Ya know if you figure shipping charges and what the city gets paid for recycleables...it almost equals out. It only pays to recycle on the whole with reducing landfill space. It helps the consumer because the tipping fees at the landfill don't have to go up for more cells to dump your trash in...in reply to the person who wants to pick through stuff at the landfill...that whole issue is about hiv, hepatitis, tetanus, and the plethora of diseases you can get at the landfills now...the reason for the "big machines"is to safely compact the refuse without exposing the employees to the harmful waste. The curbside recycling will cost alot more because you have to have dedicated trucks for recycling and a recycling can for each of the homes. Recycling for this city would be better if the guidlines were read and followed. Rinse things out, put them in the correct containers, remove labels, and if a container is full find another recycling bin to use. A little common sense goes a long way. Be responsible.
Yes yes yes! The City of Sheridan should offer curb-side recycling. Curbside recycling is a convenient option to promote recycling; it is not a new service, and many towns with smaller budgets than Sheridan are able to offer this service to its residents. Curbside recycling is no longer an optional "amenity" in the slew of services provided by a city, town or municipality--many citizens expect this service in exchange for their tax dollars. Young professionals entering our community expect this amenity, as many of them have been sorting the recyclables for curbside pick-up since they were kids.
It seems there are many non-recyclers that don't want to subsidize a new service; however, you're not saving anything by not recycling--you'll pay for it later in landfill expansions and increased garbage fees as landfill capacity dwindles.
And yes, I am a loyal recycle-ist. I sort my paper from paperboard, cans from bottles, and numbered plastics, taking it all to the recycling bins. I've started a composting bin to turn my veggie scraps, eggshells and coffee grounds into nutrient-rich soil for the bit of yard space that comes with my apartment. I seek out products made from recycled materials and that are recyclable. Some of the things that are "garbage" will eventually break down in a landfill, but why take years longer than necessary while continuing to demand products from virgin materials and resources? Why pollute a landfill with plastics that leech toxins while creating new plastics via a dioxin-creating toxic process if we can recycle what we've already created?
I propose that garbage collection rates be based on the trash collected--those that choose not to recycle and throw away more would pay more for that privilege, especially if we are providing a choice between the garbage can and the recycle bin, both of which would be picked up from the curb. I would also add a sorting process to garbage collected to capture recyclable materials from those who are anti-recycling to keep those things out of the landfill.
And for those of you that claim we pay for the privilege of recycling--that can be true. Sheridan doesn't have a recycling plant to process plastics or paper in-house, and we pay to recycle these materials. However, our city has invested in glass crushers to crush and reuse recycled glass within the city. And aluminum has a cash value, as it saves energy to recycle aluminum than to create it from virgin resources. Should we choose, we could invest in a recycling plant within our city, which would create local jobs and generate income as we accept and process our own materials and other communities' recyclables back to a valuable and marketable product. However, we've got to better promote recycling and make it easier to recycle. If there is more to be recycled, it makes more fiscal sense to invest in infrastructure and jobs to make recycling a local process. But we can't reach that point when we're bickering about whether or not to recycle in the first place.
I think free curbside recycling is great. And also agree that it should cost more for regular garbage. But even recycling has its bad points. like melting plastics and things puts off bad chemicals in the air and what not. But I would still rather recycle.
I have a question about the art of reusing instead of recycleing though. Why are we not allowed to take things from the landfill? I remember as a kid going with my dad to the dump and it was almost like a treat. I remember finding an old guitar, a bicycle and other fun things. My dad brought home a bbq grill once and a stetson hat that was like brand new. That was before they had workers that sat in heavy equipment watching your every move.
People have no problem buying hand me down items at thrift stores so why are we not allowed to haul home thrown away treasures from the land fill? You know the old saying one man garbage is another mans treasure. I have seen some really neat things be transformed out of garbage. The website www.instructables.com has so many things to make out of scraps and even garbage and no its not just for reusing they have instructions on how to make just about anything. Crafts, recipes, a kids section and green items are just a few but really this is a sight that can be enjoyed by men women and children with supervision. I was first introduced to the idea of garbage as art while surfing the net and came across Gomi Style. All you need is an imagination and your half way there.
Sorry I got off the subject a little but first we need to reuse then recyle.
Now you've got Kinskey claiming on Public Pulse that recycling is going to extend the city dump by 2 years.Just think where the city dump would be if it didn't have to fill up an entire cell for free,from whitney benefits tear down of the central middle school.
the dump would be in the same position, because whether it's filled up for free or not, it still would have been filled up. Just think what the dump would look like if Kinskey didn't let every resident with a utility bill dump for FREE once a month???
RJones your whinning is getting old, be pro-active and run for city council. I don't think the voters are as ignorant as you are but what the heck, give it a try. Then you and Dave could work out your differences.
No,the dump wouldn't be in the same position because the city would have the money that whitney should have paid but didn't.Instead the taxpayer now has to flip the bill.
i refuse to recycle, i will have no part in it. I fact to off set a lower carbon footprint due to riding a bicycle from time to time i buy large cylinders of co2 and vent it to the atmosphere.
I have never laughed so hard! I agree with this sentiment! It is time to stop this senseless move toward allowing the environmentalist wackos to dictate our actions!
Recycling is available now and those who wish may do so. If we have curbside pickup, then we will decide to mandate to ensure that our increased cost is worth while.
According to Martineau’s
presentation, the city will match
a $31,300 grant from the U.S.
a total of
in two separate
of the city: the Scott Addition
subdivision and Sparrow Hawk
There ya go.Who would have ever thought that Scott Addition would be the first to have this kind of money wasted on it.Why not do this trial curbside recycling down there in the neighborhood around lions park.Certainly if that area is good enough for a Bark Park,it should be good enough for a recycling project.Or is it that scott addition and sparrow hawk are too good to be burdened with a Bark Park so they then deserve the free curbside recycling.
Whenever the people of sheridan start worrying about the city dump filling up too quickly or becoming too costly,just look back over the past 5 years.
Our wonderful mayor has managed to give Whitney Benefits nearly a $200k free dump pass to throw away Central Middle School.When the public asked to have a chance to salvage building materials from the school,the mayor told them no.Of course whitney benefits net worth at the time was $160 million,but of course they needed daves help.
The free dump pass to whitney benefits for Central Middle school managed to fill up an entire Cell at the dump.All for free thanks to kinskey,which in turn had to be paid for by the tax payer.
The latest stunt from dave is the dump fee waiver for scott daycare,because we all know the scott family is short on cash.
RJones the Scott Family does a lot for the community. They are involved with VOA and scholarships for our kids just to name a few. Why should it matter if they get a waiver for a daycare dump fee. They do a lot for the Sheridan community. They are a wonderful family that cares about Sheridan.
What several places that are much more advanced than the Sheridan area are going towards is to make recycling free and increase the fee for non recyclable materials. It makes you really watch what goes into the non-recyclable trash when it hits your bottom line.
Look at it this way (RJones) I don't give a hoot who you don't like in administration, recycling is prolonging the world for further generations. No one wants to live in a world filled with trash, so why not reuse as much as possible.
If you think there is so much wrong with your little community why don't you find another one that is void of all these problems you complain about every day? Good luck finding one, because it doesn't exist.
Why find another community when all that's wrong with sheridan is kinskey and his ilk.Get rid of kinskey and you'll have half as many problems around sheridan.Sheridan cost less to live in prior to kinskey and the quality of life was better.
Placing the responsibility of Recycling on the city is a joke.The city still has to pay someone else to take the recycled material off of their hands.And all the city is going to do is charge the citizens an additional fee to do so.
If you're too lazy to place recycled materials in the provided bins around town,you'll be too lazy to place it curb side also.
I disagree with that. I don't currently do much recycling, but I would if it were picked up curbside. The reason I don't recycle now is because it requires me to make a special trip to deliver the material. However, it would take virtually no extra effort for me to put recyclable material at the curb along with my landfiller since I am already doing that once a week. There are probably many other people who feel the same way.
That's fine with me steve.You and the others who can't find time to throw away your own trash can pay for the service out of your own pocket(wages,special trucks etc.).Add it to your personal utility bill.You can pay for your own recycling containers also.
You'll find that when the people who dream up these ideas,actually have to pay their full share of the costs.Then these ideas quickly change and become less important to them.Especially when it's the typical few that want to impose it on everyone else.
Steve you usually stay fairly well informed on these issues.
Where exactly do you think all this money is going to come from to implement this?There is no optional 1% sales tax coming in due to the economy.Cap tax is in the same boat and it's questionable wether cap tax could even legally be applied to this project.
I agree with Steve above. If it were more convenient more people would do it. And to RJones, do you "find time" to take all of your trash to the dump yourself or do you have the city collect it curbside? I would assume that you have it picked up.. so why would that be any different than people wanting to have their recyclables also collected? How are they any more "lazy" than the people who have their garbage collected?
I would not mind paying a little more on my trash bill each month for them to pick up recycling because I see it as important for our community. If something can be recycled and used again in some way, why would anyone chose to throw it away as trash? It is simply ignorant and complacent. Hopefully most people would view it as important enough to be worth a few extra dollars on their bill and be proud that Sheridan is a community that cares about keeping our city clean and "doing our part." Even if the city does have to charge more on everyone's monthly bill for it, people are already paying for trash to be picked up so why would picking up recyclables be any less important? Picking up recyclables will in turn reduce the trash that is picked up and could therefore reduce our garbage costs and landfill fees, etc. Finally, curbside recycling would encourage people to be responsible stewards of our beautiful community that we live in and make Sheridan an even better place. :)
Lastly, although you may fight it now, it is only a matter of time before curbside recycling is standard in every American city and town. Why not have Sheridan help lead the way to a better, cleaner, more responsible state and nation? It's going to be here eventually, might as well start now! Open your eyes and realize that it's time everyone is on board with recycling programs.. it is the way of the future, like it or not. :)
That's exactly right. I already responded to another post by saying that the question is not really whether or not people are going to be willing to participate, but rather how cost-effective it would be. I don't hear too many people complaining about what they pay for curbside trash pick-up, but if we see a huge tax increase to add recycling to the program that might change.
One thing to consider is that the more people who participate in the program the more cost-effective it should be. There are expenses involved to bring the program into existence, but beyond that economy of scale comes into play. It shouldn't cost much more to have a truck go to 100 houses than it does to have it go to 10. If only a handful of people pay for the program it would be extremely expensive for each of them, but if a large number of people contribute the cost per person drops dramatically.
"It shouldn't cost much more to have a truck go to 100 houses than it does to have it go to 10".
Just the fuel costs alone going to 100 houses rather then 10 is considerable.And the only way to fund it is to force the cost onto everybody.So that a few can feel good about themselves.
Yes, you would use more fuel. But if you've already bought the truck and are paying someone to drive it, the more houses that truck can service the more cost-effective the program would be.
"But if you've already bought the truck and are paying someone to drive it, the more houses that truck can service the more cost-effective the program would be".
No steve the more houses that truck services,the higher the fuel cost,the higher the workers wager are,the more trips to the dump that the truck has to make which in turn ups mileage and fuel consumption.And leads to more costs all the way around.
Your boss Kim Love doesn't even agree with this recycling or the way that kinskey is implementing it and made that known this morning on Public Pulse.
Yes, fuel and wage costs would increase, but the fact is that the more you can do with one truck the lower the cost per household would be. That said, I'm not sure it would ever be efficient enough to make it worthwhile. The question is how many people would be willing to pay (and how much they would be willing to pay) to keep stuff out of the landfill.
Before we got the recycling bins around town, people said that they would like to recycle but to do so was not easy. Then we got the bins and it became simple for people to do. Somehow that has become a hassle. If you are to lazy to sort it out now and swing it by the bins on your way to the Wal Mart to buy more useless garbage, you will be to lazy to sort it out later. Not to mention how hard it will be to lug seperate containers out to the curb. If it isnt in one bag it isn't worth doing. Next people will ask for a person to hang out by thier garbage can and sort it for them because they are feeling to lazy. It is obvious that I am not being represented when my tax money will fund something that people can conveniently do themselvs.
We could personally take all of our trash to the landfill, yet we are willing to pay taxes in order to have the city drive a truck to our house and pick it up for us.
The question is whether or not people care if the stuff all goes to the landfill. This will depend on how cost-effective the program is. If adding recycling to the program will require a huge tax increase then people probably aren't going to be supportive.
We just moved to Sheridan from a community that had a curbside recycling program and it was wonderful (and very successful). We recycled everything we could and everyone in our neighborhood did too. If it is made convenient, why would anyone NOT participate? This would be a great thing for our community. It is long overdue and inevitable in the future of Sheridan!
No, Bad idea thats all this nice city would need is more garbage along side of our streets. it would look trashy:)
It would not look "trashy," it would look responsible.
It's not that hard to take you recyclables to the several sites around the city. If people are too lazy to take their recyclables to those areas, they'll be too lazy to put them at the curbside. Our rates will be sure to go up. It's not fair to make everybody pay for those who are lazy.
The reality is that with jobs, families, school, etc. it can be hard (or at least inconvenient) for families to take all of their recycling to drop-off sites around the city. If there were a curbside program there would be no excuse for people not to recycle, and because it would be so much easier and more convenient, many more people would participate. We did not recycle until the community we moved here from started a curbside program and then we recycled everything... it was too easy not too and you felt far too wasteful not to participate. Although we did not recycle until the curbside program, we were not "too lazy" to put them at our curbside. Finally, in some communities, such as Lander, curbside (or pick-up) recycling is so popular that people will pay a recycling business to come pick up their recycling from their curb, simply so they don't have to haul it to the recycling bins/center in town. This further demonstrates the desire and need for recycling to be convenient for everyone in order for people to participate. Bottom line is: If it's not convenient people won't do it. Curbside recycling would make it convenient for people and therefore more people would recycle (which is a very good thing!).
Gillette has done curbside recycling for years now and they have had success. In the end it's up to the person inside the house to actually put stuff out. What the city is doing is giving you NO excuse not to recycle, they are making it totally lazy man proof. The more people do recycle the more the city can make this work, because they make the money based on volume.
I wish the city would raise everybody's trash bill, then wehn the curbside crew comes around to pick up your recyclables, if you have them out you get a credit on your trash bill, if you don't you pay extra for just being a lazy person.
Gillette has "success" in many of its projects,because they have endless funds to throw away on projects.It's little wonder with Bigelow and kinskey both being from gillette,that they think money is endless in sheridan also.
Gillette is the richest county in wyoming and has tons of money to waste.
The city of sheridan already built a recycling building at the dump which is totally worthless,because they have to depend on a company out of Billings to pick up the trash.
I'm sure recycling gives kinskey a warm feeling.
There is no Gillette County in Wyoming. You are so bitter and jealous of any person, business, or city that has been successful. Gillette is a well run city in Campbell County. Sheridan is a very well run city as well; with excellent schools (top 3% in the country), wonderful recreation opportunities, civic performances, the best YMCA I have ever seen, youth sport complexes, and great people. I doubt you would be happy with any Mayor. Recycling is a responsible activity for a city to take part in. Is there anything that you are for RJones or are you just against everything? If you want things to be different, try being positive about an alternative solution instead of being negative and against every thing that is discussed on this website.
This is a terrible idea. Anyone who finds this to be a good idea has no comprehension of the effort it takes to recycle and sort through the trash that people think can be recycled. In the end the service would end up being abused and people would throw trash into their recycle containers. I mean what are the details? How would different types of materials be sorted?
The city already has a recycling building at the dump,that they wasted thousands of tax dollars dollars on for recycling.The city is then dependent on having a billings business drive to sheridan,to pick up the recycled trash and haul it off.When gas prices went up the Billings entity was no longer interested in taking sheridans trash.
You already have recycling bins placed all over sheridan that cost a fortune.And they fill up with trash that the city of sheridan can't even get rid of.
Why is it that sheridan had half as many issues prior to kinskey and all the move ins,who bring their useless ideas with them that do nothing but cost all of us more money?
Maybe with little or no tax dollars coming in to sheridan and fee revenues to the city being at all time lows,kinskey can find a way to run the city budget up from $61 million in 2009,to $71 million in 2010.
obviously you are in no position to talk on what goes on at the recycling center. first of all, there is no recycling building at the dump and the bins placed all over sheridan do not cost a fortune. maybe a person such as yourself finds 100k to be a lot but in the real world that is nothing. but i dont see what position you are taking... do you want curbside recycling or not?
No only Kinskey and his city council find $100k to be chump change.The rest of the citizens of sheridan manage to barely support themselves yearly on an average of $36K or less.
RJones is against anything that Kinksey or anybody with a title does. He has all these rants and really doesn't even know what he's talking about. Common sense is not at play here, it's just pure hate!! If i was that unhappy i would move because the people in Sheridan have spoken in the last two elections and I've yet to see RJones on any ballot to bring their wealth of knowledge or lack of it to the table.
It's called the public record,you should try paying attention to it.The recycling building is well documented as being a waste of money and dependent on an outside entity for disposal of the "recycled material".And even then that entity is only interested when fuel costs are low enough to turn a profit.
Kinskey won by 161 votes last time and wasted thousands of tax dollars plastering his picture in every commercial he could.Glenn Wright didn't even run a campaign and only lost by 161 votes.
First, who has said the building which is located on KROE lane is a waste of money?? Probably just you or anybody else that doesn't believe in recycling. Even Gillette has to depend on the outside entities to come and get the recycled material. All of it has to be transported to a market, which is usually located in the bigger metro areas. If you would pull your head out of your a** and listen when they talk about recycling, it's not about making money, because everybody knows there isn't alot of money to be made,if any. It's about saving space in the landfills and re-using. If Sheridan can get rid of the recycled material, then they have gotten rid of it forever. If it goes the landfill, then Sheridan is responsible for it until the end of time.
I will say you have one and only one fact right, Glenn lost by 161 votes. But, you only have to win by one vote, so get over it OR move somewhere else where you can spill your ignorance on them.
The cost of the building plus its inability to turn any kind of profit let alone pay for itself,makes it a waste of money and a drain on tax dollars.
Meanwhile you've got city streets still in need of drastic repairs.Snow removal around sheridan is barely funded from year to year and you're worried about implementing a recycling system like california has.
Have you considered that curbside recycling would probably increase your water,sewer,and Trash rates due to the price of gas and wear on the city trucks? I have wondered for years why there aren't seperate containers for our regular
trash, glass & plastic, and paper. I believe that the amount of money to be made in recycling could pay for the increased cost of pickup.
The average ten year old saving pop cans quickly finds out there's little money to be made from recycling,but you still think there's money to be made.
unfortunately i have to agree with RJones here, the recycled goods will in no way offset the costs of recycling house to house
I don't agree with all recycling arguments. For example, I find the argument of recycling paper to save trees to be a pretty weak one because trees are planted specifically for making paper. I don't hear many people arguing that we stop eating bread because it kills wheat. Paper trees are an agricultural crop. We can grow more wheat to make bread, and we can grow more trees to make paper. Further, recycling paper is not terribly efficient, and each time paper is recycled the quality diminishes so the process cannot be continued indefinitely.
On the other hand, recycling aluminum makes perfect sense to me. Creating new aluminum is more expensive and time-consuming than recycling it. Aluminum does not degrade through remelting so it can be recycled indefinitely. A penny saved is a penny earned, so there *is* money to be made in pop cans.
Recycling metals and alloys has always made sense.Making everyone else pay for it makes no sense.
You make money on what it initially cost you,not on how you sold it.A kid saving pop cans or a career alcoholic picking up cans along the highway to fund his next drunk have no over head to pay for.The city however has wages,benefits packages,maintenance and purchase costs of vehicles etc.The costs are greater then the income derived from the activity.
There's a reason why centralized mass containers have been used in sheridan.It's a cost effective method and even then it's sporadic in its savings.
The cost of doing nothing in this case would be much more in the long run. We just moved from Riverton to Sheridan where the city HAD to implement a curbside recycling program. The landfills were being filled at an alarming rate and the cost to buy more land to dump outpaced the cost of a good recycling program. The $5 extra a month now for the program is more than worth it. The Riverton program was great and they had a lot of participation. If a city like Riverton with its throw away attitude can make curbside recycling work, a beautiful, green city minded, city like Sheridan has to make it work.
I think its a wonderful idea.Maybe we could get the city to spend $100k or more on some special color coded containers,then they could spend another $300k on special automated trucks to pick up the special containers.
Maybe kinskey could even create a new position like "Director of public Recycling",then maybe get someone out of california to fill the position.