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.

Local Business Groups Oppose Proposition A

Three local business organizations have announced opposition to Proposition A on the April 5^th ballot in Jefferson City. 

Proposition A purports to amend Jefferson City’s citywide trash/recycling contract by allowing residents to dispose of their trash however they choose, but Randy Allen of the Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce says passage of the proposal would be a step backward for the community and hurt the local economy: “Now we’ve brought Jefferson City into the 21^st century so I think it’s a really big deal for young people and it’s a really big deal for a progressive community.”

Eric Schulte of the Jefferson City Area Board of Realtors acknowledges that the trash/recycling program could be improved upon but says voiding the program by passing Proposition A is not the way to do it.  “By cancelling this contract it is just going to cost everyone more money. There is not much, if any, gain that can possibly come from cancelling this contract.”

Civic Progress, a group representing Jefferson City largest employers, also has announced its opposition to Proposition A and contributed funds to help Citizens for Responsible Progress campaign against it.

Jenny Smith of Citizens for Responsible Progress says her group appreciates the support of the three business groups. “These are serious-minded individuals who want what is best for our community and its future.  They understand that Proposition A is not simply a matter of how we get rid of our garbage, but also how we can grow into a progressive and prosperous community.”

Letter to News Tribune - March 29, 2011

Dear Editor:

Why pay more for trash service? That’s what proponents of Proposition A are really asking us to do.

I thank our City Council for giving us a responsible, affordable, efficient citywide trash service.  They listened to the citizens when we said we wanted a new program that included curbside recycling.  They tested it in a trial program and, when they were satisfied that it worked, they approved the current contract. Citywide trash service is important to the safety and well-being of the citizens of Jefferson City in the same ways that fire and police protection, clean water and sewer service are.  We all pay for those services, why not trash removal?

But let’s not pay more than we need to.

Proponents of Prop. A clamor for “choice” in their trash service.  They had that choice under the previous system and 1,000 tons of trash went missing in 2009.  Well, not missing exactly, but dumped into creeks, wooded areas, in city parks or parking lots, or left in basements or back porches.

Before moving to Jefferson City four years ago I had a choice in my selection of trash providers.  The two competitors provided the same exact service for same exact fee, which was more than I pay now, and I had one pick up each week and no recycling. So much for competition.  If Prop A. passes, we will pay more for less service. Our rates are below the state average and well below our neighbors in Cole and Callaway Counties.  Let’s keep it that way.

We are also likely to lose curbside recycling.  Recycling is important in keeping our  costs down, because Jefferson City is now recycling about 25% of our solid waste, extending the life of our landfill.  Let’s not pay more because more of our trash is going into the landfill instead of being recycled.  That’s what will happen if Prop A. passes.

Passage of Proposition A is also likely to result in the use of our tax money to pay for the city’s breach of our contract with Allied.  That means either higher taxes or a reduction in other services to pay for those costs.

Let’s make sure the money we pay Allied is for trash service, not because we passed Prop. A.

Kenneth Luebbering

Why Vote No?

Jefferson City Area Board of REALTORS® Endorses “No on Proposition A”

The Board of Directors of the Jefferson City Area Board of Realtors voted at their regular monthly meeting on March 16 to endorse "No on Proposition A" which will appear on the April 5th ballot.  While the Board acknowledges there may be room for improvement to make this service more palatable for all, they are concerned that a "yes" vote could find the City of Jefferson in breach of contract and subject to costly litigation.