I’ve never been very good at watching sports like football where the ball is small and is moved around quickly and where everybody pretends to be holding/hiding it. I’m always surprised to find that the ball is in some other part of the field than where I had thought it was. But, I have always thought that in real life my ball spotting skills are somewhat better. Apparently not so much.
This past week, while I was fretting about the potential demise of Sterling Bank, what was actually demising was the Point Roberts trash collection business. A letter went out to all the residents a day or so ago announcing that, as of June 30, the owner was turning in his curbside trash collecting certificate (this certificate permits him to have a monopoly practice) and would henceforth settle in to tending the transfer station to which we are free to cart our trash and recyclables, although not, presumably, for free.
Well, this has been a long time coming and it’s not that I didn’t think this conclusion was a possibility, but rather that I thought it wouldn’t happen quite this soon. According to the owner, he is calling it quits because it is not feasible to keep trying to conduct the business and also to engage in the drawn out regulatory and legal issues that have arisen between him, the county, the state commission, and some residents. According to the June issue of the All Point Bulletin, a County Judge has ordered him to provide extensive information about the business (including maintenance records for his trucks), and the WUTC said it was conducting a financial audit. (This newspaper account was written before the decision to throw in the towel.)
Well, we are all engrossed in considerations of the appropriate role of empathy these days because of Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, and a charge of excessive demands from bureaucracies is likely to elicit such empathy. Who knows, however, where truth, justice, or high moral tone lies in all this. Certainly I don’t. It’s very difficult to know anything about such issues without a willingness to look through and analyze carefully a lot of information, and information is not always readily available, even in these days of the google and all it offers. But even if it were available, it might be that there are very different views about what are the important issues, what outcomes are being sought, and what is the point of the dispute. What we do know, however, is that after months and months of discussion and charges and countercharges, of litigation and mediation, of hearings proposed and conducted, is that we no longer have either garbage pickup service or recyclable pickup service.
My sense of this is that we are worse off than we were, but also that we are back where we were ten years ago, so no worse off than we used to be. Maybe we can just conclude that ‘No Harm, No Foul’ is the applicable judgment. And, with Obama, we can be ‘Looking Forward, Not Backwards.’ If only I was sure where the ball actually is. Or was. Or even will be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi, Judy -
I would like to make a few points about this. First, it all started when the local hauler decided to stop curbside recycling pickup, and the three local residents (one of whom is my wife) asked him to support his claim that the service was economically infeasible. He didn't or couldn't, and the complaint escalated. In the process that unfolded, it was discovered that driver salaries had quadrupled, even though there were the same number of drivers (2), and no money was being set aside for replacing the two garbage trucks, which are older than the recycling truck was that he claimed was too old to fix. Second, I don't see any logical connection between his decision to stop garbage pickup and the legal battles he's fighting. Third, given the choice between simply providing the supporting evidence for his claim of economic hardship and surrendering his license, why would he not simply provide the requested information and satisfy everyone that the stoppage of service was justified? You're completely right that uncovering the truth requires detailed examination of a lot of data. Unfortunately, the people who have done that research have been blamed for a bad outcome by the people who haven't.
Based on what I've heard over the last 9 months is that most people who live here full time either expected him to stop curbside garbage pickup or wanted him to.
Here is part of a letter I wrote to the editor of the local paper that appeared in the September issue, about one week into my involvement and more that two months before we filed our complaint. (Yes, I am one of the axis of evil complainants!)
"There are no guarantees in life. Arthur may claim that the county is forcing him out of business but it is quite possible that if the county renews its lease with him, he plans to leave on his own accord. This sort of makes sense given the fact his house is for sale. He could sell his G-certificate and transfer the lease to someone else. Not having curbside recycling would make that G-certificate even more valuable.
If we allow the county to change the law to exempt only Point Roberts from curbside recycling, where does it end?
With or without Arthur, there is no guarantee that any form of recycling would continue. There is no guarantee that curbside trash hauling would continue. There is no guarantee that your rates will not change."
So, the lease was extended for five years at the end of April. Two decisions went against the hauler on May 4 and May 5. On May 7, the hauler's industry attorney withdrew. On May 8 the rumor of the hauler walking away was circulating through so many people I even sent an email to the County and the WUTC if they had more info.
In the end, maybe we should wait to see how all of this shakes out before passing judgment. Better yet, it would be best if people would look at the whole picture, i.e. the facts, etc. and not just believing what the hauler says, before making assumptions.
Shannon
Post a Comment