Trash, trash, trash. Unlike Oscar,
I do not love it. Some of us, however, have been fighting the good fight for 20
years to stop the City takeover of trash hauling.
It started in the early 2000's,
when a group which seemed to be made up of college students, unknown
environmental groups, an oversensitive columnist at the Pioneer Press and the
Minnesota PCA, proposed to undo 30 years of private hauling; a proposal to fix
something that was not broken. Myself, other citizens and mom and pop haulers
dutifully went to our District Council hearings on the issue and spoke out.
Many other citizens did the same. The proposal for a City run system on trash
was defeated.
Those were the days.
Not to be deterred, the current
debacle started when the same ragtag, marginal group again proposed a City run
system on trash. But this time, they would not make the same mistake of letting
the citizens make the decision. They came forward with unscientific push
"polls" which amounted to a Twitter survey with slanted biases
questions to gently convince you their way was the only way. They then turned
these push polls into performance art with "listening" sessions
designed to less than gently convince you they were right and you better
shut-up.
Sure, we spoke out with many
others. Again saying that the City takeover of garbage would cost us more, cost
the City more, give us worse service, harm recycling efforts and put mom and pop haulers out of
business.
Then the City Council decided; they
would take over garbage.
And at that point, I thought, well
I guess that’s that. Nothing is going to happen in this one-party town to upset
the inevitable march toward the "progress" of government collectivism
and the aggrandizement of political machinery.
But then something happened I did
not expect.
Led by citizens, small landlords
and mom and pop haulers, someone fought back. Little card tables appeared on
corners with a petition to put the matter up to a vote. Groups were formed.
People were talking about it. People of varied political backgrounds agreed the
City must be stopped. As the system was implemented and it cost us more, cost
the City more, gave us worse service and put mom and pop haulers out of
business, more signatures were collected. Enough to put it on the ballot and
allow the citizens to vote.
Alas, upon some very bad legal
advice, and in contradiction of very clear language of the City Charter, the
new Mayor and City Council said no, you, you citizen, cannot vote on this. Of
course, this should be no surprise. The same folks who think you lack the
capability to negotiate your own garbage hauler certainly wouldn’t give you a
choice to vote on it.
Then the group of citizens and
small landlords sued on behalf of all of us. I say "all of us"
because even if you are for the new system, wouldn’t it mean more if it were
put into place by a vote of the people? Then there would be no doubt. In
addition, I say "for us" because the real purpose of the suit was to
force the City Council to comply with its own City Charter and ensure the
rights of its citizen to a voice in their government and a right to petition on
issues. Those rights are everyone's rights.
The District Court then ruled in
favor of the citizens and against the City Council. Then the Minnesota Court of
Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court did the same. Citizens who validly petition
to put an issue on the ballot per the City's own Charter, can.
So here we are. A vote a few weeks
away. "Yes" signs and "No" signs popping up on corner lots
throughout the City. And, as a result of the City Councils' rank disregard of the citizen, signs of legitimate challengers to the City Councilmember's
seats. Seats they thought were guaranteed, by right, as a member of the City's
ruling class.
Well, we'll see about that.
After a conversation I had the
other night with an intelligent fellow, I am still surprised folks are
unfamiliar with the issues. So, as a public service, here are 10 points for
voting "No."
1. If it's not
broke, don't fix it.
Almost 50 years ago, the system
was broke. Mayor George Latimer took office with a budget deficit in the early
1970's that he actually thought should be fixed. Looking through all the City
spending his gaze alit upon trash collections. Even though he had had broad
support from the Teamsters Union who represented the garbage haulers, he made
the decision; citizens and private haulers could handle trash hauling and the
City would get out of the business of trash hauling. Mayor Latimer showed a
special kind of courage. Courage to go against his own political supporters.
Courage to upset the then current system. Ultimately, the special kind of
courage any politician has to say, "no, the government cannot, and should
not, do things which you can do for yourselves."
Many things have changed in the
intervening 50 years but the City's inability to afford, even regulated
garbage, has only increased. Back in the 1970's, the City had a tax base of
auto manufacturing, legal publishing, insurance giants and factories that made
things. Now we have artisan coffee shops and City paid for soccer stadiums
(sorry fútbol pitches). Back then, we
had City council members as the head of departments. Now, the Mayor has 17
members alone in his "cabinet" with such titles as Program Manager,
Senior Aide, Policy Associate, Senior Policy Advisor and Chief Resilience
Officer. That’s in the Mayor's office alone. In a City of 306,621 souls. Henderson,
Nevada has more people. Yes, I never heard of it either. Seventeen Senior Program
Policy Associate of Resilience (and resilient they are) who get paid lots of
money out of the pockets of the most taxed people in the State of Minnesota,
the twelfth highest taxed citizenry in the U.S. We could not afford City trash
in 1970 and we can't even afford, apparently, to fill a pothole or hire police
officers in 2019.
2. The new
system costs more.
As a seventh grader I was handed
the economics textbook, "Life on Paradise Island; Economic life on an
imaginary Island," by William Harmon Wilson. In it, there was a rice
manufacturer called, "Midas, who was very good at accumulating money,"
who:
started
thinking about how he could take advantage of the situation. Less rice was
being raised . . . but Midas started buying all he could get, even at high
prices. Soon he had most of the rice on the island in his cave. Because he
controlled the supply of one product, he had a monopoly. People had to come to
him for rice, and he charged them very high prices—much more than he had paid
for it.
And yet . . .. When I explain to
folks that when you limit the number of trash haulers from as many who want to
be in the business (which worked out to 4-5) down to one, they don’t understand
the lesson taught in 7th Grade economics. Of course, the price is going to be higher.
Why not? What are you the consumer going to do about it? What can you do about
it? Absolutely nothing. Theoretically, they could charge you whatever they want
because there is no market for their services, just a state controlled
monopoly. In addition to the price gauge the single city chosen hauler can
impose, the City's system requires the City to hire and unknown number of
employees to put up the website, place tax liens on property owners who don’t
pay, and answer phone calls to tell you to call the city chosen hauler (who,
when you call them, will tell you to call the City). Who pays for all these new
City employees, you of course.
We learned how monopolies worked
in 7th Grade economics, don’t forget the lesson.
3. The new
system takes away the incentive for service.
In a story I have told many times,
back in the Wild West days of private garbage haulers (the day before
yesterday), we choose Pete's Rubbish as our hauler. One day I received a call
from Mrs. Pete who informed me we had overpaid our bill by 34¢. She wanted to
know if we wanted a check of 34¢ sent out or if we wanted the 34¢ added to our
next bill. Thirty-four cents. Every bit of that story is charming and the
epitome of what a mom and pop hauler was. Pop was picking up the garbage and
mom was at the kitchen table reconciling bills. She found a 34¢ error and
wanted to know what we, the customer, wanted to do. What was Mr. and Mrs.
Pete's motivation for this level of service? Easy. It was the knowledge that if
they didn't provide such service, we could get another hauler. Now ask yourself,
is there any scenario on any planet where Mega-Corporation "Big Garbage Conglomerate" would call me to know what I wanted to do about a 34¢ overpayment. Nope. There
is no kitchen table, no Mrs. Pete, no Mr. Pete and no competitors to take away
their business based on poor service.
4. The new
system politicizes garbage.
Since when did garbage become
about politics? Well since forever in East Coast cities where garbage has been
run by, ahem, certain families, and the politicians they carry in in their pockets",
like so many nickels and dimes." Even in a town without those families,
garbage becomes part of the political system, a place to employ cronies and
pay off favors, and it creates a new class of very wealthy corporate donors to
influence, cajole and affect the political class sweeping aside the voter and
the citizen who becomes the pawn and dependent ATM who pays, pays and pays.
But let us not forget where this
is all heading. Like those who passed Obamacare with the real intention of
heading toward a single payer plan, there are those advocating for organized
collection with the real intention of a complete takeover of garbage by the
City. This would be a trip back to 1970 in more ways than one. Because when the
City takes over garbage, it won't be just the City, the mega-waste haulers and
any unsavory "businessmen" but the Unions will be back. Public
employee unions, who can, and will, strike. Just before the Iron Lady arrived
to save the United Kingdom, "waste collectors," as they are
charmingly called in England, went on strike during what would be called the
"Winter of Discontent" (1978–79). The piles of rubbish grew so high
in Leicester Square; rats were attracted, like a medieval plague. Lest we
forget, New York City sanitation workers went on strike in 1968, 1975 and 1981.
During these strikes, garbage on the streets of could accumulated to over
100,000 tons. So City controlled and run garbage is really like a trip back to
the 1970's, the dirty, dirty, 1970's. I was there man. You don’t want to go
back.
5. The new
system is a government intrusion on a private sphere of activity.
That which the government
subsidizes increases in cost. For example, see the price of health care,
prescriptions drugs, college tuition, corn crops, and automobiles. But it is
more than just money. That which the government subsidizes, the government controls.
And as it controls that area of life, it pushes out the private control of that
life. Time was many things were in the private sphere of life: public
transportation, utilities, college tuition, health care, . . . garbage. In
fact, the word "public" did not mean it was controlled by the government
but open to the public, as in the people. The government had nothing to do with
it. In countries as diverse as the U.S.S.R and Great Britain, the government
had complete control of the, "commanding heights," such as utilities
(coal, gas, nuclear), telephone companies, hospitals, television, newspapers, jobs,
housing and yes, garbage. How did that work out? The Soviet Union, a truly evil
regime, collapsed, in part, under the weight of its own inability to financially
continue. Great Britain survived because Lady Thatcher came and saved the scepter'd
isle.
Negotiating and contracting for
garbage is a private behavior. Just like hiring a plumber, having your oil
changed or shoveling your walk. But there are those who don’t want you or
anyone else to have the choice to do that. They want to hire your plumber, your
mechanic, your snow shoveler, your garbage collector and replace it with
theirs.
6. The old
system was uniquely Saint Paul.
Alexis de Tocqueville toured the
U.S in the early 1830's. Writing about it he said, “[New England] democracy
more perfect than any of which antiquity dared to dream." “[L]ocal
independence” was “the mainspring and lifeblood of American freedom.” “The New
England towns adopted no representative institutions. As at Athens, matters of
common concern were dealt with in the marketplace and in the general assembly
of the citizens.”
Saint Paul has a few unique
things. We, until recently, negotiated, contracted, and paid for our own garbage
hauling. Every fall, neighbors who share an alley, gather together and
negotiate, contract, and pay for alley plowing. It's as charming as Norman
Rockwell's Town Meeting painting. We don’t need the City to plow the alleys. In
fact, the gathering of alley citizens does a better job than the City ever
could, in getting the alleys plowed for a reasonable cost. This was true of
rubbish hauling before the City inserted itself.
A poster on Facebook decried Saint
Paul as a "Cowtown" because we didn't have "big city" trash
hauling like other "big cities."
Well.
First, Saint Paul is maybe
"Post-It Note Town," 'Insurance-Binder Town" or "Train-Town" but
"Cowtown?" Maybe the poster is thinking of South Saint Paul? or the
much larger Omaha (pop. 468,262). I have news for the poster, Saint Paul is not
a big city and we don't want to be.
7. The new
system was foisted upon us without citizen input.
The great Thomas Sowell has said,
" The idea that the wise and knowledgeable few need to take control of the
less wise and less knowledgeable many has taken milder forms — and repeatedly
with bad results, as well."
Every bad idea was one foisted
upon an unwilling public. The Hubert Humphry Metrodome comes to mind. There are
those who believe that their special intellect give them the right to make
decisions for the unwashed masses. Sowell answers that with, "Elites may
have more brilliance, but those who make decisions for society as a whole
cannot possibly have as much experience as the millions of people whose
decisions they pre-empt. The education and intellects of the elites may lead
them to have more sweeping presumptions, but that just makes them more
dangerous to the freedom, as well as the well-being, of the people as a whole."
That about says it all. The only
thing to add is William F. Buckley's, "I would rather be governed by the
first 2,000 people in the telephone directory, than by the Harvard University
faculty.” I will presume, humbly, to update Buckley to our times, "I would
rather be governed by Saint Paul's 164,273 registered voters, than the 7 City
Councils members.”
8. The new
system put mom and pop haulers out of business.
It amazes me that the same folks
who leave snarky comments on neighborhood Facebook pages about the evils of CVS
Pharmacy on Grand and Fairview, the same folks who are shocked about a national
coffee putting an outlet with a drive thru on a site where a gas station has
stood for years thereby endangering our
children and putting at risk all the local coffee shops, have no issue with
the current City regulated trash system putting 9 haulers out of business
through merger with national goliaths like "Big Garbage Conglomerate" or attrition, by
small haulers who can't afford the new system. The whole thing, from beginning
to end, is one part subplot of the Soprano's and one part Nast cartoon of fat-cat
gilded age pre-trust buster monopolizeers with City machine politics of the
Tammany/Tweed variety. It's as if the City wrote the business plan for "Big Garbage Conglomerate."We got too many of deese mom and pop operations in Saint
Paul, weese gotta put em on ice." said the WM CEO with $10 cigar and mouth
and watch fob protruding from his belly. "No problem," said the
greased haired City of Saint Paul machine politician with one hand out and one
hand in the average citizen's pocket. However I doubt these City council
members from the wokesphere were even smart enough to line their pockets as
they were emptying ours.
The die, unfortunately, is cast.
The City put those mom and pops out of business. But the answer surely isn’t to
give "Big Garbage Conglomerate" a monopoly or the City council members a free pass. We
should kick the later out of office and make the former compete for our
business like everyone else, with good service and competitive prices.
9. The new system emboldens those who want
to change Saint Paul without the necessity of
elections or democratic input.
Somebody must pay a political
consequence for thwarting the will of the citizen of Saint Paul. Somebody must
pay a political consequence for blocking the will of the citizen of Saint Paul
to vote. Somebody must pay a political
consequence for writing a one-sided contract with a unilateral force majeure
clause. Somebody must pay a political consequence. The only way to do that is
vote no and vote out the council members responsible.
10. You could be
part of the most stunning political upset in Saint Paul history.
A running thing between a
friend and me, is that we have given up on Saint Paul politics. "War's over, man.
Wormer dropped the big one." Whether it be the Ford Plant, high density,
bike lanes, street closures, medians, public paid for stadiums or garbage. The
City used to have two parties, pro-business Democrats and anti-business
Democrats. With the retirement of Dan Bostrom and the defeat of Pat Harris, the
pro-business Democrats are extinct. My friend and I had given up.
But like Bluto saying, "Over?
Did you say 'over?'" Saint Paul citizens united to oppose the City
controlled garbage hauling. They got signatures, put it on the ballot, sued the
City, went to the Supreme Court and fought tooth and nail a Mayor and City who
fought the whole way the right of citizens to have a say. Maybe there is hope.
Maybe we can change things. Maybe this isn’t a one-party town anymore. Vote on
November 5 and you could be part of the most stunning political upset in Saint
Paul history.
