ATTA’ BOYS FOR ERIC, JIM AND BOB (AGAIN).

Mayor-elect Eric Struemph

 Last night’s meeting of the City Council brought out more opposition to Proposition A on today’s ballot.  Mayor-elect Eric Struemph wasn’t on the City Council when the trash/recycling contract was approved in 2009, but announced that he would vote “No” on Proposition A.  Struemph pledged to work with both supporters and opponents of the trash/recycling program to improve the contract in the coming months.

Councilman Jim Penfold

Second Ward Councilman Jim Penfold voted against the contract two years ago but also announced his opposition to Proposition A.  Penfold says the trash/recycling program has been well-received by the majority of residents in his ward and the rest of Jefferson City.
 

Councilman Bob Scrivner

 Third Ward Councilman Bob Scrivner also voted against the contract two years ago and has been a vocal opponent since that time, but last night he again emphasized that voting for Proposition A is not the way to address his concerns about inequities in the program for those on limited incomes.
 
Fifth Ward Councilman Ron Medin, Fourth Ward Councilwoman Carrie Carroll, and Second Ward Councilman Rich Koon (along with former council representatives Anita Randolph, Ken Ferguson and Cindy Layton) all voted for the trash/recycling program in 2009.  Medin, Carroll  and Layton have been active in the campaign to convince voters to vote NO on Proposition A on today's ballot.
 
NOW IT IS YOUR TURN FOR AN ATTA' BOY (OR AN ATTA' GIRL). 

GO TO THE POLLS TODAY AND VOTE “NO” ON PROPOSITION A. 

DON’T THROW A GOOD THING AWAY.

News Tribune Editorial Says "Don't Trash Progress - Vote 'No' On Proposition A"

Jefferson City’s trash and recycling contract is reasonably priced, practical and progressive.
Proposition A on Tuesday’s ballot would not be a change for the better and we urge residents to vote “no.”
Consider the big picture. Governments — whether federal, state or local — are established to advance the common good — or, in the words of the U.S. Constitution, “promote the general welfare.”
We believe the city’s trash contract does that.
We concede it is not perfect. Low-volume and high-volume residential users may experience a hardship or inconvenience because fees are not linked to individual volumes.
We support reasonable recommendations for improvements. Experience indicates this support is shared by officials with the city and its service provider, Allied Waste Systems.
Residents may request larger or smaller trash receptacles. In addition, disabled residents unable to wheel receptacles to the curb may request enhanced, personal service.
These accommodations are sensible because allowances for individual needs do not threaten the overall public good.
Proposition A proponents argue the proposal does not pose such a threat and simply promotes choice.
The ballot language, indeed, seems benign. It would eliminate the provision that trash be collected only by an “authorized” collector — which now is Allied Waste.
In practice, the change would remove cost controls, likely resulting in higher fees. Does anyone really believe a trash hauler can afford the expenses of manpower, vehicles and gasoline to serve one, or even a few, residents in a neighborhood?
The answer is readily available by looking at other cities and areas, including rural Cole County, where trash removal is more expensive.
Proposition A also could prompt a breach-of-contract lawsuit that could result in legal costs to taxpayers.
Most important, however, is the trash contract’s contribution to the common good.
What’s so good about it? Consider, since the contract became effective in 2009:
• Two million pounds of trash, previously unaccounted for, has been collected. Much of this trash was illegally burned, dumped or disposed of in commercial or residential receptacles or public venues, at the expense of other users and taxpayers.
• Six million pounds of items have been recycled, a seven-fold increase.
• Twenty-four percent of the city’s total waste tonnage now is recycled, which will extend the life of the landfill.
Although the trash contract can be improved, it generally has distributed costs reasonably and transformed Jefferson City into a cleaner and more attractive community.
Residents are being asked not to throw that away.
We agree. Vote “no” Tuesday on Proposition A.

When "Yes" Means "No"

You’d never guess it from the seemingly innocuous language of Proposition A on the April 5^th ballot, but this is one time when “Yes” really means “No”.  Proposition A purports to amend Jefferson City’s citywide trash/recycling contract to only require residents to have trash service but not to require an “authorized collector”.

The problem is that without an authorized collector there is no way to enforce the trash service requirement.  Police and code enforcement staff can’t be staking out everyone’s houses to make sure that everyone has a trash service.  We'd be back to rampant illegal dumping.

Even worse, eliminating the “authorized collector” puts Jefferson City in breach of a $2,000,000 contract with Allied Waste.  That’s the end of our trash/curbside recycling program and the beginning of a lawsuit costing us hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.  In short, Proposition A says “no” to everything we want in Jefferson City.

So how are you going to vote?

-          NO,  because you want to keep our curbside recycling;

-          NO,  because you don’t want to pay $5.00 to $10.00 more each month for trash service;

-          NO, because businesses don’t need to be paying any more for their trash service than they do now;

-          NO, because you don’t want to return to the days of illegal dumping in backyards, basements, public parks and commercial dumpsters;

-          NO, because the money we pay to Allied Waste should go for trash service, not legal damages; and

-          NO, because you want to continue to live in a prosperous, attractive, and progressive community.

DON’T THROW A GOOD THING AWAY.  GO TO THE POLLS ON APRIL 5^TH AND VOTE “NO” ON PROPOSITION A.