We all read the story in last week’s Boston Globe about how some legislative candidates are tacking to the right.
Just wanted to bring another example to light: state Rep. Steve Tobin of Quincy, who is running to replace Mike Morrissey in the state senate.
Rep. Tobin in a column in the Braintree Forum this week took a page out of the GOP playbook saying he opposes expanding the Bottle Bill to include water and sports drink bottles, calling it a “tax.”
More incredibly, he also said the Bottle Bill is ineffective. “Adding a tax to your water bottles neither equates to fewer water bottles nor decreases plastic production. Furthermore, it is damaging to your quality of life. The result of the proposed bill is an additional tax for you, albeit strategically disguised.”
I’m pretty sure the people who spend time cleaning water bottles out our local waterways and roadsides would disagree.
Also, I’m trying to track down the footage, but according to my local sources, Rep. Tobin also tried to favorably compared himself several times to US Sen. Scott Brown during a recent cable access debate.
Sounds like a good Democrat we should all get behind!
DISCLAIMER: I dont live in the district and don’t have a horse in this race.
Recycling rates are highest in states with the strongest bottle bills — Michigan it’s a dime, and Maine includes all beverage containers. Heck, in MA the recycling rate of deposit bottles is about 4/5s, whereas the recycling rate of non-deposit is about 1/3*.
<
p>A state legislator once said it best: I wish all my taxes were like the bottle bill — then I could get all my money back!
<
p>
<
p> * read recently on a DOER site, can’t find it again
the purpose of the bottle bill, from what I’ve been made aware, is not to reduce the use of plastic or get people to buy fewer water and sports drink bottles. The purpose is to keep our streets clean — and in that endeavor, all evidence points in the direction that a bottle deposit is, indeed, effective. Now if only we could get ‘deposits’ on our scratch tickets… I swear that’s 50% of the litter I see on streets.
there was an incentive some years ago aimed at reducing the litter from losing lottery tickets. The idea was to accumulate a certain # of tickets, then send them in to the Lottery to be entered in a drawing from a prize. It probably wasn’t successful due to the lack of any publicity about it, and the piles of tickets lying around the streets, particularly scratch tickets. Maybe a solution is something targeting scratch tickets.
I seem to remember that they had to devalue the prizes because some enterprising citizens came in with boxes of losing tickets.
I don’t remember much about it after the program started.
either wasn’t here in the ’70s, or has memory problems. There was glass and plastic lining all the roads; it was a mess. Nowadays, it’s water bottles and the occasional beer can, but the volume of tossed beverage containers is tiny in comparison to what it was before the Bottle Bill.
although from my experience walking around my North Shore neighborhood, they are the overwhelming bulk of the litter. It’s also all kinds of single serving, single purchase bottles such as juices, milks, and energy drinks, packaged in plastic bottles and aluminum cans bought in convenience stores and Dunkin Donuts type shops. I say expand the deposit bill to cover all those areas. As a tradeoff, I might consider eliminating the deposit on multiple serving bottles bottles, such as 1 and 2 liter soda bottles, which tend to be used in the home where littering with them is less of a problem.
might be my biggest pet peeve. It’s just so unnecessary. There are public trash barrels everywhere (not enough public recycling, but I digress). You just have to be a jerk to throw that stuff on the ground.
And the legislation to expand the bottle bill would apply the refundable deposit to all such bottles and cans.
<
p>”Beverage” would include “soda water or similar carbonated soft drinks; noncarbonated beverages including mineral water, flavored and unflavored water, vitamin water, and other water beverages, tea, sports drinks, isotonic drinks; beer and other malt beverages; and all other non-alcoholic carbonated and noncarbonated drinks in liquid form intended for human consumption except milk and beverages that are primarily derived from dairy products, infant formula, and FDA-approved medicines.”
<
p>An argument could be made to include “single-serving” milk too, though taking on the dairy industry in New England is never a smart move.
<
p>”Beverage container,” would be defined as “any sealable bottle, can, jar, or carton which is primarily composed of glass, metal, plastic, or any combination of those materials and is produced for the purpose of containing a beverage, which, at the time of sale, contains one-hundred and thirty-five ounces or less of a beverage.”
Given the new status of the city of Quincy as a coveted political ground potentially up for grabs by Republicans,
<
p>and given Rep. Tobin’s anti-tax stand (he was one of 50 or so Democrats to vote to repeal the sales tax on alcohol during the House budget debate in April (the “no” votes are in favor of repeal), his opposition to the bottle bill on the ground that it’s a “tax” is, regrettably, not that surprising.
<
p>Republicans elsewhere can complain about their RINO’s, but here in Massachusetts we have DINO’s to match them.
Tobin abandoned his district’s slice of Quincy to run for the Morrissey seat and we have a great shot at getting Tacky Chan to replace him. A good progressive who can get things done.
Senator Morrissey attended a forum to discuss ‘casinos,’ and talked to others ALL the way through it.
<
p>Apparently, he is simply sooooo wise, he doesn’t have to listen to anyone.
<
p>Sitting on the panel, it was necessary that the audience of your simple average voters (unlike Senator Morrissey with a law degree from what I was told) had to inform Senator Morrissey about Carcieri v Salazar – the first SCOTUS decisions that rendered Tribal Casinos a non-issue.
<
p>Judging from Senator Rosenberg’s email [link below] Senator Morrissey freely distributes uninformed and unresearched legal advice that is totally incorrect.
<
p>If you’re too lazy to click the link, there was a subsequent UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision – Hawaii that essentially prohibits the BIA or DOI from taking land away from states to construct SLOT BARNS.
<
p>But, hey! What could your simple average voter possibly know that an arrogant Senator who graces us with his presence doesn’t?
<
p>(You might want to consider reviewing the Senator’s testimony on the Senator floor during the Hearings. Pretty uninformed as well.)
<
p>Senator Morrissey
<
p>Lest you convince yourselves that Senator Morrissey was only rude that day – WRONG! He was equally as rude during a committee hearing I attended, but then, I guess when you already have your mind made up, you don’t have to listen to the public anyway.
<
p>Apologies to those who criticize for my one single issue focus! Rest assured, you’ll survive your boredom.
In the case of this state Senate seat, it looks a lot like the same old, same old.
<
p>If your guy (quick, what’s his name?), Dan Dewey, were to win, he would join those occupying one of the lowest rungs of Boston Herald Hackerama: the “double dippers”.
<
p>Mr. Dewey is already “pulling down $62 Large,” as Howie might say, in the form of a state pension for his service on the Parole Board. You can look it up.
<
p>A legislator’s salary on top of that would get him his second dip into the feedbag, for six figures’ worth of taxpayer dollars annually.
<
p>Just the guy to advance Charlie Baker’s pension reform agenda.
<
p>Let’s think of something else.
You mean like Richard Keating?
This bill should have been passed before the end of the session yet, sadly was not.
<
p>In my opinion, the reason it was not was the ongoing dysfunction of the Lege that was busy tying itself up in knots over the casino / expanded gaming debate.
<
p>I have trouble with the budget including amounts from the bottle bill as a revenue item. This does make it look like a tax. But I put it in the camp of a “stupidity tax”. You can get the money back simply by bringing your bottles and cans next time you go to purchase some more. Do this a few times and you see the money that you are saving by recycling to a center that gives you your money back.
<
p>But, I end with my belief that we need not be having this discussion now if the Lege had actually focused on matters beyond the casino debate and gotten more of the people’s business done.
in added revenue. It’s not chump change, but they could include it or not in the budget’s expenditures… it’s too small to worry about it from that perspective.
<
p>That written, it will save each city and town substantial funds both in (a) litter removal, (b) muni-owned barrel collection, and (c) reduced costs to process recycling from residents curbside.
The potential savings to municipal budgets are more beneficial than any “revenue” gain to the Commonwealth.
<
p>My point is that including it as an additional revenue makes it seem like a tax which, given the dollars involved, seems like something that could and should be avoided.
This is an indictment of leadership in each house that they were too busy meeting behind closed doors with the gambling industry and lobbyists and ignored the “PEOPLE’S” business. There were vast quantities of Home Rule stuff that they crammed through informal session that should have been discharged earlier.
<
p>What a pity the People don’t get to vote for the leadership because this is clearly unacceptable.
<
p>stomv got it right that this represents savings for municipalities – less litter to pick up, less solid waste to dispose of or recycle.
<
p>Just think what it would add to the fund raising of many groups like the Boy Scouts.
<
p>Maybe the new legislature should have the sense to fire their previous choices instead of lusting after bigger offices, larger staffs and more pay.
given that school has started, but this comment:
<
p>
<
p>if quoted accurately, is one of the most inane, ill-informed, idiotic, and cynical statement I’ve heard yet from someone who claims to be a Democrat. HFS. My quality of life? I was alive and sentient during the 70s. I remember the freakin’ bottles on the side of the road. Beach glass? Anyone notice that you can’t find any these days? Duh.
by allowing video billboards. Part of her legacy was a ban on moving lights on billboards… you could illuminate them, but not have “animation” (think moving neon signs given that era’s technology).
<
p>Now we have 300′ television screens which change ads every 5 seconds — their brightness and their changing picture are remarkably distracting, and should be rolled back. For example, the brightness could be turned down a bit, and changes could be once every x minutes, thereby ensuring that nearly every driver only saw one image, not a transition. The transitions themselves could be less abrupt — think a fade in/fade out.
<
p>They’re currently designed to distract drivers. We know that. We know that’s bad policy. Yet, it’s Clear Channel, so we ignore common sense.
<
p>
<
p>Lady Bird Johnson didn’t.
when I was caught in that monumental pothole jam on Route 93, I was wishing someone had the forethought to use those billboards to inform drivers what was going on.
I was at a campaign event earlier this summer for Sen. Eldridge and he touted his efforts to expand the bottle bill. We’ve been recycling and redeeming since before recycling was cool. Now though it seems unnecessary to separate them from other recyclables. I asked him point blank, “Hasn’t the bottle bill outlived its usefulness?” He said he’d agree if curbside recycling were universal, but apparently it isn’t. My town has had it for years and I assumed it was the norm.
compliance is far from universal.
<
p>Furthermore, curbside recycling doesn’t alleviate a number of things that deposit does. It doesn’t help reduce litter. It doesn’t help reduce the solid waste cost burden on cities and Towns.
<
p>In MA, the recycling rate of deposit containers is 80%. In MA, the recycling rate of non-deposit is 33%. Now, some of that is because of the few communities in MA which don’t have curbside, but the vast majority of MA residents either (a) have curbside, or (b) have private haulers [apt buildings, for example] for which curbside is irrelevant.
<
p>
<
p>Curbside is certainly part of the program to reduce our solid waste-fulness. However, it can’t do all of the things that the bottle deposit can.
Every week, someone upends my curbside recycling bin in a search for returnables. The result is that once the trash and recycling is collected, the street is strewn with litter. I even tried putting the returnables in a separate container, but to no avail.
Think of the miles of road in Barnstable, Dukes, Nantucket, and Berkshire counties, and the distance between residences. The cost of fuel for municipal vehicles. In rural areas, curbside recycling might even increase a town’s carbon footprint.
recycling, it’s not universal. Lowell has recycling for single-family homes, but not for apartments.
<
p>The motorized litterbugs who eject their empties out the window are not going to use curbside recycling instead, no matter how widespread it is. If the deposit law is repealed, they’ll have even less incentive to do so.
<
p>http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycl…
<
p>Can’t argue with success. People are much more likely to recycle when they’re going to get their money back than they are when they have to keep all their bottles for two weeks or throw them away. A lot of people will just throw them away.
<
p>My stepmother, for example, only recycles every other week… because that’s how often the recycling truck comes around. I suspect she doesn’t recycle as much as she otherwise would in those weeks she does recycle because she gets out of practice. But she does return her bottles… with a deposit.
<
p>The deposit bill is — or at least should be — one of the biggest no-brainers around in state government these days. It earns money for cities and towns, saves money for cities and towns, increases recycling rates and reduces litter — and it doesn’t have to cost anyone anything, if they just return their darn bottles when they go to the Supermarket the next time. Refusal to pass this bill is comes down to pure obfuscation and stubbornness towards actually doing anything that could help this planet.
I for one find it much easier to throw the bottles in with the rest of the recycling. It shouldn’t matter how often it’s collected. Just put the items aside until it’s time to go to the curb, which is what my family does. Then again, I advocate making this just as routine and universal as curbside pickup. Maybe there need to be more public recycling recepticles along with trash recepticles if the concern is liter. Your last paragraph comes close to the “I can’t believe anyone could possibly have a different opinion than I do” attitude that I don’t care for. As for money, I assume no bottle bill means no longer charging the five cent deposit to begin with, so whether you save a nickel up front or get it back later you still have an extra nickel.
First, as PP noted upthread, municipally-funded curbside pickup even of trash, to say nothing of recycling, is hardly “universal.” Towns as large as Winchester don’t have curbside trash pickup (they do have private haulers, who of course charge a fee).
<
p>Second, you do understand how the bottle bill works, don’t you? Retailers charge an extra nickel on covered bottles; you get that nickel back if/when you return the bottle. So if you “throw the bottles in with the rest of the recycling,” you are forfeiting the nickel. That’s fine, but be aware that that’s a choice you are making.
<
p>The reason I ask is this comment:
<
p>
<
p>No, there is no “extra nickel.” It’s true that repealing the bottle bill (which BTW is not on the table – the question is whether to expand it) would mean no longer charging the deposit. But under the bottle bill, you get that nickel back if/when you return the bottle. So there’s no “extra nickel.” In fact, the “extra nickel” fallacy is exactly what the anti-bottle bill crowd is trying to use as an argument against expanding it. But it’s a bad argument.
…is an almost literal example of the adage “a penny saved is a penny earned”. I just meant that if I have $2.00 I could spend a $1.00 on a soda bottle without a deposit and then recycle it leaving me with a $1.00 or I could spend $1.05 on the soda bottle with a deposit leaving me with $0.95 then redeem it then get the 5 cents back leaving me with a dollar. I’m just saying that mathematically it’s six of one, half dozen of the other in terms of final amount in my pocket. Don’t get me wrong – I’d probably vote for bottle-bill expansion under the current circumstances. It’s just in my case where so much is recyclable anyway it seems like an extra step. One thing that I realize I’m not clear about though – if I forfeit the nickel by simply recycling rather than redeeming the bottles, does the state keep the money or the retailer? I assumed the former especially since you don’t necessarily return the bottle to the store of purchase.
I don’t care enough about the nickel to deposit them. You seem to not care about the nickel enough, either. We both recycle our bottles curbside, which is fine, because it’s an option that’s available to us. Not everyone has that option, and plenty of people want their darn nickel back. It doesn’t have to work with everyone to be successful — but it increases recycling rates by 40 or so %. It works with enough people that it’s a great idea, and it saves towns money from having less to throw away.
is because it raises money and decreases litter, and its free because we stick it to the retailer to devote space to machines and empties, along wit the time to staff the return center.
<
p>I would be more enthused about expanding the bottle bill if the retailer got to keep the leftover deposits.