What else would explain this lede from Michael Laris' article in the Washington Post on the same topic..?

That the Washington Post is a gutted, atavistic artifact of bygone days, useless for anything but crapping on the memory of Katherine Graham?

by ibc on Jan 4, 2010 10:30 am • link • report

The City Paper is still a newspaper.

I'm just going to leave this one alone.

by ibc on Jan 4, 2010 10:31 am • link • report

The Post seems captured by Pete pterson style economics where it's deficit reduction at all costs. the Post also has a problem with Metro reporters who know nothing of the area and who seem totally unmotivated to learn anything about anything local, including the issues. Woodward & Bernstein came from the Metro side. Clearly, they say Watergate as their escape and neither was particularly well known for their Metro work.

by Rich on Jan 4, 2010 11:08 am • link • report

The NBC Washington blog strikes again.

Despite the use of the NBC brand, the NBC Washington site is nothing but a cheeky local blog. It's part of a nationwide effort by NBC affiliates to develop local content. I think the DC one is even edited by a former Wonkette editor.

by Reid on Jan 4, 2010 11:20 am • link • report

Patti Petitte is a very silly name.

by Elvis Elvisberg on Jan 4, 2010 11:30 am • link • report

The NBC Washington blog often posts stories that are poorly written and completely off the mark. If someone took TMZ and PerezHilton writers and had them write about "news", you'd probably get NBC Washington. I wish we had an alternative website, the way NBC's Boston site has to compete with Boston.com and thus both sites have better content for their market.

by Teo on Jan 4, 2010 11:48 am • link • report

Clearly, paying for stuff we need sucks.

On another point, I'm in a funky, rootsy, original pop band looking for a band name, and would like the name to be "DC centric" in nature. Please post your ideas. We're playing on the 21st for a songwriter's showcase at Bangkok Blues in Falls Church, so time is of the essence. The winner gets a spot on the guest list for shows.

Thanks!

by dcBill on Jan 4, 2010 11:51 am • link • report

Visiting NYC over the holidays showed just how bad the Washington Post has become compared to the NYTimes. The difference in the Sunday Papers was more than night and day.

by NikolasM on Jan 4, 2010 12:24 pm • link • report

@dcbill:

How about

The L'enfant Plan
- Or -
Favored Quarter
- Or -
Circulator
- Or -
Jim Graham and the Jumbo Slice

?

Pulling these out of thin air. Incredible, I know.

by anonymous on Jan 4, 2010 12:52 pm • link • report

@NikolasM

So true. What a shame.

by JTS on Jan 4, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report

hmm, it turns out taxes and fees are unpopular. Who knew! Are fees more popular when the cable company, or bank, or other predatory corporation, tacks them on?

by charlie on Jan 4, 2010 12:58 pm • link • report

charlie: They don't get articles in every press outlet, that's for sure.

by David Alpert on Jan 4, 2010 1:02 pm • link • report

Does anyone know what the triangular parks created by our beloved circles are called?

by dcBill on Jan 4, 2010 1:04 pm • link • report

So the press should just ignore the imposition of new taxes by our elected representatives?

Actually, maybe the title of this post should be "Whiny press neglects to include David Alpert's progressive spin on new taxes!"

by JMG on Jan 4, 2010 1:07 pm • link • report

@dcBill

Usually they're called reservations and they have a number.

by Steve S on Jan 4, 2010 1:11 pm • link • report

>So the press should just ignore the imposition of new taxes by our elected representatives?

Read the title of the post again.

by BeyondDC on Jan 4, 2010 1:14 pm • link • report

I was actually referring to David's post at 1:02pm: "They don't get articles in every press outlet, that's for sure. "

by JMG on Jan 4, 2010 1:17 pm • link • report

@Steve S

Do you know where I can find the list of numbers?

Maybe "Reservation X" with x being a particularly prominent triangle park might work as a band name.

Does anyone have a favorite?

by dcBill on Jan 4, 2010 1:17 pm • link • report

I totally agree!

The press should use an Orwellian thesaurus to let us know about all these awesome new ways citizens will be contributing to government revenues so that all sorts of fantastic new things will be done by the government.

It's not a plastic bag tax; it's an Anacostia River pollution fighting strategy.

Metro won't be increasing fares; they're going to be enhancing customer experience via their interaction with the fare ticketing machines.

It's not a speed camera; it's a child protection system.

And forget about calling it parking tickets; they're now known as enhanced vehicular notification processes.

If we all use these terms, and abolish - or maybe even legislate away - old, car-centric terms like "tax increases", "deficit spending", "personal responsibility", and "tax and spend", we will get the population far more amenable to more progressive legislation on how they are allowed to live their lives.

by Fritz on Jan 4, 2010 1:22 pm • link • report

Fritz-- I am afraid that you have missed the point of the initial post.

No one is advocating that terms be changed to conceal their meaning. No one is arguing that the newspaper should only report one side of an issue.

Rather, the initial post here argues that in an (uninformative, whiny) article about a new tax or fee, the newspaper should report why the tax is being imposed. That is, both sides, not merely the kvetching, should be reported.

Hope this helps!

by Elvis Elvisberg on Jan 4, 2010 1:34 pm • link • report

forget the whining, I've been surprised we haven't seen more glee from the cars-always-bad/trains-always-good crowd that drivers are directly subsidizing a rail line

by David on Jan 4, 2010 1:44 pm • link • report

@Elvis: I agree! The press should report only what proponents of enhanced customer experiences (formerly known as "taxes" and "fees") say are the reasons for creating these new experiences for the general public.

We all know that if the press reports on those few non-progressive members of the public that aren't supportive of these experiences because of their car-centric, suburban mindsets, then other members of the public may question the rationale between the new experiences and the underlying issues the experiences are going to solve.

It's like when the media has a story on the installation of a new bike lane, and then has "reader reaction" from car users who are confused by the new bike lane. Who cares what they think? They're just whiners. We need to ignore those comments and focus only on the 3% of the DC commuting public actually rides bikes as their main method of commuting.

Same thing when the media reports on a new housing development and includes whiny comments from whiny neighbors concerned about things like density and traffic and construction. Don't these people realize they live in a community? They need to stop whining and complaining and realize any short-term negative impact they have to deal with in their home is more than offset by the long-term benefit to the region.

Same thing when a car driver kills a pedestrian. Any time a car injures a pedestrian - regardless of how it happened or whose "fault" it was - should be referred to the driver's attempted murder of a pedestrian. It's time the media accurately reports what's going on in a progressive manner, rather than wasting time with "man on the street" interviews. We all know the "average Joe" isn't as enlightened as we are when it comes to how people need to live their lives.

by Fritz on Jan 4, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report

Actually, if you do a Google news search, you'll see that this tax was either billed as 'saving the environment' or 'bilking the taxpayer'.

Newsreporting in this country tends to always advocate for one side or the other. (vs. for example, the BBC which tends to try hard to be unbiased.) While there may have been more articles against the tax than for it, it was still pretty even-handed ... especially when after you read below the headline ... Even the Post article had pro and con opinions represented.

If anything, I would oppose the fact that the newspapers simplified the tax as either 'saving the environment' or 'bilking the taxpayer'. I don't really see it as doing either ... It's really just a tool in the war of behavioral change.

And whether you agree or disagree on the fundamental right of a minority viewpoint to use these types of tools to change behavior, I think we all have to agree that that's all this is. In and of itself, it doesn't do a thing toward saving the environment (here or anywhere) and it isn't that big tax imposition. I only wish the newspapers would focus on that aspect of the tax.

by Lance on Jan 4, 2010 1:52 pm • link • report

If we all use these terms, and abolish - or maybe even legislate away - old, car-centric terms like "tax increases", "deficit spending", "personal responsibility", and "tax and spend", we will get the population far more amenable to more progressive legislation on how they are allowed to live their lives.

One of the things adults do to show "personal responsibility" is to pay for the things they use, to upkeep the public environment in which they operate, and to exhibit the bare minimum of civic mindedness. If you can't hack that, you should move to a low-tax/low-service society. Like the Republic of Congo, for instance.

I can't imagine the amount of bitching and moaning you must indulge in when you have to buy toilet paper.

In short, grow up, you toddler.

by oboe on Jan 4, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report

We all know the "average Joe" isn't as enlightened as we are when it comes to how people need to live their lives.

Typical conservative attack. Accuse the reformer of elitism when in reality it's the status quo that is far more unaccountable, engineered, and manipulative.

by JTS on Jan 4, 2010 2:16 pm • link • report

"Accuse the reformer of elitism when in reality it's the status quo that is far more unaccountable, engineered, and manipulative."

I need a bag when I go grocery shopping. My grocery does the right thing by providing this bag without extra charge. How is that 'unaccountable, engineered, or manipulative'. Now we get a bunch of do-gooders who thinks they know what's best for everyone and they devise and extortion scheme that in says 'either use reusable --- like we do --- or you'll get taxed.' Now, tell me how THAT isn't 'unaccountable, engineered, and ESPECIALLY manipulative' ...

by Lance on Jan 4, 2010 2:23 pm • link • report

> @Fritz: No one is arguing that the newspaper should only report one side of an issue... both sides, not merely the kvetching, should be reported.
- Elvis

> @Elvis: I agree! The press should report only what proponents of enhanced customer experiences
- Fritz

Quite the straw man there, Fritz.

Perhaps you impress yourself by completely mischaracterizing other's statements and then arguing against the mischaracterization, but you do not impress anyone else.

If you'd like to be taken seriously, try arguing about something someone actually said.

by BeyondDC on Jan 4, 2010 2:33 pm • link • report

Wait, are they do-gooders or extortionists?

by Neil Flanagan on Jan 4, 2010 2:34 pm • link • report

Well, this post got out of control pretty quickly...

@Lance: Call me a crazy liberal, but I don't see why when you go shopping, you can't bring your own re-usable bag. We re-use the baskets/carts that we put the groceries in while in the store, we re-use the car/bus/shoes that we use to get to the store and back, and we might even re-use the stuff we get our groceries in (I keep change in a jar that formerly housed chocolate-covered raisins...). Is it that much to ask that when you head out to do your shopping, you bring a bag or two with you? These things cost money to produce and they cost money to dispose of, much like cars, clothing, and other things we use more than once. Just because something used to be free, doesn't mean it should always be free. If you're so upset with paying for things, stop paying your water bill and start showering and drinking out of the Potomac or Anacostia.

by Teo on Jan 4, 2010 2:36 pm • link • report

Lance, the bag you get when you go grocery shopping becomes pollution, which costs all of us. There *is* an extra charge to clean up that pollution, which all of us pay in order to subsidize your shopping. Just because it's a hidden cost doesn't mean it isn't there. Rather than subsidize that cost out of the general fund by all taxpayers, you are now being asked to either limit your pollution, or pay a user fee that eliminates the taxpayer subsidy.

Surely you understand the concept of user fees being a more desirable payment method than overall subsidy. Right?

by BeyondDC on Jan 4, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report

@oboe:

Why didn't the DC Council enact a tax on ALL plastic bags? Or Styrofoam cups? Or a 5 cent deposit on cans and bottles? Aren't all of those products destructive to the environment - and to the Anacostia River in particular? Or why didn't the DC Council enact much higher taxes/fees on water usage to pay for the badly-needed sewage treatment system that won't spew untreated sewage into the Potomac and Anacostia during heavy rainfall?

My cynical view is that the Council wanted to show the public that it was super progressive by "doing something", even if it doesn't have much of an effect on the underlying problem, rather than really dealing with that problem. No one's going to go bankrupt by paying a few cents a week for plastic bags versus if they had to pay several hundred or thousand dollars a year for water and sewer tax increases. The former is politically feasible and allows everyone to feel good about themselves for "thinking globally and acting locally", while the latter would be political suicide, even though it would actually address a main cause of DC river pollution.

Also, there's some irony in your statement about the need for a bare minimum of civic mindedness then devolving into a personal attack.

by Fritz on Jan 4, 2010 2:39 pm • link • report

And whether you agree or disagree on the fundamental right of a minority viewpoint to use these types of tools to change behavior, I think we all have to agree that that's all this is.

Except that it doesn't seem to be a minority viewpoint, if the poll numbers Jazzy cited earlier were accurate. I'm aware that 55% isn't enough to get anything more controversial than "I like puppies" through the Senate, but it's a majority for other purposes.

by cminus on Jan 4, 2010 2:40 pm • link • report

@BeyondDC: The poop that comes out of us also becomes pollution, which costs all of us.

So will you also strongly advocate for increased water and sewer taxes on DC residents and businesses to deal with the pollution that makes swimming in the Anacostia or Potomac a health hazard?

by Fritz on Jan 4, 2010 2:43 pm • link • report

In addition to Beyonddc's point, the fact of the matter is that grocery store customers with reusable bags are (or were until Friday) paying for all those grocery bags they weren't using. It was an unfair subsidy that doesn't even account for pollution. Would you ask me to cover some of your electric bill because the light from your windows inadvertantly falls on the sidewalk I use to get home?

Also, wrt the manipulative, enigneered thing, three words: Mortgage Interest Deduction. Taxation of all kinds, either increased or decreased, are manipulative and engineered. They make people behave a certain way. No matter what, always. So excuusse me if I'm a little skeptical of the elitism accusation when existing policies so unabashedly favor and incentivize certain types of living patterns, many of which may disproportionately impact the poor or immobile.

by JTS on Jan 4, 2010 2:46 pm • link • report

Fritz-- please be advised that poop is an inevitable byproduct of human existence, one that a modest tax will not discourage. This does not apply to plastic bags.

You are smart enough to know that, of course.

And you're smart enough to know that "proposed solution x didn't fix everything therefore it's poopy" is a named and classified logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

It's almost as if you're arguing in bad faith!

by Elvis Elvisberg on Jan 4, 2010 2:52 pm • link • report

Teo, the part you're not showing any evidence of even having thought about is that it's quite one thing for YOU to want to do these things if YOU feel they're the right thing to do for YOU to do ... and quite another for you to think you have the right to force others to do likewise.

If a retailer wants to vie for my business with the convenience only possible with disposable bags, then why do you feel you have the right to intervene in a transaction that is essentially not your business? Incidentally, I'm probably one of the most eco-friendly guys I know. For one thing, being eco-friendly is also usually economically-friendly ... And I reuse and reuse these supposedly 'disposable' plastic bags. (If lost receipts in my bags are any indication, I have plastic bags going back years and years.) And my paper bags always end up being used first as collector bags for all my recyclables in the house and then as recycable items themselves in the city's recycable bin.

Now, I don't ask you to recycle in the way I do, and I resent the fact that you think I should recycle in the way you do ... or even recyle at all. That is an individual decision to be made willingly ... and not forced upon you by someone who thinks they know what is best for everyone. But I concede that people with authoritative mindsets don't usually understand that this simple concept because it's never crossed their minds that they might be wrong.

by Lance on Jan 4, 2010 2:53 pm • link • report

If a retailer wants to vie for my business with the convenience only possible with disposable bags, then why do you feel you have the right to intervene in a transaction that is essentially not your business?

Is there any environmental regulation that couldn't be dismissed via this test?

If an auto manufacturer wants to vie for my business by selling a cheaper vehicle that avoids engine ping by using leaded fuel, then why should anyone feel they have the right to intervene in a transaction that is essentially not their business? If an electrical equipment company wants to vie for my business by selling a lightweight, durable transformer using polychlorinated biphenyls, then why should anyone feel they have the right to intervene in a transaction that is essentially not their business?

by cminus on Jan 4, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report

Lance, what you pollute *is* our business, because it affects our world in a way that somebody has to pay for.

Why in the world should I subsidize your pollution with my tax dollars?

by BeyondDC on Jan 4, 2010 3:10 pm • link • report

>But I concede that people with authoritative mindsets don't usually understand that this simple concept because it's never crossed their minds that they might be wrong.

Please explain why you think WE are the "authoritative" ones when we simply want you to pay for your own waste, while YOU are the free spirit for thinking that everyone should be forced to subsidize you.

No really, your rhetoric on this one just doesn't add up.

by BeyondDC on Jan 4, 2010 3:12 pm • link • report

YOU call it whining, others--perhaps even the reporter--recognize the loss of freedom and liberty. Sure, it's a few pennies here and there...but it all adds up. Pretty soon many others will be whining, too. This is America; not Europe.

by John K. on Jan 4, 2010 3:16 pm • link • report

Yeah, in America we believe in personal responsibility; e.g., you buy your own bags so others don't have to buy them for you, and you pay for your own pollution so others don't have to pay it for you. What are you, some kind of welfare queen?

by JTS on Jan 4, 2010 3:22 pm • link • report

@BeyondDC, "Please explain why you think WE are the "authoritative" ones when we simply want you to pay for your own waste, while YOU are the free spirit for thinking that everyone should be forced to subsidize you."

Simple ... I already do pay for my own waste via my property taxes which pay for trash disposal and recycling ... and no, my bags don't end up floating in the Anacostia because as I already explained I don't dispose of them via littering. If people in DC are in fact littering and that litter does really end up in the Anacostia, then let these folks pay for the cleanup ... or better yet, enforce our litter laws and stop the littering problem in the first place. But I know that won't satisfy you because the littering problem isn't really the issue here is it? It's simply that you've decided that using reusable bags is best for you ... and therefore best for everyone else too. And that is authoritative.

by Lance on Jan 4, 2010 3:28 pm • link • report

Also, there's some irony in your statement about the need for a bare minimum of civic mindedness then devolving into a personal attack.

What JTS said. Anyway, I assumed you were either trolling or similarly arguing in bad faith. I apologize sincerely if you were earnest in your appeal to Our Inalienable Freedoms God Shed Upon this Land of Purple Mountains to not be bothered to wipe our own bottoms--metaphorically speaking.

After all, this is America; not Europe. And in America ridiculous folks should have the right to live free from Old World style ridicule.

by oboe on Jan 4, 2010 3:38 pm • link • report

Lance, I didn't advocate for anyone doing anything that I think should be done. I'm simply giving examples of how other things that are re-usable cost money to make and use and how it is logical that these bags should also cost the user money as they themselves cost money to be manufactured and disposed of. As you said, you reuse the plastic and paper bags, so you are someone that wouldn't have to worry about paying five cents for new bags since you already have years of bags stocked up. No one is forcing people to recycle their bags (although, as ridiculous as it sounds, my parents' town in Connecticut will fine you if they find you throwing away things that could have been recycled). If you want to get bags and throw them away, you are still free to do that, it will just now be more obvious to you that those bags aren't actually free. Similarly, if you only want to wear your clothes once and then throw them away and buy new ones, you are free to do that too, just like letting your water run and leaving the lights on all day. All of those activities are legal and I'm sure plenty of people do it even though it's not ecologically or economically friendly. This five cent charge/tax simply adds plastic bags to the list of things that will cost money to waste.

Again, I don't see how any of this is authoritative as no one is forcing anyone to do anything differently or think differently. Some things are just done to account for the fact that what you're doing could be potentially harmful to those around you or incur a cost that might not be immediately evident. If you value something at more than it costs, you'll be willing to incur that cost. That's why Al Gore is willing to pay a ton for his utility bill even though he's an environmentalist. The man just really likes his natural gas lit lamp posts that much and no one can tell him he's not allowed to do it.

by Teo on Jan 4, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report

Also, the people that are littering will now have to pay for the cleanup, as they are the ones buying all the bags and throwing them away, while the people that are not littering will not have to pay for the cleanup as they are the ones not buying as many bags and therefore not throwing them away. And yes, even if you re-use a plastic bag 6 times and then throw it away, it's still a bag that gets thrown away, but at least it's not 6 bags being thrown away.

As for Europe versus America, it's interesting that even before plastic bags cost anything, most Europeans would shop using re-usable cloth bags. They didn't do it because of environmental reasons or because they were told to, they did it because it was more convenient and led to less clutter in their houses.

by Teo on Jan 4, 2010 4:22 pm • link • report

>stop the littering problem

That's a red herring. Whether they're put in the trash, recycled, or littered, these bags are a tremendous waste that has to be dealt with *somehow*. Just because you don't throw them in the river personally doesn't mean somebody isn't paying for every single one you use. I'm sorry this offends you, but it is the truth.

And I will not allow you claim that I'm the one with an authority complex when it is you who wants to force others to pay for your free ride.

>I already do pay for my own waste via my property taxes which pay for trash disposal and recycling.

Oh, so you recognize that disposal of these bags costs money. I guess you were just looking to score rhetorical points with the littering thing, then?

OK. Would you support a city-wide increase in property taxes to pay for this increasingly expensive problem? Or a city-wide increase in sales tax? It has to be paid for somehow, after all. Personally I'd prefer the direct fee that provides an inherent incentive to reduce waste than an overall tax that incentives nothing, but that's me. Perhaps I'm not as liberal with my tax and spend politics as you are.

by BeyondDC on Jan 4, 2010 4:52 pm • link • report

@BeyondDC, there's nothing 'direct' about this fee. You've made a connection between users of bags and a litter problem that doesn't exist (the connection that is.) Anyone who gets a bag as part of their transaction with a merchant has already paid for that bag, and as explained beforehand, will end up paying for its ultimate disposal when it goes into their trash container. (It's not like the District provides for trash removal for free.) You're authoritative because you don't like the fact that people opt to buy and then pay for disposing of disposable bags. You instead want them to use re-usable bags ... and if they don't, then to get fined. When I pay 5 cents for which I have already paid for as part of my transaction, I am being fined. And that 5 cents does not even go toward paying for disposal costs for that bag since I again pay for those costs through the property taxes I pay.

There is no justifiable economic reason to impose this fine on me ... other than that I am not using reusable bags which YOU deem better for me. And that is authoritative

by Lance on Jan 4, 2010 5:31 pm • link • report

@BeyondDC: I am glad that you've finally acknowledged the actual intent behind this law - it's not that the bags are the main source of pollution (as I noted before, I think sewage is a far more serious source of DC river pollution, but that would require a politically unfeasible solution).

It's that our environmental progressive elites, such as the DC Council, have determined that plastic bags in general are deemed unacceptable and, rather than going with an outright ban, came up with this Anacostia River explanation. But they couldn't go with a total ban, since there'd be too much pushback. Hence this odd solution where some plastic bags are taxed, but others aren't.

Again, let me state that my issue isn't with the 5 cents or us becoming Europe Jr. My issue is that this won't actually do anything to improve the Anacostia River's condition.

I will give one free baby panda to the first DC politician that supports repealing this tax if in 3 years, there has been no improvement in the Anacostia's pollution levels.

Will any accept that offer? Of course not. They won't forsake the revenue, no matter how minimal. And they don't want to go back on the perception that they "did something" for the environment's benefit.

That's what this law's about. It's not about cleaning up the Anacostia, since sewage treatment would far better accomplish the real danger to the Anacostia's health. It's about hiding why they're doing something behind the cloak of "fixing" the Anacostia.

It just would be nice if more of our elected officials would simply come out and admit it like BeyondDC did. There's something refreshing about intellectual honesty in legislation.

by Fritz on Jan 4, 2010 5:33 pm • link • report

Fritz, I don't think anyone thinks reducing the number of plastic bags from 45% of the solid waste in the Anacostia to even say 0% by itself will "fix" the Anacostia. As you've pointed out the antiquated and overburdened water pipes are a problem too. Updating that system is going to cost a fortune. And then there's runoff from the roads, homes and gardens, farms, maufacturing, fall-out from air pollution every time it rains... There are so many problems and sources of pollution -- why try and reduce any of it?

by Bianchi on Jan 4, 2010 6:03 pm • link • report

Lance, just because you are already paying to have your waste moved away from your immediate vicinity doesn't mean you are paying to fully mitigate its effects on the rest of us. Once again I'm sorry this offends you, but it is the case. Now, if you don't think the bag fee will do enough to mitigate those effects and is therefore pointless, perhaps you'd like to propose an alternate plan that does adequately mitigate everything. I think we'd be all ears.

And I'm not even going to respond to Fritz's ridiculous position that it's pointless to reduce any kind of pollution if doing so doesn't solve every environmental problem an area faces. He's done nothing but spew logically fallacies this entire thread.

by BeyondDC on Jan 4, 2010 6:11 pm • link • report

Honestly, this entire debate has done nothing but strengthen my assumption that a large percentage of so-called anti-tax / anti-big-government activists are actually fully supportive of whatever subsidies let them continue the status quo. Just like the "libertarians" who throw fits if anybody suggests they should pay for parking, you have convinced me that your position is based on throwing darts at a wall hoping to find some excuse to keep things the same at any cost.

If that was y'alls intention, then bravo. Seriously. I am now even more of a liberal than before

by BeyondDC on Jan 4, 2010 6:20 pm • link • report

"just because you are already paying to have your waste moved away from your immediate vicinity doesn't mean you are paying to fully mitigate its effects on the rest of us."

Are you saying that the District isn't doing a proper job of hauling away AND mitigating our trash's effects? If that is the problem, then we need to get on the city. We pay far too high taxes in the District for the city to not be doing this correctly.

Of course you've yet to state why you think the city isn't doing its job properly? I mean that's quite an accusation. How can you back it up?

by Lance on Jan 4, 2010 6:26 pm • link • report

@ BeyondDC
http://www.enduringvision.com/news/us_080409.php

by Bianchi on Jan 4, 2010 6:40 pm • link • report

Honestly, this entire debate has done nothing but strengthen my assumption that a large percentage of so-called anti-tax / anti-big-government activists are actually fully supportive of whatever subsidies let them continue the status quo.

+1. It's like listening to people whose sense of history dates back no more than 10 years, or whenever I-270 was most recently widened.

Even with the healthcare thing, all these republicans are blowing the socialism air-horn by telling seniors how it's going to cut into their Medicare. *facepalm*.

I'll go ahead and call myself out for being childish to save Lance/Fritz the time, but I just can't understand the disconnect between those who desire less/smaller government and their desire to prevent legislation that enables individuals to take full responsibility for their actions.

by JTS on Jan 4, 2010 7:57 pm • link • report

@JTS, A subsidy is something you get for nothing. When a merchant you purchase something from 'gives' you a paper bag, you've paid for it ... just like you've paid for everyone who works in his/her store, the rent for that store, and everything else that makes it possible for that merchant to provide you that good ... and the paper bag (or plastic) bag to carry it home with. There's no subsidy anywheres near that transaction.

by Lance on Jan 4, 2010 8:11 pm • link • report

@BeyondDC: You do realize the irony of you saying you wouldn't deign to respond to my posts, and then responding to it?

And I take it then that you're unwilling to accept my challenge that if in 3 years time, no improvement is seen in the Anacostia River's condition, that you'd support repeal of an ineffective tax. I mean, I didn't expect you to do so since you've finally acknowledged what this law is all about. But I expected at least something more than saying "I can't hear you, la-la-la."

As for this topic, I think we've talked it to death without anyone moving anyone else away from their existing views. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the Anacostia improves over the next few years.

by Fritz on Jan 4, 2010 8:49 pm • link • report

It's a shame that guys like BeyondDC and Lance can't engage in civilized debate.

by MPC on Jan 4, 2010 9:04 pm • link • report

Seriously? Are we seriously having this discussion at all? I mean, obviously we have to be since it's metastasized into a 60-comment thread, but... why? I mean, why?

A freaking 5-cent charge for bags people use increasingly less often isn't seriously impacting anyone's "liberty" and it isn't "whining" for people in general to complain about a new, sudden, and very visible fee. Maybe you're both right, but it looks more like everyone is making a tempest in a teapot.

And David, are you really complaining about opinion in the City Paper? Really? Next are you going to start saying Amanda Hess should be more objective about weird rapey song lyrics and sexual assault on campus, or that she should start talking more about Shoupian economics?

by J.D. Hammond on Jan 4, 2010 10:27 pm • link • report

Good thing NBC Washington jumped in to save the day with another thought-provoking, mind-blowing piece of fine journalism: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Six_Figure_Earner_Will_Drive_to_Maryland_to_Avoid_Bag_Fee-80638757.html

Good night everybody, it's been fun!

by Teo on Jan 5, 2010 1:05 am • link • report

Teo, did you even read that article?

by J.D. Hammond on Jan 5, 2010 1:17 am • link • report

@Fritz

In 2009 the District did enact a new stormwater fee system to minimize the amount of runoff that enters the older combined sewer system during a storm event.

by stitchbones on Jan 5, 2010 8:34 am • link • report

... And as I posted earlier, the District is well underway correcting the storm sewer problem ... as funded by this fee.

Using the Anacostia as a poster child for forcing reusable bags on people is a red herring.

by Lance on Jan 5, 2010 8:59 am • link • report

Teo, Thanks for the NBC Washington article. Yes, this gentleman's actions and those of very others of us is what will utlimately result in this onerous bill being repealed. When the District gets hit in the pocketbook by this bill, the people will have spoken.

Funny how he mentions 'hippies' in the article. I sometimes wonder if the current 'pie-in-the-sky' policies we see being thrown at us aren't coming from the children of the hippies ... Is that maybe why I've heard the term 'hipster' thrown around of late? Could these be a repeat ... a 'Hippy Deux' so to speak? I certainly hope not. Didn't we learn our lesson last time?

by Lance on Jan 5, 2010 9:10 am • link • report

In 2009 the District did enact a new stormwater fee system to minimize the amount of runoff that enters the older combined sewer system during a storm event.

Which is, of course, utterly outrageous!

After all, this new "stormwater fee" will do nothing to mitigate the #1 source of solid waste pollution in the river: plastic bags!

Why do you liberals hate our precious freedoms?

WOLVERINES!!

by oboe on Jan 5, 2010 9:58 am • link • report

@ J.D and Lance

I posted that link because I think it's utterly ridiculous that someone would go out of their way to cross state lines just to avoid either paying 5 cents for bags or bringing their own. I mean, this reminds me of that story where someone stockpiles cans and tries to take them to Michigan to get 15 cents instead of 5 back. Lance, I hope you were kidding about that guy's actions starting some sort of popular movement to get this bag tax repealed. If you were serious, I've underestimated the narrow-mindedness of the people posting here.

by Teo on Jan 5, 2010 10:32 am • link • report

There are a good 4 or 5 trolls on this comment thread.

by NikolasM on Jan 5, 2010 11:16 am • link • report

I'm not a troll, but I did try to hijack the thread way back in one of the first few posts looking for a DC oriented name for a pop band. Still looking, too.

I have to admit, though, many of the posts confirm the fact that being a Libertarian is more often than not just a dodge for being a jerk.

by dcBill on Jan 5, 2010 11:21 am • link • report

We are only six days into the New Year but it seems that the idiocy appears to be rampant this year. First, I was walking by ‘emphysema row' outside our office at work and you would hope that perhaps a few people resolved to give up smoking for a New Year's resolution but, no, there were three times the normal number of smokers outside on Monday. Second, the post from the morning clips yesterday about the person complaining about the 5 cent bag fee is beyond ridiculous. If he rode his bike to work just once per year instead of driving, he would probably save enough money to pay for the bag fee for the entire year. Third, the ignorant posts are filling up the Glover Park listserve about raising the hourly parking fee for metered parking to two dollars per hour in high demand locations, irrespective of the fact that this is still less than the $10-$15 that private garages would charge.

by Ben on Jan 6, 2010 9:41 am • link • report

@Ben, How are those smokers 'not resolving to give up smoking' any of your business? Ditto the whole issue with people being up in arms about unjustifiable taxes. Why would you oject to the free excecise of one's right to smoke, one's right to 'bitch', or whatever ... if it's not affecting you? Read the discussion above about my beef with the authoritarian mindset ...

by Lance on Jan 6, 2010 2:27 pm • link • report

Some supermarkets have boxes labeled for used plastic bag recycling. I've wondered if they actually recycle bags (is that even possible?) or is it just a PR move. Anyone know?

That guy who has reportedly vowed to drive to Md. for groceries is funny. Meanwhile, Virginians can drive to D.C. for groceries to evade sales tax. But he makes a good point about taxing trash.

Giving away stuff or services for free really distorts behavior -- usually subsidizing excess, so I like the idea of internalizing costs, but I think a better application (having to do with plastic bags!) would be garbage collection. If collectors only took garbage in a specifically marked kind of plastic bag, those bags could be priced relative to their volume (not the cost to make them). People pay proportionate to their waste (and how much it costs to ferry it away). And another effect is that residents would be "authoritarian"-ily forced to recycle (much cheaper) and forced to conserve/reuse. Most people would hate this, but in theory I wouldn't have to pay higher taxes to subsidize others' wasteful habits.

People don't have to think of these things in terms of "saving the river." Think about it in terms of the boatloads of "free" (and not reused) plastic bags that have to be expensively relocated to landfills.

by JM on Jan 8, 2010 3:06 pm • link • report

Sure, JM, and the streets and public trash cans would get full fast.

by ah on Jan 8, 2010 3:36 pm • link • report

Actually, I've lived in places that collected trash in that way. I didn't just make it up. It's only unworkable in America.

by JM on Jan 8, 2010 4:06 pm • link • report

@ah @ JM, my hometown in Michigan collects trash that way-the municipality will only pick-up the specially marked/colored trash bags that are more expensive then the other non-special ones. They've been doing it that way for 25-30 years. I've visited/lived in other US towns/cities that have that same system.

by Bianchi on Jan 8, 2010 4:19 pm • link • report

Wow! Then it *is* workable here.

by JM on Jan 8, 2010 4:40 pm • link • report

Sure--Pay as you throw is used lots of places. I always wonder how places deal with the inevitable illegal dumping/disposal, however. Even if every household gets some "free" quota, what do cities do about people who have more trash or don't want to pay for each bag?

by ah on Jan 8, 2010 5:02 pm • link • report

yep. for a generation now. Turns out the flyover rustbelt is more fly and less rusted then coasters imagine.

by Bianchi on Jan 8, 2010 5:04 pm • link • report

@ah, and using regular cheap bags prevents illegal dumping?

by Bianchi on Jan 8, 2010 5:06 pm • link • report

If you have to pay $3 for the bag or an approval sticker, as opposed to "free" (i.e, no marginal cost) pickup, then why not? If you set the price high enough to have an incentive effect (as opposed to being merely a tax) then you create an incentive to reduce disposal through proper channels.

by ah on Jan 8, 2010 5:53 pm • link • report

@ah: In places I lived, fines for littering (which includes overfilling your garbage bags) were hefty. Illegal dumping will make you an enemy of the entire community if you're caught.

Frankly, it's a lot of work to illegally dump your trash. Especially in a watchful community that HATES people who dump trash. It's kinda like planning and executing a string of robberies. You might get away with it -- and save a few bucks on trash fees.

by JM on Jan 8, 2010 6:03 pm • link • report

I'm not saying it can't work, I'm just pretty skeptical in DC whether I won't end up with my neighbor's trash in my bucket or my yard. And chances are I won't know him because he just moved here or is soon moving away.

by ah on Jan 8, 2010 8:33 pm • link • report