Editor's Note - This is a modified version of an earlier post. Chuck Douglas and I have a column in the Concord Monitor today about the proposed pay as you throw program. Here is the link: ["Pay-to-throw plan is bad for taxpayers"]. I want to thank the Monitor for publishing the column and making space for it in the Sunday edition.
Initially, I had mixed feelings about pay as you throw [or, "the bag tax," as I have termed it]. On the one hand, I believe that recycling is very important and more people should be encouraged to do it. I also understand the need for more revenue and cuts to balance the city's budget.
But when the proposal was first floated, there seemed to be an understanding that every household would get a bag a week exemption. Somewhere along the way, that changed.
In December, Councilor Keith Nyhan wrote an op-ed about the plan and future meetings - but did not mention the one bag exemption. I emailed him, my councilor Rob Werner, and Mayor Jim Bouley, with a simple question: Is the one bag exemption in there or not? Neither Nyhan nor Werner ever replied to the email: ["How long does it take for two city councilors and the mayor to answer a simple question about pay as you throw?"]; Bouley called and we later got together for lunch to talk about the proposal.
After spending a great deal of time discussing the plan, I wasn't completely sold. But I understood why the bag tax was being proposed. However, I stressed to the mayor that a bag tax or surcharge should also be levied on leaf pickup. I told him I would be more apt to support pay as you throw if this was implemented too. Compared to trash pickup, picking up the leaves is an extravagance. Why should the necessity be taxed but the extravagance shouldn't? The mayor couldn't make any commitments to that, which is understandable.
As time went by, I had hoped to write a more thorough report about pay as you throw but didn't get around to it.
On Jan. 24, an email was sent out stating that there would be a hearing on Feb. 9 about eliminating the leaf pick up program. I thought for sure that this meant that they were going to have a surcharge for pickup, not an elimination of the plan. The proposal was actually to have people bag up their leaves in the fall like they are required to do in the spring.
During this time period, I was approached by former U.S. Rep. and Judge Chuck Douglas about the state of Concord affairs and the need for a taxpayers association. We talked on the phone and met for breakfast and I agreed to work on this effort with him. The group is non-partisan and open to anyone with concerns about Concord, its tax base, budgets, and school system. We are not going to address or talk about federal issues, social issues, or anything else controversial that doesn't have to do with Concord.
On Feb. 2, the trash committee decided to keep leaf pickup and keep it free, but would still be moving forward with a plan for the bag tax. That hearing is Monday.
This decision, of course, was ass-backwards but I wasn't too surprised. A few people complained about it and the council chose to do the opposite of what was in the best interests of the entire city. Why does it always seem to happen this way?
Anyhow, it has become clear that an organization like Concord Taxpayers Assoc. is badly needed. So, we're here. In the coming weeks, you'll learn more about the organization. We hope that you will join us to bring fiscal responsibility to the city.
For now, check out the Concord Taxpayers Assoc. Web site here: http://www.concordtaxpayers.org/.
Initially, I had mixed feelings about pay as you throw [or, "the bag tax," as I have termed it]. On the one hand, I believe that recycling is very important and more people should be encouraged to do it. I also understand the need for more revenue and cuts to balance the city's budget.
But when the proposal was first floated, there seemed to be an understanding that every household would get a bag a week exemption. Somewhere along the way, that changed.
In December, Councilor Keith Nyhan wrote an op-ed about the plan and future meetings - but did not mention the one bag exemption. I emailed him, my councilor Rob Werner, and Mayor Jim Bouley, with a simple question: Is the one bag exemption in there or not? Neither Nyhan nor Werner ever replied to the email: ["How long does it take for two city councilors and the mayor to answer a simple question about pay as you throw?"]; Bouley called and we later got together for lunch to talk about the proposal.
After spending a great deal of time discussing the plan, I wasn't completely sold. But I understood why the bag tax was being proposed. However, I stressed to the mayor that a bag tax or surcharge should also be levied on leaf pickup. I told him I would be more apt to support pay as you throw if this was implemented too. Compared to trash pickup, picking up the leaves is an extravagance. Why should the necessity be taxed but the extravagance shouldn't? The mayor couldn't make any commitments to that, which is understandable.
As time went by, I had hoped to write a more thorough report about pay as you throw but didn't get around to it.
On Jan. 24, an email was sent out stating that there would be a hearing on Feb. 9 about eliminating the leaf pick up program. I thought for sure that this meant that they were going to have a surcharge for pickup, not an elimination of the plan. The proposal was actually to have people bag up their leaves in the fall like they are required to do in the spring.
During this time period, I was approached by former U.S. Rep. and Judge Chuck Douglas about the state of Concord affairs and the need for a taxpayers association. We talked on the phone and met for breakfast and I agreed to work on this effort with him. The group is non-partisan and open to anyone with concerns about Concord, its tax base, budgets, and school system. We are not going to address or talk about federal issues, social issues, or anything else controversial that doesn't have to do with Concord.
On Feb. 2, the trash committee decided to keep leaf pickup and keep it free, but would still be moving forward with a plan for the bag tax. That hearing is Monday.
This decision, of course, was ass-backwards but I wasn't too surprised. A few people complained about it and the council chose to do the opposite of what was in the best interests of the entire city. Why does it always seem to happen this way?
Anyhow, it has become clear that an organization like Concord Taxpayers Assoc. is badly needed. So, we're here. In the coming weeks, you'll learn more about the organization. We hope that you will join us to bring fiscal responsibility to the city.
For now, check out the Concord Taxpayers Assoc. Web site here: http://www.concordtaxpayers.org/.
12 comments:
"On Feb. 8, the council decided to keep leaf pickup and keep it free."
Wow, you sure have some inside information that they meet yesterday (SUNDAY) before mondays Public meeting. I should join your group just to be ahead of the curve.
Thanks anon for the catch. The post has been corrected.
tony, some of us are sensing that your valid criticisms about city government are ruffling feathers over on green street. they just can't handle anyone looking over their shoulder. which lackey wrote this one? why can't they sign their name?
You guys are doing the right thing. The city spends way too much money in taxes. It is time to start cutting some stuff.
I wanted to join, go to a meeting, it seems so anoymous, though.
Do you want to see why the chamber of commerce and the Concord monitor were behind payt?
Go the the city's web site. Click on the assessor's section, then on the on-line database. Look up the tax assessment on, say, the mall.
Now go to the on-line tax calculator, enter that number and note what the mall's tax bill was last year.
Multiply that by .03 to see what a 3% tax increase would have been for the mall. That's the bullet they dodged when the council shifted the cost of trash removal to homeowners.
Repeat for other commercial properties. Then ponder on why the chamber of commerce was in favor of payt.
Now, do the same for the property the Concord monitor owns and ponder why the monitor went to the mat for the bag tax. (Hint: ...because they won't have to pay it.)
Mark Ciborowski came out against the bag tax? Not.
...why make us go look everything up and do the math? Because you're the Concord Taxpayers Assoc., not me. But, I'll prime the pump.
Mall: Saved $51,378.30
Monitor: Saved $3,610.59
You take it from there. Follow the money.
Corrected post:
Hey Anon7:26 ... come on, government, politicians, the media, and the local chamber of commerce not acting in the best interests of the public? I'm shocked, shocked ...
Seriously though, why make us go look everything up and do the math? Obviously, you've already done it. Post the numbers!!
I like the folks at the Chamber. I think there are some good people involved with the group. But I was not surprised at all when the downtown's largest landowner Mark Ciborowski came out for the bag tax. Downtown has some vacant spaces [because the rents are too high?]. If they are Mark's, he is paying taxes but not collecting rents. In fact, take all of his holdings and do the same math and see what you come up with.
Clearly the residents are being bagged, pun intended, to protect major landholders in Concord from paying 3 percent more in taxes for trash pickup.
Why should businesses pay? Its a service denied to them.
Its and equity issue, don't make is some conspiracy by the evil capitalist!
Anon 12:03, you know, that's a legitimate issues. SOME businesses don't get the trash pick up even though they pay for it. Some, however, do.
Businesses downtown do NOT have to pay for trash or recycling. There are 3 trash/recycling stations for downtown businesses. If you don't want to schlep your stuff a few blocks and you pay to have it hauled away, that's your problem.
Anon8:38: Downtown businesses don't pay for trash - it is included in their rents. The property owner does pay for pick up, whether they use it or not, because it was built into the property taxes. Now, it seems, it isn't.
Post a Comment