San Jose City Council
June 7, 2022

[External Email]
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important FW: garbage and recycling rate increase
City Clerk <[email protected]>
Tue 5/24/2022 9:27 AM
To: Agendadesk <[email protected]>

From: District 6 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:25 AM
To: sklandscape <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; District 6 <[email protected]> Subject: RE: garbage and recycling rate increase

Hi Sco,

Thank you for your comments. We will submit to the clerk for official public comment.

Best,

Lou
District 6 Team

From: sklandscape
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 7:26 AM
To: District 6 <[email protected]>
Subject: garbage and recycling rate increase

This leer is being submi ed in response to the quest of raising garbage and recycling rates for our city and as a council member represen ng my district I wanted to directly submit this to you.

San Jose CA 95128

This leer is being wri en in protest of the proposed rate increase for the Residen al Garbage and Recycling Services to take effect July 1, 2022

1) As you noted in your mailer, the last me rates went up were only one year ago.

2) There is no stated me frame that this increase is to cover. It seems most likely that you are going to do this again next year.

3) Our produc on of waste in this household is so low that at least half of the year we are not even pu ng cans out every week of every month. So no maer how much we cut back on garbage and “recyclables” we are constantly being told we have to pay more.

4) The recycle program is really a scam to just fund another government bureacracy. All of the limited number of items you are collec ng have already been paid for by the consumer. That alone should fund the collec on effort.

5) If you ever went to the dump, you would see how ineffec ve your recycling program really is. There are literally mountains of product that could and should be recycled.

6) There are far too many products that you do not consider as recyclable. That is because you are again only going aer what the public has already paid for when they purchase product.

7) There is a complete disconnect on your part of understanding the concept of trea ng product ( recyclables ). For you to think that the average household is going to clean every single plas c item before pu ng into the container is so far fetched. It would be so much more prac cal to put the recyclables into a giant tub and agitate together to clean rather than expec ng every single person in every single household to wash that stu ff singly. Think of how much clean water that uses in comparison to a giant tub using recycled water that you are having a tough me fi guring out how to use.

8) When you fi rst started this program, the public was told that this would decrease the the impact on the land fi lls. Those that we have are s ll going to reach capacity sooner than later, regardless of you extending the capacity limits. What is really the problem here is that you are bringing too many people into an area that has limited amount of capacity and natural resources.

9) Your yard trimming program really is just subsidizing the the unlicensed gardner. You are also charging for the modi fi ed product when the public purchases the mulches and composts you are producing from this collec on.

10) You do not state what the increased costs incurred by the contractors are.

11) Although you do not state it, most know that the IBT Local is siphoning money o ff of this program in the form of collec ng dues from union members. That money is then spent on the union func on which also includes massive amount of poli cal dona ons and press. We do not need unionized public servants. We don’t need to be subsidizing union poli cal views. Your system and our country already have the highest level of human resource benefi ts and protec ons listed in laws. We do not need to have those protected by these laws being in a union which siphons off the public by the constant tax and rate increases.

12) When one drives all across town, it is seen that the smallest por on of the public opts to use the oil recycling program. This can’t be a gigan c expense of the recycling program.

13) With all of the innova on, technology and manpower available here, you s ll somehow have a problem sor ng materials from the bins.

This is directly related to the limited amount of items you deem recyclable.

14) There needs to be a dicussion about packaging. Your program should be able to provide input in how we can reduce consump on and waste by taking an in depth aprroach to reducing the incredible amount of packaging for the simplest item. We need discussion and direc on with manufacturing to use materials that are recyclable in the form of; foam peanuts, styrafoam, expanded cell foam, plas cs bonded to paper and foil and the myriad forms of plas c bags.

15) If you were able to see the contradic on of sending our recyclables half way across the world to process, you would fi nd a way of processing these items here in our region and reducing costs and employing more of our residents.

These are virtually the same points I made the last me you asked for public input on the rate changes, yet apparently you ignored common sense. Your posi on in the community is only to fund your bureaucracy and overly burdensome government structure while perpetua ng your job and suppor ng unions. You are basing all of your edicts on an ignorant public which you have done a great job of crea ng.

Sco Korbay
San jose, CA 95128