Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Lowell blogger, kad barma at Choosing a Soundtrack, post on yesterday’s Globe story, “Recycling doubles, but many left out/City program excludes apartment dwellers” speaks to a lot of us who live in condos.
I believe his comments are a direct response to those made to the Globe by Gunther Wellenstein, Lowell’s Recycling Coordinator and Solid Waste Manager.
Globe: ” Wellenstein said it would be a ‘nightmare’’ for the town to provide trash pickup to the roughly 12,000 residents now not served. ‘We’d charge each household the $125, so for every customer we take on, we’d lose money,’ he said. ‘For every thousand new customers we take on, we would lose $155,000 a year because what we collect would not fully fund the service’.”
kad baram: “first of all, taxes are taxes, and for mine to be collected just as assiduously as all my trash-pickup-served neighbors, but not extend to provide me with basic trash-hauling services like all of them enjoy, stinks.”
Residents who do have access to municipal waste removal are assessed $125 a year, the actual cost is $280. And the balance is taken from the general fund. So in effect, the rest of us help pay, through our real estate tax, a service which we are not allowed to receive.
I do not think this issue is going to go away soon. I know in my own condo association (115 townhouses) this topic is continuously discussed. As the cost of waste removal increases, we are beginning to wonder how long do we have to be punished for not owning and living in a “conventional” home?
[powered by WordPress.]
43 queries. 0.587 seconds
September 18th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
It seems like Gunther erred in making the case based on cost, as the city is “losing” the same $155 per household with single and multiple family homes.
But he must act in accordance with the ordinance, which limits the number of units per building serviced. He could have just deferred to the ordinance.
But then it would be the ordinance that is to be questioned. Was the reason to limit based on the number of units the cost, or was it the complexity of handling too many trash collections per address?
How was trash collection handled for condos prior to the new ordinance? Is this an historical injustice, or one foisted upon the condo population recently?
If it is the complexity, then the lack of collection could be offset by a credit of $155 on the condo real estate tax bill for the year. But maybe the cost of collection in bulk is less than the individual pick-up, certainly it doesn’t include the cost of the individual containers. So should you get a tax credit that exceeds the cost of collection? Probably not. Then what should it be to be “fair”?
September 19th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Multi-familys have never received trash collection from the City. In fact almost no City provides trash services to buildings over 4 units.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:09 am
The problem here is that the law has not caught up with the times. Condos in Massachusetts law have been around less that 50 years. Previously they were apartment buildings with renters and it was expected that the landlord would pay for trash removal. Why the landlord did not get city trash removal, for the higher commercial taxes he paid, I have been able to figure out.
Municipalities have no interest in being fair to the condo taxpayer. They won’t take everything they can and give nothing in return.
The problem is actually worse the suburbs. In the suburbs there are planned unit developments(PUDS)which are sort of like condos. They look like any subdivison but the free standing houses are assessed like condos by the condo association. Here they are not only responsible fo trash removal but for removing of snow from the roads and maintenance of the roads. Yet they pay the same tax rate as any ordinary house. How unfair can we get?
September 20th, 2009 at 11:32 am
It’s a dilemna my condo association deals with as well. We pay for trash removal through our fees and still pay taxes to cover the rest of the city. We don’t even recycle which annoys the bejeezus out of me. In addition to paying condo fees and city taxes, I haul my recyclables to a friends for pickup every week.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I have to side with the condo people on this one. You are paying taxes-though admitedly not the separate trash fees we pay. But I believe that you should be given the chance to participate if your association wants to. On the other hand - there has been absolutely no enforcement of any of the new rules on my street ot the streets on either side of me. Half the people do not put out recycle bins, their overflowing red barrels are a prime target for the middle of the night raiders. I think someone in trash emforcement could have a field day in my area and hopefully educate a whole bunch of people in the process.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Maggie: have you contacted the city? I’ve had to in the past and found them responsive.
September 21st, 2009 at 8:26 am
Yes - I have. Nada, zip , zilch response. No one wants to be out at 2 in the morning catching garbage pickers.
September 21st, 2009 at 10:27 am
I’m thinking specifically about the overflowing barrels. Especially if they have trash outside of the bins that is not in purple bags.
As to recycling, it’s not required, only encouraged, so there’s no enforcement to be done there.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:24 pm
As far as I can see middle of the night raiders are not an issue. The city pays to remove trash and pays less to remove recycling. The city still pays! People that remove soda cans in the middle of the night are still recycling and reducing our recycling costs. On the other hand if people were driving around taking all the cardboard or all the copper fittings from appliances I am sure you would receive a response from the city. I think it is a misconception that we make money from bottle and can removal and you will not see someone enforcing that. If you see overflowing barrels however you should file an e-complaint so that it is tracked. We do have a solid waste inspector.