Pay As You Throw Programs: A Contemporary Sham

  "Pay-As-You-Throw," programs have enjoyed nominal success in some communities but has otherwise been an abysmal failure in others.  Proponents and Advocates of PAYT dismiss the contention that PAYT will fail in some communities. Often times, PAYT programs are nothing more than creative cost-shifting measures for lazy community officials to avoid dealing with their own trash disposal challenges.  Nevertheless, there is one constant in all PAYT programs...Great pains are taken to conceal the negative externalities of these programs.  From the EPA right down to the local city government official, more often than not, the "paid trash hack" will not be candid.

Supporters always tell us PAYT gives residents an economic incentive to recycle.  Skumatz Economic Research Associates, a waste-consulting concern in Superior, Colo., estimates that PAYT programs lead to a 17% reduction in the flow of residential waste to incinerators and landfills...  "Every analysis shows that this is a very cost-effective thing to do," says Lisa Skumatz, the firm's principal.  That is not really true, though.  The cost shifts, not reduces.

While households might reduce the number of bags, they typically do not necessarily reduce the actual weight of their household garbage.  By employing the old, "Seattle Stomp," residents will reduce their garbage costs.  The weight of recycling, only nominally increases because many were already participating in voluntary recycling programs before PAYT began.  Increased illegal dumping now becomes an issue, not only for the PAYT-employing community, but also for the other communities that surround it.

The Seattle Stomp.  The practice of compacting or "stomping" on ones trash in pay-as-you-throw communities, to increase the volume of garbage in a single bag so as to decrease the number of bags one must pay for to dispose of.  The Seattle Stomp was so-named because Seattle Washington was one of the nation's first communities to implement a pay-as-you-throw program and Seattle residents responded to an early unit-pricing program by compacting garbage into fewer bags.  This happens in every community that implements PAYT without exception.

Illegal dumping When Charlottesville, Virginia, began charging eighty cents per 32-gallon bag of residential garbage collected at the curb, it should come as no surprise that people responded to PAYT prices as they do all other prices: they do or consume less of it.  (Fullerton and Kinnaman)  A marked increase in trash burning and illegal dumping took place.

Disproportionality.  Others argue that PAYT programs wrongly penalize large families, some elderly and families with infants.  A large family with three or more children will have a significantly higher trash cost than other families in other communities.  Families with newborn infants will often have a higher trash costs because of disposable diapers.  Finally, PAYT programs often significantly affect the elderly on a fixed income where they must sometimes go without one essential item to have another.

Ancillary Costs.  How much does it cost to send out a truck of municipal workers to various remote sites around a city, to pick up illegally dumped trash?  How much does it cost a property owner to clean up his or her property when people illegally dump?  How much time and energy will a property owner spend cleaning up after tenants who refuse to make PAYT a priority in the household expenses?  How much cost will a business using dumpsters incur by increases caused by illegal use?  Illegal Dumpster use is already a problem in many communities that do not have PAYT. Churches, grocery stores, restaurants, and hospitals are often targets of illegal dumpster use.  What about Parks?  Park maintenance will see a spike in costs as workers will be forced to empty trash receptacles used by those who seek to evade PAYT. PAYT don't include these costs in their promotion of PAYT programs.

Shortly after Concord initiated its own Pay-As-You-Throw program, bag sales plummeted, causing a revenue shortfall. Officials budgeted $1.95 million in bag sales but only took in $1.42 million, according to a May 22, 2010 Concord Monitor story.  General Services Director Chip Chesley, while being vague, touted this as a "success."  Such "successes" are the dishonesty of PAYT programs.

"The community response changed much faster than we thought it was going to change," Chesley tells the Monitor.  Chesley alludes to people complying with the program citing marked increases in Recycling.  However, I would bet a Steak Dinner that a significant amount of diversion takes place in Concord and business owners from Concord and surrounding communities are noticing the effects.

PAYT was a non-issue in Bow last year when, according to the Union Leader, voters said "no" at town meeting. Bow Town Manager Jim Pitts tells the UL, the most common argument against the program was that some residents felt they would end up paying more under pay-as-you-go than they currently were through taxes.  In many respects, the residents are correct.

Hopkinton's recently adopted a PAYT program was put into doubt when the Town's largest trash hauler, G. Dockham Trucking decided not to participate in the program.  Dockham lost twenty-four customers the first week because the residents did not want to pay for trash bags.  Ultimately, those in charge in Hopkinton will shove this program down the throats of residents, no matter who is injured by it.

PAYT programs only work in a limited variety of circumstances and communities.  PAYT is no standard-bearer for efficient waste disposal and reduction of landfills.  The incremental benefit of trash unit pricing is small the social benefit does not cover the administrative cost.

Remember, when people throw something, "away," there is no "away."  Garbage goes somewhere or ends up somewhere else...not simply, "away."  PAYT merely shifts responsibility and costs to others and negative externalities are rarely reflected in PAYT analyses.  There exists this circus clown-like false notion that PAYT fees collected result in a tax reduction.  (A Knee-slapper, if there ever was one)

Comments

[Thom S]

So apparently, you want a broad-based tax to pay for YOUR garbage? How utterky liberal of you!

PAYG (just like Cap-and-Trade) was originally a libertarian/conservative think-tank dream. Entirely consistent with fiscal conservatism, it replaces taxes and bottomless taxing pits with a time-honored concept: "you make the mess, you clean it up." It's the User-Free concept...and I would have thought, to be consistent with your other posts, that you would have been enthusiastic about it.

The 'Seattle Stomp' results in fewer non-bioegradable plastic bags being used, and thus has a significant positive benefit.You describe why above, but never seem to arrive at the obvious conclusion.

You have also ignored the market function (again, unusual for you) whereby consumers have an incentive to purchase products with fewer residual packaging parts. The average consumer, faced with increased fees for dumping refuse, is *more* likely to purchase goods with less packaging than simply dump them in the woods. Changes in consumer purchasing habits will lead to changes in the packaging industry itself. Markets work...I would have thought you would have e,braced that concept.

Dumping in the woods? Yes, that happens now, with televisions and refrigerators and boxspings. That's a problem NOW, without PAYG. What's your alternative? Stop charging for them at landfills?

How would you prefer to pay for refuse disposal? You havent given us an alternative.

PAYG offers a time honored, fiscally responsible approach to trash: You cause the problem, YOU pay for it. Will it fall unevenly upon different people? Yes it will...it will fall upon those responsible for the problem in the first place.

[NH INSIDER]

I would add to Thom's analysis that a PAYG system when coupled with a good recycling program such as Peterborough's gives a user the choice ... Pay to throw it away or bring it to the recycling section.

Recycling done right removes all the heaviest items, Glass, Cans, Newspapers/Magazines, and garbage(swill). It leaves you with clean Trash! Then you stomp down the trash and cram it into as few bags as possible. Reducing any disposal costs considerably. Or you can fill a number of additional bags because you don't want to recycle .. your choice!

Waste Management and other haulers still compete for peoples trash and offer competing programs. A true Free Market system.

Landlords should be providing trash service if they wish their properties to hold their value.

Work Hard Have Fun!
bob demaura

[Richard Olson Jr.]

Thom...

I already have a broad-based tax to pay for yours and my garbage. I disagree...there is nothing liberal about this

I could care less who thought it up, quite frankly. And that is one of the biggest lies I have seen yet that such a program is, "consistent with fiscal conservatism." This NEVER replaces taxes and bottomless taxing pits (SIC) Where is the city of Concord going to get their revenue shortfall from? The real "time-honored concept" is "you make the mess, somebody else cleans it up." A User-Free concept? More like a Crock....I am never enthusiastic about being lied to by a municipality.

We could argue all day long about the 'Seattle Stomp' but the conclusion as to why people do it is CRYSTAL CLEAR: put more stuff in fewer bags. Could that be the reason some municipalities have weight restrictions on their bags?

It is actually you who has ignored the market function (again, unusual for you) Dumping in the woods is a negative externality now existent, but increases significantly. Citing Televisions, Refrigerators,boxspings and other durable household goods is an apples to oranges argument, because municipalities govern the disposal of those very items separately, regardless of whether Pay-As-You-Throw is in place or not. Not to get too far off the beaten path here, but the city of Manchester makes it relatively easy to dispose of such articles. One pays a flat fee, receives an orange sticker and the item is picked up at the curb. Household furnishings and appliances are not "garbage" they are recyclables.

and since you asked, I prefer to pay for refuse disposal based on what works. If a dumpster at a property works, that is what I prefer. But again, thats getting off topic.

You assert that PAYG offers a "time honored, fiscally responsible approach to trash" Bull....you have not provided a reasonable rebuttal to support that assertion.

You then say, Will it fall unevenly upon different people? Yes it will...it will fall upon those responsible for the problem in the first place....That is liberal speak and class warfare if I ever saw it.

Many communities are recycling now and have been for quite some time. Manchester is one such community "without" a PAYT program. It would be a failure here....We seem to be the landing ground for the undesirables of the world. Property owners spending all kinds of time, money and energy cleaning up after their tenants in this city. Now, the city will tell people "you must use these bags" and when you don't we are going to fine your landlord....and I'll tell you right now, Judges will not be granting evictions because people didn't use a certain color bag.

Landlords can buy the bags and hand them out to tenants, but even then recyclables end up in the bags and the bags are used just like regular trash bags. Ultimately, the tenant tosses their trash elsewhere. This is why Landlords have dumpsters. And they pay for those dumpsters! Its not without problems, but the problems are minimal.

[right for truth]

No two ways about it, PAYT fits into the classic fiscal conservative agenda-- less government waste, more efficiency, greater personal responsibility.

Here's the argument in a nutshell (well, a :60 second animated video nutshell):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmqX0SIDwOY

[brian j]

Maybe it just me, but I find it odd to even question whether pay-as-you-throw is consistent with fiscal conservatism.

And Thom S. is not the only one who agrees with me.

The conservative Reason Foundation says "PAYT is the single most effective change a community can make to its garbage and recycling program."

The better question is, what's been the hold up? Why isn't every city and town -- especially in the Northeast where landfill space is precious -- adopting PAYT?

The answer, plain and simple, is politics.

The mere mention of PAYT can set off a political firestorm.

And, most often, the strongest opposition to PAYT comes from the right -- fiscal conservatives -- who assume -- incorrectly --that PAYT means bigger government and bigger taxes.

So, the key must be education -- educating city leaders and ordinary citizens about the remarkable benefits of PAYT for individuals, cities, and the environment.

And educating and demonstrating that PAYT is grounded in free-market concepts.

Fortunately, I'm not the only one who sees that PAYT is wholely aligned with the fiscal conservative ideals of government efficiency, personal freedom and responsibility, and fairness. Far from it.

Here's a sampling of conservative arguments in support of PAYT:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/what-garbage-crisis/
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/pdf/the_waste_of_nations.pdf
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/11735/Recycling_Your_Time_Can_Be_Better_Spent.html
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2236 http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/1532

Brian J.