By Ernie Strauch, Sedona Resident
(January 10, 2016)
So, time to “fess up”! — You can blame me and the other 8 members of the former Sedona Sustainability Commission for this abhorrent infringement upon your rights. The idea did not originate with the City Council, and it did not originate with city staff. We are to blame. – I accept that wholeheartedly!!
- Most of you know that I served as vice-chair of the nine member Sedona Sustainability Commission for the entire time of it’s brief existence, from Jan, 2011 until disbanded by City Council (along with all except required Commissions) in the summer of 2013. See comment by co-member, Marlene Rayner (https://sedona.biz//news-from-sedona/city-of-sedona/sedona-city-council-sinks-commissions/).
- One of the most significant accomplishments over the commission’s 2.5 year existence was the completion of a 33 page comprehensive report to City Council which addressed ways to significantly increase Sedona’s Recycling Participation and Recovery Rates. Seven alternative systems were offered, but the 7th was unanimously recommended as providing the greatest factors of sustainability and cost efficiency. Incorporated was a franchise waste-hauling program called “pay as you throw” (PAYT), designed to cost the homeowner less (incentive) for having less landfill trash and more recoverable (recycled) trash. Please see the full report attached. As I expect that few will read all 33 pages, may I suggest the essence on pages 6-9. Alternative 7 is outlined on page 16. A full discussion of how the PAYT system works in 7,000 other progressive American Communities is found in Appendix #1. Appendix #2 lists comparative rates and programs in other Arizona cities.
- Sedona is one of a minority of communities in the state who do not utilize a franchise trash hauling system. However EVERY gated community in Sedona utilizes a single franchised waste-hauler for their community (the cost to maintain their private roads comes directly from their pockets). And, they sure as hell don’t want the added noise, smell, pollution, congestion and road degradation in their neighborhoods.
I won’t be further redundant in support of the concept – it is all in the report that we lovingly created, modified, critiqued and presented, representing untold, unpaid hours of commission members time in support of a single Sedona Vision Statement: “To be a city that lives up to the challenge of proper stewardship of one of the earth’s great treasures.”
For those who may be skeptical of the entire concept of “sustainability” and mass confusion over its meaning, let me offer an alternative thought… anything unsustainable, by definition, means “it comes to an end”. It is not a matter of “if”, it is a matter of “when”.
Best regards,
Ernie Strauch
We are participants in the biosphere and the evolutionary process itself. In such a worldview, the environment is not an “issue” or a “special interest.” The environment is us, or more accurately, we are a part of the greater whole that is the environment and beyond, just as an organ of our body is made up of cells.
The words “economy” and “ecology” both come from the Greek “oikos” meaning “household,” which applies equally at all scales from individual households, all the way up to planet Earth itself, literally our home in the universe. So economy, literally the “management of the household,” is inseparable from “ecology,” which means “the study of the household.” 4-5
4-5 Daly, H. and Cobb, J. 1989. For the common good. Boston: Beacon Press.
14 Comments
I believe in free enterprise and having choice as to who hauls my trash, recycled or not. As I have learned over the years, the trash company I use now (Patriot), takes, glass (my former one wouldn’t), and they use one container rather than two. That works for me and hopefully as time goes by, other Sedona residents will pick up on the advantage they offer. But more importantly, we don’t need the city to interfere with our choices.
If they want to do something constructive, how about better solutions for internet service providers?
I moved here from florida they voted mountain waiste to take over maybe it becomes quieter but lots of small healthier companies went out of business
The City has said ” a franchise residential fee would be collected and other taxes legally deemed acceptable”. What taxes??? The phone survey questions admit to an increase in rates not the fee or other taxes. Wear and tear on our streets is propaganda. I have lived here for 36 years and never once seen repairs done to my street or others in my neighborhood except for Navahopi and it took numerous phone calls to the city to have the sinking road repaired. More and wear and tear is from locals’ constant use, UPS and Fed-Ex. Should we tell those companies to make less deliveries?. UPS passes my house 2-3 times a day and Fed-Ex always twice a day.
The city wants a franchise company to pick up “bulk” items. This means those of us who rarely need this service would pay for it anyway. Also might it cause a loss of business for those in Sedona making a living from this. I have used Sir Moves a Lot several times and been pleased with the service. Also used my handy man to haul yard cuttings etc. How many will lose their earnings while others pay for services they don’t want. The only company who can afford the trucks is Waste Management reportedly owned by the mafia for many years. In Palo Alto, California they did this franchise with Waste Management and are very unhappy. Rates increased and the trucks are HUGE. Lack of freedom of choice means more fees, taxes and increased rates. Because other cities have done does not mean their residents are happy. Are you happy to see many people lose their jobs? Once we have a franchise there is no turning back. Wake up Ernie.
Hi Ernie,
I praise your efforts toward making Sedona more green. That said, here’s the problem with the city choosing a single waste collector. I have been in communities where the city chooses the single carrier through an RFP process. That all seems fine and good until the next time that the contract comes up for bid. Then the city sees that maybe this could be a source of revenue for the city. So then they choose the hauler that provides the best “revenue sharing” with the city. This recently happened in Carmel, CA. The consequences: The rates all went up so the hauler could provide the “fees” to the city and still make a profit. Also, residents could no longer put their service on vacation hold, they had a monthly fee whether they were using the service or not! Does this sound like our current wastewater fees, where you are charged a fee whether you are connected to the city sewer or not? And of course in Sedona you pay a wastewater fee even if you haven’t even built on your property.
So even though those who are currently running our city say that they aren’t trying to use the single garbage collector service as a revenue source for the city, what happens when they are gone and the next group comes in. Will they not see it as a city revenue generator? If they do, the residents of Sedona will just have to bite the bullet and pay, because there will be NO ALTERNATIVE service.
This is a bad idea for the residents of Sedona.
I live up Mountain Shadows, where Coffee Pot and Mtn. Shadows come together. Steep climb with either road. Every week when I see several very large heavy trucks coming up for trash (different companies) I think how very wasteful is using all the fuel to bring these mammoths up the hill. If we had one service, that would be one truck, and much less gas (or diesel) use. Seems to me that would be a good thing, to use less fuel and create less air pollution.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who wish to be left alone and those who won’t leave them alone.
Ernie, I understand your passion. However adding another layer of “communication” and control between a user, and a supplier never ends well, especially when that layer is a bureaucrat.
Our association just recently converted to Patriot, who sorts trash at their facility, without all the complexity that government loves to put in place that increases costs. If WE have a problem, WE call the supplier, as WE are the customer, so WE have the hammer. How much of a hammer do we have with the city? I have multiple examples where the cooperation WE got from the city on IMPORTANT items was less than steller. And we want them in charge of our trash…Why again?
Look, if the city wants to do a deal, and make it OPTIONAL for a resident to participate, then the deal has to be a big advantage for the resident. That’s what we did. We took a cost to our residents of about $33 a month, without recycle, that was extra, to less than a third of that WITH one truck and recycle. We GAVE the OPTION to our residents to change, and incorporated it into our HOA fees with no increase in dues. It was THEIR choice.
Please note…OPTIONAL. Our residents had the OPTION to stay with their existing supplier. It’s called the CONTRACTS CLAUSE of the Constitution.
Here is the potential huge issue. If the city makes this mandatory, and bills all the residents whether they want it or not…See you (the city) in court.
Make it better than what people have, make it OPTIONAL and not try to jam it down people’s throat, and go for it. With the software today there is absolutely zero excuse not to do this.
Government monopolies never do things cheaper. Your have to force them to be prudent…it’s never THEIR money.
Oh, so you enjoy a collective agreement by way of your HOA and this is so wonderful, but the whole city coming together to harness the bargaining power of all residents, for all residents…that’s bad, right? You enjoy the power that collective bargaining got your HOA, and you brag about your low rate? But to do this for everyone? Doesn’t sound too good to ya aye?
Enjoy your privilege and let others continue to fend for themselves and pay the full rate. Who are you kidding? This is the best opportunity to come along in forever as far as trash hauling in the city goes. People need to get a clue and stop being fooled by the pity being drummed up by one hauler. This isn’t about anyone’s narrow self interest. It’s about realizing all the benefits of pooled purchasing power and making a dramatic improvement in the city and for the environment.
What happens to the many Sedonans who have summer homes in Colorado? Since the City would sign a contract I suppose they would have to guarantee a minimum number of customers. If you are one of the many who go to Colorado for 5-6 months of the year you will have to still pay for pick-up, recycling, added fees for hauling bulk items which you won’t have plus whatever other “legally acceptable tax” this present Council which lives in the twilight zone would impose. Bad enough if you live here year around but in Colorado for some months? If you don’t oppose it now just wait until you get that first itemized bill. Then it will be too late. Time to speak up now and sign the petition started by Sedona Sweet Arts and join hundreds of other residents.
Joan Shannon
The city has made lots of wonderful claims about monopolizing the trash service. Cheaper, better, environmentally sound, etc. But have you noticed they present absolutely no evidence for their claims? Would the bureaucrats please give us some real evidence, not just sound bites? Also, the whole ‘road wear’ claim is clearly nonsense. The city is conspicuously silent about all the road wear due to the huge increase in the volume of traffic on 89A over the past couple of years. And that traffic will increase even more due to several new hotel projects! Their argument about air pollution from trucks strikes me as pandering to the heart strings of environmentalists. What about the tens of thousands of trucks that are on I-17 every week. And the city argues against what? Maybe 5-10 trash trucks?
Do you know the meaning of redundancy? Isn’t the only sane thing to do to seek to eliminate it? Have you never, at your own front door, breathed the filth these trucks spew? Not a problem for you, right?
Have you spoken to the Sedona Public Works dept. to inquire about the damage done to the roadways by trash trucks, or did you just arrive at your own judgement?
And is the city silent or are you simply unaware of the plan and the coming public meetings?
Maybe check your facts first.
@Ernie Strauch
This proposal has the fingerprints of the Sierra Club all over it. In terms of tactical employment of promotion of this issue it, appears to be the same ruse used in the National Monument issue. Why is Sedona’s City Council can never seem to see a tsunami of dissent clearly viewable on the horizon?
The petition was started by Sedona Community Organization Inc. a non-profit 501 C (6) on behalf of its partners and stakeholders. This is a grassroots organization that builds community and enables each person their own voice.
The petition is located here http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/sedona-citizens-civil?source=c.em&r_by=14213130
David, I just wish I had some facts to check! The problem is the city has not provided any facts, just lots of claims. Also, your statement about ‘breathed the filth’. Well, actually no, I do not breathe the filth at my front door. My front door smells pretty good thank you. Just curious, when you are driving on the freeway, do you also get upset about the thousands of trucks whose emissions you have to breathe?