Tulsa Trash and Recycling Task Force

[MDepr2007]

I guess it never bothered me enough to get "outraged" over it to take video. I mean, the cans are plastic or aluminum, and fairly cheap given the lifespan of a trash can.

Can you imagine if they took the time to gently set the can down in an upright manner? People would complain that they were wasting tax-payer money by not being quick and efficient.

No trouble taking video, just copy from security recording and zoom in.  
Laying cans in the street, throwing and or setting them in the driveway making the wife move them before she can back out for work is unacceptable service for something I am paying for.

[RecycleMichael]

There is a City of Tulsa refuse complaint line 596-9777.

Complaints have been up in recent months...

[MDepr2007]

There is a City of Tulsa refuse complaint line 596-9777.

Complaints have been up in recent months...

Works real good at pissing the trash haulers off too.

[RecycleMichael]

My experience with the city refuse haulers has been very positive. I have heard way more compliments than complaints. If anything, they are too good. They make it so easy to throw away that it discourages people from recycling.

Tulsans are spoiled. They can throw away unlimited household refuse. That is becoming rare. They can get the trash crew to come by their house twice-per-week. That has been dropped by 44 of the 50 biggest cities and all but one of the area cities. Tulsans can also throw away twelve bags of grass clipping or leaves per week. That is unheard of.

Tulsans are charged one price, no matter how much they throw away. That inequity punishes senior citizens (and recyclers) who traditionally generate much less waste. Tulsans also have different rates and different services levels in two parts of town even though they produce very similar amounts of trash. 

Our system is broke and if Tulsa doesn't make some changes soon, we will also be paying ridiculously high rates for trash service.   

[Wrinkle]

Our system is not broke. It's working exactly as it was designed.

And, we've been overcharged for trash service for the last 20 years due to the mortgage on an incinerator we do not own.

Now that the mortgage is paid off, those charges (less $1) are still being collected, resulting in the current $11 Million surplus in TARE's account (mislabled a 'Reserve Fund'). That $11M is only THIS year's overcharges. Last years' overcharges went to the Mayor. That $11M was used to clean up debris after the Ice Storm of 2007 (Dec 12, 2007), in 2008.

Tulsan's are being charged enough to accomplish any new design of trash service and still reduce rates. The landfill rates are 1/3rd less than the same tonnage rates were for the incinerator.

I'd think twice a week pickup with one day being trash and one day being recyclables, along with a rate reduction, would be a good solution.

If there's a great deal of dissatisfaction, I'm wondering if we should leave it to those who designed it to do it again. It seems to me the only real goal here is to achieve more net revenue for the Mayor's mad-money account.

[RecycleMichael]

I'd think twice a week pickup with one day being trash and one day being recyclables, along with a rate reduction, would be a good solution.

I think that is achievable. The Beck report recommends that very system.

[Wrinkle]

I think that is achievable. The Beck report recommends that very system.

I've seen synopsies of the Beck Report, but have yet to locate a copy. Could you please post a link to the actual report, please?

From what I've seen so far, the Beck plan goes much further than the simplicity stated above, with many limitations/conditions which are not currently in force.

These include those large wheeled containers, no bags, no lawn debris, mechanically-assisted trucks, etc.

There needs to be some discussion of trash at the conceptual level. Our forefathers, in their wisdom, recognized that trash, no matter how much or the source, gets thrown. Where and when is what's to be controlled, not what one considers trash,  because if the city doesn't do something with it, the originator will, even if it ends up in the street, in the river or some backwoods drop.

Our current system is designed to accomodate all forms of trash. An customer can even call in special pickups, for free, when objects need special handling, like refrigerators/stoves, mattresses, etc.

In short, it works. It keeps trash off the streets, and keeps people from having to come to their own resolution to a trash issue.

That needs to remain.

Grass clippings in landfill actually has little to do with the evironmental issues being claimed. Rather, is about manpower and space requirements currently being required  to do so. It's an overhead cost reduction consideration.

Grass clippings actually assist the biodegradation process. And, if bio-gas capture may be implemented as an energy source, is beneficial.

Plastic bags, at least the trash bags, are now design to biodegrade. At the grocery store, choosing paper, or bringing your own permenent bag, would be the way to go.

Conceptually, the less cumbersome the process is to the customer, the more successful it will be. And, the less misc trash there'll be along our roads, in our rivers or piled up in conspicuous places.

By design, this issue was considered to be a public cause, to keep our city clean. Today's proposals attempt to isolate each customer and charge them for the volume of trash they produce.

Tulsa was once named "America's Cleanest City" (forget what year/s, around 1980 or so, I think). The trash policy is largely the reason for that. But, and this is not a racist comment, it also has to do with customary issues of different places. It seems to me Mexico's national policy on litter did not seem to prepare their citizens for our litter customs here.

So, a public education campaign on litter should once again be implemented. It worked well before at changing us to litter-conscience citizens.

I'm also distressed that Mayor Taylor has now managed to shift normal city mowing and graffiti abatement costs to TARE's surplus funding. That's $750,000/yr now being funded by trash rates which should not be.

Seems it's well on it's way to becoming the Mayors' slush fund.

Anyway, this is going to be discussed at length, I presume.

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

Our current system is designed to accomodate all forms of trash. An customer can even call in special pickups, for free, when objects need special handling, like refrigerators/stoves, mattresses, etc.

The city should not pickup items that can be easily recycled. 

Computers, TVs, monitors, phones, etc can be recycled at any Best Buy store http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?type=category&id=pcmcat149900050025&DCMP=rdr0001422

Appliances can be sold on Craigslist even if they don't work someone will buy them or haul them off for free.  Also I have sold or given away used mattresses and sofas on Craigslist.

Car batteries, oil, and old auto parts can be recycled at most auto parts/repair places

[shadows]

My experience with the city refuse haulers has been very positive. I have heard way more compliments than complaints. If anything, they are too good. They make it so easy to throw away that it discourages people from recycling.

As we are aware there are some cities who place their trash on a conveyer belt and workers sort the recyclable item as they progress down the belt and place them in a shredder or crusher.  That part of the garbage that will  return back to the dust by nature is placed in the land fills.  We are a middle class city that is using a disposal system that is used by the smallest of towns.  It is time to update and save the only environment we can survive in.