Recycling pick-up price hike may aid Walton, her allies
State Rep. Juanita Head Walton and her political allies may benefit from a wave of householder anger about paying $6 or more a month for once-a-week recycling pickups they don’t want.
The recent addition to trash bills is a result of changes in the St. Louis County’s Waste Management Code and has become part of the heated controversy about trash collection districts in the unincorporated area.
Walton, a Democrat from north St. Louis County who is running for a state Senate seat, called a public forum on economic development and trash collection for 6 p.m. Friday. That is a time when most people hardly are interested in government; they just finished their work week and look forward to the weekend.
Walton and her supporters were surprised when more than 120 people showed up for the session in the community room of Jamestown Mall. They had not set up enough chairs and had to scramble to find about 40 more. That lead to about a 10-minute delay in the start of the meeting.
At least two-thirds of the participants appeared to have come to the session because of the trash issue. They got word of the meeting mainly through emails and telephone calls.
In angry tones, several participants complained their three-month trash bills increased $20, $30 or more dollars because of recycling pickups they did not order. As speakers called the price hike unfair and unConstitutional, many other participants murmured their agreement.
Walton showed a power-point presentation from trash district opponents in south St. Louis County. When a picture of St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley appeared, people loudly booed.
Tony Weaver, a Walton ally running for St. Louis County Council member from the 4th District, urged participants to vote for him in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary if they want change in county government. He pledged to undo the recyclable pickup requirement and trash districts.
Charles Barcom, owner of the Meridian waste hauling company, asserted the county was responsible for the higher trash bills. Haulers could not obtain their yearly licenses from the county unless they provided the service, he said. They raised their prices to cover the cost, he said.
“I had to buy a truck for $200,000, hire a driver and provide insurance,” he said.
Barcom said householders have to pay for pickups even if they returned county-provided carts for recyclable materials. So they should recycle, he said.
I’m not sure where these folks who are getting the higher trash bills are living at, but based on the first north county contract awarded, trash fees should be lower. Here in southwest county our subdivision contracts out for service. This gives us a cost lower than if we were individually contracting. Now the mandatory recycling did raise our costs. But if the south county bid mirrors what we saw in north county, my new bill will be lower than the subdivision’s original billing, before recycling.
I think folks need to wait for the contracts to be awarded. What they will find is that they probably will end up with a lower bill or at least a cost equal to their bill before recycling. For all intents that will be a good deal. New can and a very easy recycle plan to boot.
I think what we are dealing with is the higher costs we are now all paying prior to the contracts being awarded. Our subdivision trustees when out and did the legwork to check this out and this folks, will be a good deal. Just give it a few months to get started.
J
If you people are complaining about 20 cents a day, get real. It costs that much just to start your car or lawnmower or to have a light on.
At least you are receiving a service in return for the 20 cents a day. What about your gas bill, you are not receiving anymore product just higher costs.
North county has much bigger problems than trash service … like the crime and decay in the unincorporated areas. Dooley and our county government have completely failed to deal with that. Seems like granting a trash service franchise should be pretty far down his priority list …
If Head-Walton can only pick up votes through this non-issue, then she has plenty of campaign concerns. Those in the unincorporated areas are just being resistant to change. The recycling thing is a good thing. It’s a necessary thing. And, it is not a costly thing.
It’s not that those living in the unincorporated areas are resistant to change, it’s that they are resistant to a proposal dictated by the Dooley administration that will put the small haulers out of business, thus eliminating a layer of competition that has kept hauling prices in check ever since the small haulers entered the market approx. 6 years ago. Wherever people have had the benefit of competition from the small haulers, they have been able to receive better pricing.
Many people think that the reason the districting plan was designed was seemingly to eliminate small hauler competition because someone’s “turf” is being infringed on. Unincorporated citizens know a rat when they smell it, and this redistricting plan is stinking all the way to someone’s bank account — and it won’t be the small haulers’ bank account, as they’ll be bankrupted when they fail to receive any of the 8 trash districts currently out for bids. And it might be “20 cents a day” now, but wait until only two or so large national haulers remain in the market. Do you really think that with no viable completion prices will not skyrocket, and service will not decline? Those with cable tv have seen their cables bills triple the past 10 years because there’s no other cable competition in town. It will be no different with trash haulers.
The issue isn’t recycling or resistance to change — it’s the usurping of private industry and of those in political power designing rules to eliminate competition for someone else’s gain. Your business could be next.
The real problems are: 1) districts with a monopoly on only one hauler 2) mandatory recycling with no exemptions.
Do away with the districts and provide other incentives for recycling and most all can live with the program. What do you think? The County Council is unable to resolve the issue and Dooley certainly won’t. The next step is voters at the polls, legislation and law suits.
Mike, You make the most sense out of everyone. Your plan is both practical and workable.
Would you by chance be interested in running for county executive??