I can see not cashing the checks of a non-customer, but not even making change is too much. They should be required to cooperate, it doesn't cost them anything.

by Steve S on Mar 3, 2010 9:23 am  

had the same experience with B of A. I went to their ATM and got cash, paying a transaction fee (my bank reimburses). Then I took one of the bills and went in to get dollar coins for meters. They said they only do that for bank customers. I mentioned that they just got a transaction fee from me for the ATM. No help.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 3, 2010 9:45 am  

"it doesn't cost them anything"

Actually, handling change is extremely expensive to banks in many ways ... starting with collecting it, then counting it, then rolling it, then moving it to a vault, then storing it in a vault where it takes up valuable space that could be otherwise rented and that costs money to make secure and must be guarded, then getting it out to the tellers and/or transporting it via armored car to other branches, then storing it in a tellers drawer where it again takes up valuable space and the teller must count and recount it at the beginning of the day and again at the end of the day ... And FINALLY, handing it out to someone walking in off the street who hasn't contributed a dime toward any of these expenses ...

In years past when a quarter (or a penny) actually bought you something, handling change made 'cents'. Now with inflation, the costs of handling this change is sometimes more than what the change is worth. Hence why in many countries store keepers round to the nearest 'larger' currency value and don't always bother with change.

by Lance on Mar 3, 2010 9:45 am  

Meters in MoCo can be paid with a key that you just put into the meter and turn for each increment you want to pay.

by SJE on Mar 3, 2010 10:10 am  

@Michael P - that's so funny that you mention that; I've used the same argument! ;-)

by Matt Glazewski on Mar 3, 2010 10:14 am  

@ Lance
The coins come pre-rolled and counted from the mint, in a big box of rolls. So, the bank doesn't have to count them and roll them and usually they only give them out as a roll ($10 for quarters I believe). You are right about the storage though.

by Teo on Mar 3, 2010 10:15 am  

@ Teo -- and the time of the teller. You can buy rolls of quarters directly from the mint. Price? $32.95 for $20 of quarters.

http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=14982&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=32241

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 10:44 am  

I think you've mischaracterized the bag tax article.

He identifies the key issue, which is whether it would be a better system to incentivize proper disposal through a recycling subsidy. After all, the problem for the Anacostia is not so much the use of bags but the improper disposal of bags. So the ideal approach would be to charge people for improper disposal or, alternatively, provide incentives for proper disposal. His point is that doing so is too expensive, so the next-best approach is to tax the bags at purchase.

Having set that up, I disagree with his paradigm. As it stands, there are still no incentives for proper disposal. Let's take recycling out of the issue--clearly it's a waste of money to recycle plastic bags according to his figures. But that doesn't mean that you can't subsidize proper disposal. Why not take that 5c tax and use it to provide an incentive for proper collection, as in a bottle bill? That helps to ensure that the person who happily didn't bother to bring a reusable bag actually thinks about proper disposal-as it is now the bag is a sunk cost and can be freely discarded.

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 11:36 am  

@David: *You're* complaining about John Kelly "whining" about how much of a pain it is to get change?

Um, hi Mr. Pot. Have you met Mr. Kettle's?

by Fritz on Mar 3, 2010 11:42 am  

@ Fritz, David's post concurs with John Kelly that getting change and/or paying for meter's should be simplified. He doesn't complain about J. K.'s difficulty. He offers a solution for it.

by Bianchi on Mar 3, 2010 12:03 pm  

Omni Shoreham are good community members and good neighbors! Thanks O.S.!
@ Fritz, imagine that-someone did something nice for someone else (cleared snow) even though it "wasn't their responsibility".

by Bianchi on Mar 3, 2010 12:07 pm  

@ah,

That kind of deposit won't work. It makes economic sense to recycle aluminum and plastic bottles, but not bags. Hence, the incentive wouldn't solve anything.

Also, the fact that bags end up in the river is not merely a matter of proper disposal from residents. I can say with certainty that I've never littered a plastic bag in DC, but I have no doubts that some of them have still ended up in the river. I might have discarded one in a public trash can, only to have it blow out with a strong breeze hours later. Or I put one in the trash at my home, only to have it fall out of a moving garbage truck.

The only real solution is to get rid of the bags in the first place, and that's what the tax incentivizes.

by Alex B. on Mar 3, 2010 12:08 pm  

Those free gas promotions are get people to go out of their way to visit a particular store. People who take the bus to the grocery store are almost always going to visit the closest store, promotion or not.

Plus, in some cases, the gas companies themselves pay for part of the promotion, would a transit agency be willing to do the same?

by urbaner on Mar 3, 2010 12:13 pm  

@Bianchi: You're correct. I shouldn't have added "about how much of a pain it is to get change". The rest of the post remains accurate.

And it's nice that Omni shoveled the path, even though it had no responsibility to do so. And wouldn't it have been just as nice for some cyclists who do use that path to have cleared it themselves? You know, that whole externalities, free rider, tragedy of the commons thing?

by Fritz on Mar 3, 2010 12:15 pm  

Let's not forget also that plastic bags are petroleum products and their being manufactured in the first place has heavy environmental consequences regardless of what people do with them afterward.

by chris on Mar 3, 2010 12:17 pm  

Having grown up in New York and Connecticut and made a many a dollar from returning bottle deposits, I think a bottle bill is a better idea than a bag fee. However, unlike a bag fee DC couldn't pass one without Maryland and Virginia passing one as well unless DC wants the same problem Michigan (and Iowa) get being bottle deposit islands. Bottle deposits also would be more likely to be embraced on a statewide level than bag fees.

Of course, like New York (and like with the bag fee) DC could get greedy and put a bottle deposit on everything even without the means for a customer to reclaim that fee. Case in point: water and juice bottles now have a deposit in New York, but there often is no way to redeem them for deposit. And don't get me started about the legal loophole that allows stores to lock out the store brands of rivals in their redemption machines.

by Jason on Mar 3, 2010 12:18 pm  

@urbaner: Having lived in Albany for 4.5 years, all of which carless, before moving to Albany, you'd be surprised at how many people especially in downtown Albany do go out of their way to food shop. As visionary as the Price Chopper/CDTA deal is, Price Chopper's token stores in downtown Albany are filthy and over-priced and people will go to the fringes/suburbs to pay less and get better service.

Of course, CDTA's a bit of an odd agency with a middling rate of pass use (even with no free transfers), low discretionary ridership (carless college students aside), and a flawed buy-on-board-only daypass system which slows boarding at key stops. This might shush the people who go on about how expensive it is to do a 2-seat ride paying cash only that always come out of the woodwork.

by Jason on Mar 3, 2010 12:27 pm  

I had meant to say Montgomery County instead of Albany in that last message.

On that tangent, I wonder how easy it would be to retrofit all the area fareboxes to also function as places to purchase bus passes? CDTA does it and they use the same fareboxes as the SmarTrip agencies. Might take some modifications but it'd allow for Metro to begin rolling passes and to reintroduce the day pass.

by Jason on Mar 3, 2010 12:30 pm  

Alex H,

Right!

by Jazzy on Mar 3, 2010 12:38 pm  

@Alex B. - I disagree that the incentive wouldn't solve anything. The articulated concern DC has is with bags ending up in the Anacostia. Making sure that they are disposed of properly addresses that concern. It really doesn't matter at that point whether they are recycled or transferred to a landfill (without flying off the truck). Sure, recycling is nice but in terms of the Anacostia it's pretty irrelevant whether they end up in a landfill or being reused.

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 12:48 pm  

ah: That's just one concern. It happens to be the concern that the bill authors pushed most heavily. It's not the only one.

by David Alpert on Mar 3, 2010 12:49 pm  

So, David, you're saying they were being disingenuous?

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 1:05 pm  

@ ah anyone is/was free to read the entire bill.

by Bianchi on Mar 3, 2010 1:21 pm  

The bag article was pretty offbase on any number of facts.

1) bags are made from natural gas, not petroleum. And we're talking tiny amounts here. $32 for a ton of bags? and that includes the energy costs AND raw materials.

2) DC bag tax isn't designed to stop people from using bags. It is designed to bring in revenue to help clean-up bags in the Anacositia. Those bags aren't coming from DC, they are coming in on the tributaries from Maryland.

3) If you really wanted to stop bag use in DC, you'd tax each bag at 25 cents or ban them completely.

The $10 million in revenue the bag tax will bring in will free up the general fund.

As a side note, what I've noticed is lines at stores have become much longer as people try to stuff their groceries into their own bags. I wonder what the collective lost time of people waiting is? I'd estimate several billion.

by charlie on Mar 3, 2010 1:22 pm  

Charlie -

I do most of my grocery shopping at the Giant Food in Van Ness, and when I've used the self checkout lanes, yes, the wait time is longer because people have to fill their own bags. Also, you can't fill your bags as you check out because the weight meters (which I guess are to make sure you're paying for everything you're bagging) aren't (or weren't, the last time I was there) calibrated to accept the weight of the re-useable fabric bag (which compared to a plastic bag is apparently considerable).

However, when going through an actual check-out lane, there's almost always a bagger paired with a clerk, and some of those pairs move remarkably quickly. By the time you've swiped your card and gotten your receipt (or paid your cash and gotten your change), your food is bagged and ready to go.

Also: CVS at Dupont Circle has an honor system on their self-check registers, where you are asked to identify how many bags you've used. I wonder how often it's taken advantage of?

by Malnurtured Snay on Mar 3, 2010 1:38 pm  

@Malnurtured Snay; what I am really loving is the people who are coming into VA with these backpacks and their own bags and then being told, no, we don't charge for plastic bags here. The happiness is radiant. These aren't the protest shoppers -- just the people in NW who don't have access to big suburban stores.

by charlie on Mar 3, 2010 1:56 pm  

@Alex B. "The only real solution is to get rid of the bags in the first place, ..."

Wow ... your solutions are pretty Draconian. Let's see ... people cause accidents ... I guess that means "The only real solution is to get rid PEOPLE in the first place, ..."

Ever hear the expression 'Throwing out the baby with the bathwater"?

by Lance on Mar 3, 2010 2:04 pm  

Don't take my statements out of context, Lance.

The only way to ensure the bags stay out of the river is to stop using the bags. This policy does not ban them outright, it offers an incentive to use reusable bags.

by Alex B. on Mar 3, 2010 2:11 pm  

@Charlie: "As a side note, what I've noticed is lines at stores have become much longer as people try to stuff their groceries into their own bags. I wonder what the collective lost time of people waiting is? I'd estimate several billion.

Yep, I'd mentioned that problem when the idea for this manipulative "Tommy Tax" was first raised on this blog. I was assured by the hipsters that their reusable bags could be filled as faster, if not faster than regular bags. Obviously as anyone who's been to since implementation of this half-baked idea can see, that isn't so. And just imagine ... if as many people as previously were going through the check out lines as are now. It's always been far cheaper to grocery shop in the burbs. The only reason to grocery shop in DC was to avoid a stop on the way home from work or from other regular drives outside the District's boundaries. There was a also a bit of 'the District needs the revenues' inherent in that decision ... 'cause to be honest, even having to make a stop after work was easier than dealing with parking issues and with what are normally pretty less-than-service-oriented checkout folks in the District. It was one of those 'It's a nice thing to do ... even if it costs me a few bucks more and it's really not as nice a shopping experience.' Well, now that they've added insult to injury by trying to charge me for a service that is part and parcel of grocery shopping, i.e., making it easier to carry my groceries back to the car, I don't feel any obligation to grocery shop in the District. And I rarely do ... especially that it now means having to 'loose-carry' items home. I wonder how much grocery revenue has been shifted over to the suburbs since this ill-advised Tommy Tax went into affect? I bet it's a lot.

by Lance on Mar 3, 2010 2:17 pm  

"So, David, you're saying they were being disingenuous?"

Of course they were. The only good thing to come out of this bill is that it tells us a lot about those in council who pushed this through on us. They were willing to be disingenuous ... and manipulative. Is that the kind of 'leaders' we want in Council. Certainly not I ...

by Lance on Mar 3, 2010 2:21 pm  

@Bianchi - I did read the bill. And I just read it again. And what was passed says the following:

(1) The widespread provision of carryout bags to consumers creates significant problems relating to their disposal and effect on the environment.
(2) Plastic carryout bags are the largest single source of trash in the Anacostia River tributaries and of the three largest sources in the entire river.
(3) Plastic carryout bags clog sewer systems, and pose a risk to marine animals that ingest them or become entangled in them along the River.
(4) The Anacostia River soon will be subject to an Environmental Protection Agency mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML), which sets the level of allowable pollution; exceeding this figure will result in severe fines for the District.
(5) There exists a need to discourage the use of single-use, disposable plastic and paper bags and encourage the use of reusable bags by consumers and retailers in order to minimize the impact of disposable bags on the Anacostia River, on the health and environment of the District and its residents, and on the District’s fiscal welfare.
(6) Other jurisdictions worldwide have seen a dramatic decrease in disposable bag use when small fees have been implemented that encourage consumers to choose reusable shopping bags.

So, to me it looks like reasons 1-5 relate to the Anacostia river or the harms of improper disposal. Reason 6 is simply a "others are doing it". Even the "reduce use" provision is tied speicifally to reducing the harm to the Anacostia.

Now, maybe people had other reasons, but that's not what the bill provides nor what was voted on. If Mary Cheh wanted the bag bill because she wanted to discourage petroleum consumption, for example, it wasn't in the bill nor a reason for doing it. So there may be other justifications, but they weren't provided as the basis for this bill.

Bill: http://odd.greatergreaterwashington.org/files/2009/arcupa.pdf

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 2:51 pm  

Hug em and love em while you can Charlie, those poor, beleaguered residents of northwest Washington, DC. Change is a-comin.

by Jazzy on Mar 3, 2010 2:59 pm  

@ ah, I'm confused as to what you're objecting to. I know you have some idealogical objection to the bag fee and that you call it a tax whereas I call it a user fee. That difference will never find common ground. But what exactly are you unhappy with now? The 6th item is more then just "others are doing it" and you know that. Its a reference to success by the same method, where success is defined as reduction of bags. Maybe its disingenuous of you to pretend item 6 is something other then a reference to learning from others' success? You're ignoring the cost to the city of recycling the bags even when they are "disposed of properly". Reducing their volume will reduce this cost in addition to the cost of cleaning up bags that are "disposed of improperly".

by Bianchi on Mar 3, 2010 3:10 pm  

@Bianchi -- What I am objecting to is failing to attack the objectionable behavior directly.

The "others are doing it" point isn't more than that. All it says it what you say, it's not an independent justification. There has to be a reason for why reducing bags is desirable, and the stated reason is to reduce improper disposal because that improper disposal harms the Anacostia (and maybe some other things as well).

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 3:28 pm  

@Jazzy, What ah is saying is basically the same as what I pointed out to Alex B. earlier. If you get rid of bags you get rid of the bag disposal problem. Similarly, if you get rid of people, you also get rid of the bag disposal problem.

And please don't start with the 'it's easier to live without bags than it is without people argument'. I went to a restaurant the other day that put my leftovers in a square cardboard box. One little piece of left over steak sitting in this big cardboard box. Why? Cause the 'bag bill' doesn't regulate boxes ... just bags. When you address a symptom rather than the cause, that's what you get. If we have a trash disposal problem, then let's attack the trash disposal problem. I'd bet that 99% of the trash in the Anacostia comes from less than 1% of the people living in this metro area ... or less. It makes no sense to penalize the 99% for the actions of the 1%. No sense whatsoever. But then again, this bill isn't about making sense. It's all about manipulating others to do what a self-righteous few feel is the right thing to do. And we can't let facts get in the way of how good they feel about themselves after having excercised their authority.

by Lance on Mar 3, 2010 3:45 pm  

@ ah, you're still ignoring the costs to the city for recycling the bags even when they are "disposed of properly". This cost was widely published and is inferred in the bill copied above: "significant problems relating to their disposal"..."minimize the impact of disposable bags on the ... District’s fiscal welfare."

by Bianchi on Mar 3, 2010 3:52 pm  

actually I intended to say "@Bianchi" ... but comment probably also applies to Jazzy :)

by Lance on Mar 3, 2010 3:55 pm  

Since we're on the bag tax --

Did any Councilmember promise to revise or eliminate the Tommy Tax if, in a few years' time, there's no appreciable decline in the Anacostia River's pollution levels?

Is anyone willing to hazard a guess on how much money that the Tommy Tax raises will actually be used for Anacostia River

by Fritz on Mar 3, 2010 3:58 pm  

Lance, the cardboard is recyclable and biodegradable. If its too big next time ask for the doggie treat to be wrapped in foil. Foil is recyclable too. Give your dog a pat for me.

by Bianchi on Mar 3, 2010 4:01 pm  

ah & Bianchi: Besides, laws don't have to state their purpose. The purpose is based on what's in the law and also what proponents said during debates as well as what advocates said in favor. The debate centered around the Anacostia but many other issues came up and those are no less part of the purpose. There had been a previous attempt to pass the bill not focused on the Anacostia. Those reasons are still valid.

by David Alpert on Mar 3, 2010 4:07 pm  

Thnkx D.A.!

by Bianchi on Mar 3, 2010 4:12 pm  

Bag recycling isn't as easy as cans & bottles. In Southern California, there are machines that take your bottles and cans and issue a receit which can be redeemed for cash or used as scrip at various stores, including chain supermarkets. It would be easy to implement and adaptable to urban locations. Anything that easily gets more crap off the streets would be an asset.

by Rich on Mar 3, 2010 4:30 pm  

@ Bianchi - I'm happy to see a cite or link discussing the fiscal costs and harm of proper disposal of bags, as compared to the improper disposal in the river or on the street.

@ David - if you want to start a debate on legislative intent, that's fine, but the fact that one advocate said "I want this bill because I would like to make it expensive for homeless people to carry their stuff around" doesn't mean that the council adopted it because of that. What we have is a vote on a bill with 6 stated purposes. And I disagree that the bill doesn't need a purpose. The DC council is enacting authority delegated to it by Congress. Congress has only the authority to pass laws that are "necessary and proper", so it has to have some rational basis. The fact that you supported it for other reasons doesn't mean that the council voted for it for those reasons.

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 4:53 pm  

If we have a trash disposal problem, then let's attack the trash disposal problem.

Lance has well articulated my concerns as well, applicable not just to this law, about penalizing numerous people who do not cause harm in order to prevent a minority of scofflaws from causing significant problems.

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 5:02 pm  

It's not a trash disposal problem, it's a problem inherent to plastic bags.

The chances of Lance's pizza box falling out of the trash can and getting blown into the river from a light breeze are infinitesimal compared to that of a plastic bag.

by Alex B. on Mar 3, 2010 5:14 pm  

Lance needs a better trashcan then.

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 5:25 pm  

ah, today it's plastic bags, tomorrow it'll be hula hoops. The object being demonized is of no importance, what is important is that a few self-righteous individuals have made themselves feel good ... by forcing others to 'do as they do'. And as you can see from the discussion above, they're not about to let facts get in the way of their euphoria. They won and that's all that matters ... to them. I mean, come on, you don't think even they believe this is going to clean up the Anacostia now, do you?

by Lance on Mar 3, 2010 5:50 pm  

@David: "There had been a previous attempt to pass the bill not focused on the Anacostia. Those reasons are still valid.

hmmm ... Reading between the lines here, I'm reading There was an attempt to pass this legislation for reasons you thought were valid, but those reasons couldn't garner enough support from the general public, so the "Anacostia River" posterchild got invented and the bill got passed.

Isn't that disingenuous? I mean if it couldn't stand on its own merits in the day of light, what makes it any better disguising it as something it is not? Like I think I heard in the last election .... "If you put lipstick on a pig ... you still have pig ... "

by Lance on Mar 3, 2010 6:03 pm  

@DavidAlpert - You're views on legislative intent are not only wrong, but astoundingly - and dangerously- so. Laws don't have to state their purpose? The purpose is only what advocates say it is? Oh. Well, I guess we don't need to worry about what it says in the committee report as the legislature's intent on enacting the bill. Or what the legislature said during debate. So long as advocates of the bill like what the bill does, then it must be ok. Not all that democratic, but democracy has lots of non-progressive elements that aren't educated enough to have an opinion.

And is there anyone here - anyone? - that will take up my challenge of advocating for the repeal of the Tommy Tax if, in a few years, there's no appreciable change in the Anacostia River's pollution levels?

I mean, this bill was all about the Anacostia, right? It was about all those plastic bags that fly off of garbage trucks, out of garbage cans, and out of plastic bag factories and scamper off into the cool, murky waters of the Anacostia, right?

It couldn't have possibly have been about our unelected elites deciding that plastic bags were no longer to be allowed in DC, and them simply coming up with an excuse to justify the bill, right?

Has anyone reminded us to think of the children yet?

by Fritz on Mar 3, 2010 7:13 pm  

Fritz, the Anacostia may be the impetus for the legislation, but getting rid of bags via the tax incentive is the intent of the legislation.

by Alex B. on Mar 3, 2010 7:59 pm  

Fritz, I'd take up that challenge, but I don't think I'm in the camp you're recruiting from.

That said, I do think the tax will reduce plastic bag use, and probably have some benefit for the river. But at a cost far greater than merely the 5c/bag.

by ah on Mar 3, 2010 8:52 pm  

@Alex B: Except this legislation doesn't do that, now does it? Especially since it doesn't actually ban all plastic bags, just some of those sold by food retailing stores.

Which means that in a few years, when we see no change in the pollution levels in the Anacostia, supporters of the Tommy Tax will push for what they couldn't get initially: a total ban on plastic bags.

Because, after all, it's for the environment. And if the current tax isn't working, then we mustn't admit that the original intent was fundamentally flawed and wishful thinking. Nay! We must go for a total ban!

And, several years hence, when the Anacostia still remains polluted, those same folks will come up with something else that's deserving of banning. Because, if they were to acknowledge that their original intent wasn't based on reality, then the rest of their logic collapses onto itself.

Besides, it's for the children. And bicycles. And Metro. Or something.

It just would be refreshingly intellectually honest if the supporters of the Tommy Tax - including Tommy Wells and Mary Cheh - actually came out and acknowledged their goal from the start was to ban all plastic bags, regardless of its impact on residents and businesses.

by Fritz on Mar 3, 2010 9:47 pm  

@Fritz; come off the high horse. Yes the supporters of the bill are being disingenuous when they say it is stop polluting the Anacostia River. The money is clearly being used to clean up bags in the storm system and in the Anacostia. On a question of degree, that isn't WMD.

A dedicated tax to help fund those efforts is not a bad idea. There are downsides: wait times, loss revenue, and general unfair burdens on the poor.

Sure the hypocrisy stinks. When I walk around DC I don't see a lot of plastic bags lying around: I do see cigarette buts, soda bottles and other trash. Perhaps if we wanted to clean that up we would find separate taxes for each. But the reason they didn't pick a higher tax is that would really stop people from using plastic bags, which isn't the purpose here. The purpose is to raise revenue.

by charlie on Mar 3, 2010 10:25 pm  

Charlie, enough with excuses!

I want to hear what the proponents of this ill-conceived legislation have to say. I mean, I hope I'm wrong and they really didn't think themselves so special that they should lie to the rest of us as to the real purpose and real reach of this bill ...

by Lance on Mar 4, 2010 1:00 am  

@Fritz

If their intent was to ban plastic bags, then why didn't they just ban plastic bags?

The fact is that these bags have some serious negative externalities, and a nice little Pigouvian tax goes a long way towards solving those problems.

Reusable bags are better for the environment (wholesale - not just the Anacostia) than plastic bags. Do you disagree? Anecdotal evidence from my local grocery store is that people are using far fewer plastic bags - i.e. the tax works. We'll see what the data says after a longer period of time.

by Alex B. on Mar 4, 2010 8:54 am  

@Alex B. - I believe some of the plastic bag extinctionists did want to ban all plastic bags and were pushing for such a ban. But Wells and Cheh did some quick political temperature taking and realized there wasn't the political support for such a radical approach. So they came up with the limited approach, regardless of whether it actually will have an effect (especially since the two of them are up for re-election, it's key that they be seen as "doing something", regardless of whether something actually is done).

Are reusable bags better than recycling plastic bags? I have no idea. Are dry cleaner plastic bags less bad for the environment than grocery store plastic bags? Why are farmers' market bags not taxed? What about the plastic bags used to deliver newspapers? Are some plastic bags more likely than others to leap out of garbage trucks and go swimming in the Anacostia?

And here's a few dirty secrets:

#1: Any revenue raised from the Tommy Tax can't be used for at least one year, due to OCFO rules.
#2: Any revenue raised can be re-routed by the Mayor and Council to close any revenue gaps elsewhere in the city budget.

So, with all that being said, who here will advocate a repeal of the Tommy Tax if there's no actual affect on the Anacostia?

Or, will folks here just argue that what's really needed is a total ban on plastic bags (or expansion of the Tommy Tax to all plastic bags) in order to really, really clean up the river?

by Fritz on Mar 4, 2010 10:47 am  

@ ah, I communicated inaccurately. I should have said it costs the city money when plastic bags get into the recycling stream. There is ample evidence of this. Just google it.

Given the depth of resistance and hatred to a simple incentive to make a very very simple change in daily living (reuse a bag instead of getting a brand new one each time) I'm amazed our culture has been able to make the progress we have made on other things, ie voting rights, desegregation, marriage rights. Wow. How'd we do that when this simple bag thing provokes such hatred?

by Bianchi on Mar 4, 2010 11:02 am  

The fact is that these bags have some serious negative externalities...

Love the frantic hoofing @Fritz does in response to this. It's like a parody of an argument: "What's next??? Banning cups???? What will you do if you buy a cup of soup??? Carry it home in your hands?!?"

Here's the only question that matters: Does a bag tax mitigate some of their negative externalities with a minimum of inconvenience to DC residents. The answer to that is without question "Yes."

All the pissing and moaning in the world about slippery slopes and our precious freedoms to pollute don't change that fact. So get over it...

by oboe on Mar 4, 2010 11:22 am  

"How'd we do that when this simple bag thing provokes such hatred?"

The problem is with what lies at the heart of this legislation. It's not 'really' intended to make life better for anyone (or more equitable as in your other exampless). It's not 'really' even intended to clean up the Anacostia or to make a real dent in the number of plastic bags being used. It's just intended to let some folks feel good about themselves ... so that they'll cast their votes for the Councilmembers who pushed it through.

I think the disconnect between the two sides is two-fold. (1)Supporters maybe thinking this simple change really will make a real difference ... I don't see how it possibly can. (2) Opposers being disgruntled at being lied to and incovenienced for no good reason.

I.e., We're seeing very different things in this action.

by Lance on Mar 4, 2010 11:34 am  

@ Lance, thanks for explaining that. I hope to see the measurable changes that you doubt will occur. The thing is, we will be able to measure changes so this initiative will not have to rest on opinion. If the measurable changes occur that I think will occur then I guess the only opinions left to contrast are whether the outcome (fewer problems caused by bags) is more valuable then the compromise (the fee/incentive for people to reuse a bag). I think it's worth it.

by Bianchi on Mar 4, 2010 11:59 am  

@Bianchi. Thank you. That's fair.

by Lance on Mar 4, 2010 1:39 pm  

@oboe: I take it that your childish taunt is an implicit concession that the law is simply about perception.

And the use of economics terms here has always humored me. It seems that the only externalities that need to be done away with are those that posters don't like. Many other types of externalities - bike paths, mass transit, Morlock training camps - are totally, super-duper necessary.

by Fritz on Mar 4, 2010 4:01 pm  

@ Fritz, by perception do you mean quantitative results?

by Bianchi on Mar 4, 2010 4:49 pm  

Your blog is nicer when you refrain from commentary on social norms of sexual morality. No gloating, please, over an administrative revolution that flouted the will of the people. But bravo for your excellent work on pedestrian-and-bicycle-centric urban space.

by cyclist on Mar 4, 2010 7:50 pm