A recycling proposal in Plymouth is facing a public backlash over the expected extra costs of around $400,000 over three years. They say it will take the amount of garbage that goes unrecycled from around 5-6% down to 1-2%, and with the population extimate for Plymouth at around 70,000 people, that would come out to a cost of about $1.90 per person per year. Are the residents of Plymouth really so incredibly stingy when it comes to recycling?
Plymouth Cheapskates Hate Environment
Aug 28 2008 — 2:00am
15 Reader Comments
11:09 am
Not the most neutral post, but what are you gonna do? It’s Wayneville.
11:12 am
Well I didn’t think we were bound to the same standards of journalistic faux-neutrality here on the interwebs, but you have to admit two bucks a year is a really silly thing to get so pushed out of shape over.
11:16 am
This just in…Recycling Today Magazine did not even have Plymouth in the Top 50 Most Livable Cities in America.
11:16 am
No, but if you slant a political post too far in one direction when you post it, it’s not always conducive to civil discussion.
11:30 am
WM proponents may have a valid point that using a single stream system will probably result in more people recycling, lazy as we are . . .
11:35 am
I didn’t think this was a political post, and I see politics in everything.
I’m a single streamer. Sorting is a pain and it’s not like I have room in my little condo for multiple garbage cans. Hell, I don’t even have one garbage can, I just use the paper sacks from my groceries. That’s right, I’m a single-stream garbage can free man. And I’m single.
11:36 am
some times I have dual streams in the morning.
11:38 am
some times I have dual streams in the morning.
You should probably get that checked out.
11:44 am
I live in Plymouth, and I got at least one mailing from Waste Management talking about the increased cost of going to Eureka and how we’d have to separate everything.
Now I come to find out from the Strib article that it’s not like we’d have to separate brown glass from clear glass from cans etc, but just separate paper from containers. Big deal.
So the Waste Management mailing was deceptive in regards to how much extra work would be involved with sorting, but on the other hand, at least we got a mailing. We got nothing from Eureka regarding their take on things. So, because of lack of aggressive PR, Eureka deserves to lose the contract.
12:24 pm
well my impression from the article was that people are more pissy about the cost than the trouble of sorting.
although maybe I should have said “lazy and cheap” instead.
12:57 pm
well my impression from the article was that people are more pissy about the cost than the trouble of sorting.
Yeah, you’re right about the tone of the article. I was just giving my personal take on the issue as a resident. $2 a year isn’t going to break me. But the thought of having to find space in my house for 8 recycling containers, or the thought of having to pick and sort through sticky cans and bottles every week seemed pretty hideous.
Regarding the misinformation contained in the WM letters: I don’t have it in front of me, but I swear to God that WM was quoting $400K per year, not over 3 years.
5:26 pm
yeah, don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate what WM does as far as recycling, but when a municipality wants to step it up and recycle more, it’s pretty shitty to send out propaganda like that. I know they want to keep that business contract, but they should think about trying to make more competitive offers or step up their own recycling, etc., rather than starting a disinformation campaign.
6:24 pm
When all the people breeding pay for their kids cost to the environment and the Chinese stop producing crap for our consumption with the use of coal fired energy. Then I will recycle. Until then it is like praying it don’t mean shit.
7:10 pm
yes, just because there are other problems to be addresses frees you from any moral obligation to do the right thing.
of course if we all didn’t bother to recycle, we would have no moral authority to pressure anyone to clean up their act. just like how china is all like “pssh, whatever hypocrites” when we try to talk to them about reducing carbon emissions.
9:31 pm
it’s pretty shitty to send out propaganda like that. I know they want to keep that business contract, but they should think about trying to make more competitive offers or step up their own recycling, etc., rather than starting a disinformation campaign.
I totally agree. On the other hand, it was naive of Eureka to not “fight fire with fire” so to speak and send out their side of the story. I got my first mailing from WM about a month before the city council meeting; plenty of time for Eureka to get its act together and send out a counterpunch. But the silence was deafening, so the citizenry came to the council meeting armed with the only side of the story that they knew. Can’t blame them, really.