The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I read in the Urban Tulsa that the mayor is starting a task force for trash and recycling ideas.  It says that Blake Ewing from Joe Mommas and a few city councilors among others are on the task force.  My hope is that they read this forum and will consider using Recycle Bank:  https://www.recyclebank.com (https://www.recyclebank.com).

See the video below to see how the program works:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/RMxYC8CwQk4&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0[/youtube]

Do you have a link to the Urban Tulsa story?

The article is on page 17 of the current issue of Urban Tulsa:  http://urbantulsa.com/currentissue.pdf

I think that the City should fund an education campaign with television ads starring Blake...

I just want leak proof trash trucks and trash personal that set the cans up right and not kick or throw them towards the general area they grabbed them from.

not to mention pick up the trash they drop in the process so it doesn't end up in the neighbors yard

I hope they start out asking about that "Reserve Fund".

As I recall things, that isn't a reserve fund at all. That was normal cash build up from the current trash rates once we paid off the incinerator. So, as long as current trash rates continue, that fund will continue to grow, at least what's not spent at the Mayor's discretion.

The $11 Million is the annual current overcharge, the amount which, over the last 20 years, went to pay off the incinerator. As you may recall, our rates were oft stated to be double what they should've been as a result. Refunding $1/mo of what was about $5-$6 worth of fee is not parity.

As for trash, Tulsan's like their twice per week pickup. Any effort to change that is just less service for the same rate (assuming they don't also increase rates).

If $2/mo were added to cover recycling, that means our current rates still are $2-$3/mo higher than they should be, including twice/wk + recycle.

So, what's to study? They seem set on finding a way to do something nobody wants (once/wk pickup), and raise rates to add recycling.

Along with the questions about the reserve fund, maybe we should ask what it is they're really trying to accomplish. Seems it's just more money for less service, and trying to find a way to make it palatable.

That, or the World is just trying it's best to make it a campaign issue, when it was lying dormant from last years' $350,000 study, paid for from the 'Reserve Fund' and TARE.

Shouldn't we also discuss the dismantling of TARE while we're on it. That Authority's mission is gone with the incinerator. Besides, is there anything about it which Public Works shouldn't be doing instead?

If the trash crews only work half as often, they will need a raise in their hourly rates to make up for the lost hours.

I think manditory recycling is the only way to go.  Since I started recycling I only put out normal trash maybe twice a month.  Almost everything is recyclable.  The curb-side pickup does not take cardboard, phone books, or plastic bags so I take the cardboard and phone books to the MET recycling center and take the plastic bags to Reasors.

I also think that we should not have to pay to recycle and I would rather get paid from Recycle Bank.  With once a week pickup and less trash for landfills or incinerators the cost for trash service should go down.  Also since the incinerator is creating electricity I think that we should also get a discount for the cost of the power created.

We also need a recycling program for businesses like the building that I work in downtown.  They do not want to mess with recycling until the city creates a program for businesses.

I have no complaints about the level of service I get from my trash men.  They generally put the cans back where they were, sometimes they tip over, sometimes they blow away.  Large pieces of plastic with no weight in them do that.
- - -

In regards to laying off the extra trash works . . . why no phase out those jobs over 5 years?  I imagine in 5 years the trash department has enough turnover to eliminate those positions naturally, without forcing people out of jobs.  In the interim turn those positions into other jobs: either associated with the recycling program or other things lacking in the city.  Hell, they can still pick up trash but do so along the river, at parks, etc.  Use them for code enforcement.



Please, oh please let's get into the 1990's with those nice large hard-plastic auto-pickup garbage cans.

I always assumed the cans were over on their sides to let the other trash men know it was already picked up.

I can live with the cans being on their sides, as long as there put back within 10 feet of where they come from.  I just cuss everytime the trash runs because my yard is littered with the neighbors trash.  Right now it's nice because the house is embty, but as soon as someone moves in again, I'm sure it will be right back to the old schtick.

This one is tame compared to many other experiances.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_IsX9ddks[/youtube]

I guess it never bothered me enough to get "outraged" over it to take video. I mean, the cans are plastic or aluminum, and fairly cheap given the lifespan of a trash can.

Can you imagine if they took the time to gently set the can down in an upright manner? People would complain that they were wasting tax-payer money by not being quick and efficient.

My grandparents in Duncan, a town of 22,000, have had those since at least the early 90's.  I always wondered why Tulsa didn't have something similar.  When I visited a cousin in Austin recently I was blown away that they had 3 polycarts for trash, recycling, and yard waste picked up ONCE a week.  That is what we need in Tulsa..

No trouble taking video, just copy from security recording and zoom in. :-* 
Laying cans in the street, throwing and or setting them in the driveway making the wife move them before she can back out for work is unacceptable service for something I am paying for.

There is a City of Tulsa refuse complaint line 596-9777.

Complaints have been up in recent months...

Works real good at pissing the trash haulers off too.

My experience with the city refuse haulers has been very positive. I have heard way more compliments than complaints. If anything, they are too good. They make it so easy to throw away that it discourages people from recycling.

Tulsans are spoiled. They can throw away unlimited household refuse. That is becoming rare. They can get the trash crew to come by their house twice-per-week. That has been dropped by 44 of the 50 biggest cities and all but one of the area cities. Tulsans can also throw away twelve bags of grass clipping or leaves per week. That is unheard of.

Tulsans are charged one price, no matter how much they throw away. That inequity punishes senior citizens (and recyclers) who traditionally generate much less waste. Tulsans also have different rates and different services levels in two parts of town even though they produce very similar amounts of trash. 

Our system is broke and if Tulsa doesn't make some changes soon, we will also be paying ridiculously high rates for trash service.   

Our system is not broke. It's working exactly as it was designed.

And, we've been overcharged for trash service for the last 20 years due to the mortgage on an incinerator we do not own.

Now that the mortgage is paid off, those charges (less $1) are still being collected, resulting in the current $11 Million surplus in TARE's account (mislabled a 'Reserve Fund'). That $11M is only THIS year's overcharges. Last years' overcharges went to the Mayor. That $11M was used to clean up debris after the Ice Storm of 2007 (Dec 12, 2007), in 2008.

Tulsan's are being charged enough to accomplish any new design of trash service and still reduce rates. The landfill rates are 1/3rd less than the same tonnage rates were for the incinerator.

I'd think twice a week pickup with one day being trash and one day being recyclables, along with a rate reduction, would be a good solution.

If there's a great deal of dissatisfaction, I'm wondering if we should leave it to those who designed it to do it again. It seems to me the only real goal here is to achieve more net revenue for the Mayor's mad-money account.

I think that is achievable. The Beck report recommends that very system.

I've seen synopsies of the Beck Report, but have yet to locate a copy. Could you please post a link to the actual report, please?

From what I've seen so far, the Beck plan goes much further than the simplicity stated above, with many limitations/conditions which are not currently in force.

These include those large wheeled containers, no bags, no lawn debris, mechanically-assisted trucks, etc.

There needs to be some discussion of trash at the conceptual level. Our forefathers, in their wisdom, recognized that trash, no matter how much or the source, gets thrown. Where and when is what's to be controlled, not what one considers trash,  because if the city doesn't do something with it, the originator will, even if it ends up in the street, in the river or some backwoods drop.

Our current system is designed to accomodate all forms of trash. An customer can even call in special pickups, for free, when objects need special handling, like refrigerators/stoves, mattresses, etc.

In short, it works. It keeps trash off the streets, and keeps people from having to come to their own resolution to a trash issue.

That needs to remain.

Grass clippings in landfill actually has little to do with the evironmental issues being claimed. Rather, is about manpower and space requirements currently being required  to do so. It's an overhead cost reduction consideration.

Grass clippings actually assist the biodegradation process. And, if bio-gas capture may be implemented as an energy source, is beneficial.

Plastic bags, at least the trash bags, are now design to biodegrade. At the grocery store, choosing paper, or bringing your own permenent bag, would be the way to go.

Conceptually, the less cumbersome the process is to the customer, the more successful it will be. And, the less misc trash there'll be along our roads, in our rivers or piled up in conspicuous places.

By design, this issue was considered to be a public cause, to keep our city clean. Today's proposals attempt to isolate each customer and charge them for the volume of trash they produce.

Tulsa was once named "America's Cleanest City" (forget what year/s, around 1980 or so, I think). The trash policy is largely the reason for that. But, and this is not a racist comment, it also has to do with customary issues of different places. It seems to me Mexico's national policy on litter did not seem to prepare their citizens for our litter customs here.

So, a public education campaign on litter should once again be implemented. It worked well before at changing us to litter-conscience citizens.

I'm also distressed that Mayor Taylor has now managed to shift normal city mowing and graffiti abatement costs to TARE's surplus funding. That's $750,000/yr now being funded by trash rates which should not be.

Seems it's well on it's way to becoming the Mayors' slush fund.

Anyway, this is going to be discussed at length, I presume.

The city should not pickup items that can be easily recycled. 

Computers, TVs, monitors, phones, etc can be recycled at any Best Buy store http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?type=category&id=pcmcat149900050025&DCMP=rdr0001422 (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?type=category&id=pcmcat149900050025&DCMP=rdr0001422)

Appliances can be sold on Craigslist even if they don't work someone will buy them or haul them off for free.  Also I have sold or given away used mattresses and sofas on Craigslist.

Car batteries, oil, and old auto parts can be recycled at most auto parts/repair places

As we are aware there are some cities who place their trash on a conveyer belt and workers sort the recyclable item as they progress down the belt and place them in a shredder or crusher.  That part of the garbage that will  return back to the dust by nature is placed in the land fills.  We are a middle class city that is using a disposal system that is used by the smallest of towns.  It is time to update and save the only environment we can survive in.