Be a roving reporter!  Send us your pictures!  We'll publish them here. Send them to uapetition@aol.com.

Click a button below for other news.

                                                

Week 17 - Day 3

Last week, a roving reporter called to tell us that contractor workers were dumping paper and bottles/cans in the same packer.  We didn't have time to verify it, so we didn't report it.

Well, yesterday we got the following email from a resident.
 
Perhaps Virginia Barney, Linda Mauger, Joe Valentino or another esteemed member of U.A. City Council can answer my question.  Today I stood outside and watched the worker throw my recycling bin of paper products and my second bin of glass and plastic products into the back of the same truck.  I take great pride in sorting this stuff out.  Can someone tell me why we sort the items?  

We know that the contractor uses two types of trucks, one of which is side-loaded and has two compartments, one for bottles/cans and one for paper.  So we emailed the resident to confirm that the truck was rear-loaded rather than side-loaded, and he/she replied that, yes, the stuff was thrown in the back of the truck.

So ... has the city altered its contract with the recycler to accommodate "single stream" loads, or is the "new" contractor inappropriately mixing bottles/cans and paper?  If this is going to the dump rather than to the recycler, the city's losing money because the stuff isn't being recycled.

We are about to enter our fourth month with this "new" service.  If this is inappropriate disposal, someone needs to tell the contractor that this is not what we signed up for. 


Article in this week's UA News, "Petitions further the fight for trash privatization."

I guess the city's going to come up with a cost estimate for returning to the old service.

So ... we're going to pay the price for a poor decision they made because they didn't listen to us?  Perhaps the additional cost should come out of their salaries. 


Week 17 - Day 1  

Article in Saturday's Dispatch on turning in the petitions ... 
"Arlington residents want vote on trash"


The City Manager states two reasons why the city can't go back to the old service.

1. Because it can't get out of the contract, and

2. Because of increased cost.

With respect to #1, back in May, the contractor came forward and offered to terminate the contract with no fault to either party.  The City Manager, without consulting Council, turned it down.

With respect to #2, that's questionable.  Providing the service elements inherent in the old system is costing the city more than expected.  The cost savings appear to be nowhere near what were claimed back in February.  We'll get a better feel for the actual numbers once we get a couple more months of data.

Click below to see a comparison of both services.


 
After studying it,
YOU decide which one you want for the next 5 years.


Oh ... and what's a "NON-COLLECTION" notice?
If you haven't gotten one already, here's what it looks like. (Check with your neighbors ... they probably have.)
Click on it to get a printable version.



The most frequent reason appears to be "not out on time." 
If this is the case, here's a really dumb question.

If someone is taking the time to drive back to a residence, note the time, write up the notice, and place it on the offending trash/recyclables,
why doesn't he/she just pick the stuff up
and place a "warning" on the empty can/bin?

The contractor could use one of the three buggies it purchased from the city to do this!

I guess, though, that wouldn't teach us the lesson that apparently we need to be taught.