Once again, the Bay Area leads

Author
BT
Filet Mignon
  • Total Posts : 3589
  • Joined: 2004/07/03 13:19:00
  • Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Status: offline
2006/01/30 17:13:02 (permalink)

Once again, the Bay Area leads

I'm not usually one for political correctness. A lot of what passes for "doing good" in my hometown of San Francisco makes me . But here's an idea on the leading edge of PCness that I applaud wholeheartedly (I just wish SF would join its partner across the Bay--and I predict they will):
quote:
Every litter bit helps: Despite the howls of business owners, chances are Oakland will pass some type of fast-food fee to get all those pesky burger wrappers off the streets.

Here's why:

-- The idea is near and dear to the heart of City Councilwoman Jane Brunner.

-- Brunner friend and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente is running for mayor.

On the other hand, De La Fuente doesn't want to look like he's hurting local business. So,

-- Solution: Massage the fee so that the big, profit-hungry fast-food corporations get hit the hardest, while locally owned businesses (read voters) pay little or nothing.
#1

18 Replies Related Threads

    mr chips
    Filet Mignon
    • Total Posts : 4727
    • Joined: 2003/02/19 00:15:00
    • Location: portland, OR
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/01/31 07:52:32 (permalink)
    How much of a fee ae we talking about? Will it be assessed on each individual sale or as an annual payment? It is an interesting concept.
    #2
    Paulie
    Cheeseburger
    • Total Posts : 120
    • Joined: 2003/06/24 10:18:00
    • Location: Bristol, CT/ Westerly RI
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/01/31 09:46:35 (permalink)
    I'd need to learn more about what's being proposed, but at first glance it looks like a feel good measure that won't have much effect.

    It's the consumer, not the profit-hungry fast food corporation, that throws that pesky burger wrapper in the street. How will assessing an additional fee to the corporation, which fee will then be passed along to the consumer, create any disincentive for that consumer to continue throwing his litter in the street?
    #3
    BT
    Filet Mignon
    • Total Posts : 3589
    • Joined: 2004/07/03 13:19:00
    • Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/01/31 09:58:46 (permalink)
    quote:
    Originally posted by Paulie

    I'd need to learn more about what's being proposed, but at first glance it looks like a feel good measure that won't have much effect.

    It's the consumer, not the profit-hungry fast food corporation, that throws that pesky burger wrapper in the street. How will assessing an additional fee to the corporation, which fee will then be passed along to the consumer, create any disincentive for that consumer to continue throwing his litter in the street?


    It may not disincentivize throwing the wrappers away, but it could pay the salary of some people to clean them up. In most Bay Area towns and cities, the fast food places are pretty localized. I happen to live near a strip of fast food places in San Francisco and I can only think of 2 or 3 other areas like it in the city. It would be fairly easy to hire a few more trash collection folks (and buy a few more trash cans) and put them to work giving these areas special attention. And, yes, it SHOULD be passed on to the consumer--as you point out, it's the consumer who throws the wrapper in the gutter or on the sidewalk.
    #4
    Catracks
    Cheeseburger
    • Total Posts : 196
    • Joined: 2003/06/24 18:07:00
    • Location: Southern, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/01 13:42:01 (permalink)
    Once again the Bay Area leads the way in pointless legislation.
    #5
    BT
    Filet Mignon
    • Total Posts : 3589
    • Joined: 2004/07/03 13:19:00
    • Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/01 15:16:27 (permalink)
    quote:
    Originally posted by Catracks

    Once again the Bay Area leads the way in pointless legislation.



    Normally I'd agree with you, but not in this case. I can walk up my street and 90% of the trash I see is fast food wrappers (and sometimes the food itself). The stores should pay to clean it up and it's fine with me if they pass it on to their piggish customers.

    I even went to City Hall a while back to fight a zoning change allowing yet one more place (a Wendy's as I recall) and we won. My main reason for opposing it was not some high-minded opposition to fast food but just that the neighborhood can't stand more litter of this sort.
    #6
    V960
    Double Chili Cheeseburger
    • Total Posts : 2429
    • Joined: 2005/06/17 09:25:00
    • Location: Kannapolis area, NC
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/01 17:44:32 (permalink)
    One time I support the left coast. Now we should arm the supporters w/ assualt weapons...oh that's right it is California so the second amendment is in doubt.
    #7
    BT
    Filet Mignon
    • Total Posts : 3589
    • Joined: 2004/07/03 13:19:00
    • Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/01 18:33:43 (permalink)
    quote:
    Originally posted by V960

    One time I support the left coast. Now we should arm the supporters w/ assualt weapons...oh that's right it is California so the second amendment is in doubt.


    Not in doubt. If necessary (when the court challenges to the silly SF anti-handgun ordinance are done), I shall simply replace my 357 Magnum revolver with a Winchester Model 1300 Defender 12 guage. Any intruder into my home should remain in no doubt about the 2nd Amendment rights therein.
    #8
    Adjudicator
    Sirloin
    • Total Posts : 5066
    • Joined: 2003/05/20 11:25:00
    • Location: Tallahassee, FL
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/01 20:35:04 (permalink)
    quote:
    Originally posted by BT

    quote:
    Originally posted by V960

    One time I support the left coast. Now we should arm the supporters w/ assualt weapons...oh that's right it is California so the second amendment is in doubt.




    Not in doubt. If necessary (when the court challenges to the silly SF anti-handgun ordinance are done), I shall simply replace my 357 Magnum revolver with a Winchester Model 1300 Defender 12 guage. Any intruder into my home should remain in no doubt about the 2nd Amendment rights therein.


    Winchester??? Dude. I'm an H&K man, myself. Still searching for the perfect MP5...

    #9
    Michael Hoffman
    Double-chop Porterhouse
    • Total Posts : 18658
    • Joined: 2000/07/01 08:52:00
    • Location: Gahanna, OH
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/01 20:44:18 (permalink)
    quote:
    Originally posted by BT

    quote:
    Originally posted by V960

    One time I support the left coast. Now we should arm the supporters w/ assualt weapons...oh that's right it is California so the second amendment is in doubt.


    Not in doubt. If necessary (when the court challenges to the silly SF anti-handgun ordinance are done), I shall simply replace my 357 Magnum revolver with a Winchester Model 1300 Defender 12 guage. Any intruder into my home should remain in no doubt about the 2nd Amendment rights therein.

    While there's no question but that the handgun ban will be tossed out as it violates California law, if you want to get a 1300 you'd better hurry, and you should be prepared to pay a premium price if you are fortunate enough to find one. New Haven Repeating Arms Company has announced that as of next month it is shutting down the Winchester plant in New Haven and said that the world famous Model 94 and Model 70 Winchester rifles, and the Model 1300 shotgun, will no longer be manufactured -- anywhere. The run on those models began immediately, and buyers have been snapping them up. Fortunately, I have two 94s and two Model 70s.
    #10
    Catracks
    Cheeseburger
    • Total Posts : 196
    • Joined: 2003/06/24 18:07:00
    • Location: Southern, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/03 14:41:50 (permalink)
    quote:
    Normally I'd agree with you, but not in this case. I can walk up my street and 90% of the trash I see is fast food wrappers (and sometimes the food itself). The stores should pay to clean it up and it's fine with me if they pass it on to their piggish customers.


    No, the city should clean it up and perhaps set up an enforcement policy that forces violators to pick up the trash on the streets for a week. Let them see what it's like to clean up someone's slimey mess. Personal responsibility is something lacking here. Why pass it to a restaurant owner that perhaps cannot afford to pass it on?

    BTW, I was referring to the confiscation of personal property (i.e. firearms) when I was alluding to legislation. I won't set foot in the bay area anymore just as I won't set foot in many beach area communities for the ban on outside smoking. I don't even smoke anymore.
    #11
    BT
    Filet Mignon
    • Total Posts : 3589
    • Joined: 2004/07/03 13:19:00
    • Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/03 23:26:55 (permalink)
    quote:
    Originally posted by Catracks

    I won't set foot in the bay area anymore


    Er, I could say something about one less car on the freeways not being missed . . . .
    #12
    Catracks
    Cheeseburger
    • Total Posts : 196
    • Joined: 2003/06/24 18:07:00
    • Location: Southern, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/06 17:06:40 (permalink)
    Got me there. I hate traffic and PC silliness and celebrities so I am usually found in remote areas.

    About the trash thing: It's like suing a match factory because an arsonist used that brand to start a house fire. More close to reality is a gun maker being sued because a criminal shot someone.

    Can we assess blame where it belongs? Burger King and 7-11 do not litter. A putrid portion of their clientel does. Time to teach the morons what a trash can is for.
    #13
    BT
    Filet Mignon
    • Total Posts : 3589
    • Joined: 2004/07/03 13:19:00
    • Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/06 19:20:49 (permalink)
    quote:
    Originally posted by Catracks


    About the trash thing: It's like suing a match factory because an arsonist used that brand to start a house fire. More close to reality is a gun maker being sued because a criminal shot someone.

    Can we assess blame where it belongs? Burger King and 7-11 do not litter. A putrid portion of their clientel does. Time to teach the morons what a trash can is for.


    Would it were actually possible to "teach the morons what a trash can is for". If you spent more time in big cities, you'd know what an impossibility that is (SF has 900 cops for 750,000 people and several hundred thousand more commuters in its 49 square miles). And although you seem to object to assessing the merchants for trash cleanup, the merchants themselves often don't. In many cities, including San Francisco, merchants on a particular street or neighborhood are voting these days to form a local assessment district to spruce up that 'hood in hopes of making it more friendly to customers.

    I continue to think that this is the most practical way to deal with the problem: tax the fast food chains, let them pass it on to the customers if they want, use the money for extra attention to cleanup by city trash collectors (and even, if you want, cops). Other ideas may be philosophically more pleasing but won't actually get the trash cleaned up and the trash is a problem for people like me who are afflicted by it.

    And by the way, the gun analogy is very wrong. Criminals shoot people and we all know they don't buy their guns legally so wouldn't be affected by lawsuits on gun makers. Now if you want to talk about taxing gun makers to put extra cops on the beat, we can discuss that.
    #14
    Scorereader
    Sirloin
    • Total Posts : 5566
    • Joined: 2005/08/04 13:09:00
    • Location: Crofton, MD
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/06 19:34:23 (permalink)
    I'd like them to do something like that in DC. I don't think it will stop the litterers, but if it employs street cleaners and puts more money into keeping the Anacostia River free of litter (the litter in NE, DC goes directly into the river from the drainage sewers) then I think it's a good idea.
    And not just fast food, but any of the carry out places and walk up window place. Call it a carry out fee.
    I loath to think of more fees anywhere in this town, but in this case it might help to keep streets cleaner.
    #15
    NebGuy
    Double Cheeseburger
    • Total Posts : 875
    • Joined: 2005/12/22 15:43:00
    • Location: Colorado Springs
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/07 08:41:39 (permalink)
    Question.... How will you know how many wrappers each store goes thru? I don't know how you could write a law to force them to tell you there sales figures for each item by store.
    #16
    BT
    Filet Mignon
    • Total Posts : 3589
    • Joined: 2004/07/03 13:19:00
    • Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/07 12:31:44 (permalink)
    quote:
    Originally posted by dgschroeder

    Question.... How will you know how many wrappers each store goes thru? I don't know how you could write a law to force them to tell you there sales figures for each item by store.


    Not necessary--they'll just add a cent or two tax (or 10) to take-out items. In CA, the tax law for food is already pretty complicated and not only I don't understand it but most of the stores don't either I suspect--food eaten on premisis is taxable and sometimes take-out is but only, I think, if a certain percentage of hot food is served. Otherwise, take-out is considered "groceries" which aren't taxed in CA. This would make it more complicated, but not much if they just say the tax rate on taxable take-out, now 8.6% in San Francisco for example, will be 10.6%, the extra 2 cents going into a special fund for street cleaning.
    #17
    Catracks
    Cheeseburger
    • Total Posts : 196
    • Joined: 2003/06/24 18:07:00
    • Location: Southern, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/07 13:04:28 (permalink)
    I live in Los Angeles County. From Burbank to Glendora along the foothills is my stomping grounds. There are a hell of a lot of people here. I would call these big cities.

    Even in Los Angeles city proper (large and sprawling), the streets seem to be clean to me. Friends live in Echo Park/Silverlake. Seem fine to me. I just don't see what your talking about.

    I'm just a little tired of all the extra taxes like proposed tax for an extra year of school. Welcome to the left coast. Yeah, kids who go to preschool do better because their parents care about education and PAY for that year. I did it as a stuggling single parent.

    Tax, tax, tax, tax, tax.
    #18
    BT
    Filet Mignon
    • Total Posts : 3589
    • Joined: 2004/07/03 13:19:00
    • Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Once again, the Bay Area leads 2006/02/07 16:44:42 (permalink)
    quote:
    Originally posted by Catracks

    I live in Los Angeles County. From Burbank to Glendora along the foothills is my stomping grounds. There are a hell of a lot of people here. I would call these big cities.



    Indeed they are--but you said above you were to be "usually found in remote areas".

    quote:
    Friends live in Echo Park/Silverlake. Seem fine to me. I just don't see what your talking about.


    San Francisco, I have read, is the second densest urban area in the US--after Manhattan (it's denser than NYC as a whole). Perhaps that's the difference; that and the fact that in SF, as in NYC, people WALK a lot and, while walking, toss their fast food debris in the gutter or on the sidewalk. Anyway, it's a mess. I don't care why--even if it's because folks in Silverlake are just neater--something needs to be done on a permanent basis (the city has always periodically cleaned up when enough people complain but my hope is this kind of proposal would institutionalize it).
    #19
    Jump to:
    © 2014 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1