This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of. It's truly asinine.

Though the need for all of us to recycle and cut down waste due to the lack of landfill space around us is important, this is truly punitive and simplistic. As in the UK, where they are actively MICROCHIPPING garbage collection bins, this is an overreach by government to an excessive degree. There is nothing stopping a neighbor from filling up your bin when you aren't looking, and then you paying the fine - that's one instance of why this is problematical. Another problem is the invasion of privacy here. This is the government saying that you can or can not do these things though YOU are PAYING for a monopolistic service, and they also have the ability to determine whether you will be denied that service without giving you any recourse to any other garbage collection company - including one that might be willing to sort things for you for extra money (a smarter way to deal with the problem, of course, so it's never been looked at by the politicians - who are typically in office because they're not particularly intelligent, apparently). It's patently unappealing and if Mountain View EVER attempts to enact anything like this, I will actively work to unseat every single council member who ever presents or votes for a plan like this, and I suggest Palo Alto residents do the same if they'd like any say over their own lives. Recycling IS important, reducing waste IS important, but not when a monopolistic garbage collection company is obviously deriving benefits from being the only collection service, and the city council lines their coffers because of it. Absolutely reprehensible.

I think people made the same comments about the seatbelt laws, but in reflection, the proper use of seatbelts has been a good standard practice to have developed for the general public. Having people think different about their garbage is no different.

Garbage is not something you can throw out of your mind anymore, pun intended. It has consequences that affect us locally and globally. Putting rules into place is just one way of reminding people of this.

The garbage would have to be examined prior to being dumped into the truck. This means that some poor guy who has made some really bad career decisions would be hired to come to your house, dump out the contents of the bins, and cut open the garbage bags to check the contents. He would have to pick through your used baby or adult diapers, condoms, feminine hygiene products, etc. to look for contraband. He would then have to write warning note and stick on your door to let you know that the empty pill bottles for your erectile and your mental problems should have been recycled.

Oh No, now it's time for the hysterical 'anti-government' commentary to begin. I wonder when Fox News will arrive to do a story on "Palo Alto values", socialism, and the end of freedom in America. Recycling is easy, but lots of people don't do it because they're too lazy or they simply don't care. Go get 'em Palo Alto!

Seat belt laws can be said to save us all money in the long run because we all pay 50-odd percent on health care in this country with public money. With these kinds of measures, the problem mainly is the monopolistic practice of garbage collection. If you had competing companies, and one of them was willing to sort your garbage efficiently for an extra fee - many people would be willing to pay for that to avoid fines or total lack of garbage collection. Our landfill space IS at a premium. But fining people or refusing to perform a REQUIRED service that they're paying for, when they have no recourse to any other method of garbage collection, is onerous. The fact that these refuse companies have contracts with the local city councils only gives more credence to the contention that this is being done to line coffers and not for any "public good." If the councils were THAT concerned with "public good" they'd be looking at other less punitive and more efficient measures to reduce garbage.

And if my comments are "anti government hysteria" then by all means happily place me in that crowd - but realize that more common sense measures would actually increase recycling. Then again, it's more fun to pick at a straw man than to make any valid counter arguments. Always is, for you "big government sycophant" types, isn't it? ;)

I wonder if this can be done with a carrot rather than a stick. What if it were cheaper to dispose of compostables and recyclables than common garbage? Egregious violators would still have to be corrected, of course. But most people want to do the right thing and generally only need a little nudge.

Did anyone see the Audi commercial during the Superbowl entitled "Green Police" sung to the tune of "Dream Police"?

In that commercial a house is raided by a Swat Team after the "green" police find a battery in his trash.

I'm surprised the proposed ordinace doesn't suggest that neighbors can call the police if they suspect someone of a trash violation!

While I agree punitive measures aren't as effective as making compliance just easier to do, how much easier can it get? Currently, we have designated containers for recyclables and for garbage. I suspect the majority of people not abiding by the system in place isn't because they don't know, but rather ambivalence, which is reinforced by the lack of consequences.

The article notes that what the garbage company looks for is large volumes of recyclables in the black bins of residents AND businesses, and also that denial of service is the last line of defense, not the first line. So its a pattern of abuse. I don't see Joe Normal being a victim of a monopoly if he allows his Coke can to accidently slip in the garbage.

Really, the concept of recycling needs to happen as high in the food chain as possible. Expecting our garbage services to sort our garbage for us for a fee is just passing the buck (again, pun intended) downstream.

Of course people sorting their own things is preferable. Personally, I'd like weekly recycling pickup here in Mountain View as sometimes our big black bin becomes ridiculously stuffed with papers and cardboard (I do business at home). However, if a collection company were to do it for those who are willing to pay an extra fee, that would likely be far more environmentally friendly in the long run then people finding ways to dispose of their trash willy-nilly, as I suspect the repeat offenders are likely to do. It may also be more efficient if a company were to sort through items quickly for that fee.

Why not offer that to people? It would create jobs, one thing this country is supposedly attempting to do, and for some people the convenience would be worth it - those who work long hours coding or those with multiple jobs and little time to think of sorting and rinsing and the things that accompany recycling.

And sometimes, even if you're an experienced recycler, you have questions about what might be allowable. The glossy pages in magazines? Pizza boxes, if they're clean? Starbucks cups - even if rinsed, are they allowable? A lot of people become confused so an education campaign would be absolutely necessary and that is one thing they're promising, thank goodness.

But there are ways to achieve environmetally friendly ends without being dictatorial or top-heavy about things. As a previous poster said, most people WANT to do the right thing, and if given half a chance, they will. For those who don't, or who literally do not have time to rinse out green bean tins and soda cans (they must be rinsed), a service like the one I am proposing would be a better solution than no trash pick up at all.

I'm imagining various streets littered with trash bags in the future, or furtive placement of trash bags into other people's bins. That's what will happen if it becomes too top-heavy, I believe.

Yikes, I'm going to need a proverbial flamethrower to burn down all the strawmen you've raised in your post. :)

1. If people aren't separating out their recyclables now because they they are repeat offenders, they certainly are not going to PAY someone to do it for them.

2. It will be LESS efficient to have a garbage company separate your garbage AFTER the fact, as opposed to you using the right bins BEFOREHAND.

3. Recycle sorters as job creation????

4. This shouldn't be about offering options to people, just spelling out compliance to existing regulations. Giving people Silver, Gold, and Platinum garbage packages to allow them to be as callous with their waste as they can afford is a dangerous precedent to set, for any public policy. And I can't say its done wonders with "choice" in the cable business either.

5. Are you saying its just too hard and confusing to recycle properly?...My 9 year old knows how to do it.

6. Are you saying its just too time consuming to recycle properly? ...That's what my 9 year old says, and I STILL make her do it.

7. And if you have neighbors that you think would really try to frame you with "bad garbage", I suspect bigger problems than recycling are at play.

1. They might if they're told that it's either that or have all garbage collection taken away.

2. It will be MORE efficient if that is the prime component of that job. To use an example, if a person is adept at making 60 widgets a day, and another person is an amateur making 1 widget a week, the person doing it for a living or on a regular basis will be more efficient, faster, and better at what they're doing.

3. Why not? If it's being paid for by people, why not? Economics not even 101 - if there's a demand, it will be filled. Imagine companies paying for this service - the ability to make money off of this would actually be lucrative, AND good for the environment. Seems a fair deal to me.

4. Why shouldn't it be about offering options to people? What is so "dangerous" about the precedent? In Switzerland's health care system, you buy a basic package, which covers quite a bit, and for even more coverage you can buy more packages. The Swiss are the happiest people in the world with their health care system (a quasi public/private system) and their cancer survival rates are the best worldwide, and yet they're ALL covered. So please explain the "danger" you see in having a tiered system for garbage collection, and this horrible precedent. Garbage pick up is a paid for service, unless you're getting it for free. A service should offer packages. And as for me, I use Dish Network, so I would say that having a choice in my television viewing options has been wonderful for me. What you're suggesting sounds more frightening than offering choices to people, and VASTLY more "dangerous".

5. I am saying that certain items may be confusing to some people, and they may recycle things that ought not be recycled, and throw things out that should be recycled, and this is where education comes in handy. Do you have a problem with educating people?

6. I am saying that for people who are working 2-3 jobs, yes it's time consuming. If your 9 year old is out of the house for 14 hours a day working, please get back to me on that because I believe we have child labor laws in this country. ;)

7. I think that there are people out there who absolutely, if denied garbage pickup, would use other people's trash bins, and to think otherwise is to be ridiculously naive about human behavior.

I agree with Sheldon.

For those lazy butts out there, just LEARN to recycle people.

Tanya, thanks for your interesting remarks. They gave me some new insights on the topic.

/flamethrower on

1. They do that already. Its called a fine. If you keep offending after that, then they halt service as a last resort. So is your gripe about whether they "fine" you for non-compliance, or they "charge" you for a perk? Same difference.

2. You would be correct if that "recycle sorter" lived with you and intercepted and sorted trash at the time and place you were done with it. As it stands, it is less efficient for someone to sort through your trash to identify recyclables after its been mixed with garbage, rather than you making a mental decision before you throw it away.

Think of it this way: Its easier and cheaper for a factory to make corrections to the manufacturing line BEFORE the product is completed and shipped to customers. Toyota is learning this the hard way.

3. But companies ARE making money from recycling now. Why do you think the garbage company wants to improve separation of recyclables? They receive cash value for these items that can be reused as stock materials for new products. Hiring a "recycle sorter" doesn't improved efficiency and develop wealth, its lessens the viability of garbage as an asset because now you have labor costs.

What you're suggesting is to input a human labor element into this chain where is is one already,.....YOU! You can do the same job a recycle sorter does, more efficiently, and at no cost. And before you begin railing on the garbage company about exploiting free labor from customers, its Mountain View's City Ordinance that requires you to separate recyclables...you should be doing this anyways.

4. Since we're talking about compliance to an ordinance, I see recycling as a civic duty and responsibility. Offering customers an option to throw away more as long as they pay more is counter to encouraging the spirit of recycling.

I'll go as far as to say that if we continue to rely on money as the solution to all our problems, we will be in a much bigger crap (pun intended), than if we concentrated on developing personal responsibility and awareness.

That is not to say there isn't a place for market-based strategies, I just think its a stretch to apply it to recycling the way you are proposing it.

5. I take exception to "education", when the people that need "education" are feigning ignorance to ignore a law. Remember, warning and education are the first line of defense for "abusers", before fines and denial of garbage service are enacted.

Sometimes, the only "education" that works are punitive measures.

6. Recycling takes the time to decide not to drop that can in the garbage, but to instead put it in the recycle bin. So unless you are too busy to throw garbage away, you are not too busy to throw recyclables in the proper bin.

7. Not an intractable situation or unsolvable problem, and you have yet to prove this is more than the hypothetical. Burn baby burn.

/flamethrower off

This is a good discussion. We have a shared goal but different paths to get there. This is what community is all about.

That said, I prefer Tanya's approach. The long-term solution needs to be viable now and sustainable over the years. While good intentions are fine, solutions that are powered by free markets are more likely to succeed than those that try to fight the free market.

1. I'm taking exception to the lack of service, not increase fines or fees. If a person's garbage isn't being picked up, where will it go? Will it pile up around the house? Will it become a source of contamination or disease? Will it increase the population of raccoons and other animals, who come after the garbage, putting them in more danger? What are the consequences of NOT picking up garbage?

2. The effiency of the home sorter is questionable to me compared to someone who sorts for a living. As I said, sometimes things end up in the garbage where it ought not to be, and the reverse holds true also, even for those with the best intentions. Nobody is perfect, and a paid sorter would know precisely where things go.

3.You're forgetting the increased fees the garbage company can charge for the tier service. That would actually increase profit, even with human labor involved. Part of that profit could actually be funneled back into the City, and to other environmental causes, such as wetlands along the Bayshore. I would actually suggest a study of this to see if it would be financially viable before dismissing it out of hand. I understand your point about personal responsibility but if it would be more efficient and more viable to have someone else sort, if that tier of service was offered, especially to large corporate customers, would it in fact make MORE sense and be MORE environmentally sound? The fact that you dismiss this idea out of hand seems more philosophical to me than perhaps is logical.

4. You see recycling as a civic duty and responsibility, and so do I. But at what point do we penalize people and possibly harm the environment with trash that is not picked up to prove this point? Are other options feasible and more workable than penalization? Is the intent to punish, or to help the environment?

5. I have no idea why you're putting words in my mouth - that I am using lack of education as an excuse for people not to recycle. Please reread what I have written and show where I have said that lack of education is an excuse. Perhaps you're misunderstanding me, or perhaps you're attempting to prove a point without actually addressing what I've said. In either case, education is paramount for recycling.

6. Recycling also takes the time to rinse properly, sort, etc. Of course we recycle in this house, and I have o problem with it. But I can see and understand where others may not. Offering them alternatives is not a bad thing. This is not a moral issue for me as it seems to be for you, this is a scientific issue about the environment and limited resources.

7. No it is not an insolvable problem (perhaps locked bins), but we do have criminals and bad natured people, usually the types who are not normally compliant, and they would very likely be people who would use other's bins without hesitation.

I have no need of a flamethrower, nor asbestos. I am not emotionally involved here - you have not put your trash in my bin ;)

Actually, you may be the one theorizing and being philosophical over a rather banal, straightforward issue.

Web Link

Reference a case where you're projected worse case scenarios have actually occured, when this system, as proposed, was implemented. Or show a case where the model you are proposing has worked with the intended results.

I applaud the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit you are advocating, as its what makes this place such a great place to live. But I don't think its the panacea to all problems either, and not specifically, to this issue.

I'm leaning towards thinking you are applying a way too complicated solution to a rather straightforward problem.

the mere use of the word PEEKING...tells you they are downplaying this....come on...they are going to PEEK in our garbage.....get real....SEARCH....they are going to invade our dignity by searching thru our garbage....it is totally offensive ..hooray for the gentleman who mentioned the audi ad at the super bowl......the GREEN POLICE....is this what we are coming to agree to.....not to far fetched......i say ....go nab a drug dealer, child molester, identity thief....garbage is big business they are making fortunes off our garbage....and now they want to fine us.....no way.....

This is a long time coming. Many people do NOT recycle and are proud of it. This is the only way to regulate.

Anyone who thinks they can pick through my garbage without hurling is welcome to try.

I just pile the Diaper Genie snake on top of the garbage. A couple of open diapers will probably ward off any poking around the bin.

re: "I think people made the same comments about the seatbelt laws, but in reflection, the proper use of seatbelts has been a good standard practice to have developed for the general public."

Except the analogy here would be "We're going to fine you for not wearing your seatbelt. If you keep failing to wear your seatbelt, we're going to remove them from your vehicle. That'll show you!"

Also, before we get all draconian on folks who don't follow all the recycling laws, it would be good to keep in mind that a lot of what well-intentioned people put in their recycling bins never gets recycled. The recycling company has to find someone who actually wants to buy and use the recycled materials -- a lot of stuff that we "recycle" still ends up in the landfill. A lot of people don't realize that.