Wow, you read some of the comments in the Post from the bag article? This sort of defiant, know-nothing, arrogant, stereotyping, reactionary attitude seems to be unfortunately pervasive right now wherever social or environmental progress is being made. I know it's just the online peanut gallery but still, who can be so aggressively against a relatively small bag tax to fund river cleanup?

by Mike on Mar 30, 2010 9:00 am  

God please no Kwame Brown. The guy is a blowhard. Hasn't the intelligence to chair the council.
Would Gray be better than Fenty? Well, presumably he'd be more likeable, but would he get more done? Questionable. I think Fenty deserves to lose just cause of his arrogance and Bush-like devotion to a strong and uncooperative executive.

by A Nony Mus on Mar 30, 2010 9:13 am  

Thinking about the WMATA fare proposals and effecting the poor reminds me of when Anacostia Station opened; and how all the bus routes that traveled into downtown DC from the Anacostia area got cut to end at Anacostia, merged with other routes or were discontinued forcing everybody to catch the greenline downtown which tripled many fares compared to the fares of the previous trips before the greenline or to take extremely longer bus riders than before.

by kk on Mar 30, 2010 9:17 am  

And that is why there was a 60 cent bus fare for those routes.

by kk on Mar 30, 2010 9:18 am  

I think it's pretty clear that Gray will represent the old way of doing things, that's why he appeals to the most rabid Fenty haters, who are most pissed off because they lost their previously held most-favored status.

I am no fan of Fenty's governing style, but I am a fan of someone who appoints people like Gabe Klein, Harriet Tregoning, and Dan Tangherlini. And Gray seems to me someone who will kowtow to all the loudest and shrillest voices.

The heart of the anti-Fenty crowd has always been the Save Our Schools die-hards who insist on the old way of doing things, since they are mostly the people who wielded power or received benefits in the old system. They will view Gray as their savior. And we will find out if their numbers are anywhere close to their volume.

by Reid on Mar 30, 2010 9:36 am  

237 preventable crashes a year is a lot. That's two on every three days. 20 a month. Just think of it. Do you think UPS would allow its drivers to drive that way?

No wonder these clowns can't prosecute folks involved in crashes.

It would help if the police would follow traffic laws. I live at a 4-way stop where the police likes to hide and catch non-stoppers and rollers. Which is fine with me. However, it bothers me that they don't stop themselves, speed quite a bit and pretty much block the entire road when the pull someone over.

A simple way to prevent a lot of crashes: Pull people over in safe places. The Dutch police does not pull you over at random spots in the middle of the street. They have nice little LED signs in their windows that tell you to follow them to the nearest safe place. They do not stop you on highway anymore, they take you to an exit. They don't stop you in the middle of the street, they pull into a parking lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3svDE_Gkf1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brBmbbMHGco

Yes, some people try to drive off, but that usually ends poorly. Most people nicely follow the cop car.

There are fairly simple instructions:

Stop Police
Police Follow
Police Stop Next Exit

The public is also aware of the fact that the police does not want you to stop in an unsafe place.

by Jasper on Mar 30, 2010 9:37 am  

I forgot to add that the safety issue is mostly for the benefit of the cops themselves. It's much safer *for them* to have someone nicely parked in a parking spot or gas station. Especially, when an argument arises or the driver becomes aggressive.

by Jasper on Mar 30, 2010 9:40 am  

Has anyone been by the Anacostia before & after the bag tax to see the progress? (Have any of the cleanup funds been spent on cleanup programs yet?)

The only problem I have is that I never have my old bags on me where I need them...which is more a problem on my part than one with the tax. But I don't throw them away til they rip, and never threw them into the Anacostia in the first place. Instead, I inflate a bunch of them into a raft, and sail down to Antarctica to use the rest to strangle baby seals and start bonfires to enjoy the scent of burning plastic.

by indiecognition on Mar 30, 2010 9:44 am  

I am no fan of Fenty's governing style, but I am a fan of someone who appoints people like Gabe Klein, Harriet Tregoning, and Dan Tangherlini. And Gray seems to me someone who will kowtow to all the loudest and shrillest voices.

What Reid said. Whatever one thinks of Fenty's leadership style, it's pretty clear what his agenda is where the rubber meets the road.

It seems that most of the anti-Fenty crowd have a problem with a) his "arrogance", and b) various non-scandals (Oh, noes! He let a friend drive his car! His kids got into a second-tier school through OOB!").

But these all appear to be fig-leaves for the *real* reason anti-Fenty folks are anti-Fenty: a perception that he's not doling out enough patronage for the "real" DC residents.

This comes out in a multitude of ways, whether as anti-Rhee sentiment, or anti-developer sentiment, or anti-gentrifier sentiment (i.e. No Bike Lanes!!), and is understandable if your view of "city services" for the last half century has consisted mostly of make-work programs for the unemployable.

As Reid said, a vote for Gray is essentially a vote for Sharon Pratt Dixon.

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 9:51 am  

I know that metrorail has higher ridership than metrobus, but what is the ridership rates among dc residents?
Do DC residents take the bus or the train more? i assume bus, but wanted to know what you people think.

by just curious on Mar 30, 2010 9:59 am  

I know it's just the online peanut gallery but still, who can be so aggressively against a relatively small bag tax to fund river cleanup?

Oh the irony. That online peanut gallery has rotten peanuts!

Anyway, something's fishy about the figures. $150k implies 3 million bags. Down from 22 million. Tax fraud or bad prior accounting?

by ah on Mar 30, 2010 10:16 am  

"defiant, know-nothing, arrogant, stereotyping, reactionary attitude"

Funny words to use to describe people whose opinion isn't the same as yours. I'd say that's a pretty arrogant, stereotyping, reactionary, know-nothing response.

"who can be so aggressively against a relatively small bag tax to fund river cleanup?"

You assume that people who oppose the bag tax are against funding the river cleanup. Why do you make that assumption? Either it's your way or no way at all?

I am very much in favor of cleaning up the river. That's why I think the bag tax is misguided. In the first month, $150,000 was raised, and by DC's own projections, these revenues will decline over time. So we are on track to see approximately 1/3 of the estimated $3.5 million raised in the first year.

Since plastic bags account for an estimated 20% of the trash in the Anacostia, and in our wildest dreams, the tax will eliminate about half of the bags distributed in DC. So at best, we can expect a 10% reduction in trash.

But that's assuming that a 50% reduction in bags handed out at safeway is a 50% reduction in bags ending up in the river -- which is entirely unknown. Intuitively, the most progressive people in DC who are most likely to embrace reusable bags are probably not those most likely to have tossed them on the sidewalk.

So, if the tax is wildly successful, we'll hardly make any money from it, and have a very modest reduction in trash in the river, but we do have an annoying and regressive tax.

How again does this achieve the goal of cleaning up the Anacostia? We have no idea how much money we're going to get from the tax, and we have no idea how much impact the tax will have on actual trash in the river.

I would have far preferred a bottle bill, or given the difficulty of implementing that, simply figuring out how much it will cost to clean the river and appropriating it. That way, it will actually get done, and everyone will pay for it in proportion to their income, as with every other public project.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 10:19 am  

It's naive for Streetsblog to construe the fare issue as a race issue. The vast majority of station operators, train operators, and bus drivers I've seen are themselves African-American and the pay increases, health benefit increases and pension costs increases for these jobs are one of the biggest factors driving up the system's budget. To say that the fare increases disproportionately hurt one group ignores the fact that different members of the same group benefit from the fare increases in their own paychecks, health plans, and retirement plans.

by Eric F. on Mar 30, 2010 10:27 am  

Jamie, did you read the comments or are you making assumptions of your own? That's what I was referring to. Sure, people can have a honest difference of opinion but the language used there was more than a disagreement, it was mostly just nasty, sarcastic and destructive, and it's a pattern that's seemed to take over many comment boards. By the way, I learn more from people I disagree with than agree with. It's just a shame that tactics like that are so common because they shut off debate.

by Mike on Mar 30, 2010 10:27 am  

@Jasper:

I used to work for UPS. Although the company likes to reward safe drivers, accidents were an expected fact of life, given the huge number of hours that their drivers spend on busy/congested roads.

The focus is (rightfully) shifted on preventing severe and deadly accidents, which both UPS and MPD seem to have done an admirable job of. Fenders are easy to replace.

by andrew on Mar 30, 2010 10:33 am  

Yes, I read a lot of them. As you noted it's DCist. Of course there are going to be a lot of snarky comments.

But there were a great many thoughtful comments as well -- actually the ratio is a lot better than a typical DCist comment thread. That's why I think your characterization of the debate there generalizes the discussion incorrectly.

My point is that just because people are against the tax, doesn't mean they are against social progress or cleaning up the river, which is the generalization that you made.

And that's my fundamental problem with people who blindly embrace things like this. You put a feel-good label on something and suddenly half the population of DC thinks it's the second coming of Jesus. What kind of jerk could possibly oppose it?

The reality is, this tax is the first of its kind, and we know almost nothing about how it will work out. But when you think logically about the possible outcomes in terms of revenue and trash reduction, it probably won't do much. As such I can't think of another tax that will likely accomplish so little, yet has such a high cost in terms of legislating lifestyle. I'm not against such legislation if the benefits are substantial, but it seems clear that they will not be in this case.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 10:38 am  

There's a plastic bag in a tree near my house (has been there for a few years). Anyone who wants to save $0.05 should come by with a fire-truck or a really tall ladder to pick it out.

by HM on Mar 30, 2010 10:39 am  

Here's something to put the bag tax in perspective.

DC just raised our cigarette tax to $2.50, our gas tax to 23.5 cents per gallon, and our sales tax to 6%. This is expected to generate $35 million. Our beer tax remains at $0.09 cents per gallon and our liquor tax is $1.50/gallon.

As of now, our gas tax and our cigarette taxes are about the national median, our beer tax is tied for the lowest in the nation, and our liquor tax is second to lowest.

The estimate for the first year of the bag tax is $3.5 million -- which it seems pretty clear we won't meet by a long shot.

Why is it better to legislate a lifestyle change that's also a regressive tax for what will amount to pocket change, when our sin taxes are at or well below average? If we really want to clean up the river, then why don't we appropriate the money it will take to clean it up and pay for it out of the general fund, so it gets done and is paid for in a way that's equitable?

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 10:56 am  

Why is it better to legislate a lifestyle change that's also a regressive tax for what will amount to pocket change, when our sin taxes are at or well below average?

Thanks for pointing this out. It's actually a bit misleading because DC has a sales tax of "8% off- and 10% on-premise," which is one of the highest in the country. But on the larger point, I agree. You should forward this to your Councilmember. Let's get those taxes on beer and liquor raised.

If we really want to clean up the river, then why don't we appropriate the money it will take to clean it up and pay for it out of the general fund, so it gets done and is paid for in a way that's equitable?

This just sounds like boilerplate, and isn't really an argument...

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 11:09 am  

I live on the East End of downtown and it seems to me that MPD often turn their lights on purely to disobey traffic procedure. I've seen them turn on their lights to go the wrong way down the one way street then immediately turn them back off. Also, I've seen them turn their lights on immediately before an intersection then turn them right back off after they've gotten through the intersection. I see these things probably 8-10 times a month just on my street. If they are that entitled I'm not surprised they cause so many accidents.

by Paul on Mar 30, 2010 11:12 am  

"This just sounds like boilerplate, and isn't really an argument..."

The argument I'm making is that this tax differs substantially from every other tax in DC in that it places a fee on a behavior (instead of a product), while both its economic and non-economic benefits are almost completely unknown.

Would you favor any other tax that met that description if it didn't have the "save the river" name tag attached to it?

I'd heartily embrace any legislation that I thought could substantially impact trash, like a bottle bill. I pick up trash around my neighborhood almost every day. Unfortunately, it's mostly bottles and cans, and the few plastic bags usually contain six-pack holders and chinese food garbage -- neither of which is going anywhere. This tax is a big stick to swat a tiny gnat. You can't solve a big problem by putting an annoying new tax on every little component of it.

The other downside of this tax is that whatever political capital we might have been able to use to push for a bottle bill, which would have a far greater impact on trash in and out of the river, has now been spent. I would much rather we had made the effort to take on the beverage lobby and get that done.

Which brings us back to the reason those booze taxes are so low...

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 11:26 am  

Jaime,

Bags are a big part of the problem with trash in the river, but let's not pretend that they're benign otherwise. The primary role of the tax is to reduce bag usage. Raising revenue is a bonus.

The bag tax prices in the externalities of bag usage, and helps cover those externalities in two ways - by 1) raising revenue, and 2) reducing bag usage, and helping to eliminate the core problem.

by Alex B. on Mar 30, 2010 11:33 am  

Jamie, I'm sorry, I didn't check our last month's account statement of our "political capital" so I didn't realize it was depleted. I guess there's just absolutely no way we could ever, ever do something about bottles because we decided to do something about bags first, and it was actually effective in changing behavior. How shortsighted we were!!

by Reid on Mar 30, 2010 11:38 am  

You can't solve a big problem by putting an annoying new tax on every little component of it.

Right, but your entire argument hinges on the premise that this bag tax is egregiously "annoying", and burns political capital.

From what I can see, it's not particularly annoying, aside from to a very few folks, who seem to find it annoying on some amorphous principle that can't be described particularly well. There's been no popular uprising--in fact, it's been something of a non-issue. Surprisingly so.

As far as burning political capital, heck, it seems like we could implement a couple of dozen other user fees with no political capital expended if we could find ones that as uncontroversial and lucrative as this one has been.

The entirety of the backlash seems to be 1-2 folks on the comments sections of blogs, who now drive to the suburbs to buy groceries (joining the scores of folks with DC plates who already did this before the tax passed).

Again, to me, the most amazing thing about this whole episode is how non-controversial its been.

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 11:38 am  

@ Jaime, if the trash in the Anacostia isn't reduced the EPA is going to start charging DC a fine.(Maybe that has already started) Part of the motive in reducung the use of bags is to avoid the fine. Or we could just keep polluting and pay the fine out of the general fund. That seems smart.

by Bianchi on Mar 30, 2010 11:39 am  

"From what I can see, it's not particularly annoying, aside from to a very few folks"

Wapo bag tax poll: How do you feel about D.C.'s new bag tax? 2291 votes:

51%: Love it
48%: Hate it
<3%: Indifferent

Yeah, I'd say hardly anyone feels strongly about it.

Add into this that online WaPo readers are almost certainly more progressive than the population at large and I think my premise is pretty sound.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 11:51 am  

@Jamie, your premise that DC should just keep polluting and pay for clean-up and the EPA fines out of the general fund?

by Bianchi on Mar 30, 2010 11:55 am  

@Bianchi, have you read anything I've written?

Absolutely not. I think we should pay for it from the general fund. Do you think we should institute something like a bag tax every time we need to raise a few million dollars?

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 12:01 pm  

Add into this that online WaPo readers are almost certainly more progressive than the population at large and I think my premise is pretty sound.

Thanks for the chuckle. And here I was thinking that, just because every WaPo comments thread turns into a Teabagger Convention to hash out the coming Race War, that online WaPo readers are mostly 60+ white guys who don't even live in the city.

Anyway, my point is that the extent of opposition to the bag tax has been confined to angrily clicking on the Submit buttons of online polls.

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 12:02 pm  

Your dismissal of the poll is, actually, exactly how a teabagger argues. You can't provide anything that supports your own point, so you simply dismiss everything that refutes it.

So what exactly would it take for you to believe that people feel strongly about this? A march on city hall?

The DCist post, three months after the tax has gone into effect, has generated over a hundred comments. There are dozens upon dozens of blogs and newspaper articles about the tax and the controversy. I can't think of a lot else that's happened lately that has generated this much debate.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 12:08 pm  

This highly controversial topic has generated almost *50* comments on the WaPo story.

Thread winner:

"The problem with the "tax" is that DC lied and is actually double dipping. The bag tax is suppose to be a tax itself, but what they do is put the bag on your reciept as an item that costs 5 cents to raise your overall bill then they tax That! That is such a gyp. they are just as bad as the IRS. You get an extra quarter in your check and it pushes you into the next tax bracket. Then they take half your check and you still can't eat."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032903336_Comments.html

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 12:10 pm  

The DCist post, three months after the tax has gone into effect, has generated over a hundred comments.

Top DCist threads by volume:

Local Bloggers Should Know Their Rights (156)
Post-Fee, Plastic Bag Use Drops Dramatically (125)
Gehry's Eisenhower Memorial Design Unveiled (93)
Name the National Zoo's New Octopus (78)
MLS Commissioner Levels Ill-Timed Criticism at D.C. (71)

Aparently the city is also nearly aflame with the issues of bloggers rights, the Eisenhower Memorial design, and the Zoo's new octopus.

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 12:14 pm  

@Jaime:

Absolutely not. I think we should pay for it from the general fund. Do you think we should institute something like a bag tax every time we need to raise a few million dollars?

You keep harping only on the revenue-raising aspect of the tax. This is only one aspect of the tax - the other is to reduce the total number of bags used. No amount of general fund expenditures will do that.

The initial data, while incomplete, shows that the bag tax has been extremely effective at reducing the total number of bags used.

by Alex B. on Mar 30, 2010 12:15 pm  

"What Reid said. Whatever one thinks of Fenty's leadership style, it's pretty clear what his agenda is where the rubber meets the road."

Yeah, and let's take a look at the accomplishments of his super awesome political appointees. Their hearts might be in the right places but they suck at execution.

- Transportation: A few token bicycle lanes here and there, some of which were not implemented properly. Streetcars have been completely bungled, we're now several years behind schedule and the new streetcar plan has already been pushed back by a DECADE. Circulator development took a few steps forward but now has ground to a halt. Parking has been bungled as well, they've simply raised parking rates across the board without adequate installation of multispace meters. Real performance parking is a pipe dream.

- Education: There have been some nice capital improvements but this is a carryover from the Williams administration. Rhee has alienated the entire city council and DCPS employee base and so unsurprisingly her reform agenda has ground to a halt.

- E-government: Aside from some token Twitter feeds I haven't seen any real evidence of this. The DC government website is straight out of 1997. I guess SOME city services are actually acceptable now but "adequate" should be a minimum standard not cause for praise.

Meanwhile, Fenty himself is basically just a young, slicker version of your usual DC machine politician. It seems like every week there is a new revelation of some sweetheart deal he set up for his frat brothers. That's setting aside the Poplar Point debacle, where Fenty managed to fumble a development deal that was served to him on a platter and would have transformed River East.

I'm not saying that Gray would be any better; in fact he might be worse. Unless some more convincing opposition appears, I will just not vote in the mayoral race.

by Phil on Mar 30, 2010 12:18 pm  

Another comment that still completely fails to address the points I have made over and over.

Let's take a look at the non-economic side of this tax and see how it will likely help the river.

Bags are estimated at 20% of the trash in the Anacostia.

You have absolutely NO IDEA where the bags in the river came from. On what basis would you assume that a 50% reduction in bag distribution in the city would result in a similar reduction in the river? Do you really think that most of the bags in the river are coming from Safeway and Giant? Don't most people bring these home with them (since, presumably, they have groceries in them) and throw them away or re-use them? How will the bag tax affect bags sold at liquor stores for six-packs and singles? Do you think most people buying these things will bring a poly bag with them to save a nickel? What about bags sold at carry out joints which are exempt, and intuitively, are more likely to be tossed on a sidewalk?

Even if the tax is wildly successful in reducing bag sales, it is painfully obvious that it have only a modest impact on trash in the river.

How can you deny that MONEY is needed far more than bag reduction to solve a problem that's only 20% bags?

"The initial data, while incomplete, shows that the bag tax has been extremely effective at reducing the total number of bags used."

I haven't argued with that at all. I believed all along that this tax would reduce the number of bags going out the door substantially.

If the tax is wildly successful, you've reduce trash in the river by maybe 10%, and consequently don't raise very much money, which is what's really needed to clean the river.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 12:24 pm  

I'm beginning to think that Jamie is in actuality an Astroturf sock-puppet on the payroll of Big Bag.

:)

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 12:33 pm  

Actually, I really would just like to see the river get cleaned up, and so far nobody's been able to explain how that's going to happen with a tax that generates an unknown amount of revenue and will have an unknown impact on 20% of the trash in the Anacostia.

Seems that logic doesn't work once you've managed to stick a green label on something. It's really too bad, because when the river is still a mess in five years it will hurt public support for more far-reaching legislation that could actually have a big impact.

It's just this big white elephant in the room that nobody seems interested in tackling. If the tax works well enough to impact trash in the river in any substantial way, then where will the money come from to clean up the other 90% of the trash?

If it doesn't work very well and a lot of money is raised, then why not just pay for it from the general fund instead, so you avoid having something that's basically a grocery tax?

I don't think these are unreasonable questions to ask, since the goal of the tax as you have explicitly stated is exactly that: to raise money, and reduce bags that end up in the river. But the more successful it is on one front, by definition, the less successful it is on the other.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 12:46 pm  

The Anacostia is only the most local problem with plastic bags. How the end up in the river is irrelevant. I can say without lying that I've never littered a plastic bag, yet I'm sure some of my bags have ended up in the river - either a trash can got tipped over, and one got caught in the wind - perhaps it blew of the back of a garbage truck, who knows. What we do know is that bags have huge negative externalities.

You also mention carry-out bags as being exempt - they are not. http://green.dc.gov/green/cwp/view,a,1248,q,463137,PM,1.asp

I'm just not sure what you're arguing here - if the bag tax alone doesn't clean up the river, it's a failure? Huh? Who has ever argued that the bag tax and the bag tax alone is what we need to clean up the river?

There is, of course, a larger plan to address these issues: http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/cwp/view,a,1209,q,499180.asp

by Alex B. on Mar 30, 2010 12:52 pm  

Oddly enough, I totally agree with oboe's statement about the mayoral race.

Not oddly enough, I disagree that this bag tax will actually have any effect on Anacostia pollution levels. I will also raise the same issue I've raised numerous times:

If, in 3-5 years, there's no appreciable reduction in river pollution, will Tommy Tax supporters agree to eliminate the tax since it didn't have its intended effect? Or will they instead push for a total prohibition on plastic bag usage?

I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to that one.

And while the $150k that's been raised is a nice amount of change, how will that be used to "clean up" the Anacostia? And, what guarantee is there that that money won't be used to close fiscal gaps in the FY10 and FY11 budgets?

by Fritz on Mar 30, 2010 1:00 pm  

If it doesn't work very well and a lot of money is raised, then why not just pay for it from the general fund instead, so you avoid having something that's basically a grocery tax?

a) It's not 'basically a grocery tax' any more than a 5 cent fee on using the squeegee thingy at a gas station would be "basically a gas tax".

b) You still haven't explained why paying for it from the general fund, is better than paying for it from the general fund minus the bag fee funds? Other than that it's just not fair to folks who like free plastic bags.

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 1:00 pm  

@ andrew: As a(n ex-)UPS driver, do you have any numbers about crashes to compare with?

I still believe 237 crashes is a very large number. Clearly, safety must be a higher priority. WMATA gets hammered over safety, why not MPD?

by Jasper on Mar 30, 2010 1:08 pm  

"If a restaurant has seating (holds a restaurant license), the restaurant will need to charge five cents for plastic bags only--paper bags are exempt. "

A "carry-out" is a restaurant without seating. There are hundreds if not thousands of them in DC.

"Who has ever argued that the bag tax and the bag tax alone is what we need to clean up the river?"

I'm arguing that its impact is at best unknown, and at worst almost inconsequential.

Just because there is a benefit to something doesn't mean it's a net good. I am arguing that the benefits of this tax are not significant enough to outweigh the burden it imposes on DC residents. If you disagree, then would you agree to a similar tax on every waste product that is responsible for an equivalent amount of the trash we produce?

Frankly, banning them entirely makes a lot more sense. No administration costs, 100% reduction in plastic bags, and we can actually figure out how to pay for the cleanup without some mushy, unknown figure in the mix.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 1:11 pm  

@Jamie, how would an outright ban be less of a burden then the 5 cent fee? Whats the burden of a 5 cent fee that would be releived with total ban?

by Bianchi on Mar 30, 2010 1:18 pm  

I didn't say it would be less of a burden. I said it would make more sense.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 1:21 pm  

As always, the bag tax debate is full is lies.

1. Legislative intent: raise money, not reduce bags. Go back to where the deabte started. If you wanted to reduce bags then ban them.

2. Cleaning up the river. The problem with bags in the Anacotia isn't in the river -- it is in the tributaries. The tributaries are in Maryland. Banning/reducing bag use in DC isn't going to stop that.

3. Sewers: bags end up in the river (in DC) because they are thrown/blown into the sewers. That is where the expense really is becasue they clump up in the sewers, which then flood and put more trash into the area. Also you have to hire crews to clean them out.

4. Exemptions: the biggest offender, of course, is the bags for the newspapers. I'd like to see a councilman have the balls to go after that.

Clearly, if those numbers are correct there are a lot of people who will try to save 5 to 25 cents a shopping trip. I suspect a lot of commentary here isn't by people who have counted out their change to make sure they have enough to buy groceries.

In terms of my opinions:

1. I suspect bag use will go back up in time as people get used to change. Good for revenue.
2. It is a minor change, but one that a LOT of people have strong negative feelings about. Now doing something useful like a 5 cents deposit for cans/bottles will be much harder to swallow.
3. It will provide a useful tagline for a future politician "abolish the bag tax". Meaningless -- yes. So is the bag tax.

In terms of MPD, there seems to be a culture in DC where the cops love running red lights for no reason. They also speed quite a bit. Probably worked back in the 1980s and 90s when DC was a hard core gang town, but no so much anymore. I'd like any cop who gets into an accident be put on bike patrol for a year.

by charlie on Mar 30, 2010 1:21 pm  

@Jamie, so do you support an outright ban?

by Bianchi on Mar 30, 2010 1:24 pm  

A "carry-out" is a restaurant without seating. There are hundreds if not thousands of them in DC.

Did you read the link? You quoted from it, so you must have. Two lines down from the one you quoted:

"If a restaurant does not have seating (holds a delicatessen license), the restaurant will need to charge for both paper and plastic bags."

by Alex B. on Mar 30, 2010 1:31 pm  

No, because I think there are far bigger fish to fry in terms of trash and environmental harm, like bottles/cans for trash, and, well, almost anything else for environmental harm.

Besides, you'd never be able to ban them entirely. You could only ban plastic bags like some other jurisdictions, meaning a huge increase in paper bag use, which are more harmful to the environment.

But if I had to choose between this tax, and a ban like San Francisco's, I'd choose the ban. Because at least it would achieve what it set out to do. And the cleanup of the river wouldn't depend on a huge unknown.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 1:33 pm  

I stand corrected - I could have sworn that was not the case in the original legislation.

In any event, how many people are really going to go to pick up their fried chicken or Kung Pao Chicken and say "I'll pass on the 5 cent bag, just put that sloppy foam box that won't quite close into my canvas sack?" Those bags, which are probably the most likely to end up in a sewer, are not going anywhere.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 1:48 pm  

@ Jamie, i'd like to see those sloppy foam boxes banned*. Also - 40% of solid waste doesn't reach the threshold for you of big fish? The bags are 40% of the solid waste in the contributory streams and creeks in DC.
*There are alternatives available i.e. recycled/recyclable carboard, like the kind eggs used to come in. Hell you can compost it.

by Bianchi on Mar 30, 2010 1:58 pm  

So why is the bag fee not for all products can anyone answer that ?

The bag fee should be for anything that is carried or packaged in a bag whether it be a newspaper, fruit, fish, medicine, groceries etc. and should include paper bags.

A paper bag can clog up a sewer just like a a plastic bag the only difference is the amount of time it clogs the system up.

Say a paper bag is put into the sewer today that bag will still be there come 2 weeks from now just as the plastic bag and they will both cause problems; the plastic one may still be there months from now which doesn't matter. They both can do damage so there should be a fee for both.

If this was really about the river being clean (which is subjective) how is a paper bag good.

A paper bag decomposing is not good either they both are garbage and should not be there and they both are harmful to the animals that reside there fish, storks, flamingos etc. just as tires, chemicals and shit from Blue Plains.
The bags aren't always bad look at squirrels they like them and you can find them using bags plus all our other stuff daily.

The Anacostia, Potomac, & Chesapeake are all f**ked up from the things humans do and now we want to complain about a bag how about getting rid of Blue Plains plus all other treatment plants that will do much more for the cleanliness of anybody body of water than a bag will ever do.

by kk on Mar 30, 2010 2:05 pm  

"I'd like to see those sloppy foam boxes banned*."

I'm not conceptually against that, assuming the alternative is reasonable. I'm having a hard time imagining kung pau chicken in a recyclable (e.g., not wax or plastic lined) box, though.

"Also - 40% of solid waste doesn't reach the threshold for you of big fish?"

You're wrong.

http://www.trashfreeanacostia.com/index.cgi?page=faq

21% in the main river is plastic bags, and the web site specifically identifies Watts Branch tributary, which is in Motgomery County, as having 50% of its trash being bags. I don't know how many tributaries are actually in DC, but either way the 40% number seems pretty made up.

So no, I don't think that removing some unknown percentage, maybe half, of the 20% of trash (much of which probably originated outside DC in the first place) is a big fish. The big fish is the other 90% that the bag ban has absolutely no effect on.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 2:14 pm  

@kk the fee does apply to paper bags. @Jamie, I was wrong. It's closer to 50%. See figure 4 in the DCDOE report. http://ddoe.dc.gov/ddoe/lib/ddoe/2009.01.29_Trash_Report_1.pdf
Also check out figure 1 to see the acres of contributary streams in DC leading to the Anacostia (9,460 acres with
168 outfalls). You may as well see figure 3 too. It shows that p.bags are 21% of the solid waste in the River itself and bottles and cans combined are 24%. That's not even bottles alone, or plastic bottles alone. You've said several times you think plastic bottles are a greater priority then bags. It seems from this data that p. bags indeed contribute more to solid waste then all bottles combined. I'd like to see bottles made a priority too. And cans. Also, since you've said you're interested in seeing the river cleaned up but don't think the bag fee is the way to go you can put your money where your mouthn is and contribute on you income tax form: http://green.dc.gov/green/cwp/view,a,1248,q,463144,PM,1.asp

by Bianchi on Mar 30, 2010 2:43 pm  

@Bianchi, Figure 4 is streams. As I said. I'm glad we now agree that plastic bags make up less trash in the Anacostia than bottles and cans. Many of these streams are not in DC, and as such will not be affected by the ban.

Second, I am assuming that this trash analysis is by weight. Though the words "weight" and "volume" don't appear anywhere in the report, which does make it hard to take seriously, so I can't say for sure. But I would think that's the only reasonable way to compare trash.

As such, since bottles and cans take up far more space by weight than plastic bags do, the vast majority of what you see in the river is bottles and cans. Looking at any of the pictures of the Anacostia you can easily find online confirms this.

So, by weight, bottles + cans are more than trash. By volume, they are clearly FAR more. And finally, much of this trash originates outside DC.

So, again, how's this legislation going to have any noticeable impact?

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 2:54 pm  

"You've said several times you think plastic bottles are a greater priority then bags"

No, I didn't. But I invite you to search this page for the word "plastic" to confirm that for yourself, it appears next to the word "bag" every time it appears except in your post.

by Jamie on Mar 30, 2010 3:00 pm  

That's right. I was referring to contributary streams with the ~50% figure. Perhaps you haven't today mentioned bottles but I'm 95% certain you have on this topic previously. You are working hard to create the impression that p. bags contribute a trivial amount to the solid waste in, yes, contributary streams (by trying to create the impression that there aren't any in DC), and in the Anac. Rvr. itself. Data just don't support that assertion. You've been presenting that since the p. bags contribute insignificantly to the pollution problem (and other problems, e.g. flooding by clogging drains, getting tangled in waste water tr. machinery, etc.) that the bag fee is ill-founded. Again, data don't support that assertion. Today we have data indicating the bag fee has been successful in reducing disposable bag useage. These data are already being used to support similar measures aimed at reduction in MD.

Your assertion that there's a problem in MD is indeed true. A bag fee just like DC's is on the legislative agenda in MD for this year.

by Bianchi on Mar 30, 2010 3:42 pm  

@ charlie: The tributaries are in Maryland. Banning/reducing bag use in DC isn't going to stop that.

Not if Maryland also imposed a bag tax. They are talking about it. They would never have done so without DC implementing the tax. I rest my case.

by Jasper on Mar 31, 2010 10:14 am  

@ Jasper, There are 9,460 acres of tributaries to the Ana Rvr in DC. Check out the map in the study linked above [Fig.1]. Jamie's claim that there are minimal/insignificant tributaries within DC contradicts known geography.

In any case the bag fee is here in DC and early data show it is having the predicted effect of reducing use. This will help get similar initiatives passed in MD and VA.

by Bianchi on Mar 31, 2010 10:23 am  

@Bianchi, thanks for the research. While this is interesting, in order to assess the source of the problem, it is also crucial to know how many acres of tributaries are NOT in DC. Can you provide that as well?

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 10:27 am  

Actually, strike that. Having now read where you got that number from, it's entirely unclear what it means. The study absolutely does not say that "DC has 9,460 acres of tributaries." It says:

"The Anacostia River watershedÂ’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) consists of 9,460 acres with
168 outfalls."

I could be wrong, but i don't think a "municipal storm sewer system" is the same thing as a "river tributary."

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 10:35 am  

Can't wait for VA and MD to pass bag laws so our resident Freedom Fighters can finally move to Costa Rica, where the streets are literally paved with freedom.

by oboe on Mar 31, 2010 10:38 am  

i don't think a "municipal storm sewer system" is the same thing as a "river tributary." Then you display a lack of basic knowledge of both hydrology and of ecosystems.

Hope you're enjoying paying for disposable bags/re-using bags/going to MD for your stuff.

by Bianchi on Mar 31, 2010 10:42 am  

So, basically, you're saying that the "50% of trash found in river tributaries" is actually based on an exploration of underground sewers, as opposed to a river tributary?

As you are the resident expert in hydrology and ecosystems terminology, you had better head over to Wikipedia and update their entry for tributary since it doesn't even include the word sewer!!

I really am stupid, because to me, what the report seems to be describing in that sentence is the size of DC's separated sewer system that drains into the Anacostia, not a natural river tributary. I wish I was as smart as you, because then everything I read would support my position, no matter what it said.

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 10:50 am  

while you're perusing Wiki read up on what happened to small tributaries in areas that became urbanized.

by Bianchi on Mar 31, 2010 10:59 am  

... and how is this relevant to what we are discussing, which is the report's findings on the trash in tributaries?

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 11:06 am  

dude, your refusal to edify yourself is awesome.

by Bianchi on Mar 31, 2010 11:08 am  

Right.

Please just tell me if you really believe that the 50% of trash that is plastic bags in tributaries refers to DC sewers, so I can decide whether to laugh or cry.

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 11:11 am  

Storm sewers are tributaries. They dump directly into the river.

by Alex B. on Mar 31, 2010 11:16 am  

I love the way people just keep saying different stuff while deflecting the actual question. Doesn't anyone out there, who is trying to convince me that 50% of the trash that goes through the sewers is actually plastic bags, have the guts to come out and say it?

The report says "50% of trash in tributaries is plastic bags."

Does anyone actually believe that the report is talking about sewers, and not natural tributaries to the Anacostia?

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 11:31 am  

No, I think they mean the streams. My point is, however, that the trash in those storm sewers (with the 9,000 some acre drainage area in DC) as well as the tributaries all flow to the same place. Storm sewers are not combined sewers, that flow is not processed at all by any sewage treatment system.

by Alex B. on Mar 31, 2010 12:07 pm  

I entirely agree.

However, we were discussing the sources of trash as cited by the study, and the trash analysis therein. It says nothing about trash specifically from sewers.

Bianchi was trying to convince me that when they say "tributaries" they are including the 9,460 acres of sewers in DC, and so, actually, a lot of that 50% originates in DC. I was disputing that. The study says nothing about trash in the sewers, it just says that 50% of the trash in tributaries is bags, and 20% of trash in the main river is bags.

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 12:15 pm  

The study says nothing about trash in the sewers Yes, it does. I never claimed all the p.bags came from DC alone. I disputed your assertion that DC tributaties, including the storm drains that dump trash into the streams and rivers, is trivial.

Take your argument up with DDOE. (and keep paying for those disposable bags, or reusing bags, or going out of your way to shop in MD!)

by Bianchi on Mar 31, 2010 12:51 pm  

" Yes, it does"

What? Where?

If you think that the word "tributaries" means "sewers" in that study, then just say it. Otherwise, where does the study say anything at all about how much trash is coming from the sewers?

"I disputed your assertion that DC tributaties, including the storm drains that dump trash into the streams and rivers, is trivial"

I didn't say that at all. I said that the 50% of trash that comes from tributaries are not all in DC. I didn't say anything at all about sewers, you did.

I've never said anything at all about how much trash comes from the sewers. Because I have no idea. The study does not address it directly.

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 1:01 pm  

@Jamie: Please note that when a tax is being implemented and it's described as being either "for the children" or "for the environment", the use of empirical evidence is no longer necessary. A feel of self-satisfaction and accomplishment, whether real or imagines, is perfectly sufficient. And, calls for further long-term empirical research to review the actual effect of the law on the polluted river in question will simply be sidestepped or ignored. After all, it's for the children AND the environment. And that trumps all else.

by Fritz on Mar 31, 2010 1:02 pm  

@Fritz, thanks. I realize logic doesn't work on people who aren't interested in facts.

My hope is simply that some people who have not turned off rational thought completely, but might be interested in understanding the pros and cons of legislation in the context of the actual facts, will at least be able to read a discussion about it that includes some objectivism as well as all the "even though I don't have any real logic-based arguments about why it's good, it's for the environment so it must be." And decide for themselves who makes more sense.

But yeah, I realize that no matter how many times I point out to Bianchi or whoever that they are misrepresenting data, or ignoring stuff they choose to ignore, or failing to respond to criticism that they have no response for, or just plain lying, that their minds won't be changed.

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 1:10 pm  

The problem, Jamie, is that the facts are not on your side. 20% of anything is not an insignificant number, especially if there are no obvious ill economic effects.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 31, 2010 1:18 pm  

Just jumping in here. Jamie, the original premise of your argument is flawed:

So, if the tax is wildly successful, we'll hardly make any money from it, and have a very modest reduction in trash in the river, but we do have an annoying and regressive tax.

If it's wildly successful and we make hardly any money from it, then it's not an annoying and regressive tax at all — nobody is paying anything. Therefore it's not annoying nor regressive.

It's well established that plastic bags are an environmental problem. Some of that problem is the Anacostia, some is the ocean, some is the emissions from generating them, some is the (significant) cost to the city of recycling them. They're also a good that's basically unnecessary, since their only purpose is to transport other goods home and then they become waste.

The purpose of the bill was to create an incentive for people to remember the reusable bags. From all accounts, it's working great, because as Matt Yglesias pointed out, the price elasticity of bags is phenomenally high.

Education campaigns haven't worked; outright bans are burdensome. A simple economic approach makes sense and is working. If it's successful, just about everyone will use reusable bags, the city will collect no money, Maryland will join in, and the ultimate goal will be accomplished of doing something about this significant and very unnecessary pollutant.

by David Alpert on Mar 31, 2010 1:25 pm  

Sigh.

Do you think that the bag ban will remove 20% of the trash from the Anacostia river? Really?

I guess you missed the entire point of this argument. Since 50% of the trash upstream is bags, and the bag ban won't eliminate all of DC's waste anyway, the number of bags we prevent from going into the river will be a lot less than what's there now.

This is what I mean by "misrepresenting data."

Think really, really hard about what we know.

-- The Anacostia River is not just in DC
-- The bag ban won't eliminate all bags, we have no idea what percentige it will eliminate
-- There are buttloads of bags found in upstream tributaries that have nothing to do with bags handed out in DC

I couldn't say what the exact reduction we can expect is, but it's pretty obvious it will be a lot less than 20%.

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 1:28 pm  

This is not an all-or nothing issue. 5% 10%? A business would look at these gains. In architecture, you look at these kinds of gains when designing to save energy. If you can prove that DC is losing a comparable amount of tax revenue, you might have a point. Similarly the other external costs of the bags can be considered. If Maryland follows DC into the bag tax, that could substantially clean up the river, if we get closer to 20%/50%.

Your premise has been that this tax exists to raise money in a pinch. But, as David pointed out, it can't really do that - and if nobody pays it, it doesn't directly cost anyone anything. Similarly, the tax socializes the risk slightly - but far less than using the general fund of taxes, as you have proposed.

Unfortunately, your solution is to do nothing. There is nothing logical about that. You have no justification to use sophistic arguments and then condescend to the other commenters here.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 31, 2010 1:54 pm  

My point is that the tax has a high cost for an impact that's at best unknown and at worst minimal. I think we would do far better to deal with bottles and cans, and I would prefer an absolute ban to a tax that whose impact and revenue goals are not well understood.

You seem to equate "being against bad legislation" with "wanting to do nothing." I would rather take our time and do something that will have a substantial impact-- especially when it is legislation that aims to raise money primarily from grocery store customers.

If this is really the best that we can do for the Anacostia then we might as well give up. I think we could do a lot better by actually appropriating the money we need to clean up the 90% of it that will not go away with the bag ban.

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 1:59 pm  

on p. ii of the Exec. Sum. "The Anacostia River
watershedÂ’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) consists of 9,460 acres with 168 outfalls. The drains carry the rainwater into the streams and rivers when they
discharge...trash." Do you need someone to wipe your ass for you too? Again, if you've got a problem with the analysis take your critique to the scientists at DDOE.

by Bianchi on Mar 31, 2010 2:11 pm  

Bianchi. Are you really this dense?

I am not disputing that there are 9,460 acres of storm sewers in DC.

I am disputing that these have anything to do with the "tributaries" described as having "50% of their trash plastic bags."

Copying text from the report doesn't mean that you understand what it means, or that it has anything to do with what we are discussing.

Please answer this to best of your ability.

When the report refers to "tributaries," in particular, the citation that 50% of the trash in tributaries is plastic bags, it includes the 9,460 miles of municipal storm sewers.

True or false?

by Jamie on Mar 31, 2010 2:22 pm  

Jamie, you haven't demonstrated that high cost with numbers. You can't complain about the unknowns of cleanup if you can't produce hard facts about the economic costs. If you want to encourage the Council to be transparent about funding, or to legally guarantee the proceeds go to cleanup, then please do that.

Furthermore, a bag ban is a hard absolute. When you can't get a bag, you just can't get one. If you have to pay a nominal fee, it you are disincentivized, but can still grab it in a pinch. A bag ban has no potential revenue stream. The fee may not deliver the money that they have expected, but if it delivers any, that will offset cleanup costs. I'd like to see the financial data in September, as well.

The only way you can reduce the human impact on the river 90% is by imposing gradual programs that inflict the least harm of the economy, daily life, and the river. These great gains are made in very small steps, not by some magic bullet of a bill. The bag tax is one step among many.

If politicians promised 20% reduction, well they're liars. But just because they're slimy, the issue they've co-opted is not invalidated.

As for the other trash, we must look at ways to clean them up too. That is not the thrust of this debate, however.

You keep saying you just want better laws, but you can't offer options that don't fail by your own standards.

by Neil Flanagan on Mar 31, 2010 2:31 pm  

@ Jamie, this is my last interaction with you. Clearly trash is carried from the storm sewers into the streams and it's an important source of trash in the streams and River. Like this: Storm sewers > streams > river. You might say the storm sewers are "upstream" of the streams and river. Why do you think the report includes that whole section accompanied by a map? Just kicks and giggles? Once again, if you don't like the methodology go see DDOE scientists and analysts. And keep paying for those disposable bags! Don't forget the donation on your tax form.

by Bianchi on Mar 31, 2010 2:35 pm