. It's like other things in our fair city: 90% done and 90% to go.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When I moved to Midtown I was approached by multiple individuals—all of them in automobiles—asking for exclusive 'rights' to my recycling.

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.

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.

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.

Scavenging is usually a business, not a "need." And if Dems are so interested in helping—not marginalizing the Homeless by forcing them to scavenge—perhaps we need to rethink the mandatory fee added to residents' utility bills, since by the time the truck comes around the bin is already empty. It's time to redirect the $1.00 weekly fee assessed to residents directly to Homeless services, and end a process that encourages lawlessness and marginalization.