|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Town Council in Woodside is doing some trailblazing as it moves the town toward a presumably greener future.
Like the councils in Portola Valley, Menlo Park and other communities in San Mateo County, the Woodside council is following the lead of the county Board of Supervisors, which approved an ordinance in October 2012 to prohibit merchants from dispensing single-use plastic bags at checkout counters. But in Woodside, that’s the long and short of it.
Woodside merchants likely won’t be required to charge customers 10 cents for a paper bag, as the county ordinance recommends in an attempt to get people to shop with their own cloth bags. By not requiring a paper-bag fee, Woodside merchants then will not have to keep records of how many paper bags they sell, nor will they face fines for not keeping such records.
There’s no ordinance in Woodside yet, but these differences are the essence of the direction the council gave staff at its Feb. 26 meeting. Staff have redrafted this ordinance at least twice as the council has gradually eliminated provisions taken from the county version, which goes into effect in unincorporated communities on Earth Day, April 22.
The law becomes effective in Portola Valley and Menlo Park on Earth Day as well. In these and the unincorporated communities, the law allows retailers to use plastic bags for certain items, such as food to go, prescription drugs, fresh produce, and small parts from hardware stores. Customers without bags of their own will have to buy a paper one — for 10 cents until Dec. 31, 2014, and 25 cents after that. People receiving food stamps are exempt, and retailers must keep records of the sale of paper bags.
Portola Valley did not change the language of its ordinance and adopted it “by reference” to the county version to take advantage of the county’s extensive background work, including an environmental impact report (EIR) intended to discourage lawsuits by plastic bag manufacturers. While the language in Woodside’s ordinance may differ from that of the county’s ordinance, the changes being proposed will not preclude the advantages of the county’s EIR, Woodside Town Manager Kevin Bryant said.
Other communities that adopted the county’s ordinance without changes include South San Francisco, Belmont, Pacifica, Daly City, Colma, Foster City, San Bruno, and Half Moon Bay, county spokeswoman Robyn Thaw told the Almanac. San Carlos is expected to do so in July.
The draft EIR projected the ban would reduce by 34 percent the ground-level emissions that contribute to acid rain and ozone. The bags also find their way into the oceans, and elsewhere. “Plastic bags have a huge environmental impact,” Woodside resident Nancy Reyering told the council. Asian steppes are littered with bags that originate in Europe and Africa, she said. “There are plastic bags as far as the eye can see.”
Council comment
The Woodside council members spent maybe 30 minutes in a spirited discussion on what they wanted for the town. In three straw polls on how to direct further staff work, a simple ban on the single-use plastic bags passed 4-3, with “no” votes from members Tom Shanahan and Dave Burow and Mayor Anne Kasten. Charging a fee for paper bags went down 6-1, with Councilman Ron Romines in the minority. The council unanimously rejected administrative fines.
“Charging for the bags … encourages a change in behavior, encourages what is ultimately intended here, that people bring their own bags,” Mr. Romines said. “Habits are hard to break,” he added. “Simple things like this can change our behavior.”
Mr. Burow asserted that the manufacturing process for single-use plastic bags produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than does the manufacture of paper and cotton bags. In that sense, he said, “plastic bags are good.”
County environmental official Waymond Wong attended the meeting to take questions, and Mr. Burow used the occasion to sound off. “I think this is (an) example of government with good intentions intruding into peoples’ lives,” he said, adding that he was “appalled” that a county official was in attendance. “We have a structural deficit in this county,” he said. “We should be helping the poor, helping the aged, and not be spending money on this! It’s crazy.”
Charging for paper bags is “an income transfer,” Mr. Shanahan said. “It’s 10 cents out of my neighbor’s pocket. It’s not very much but why am I making that decision?”
“Because as a matter of public policy, we’re trying to encourage behavior that makes our environment a little better,” Mr. Romines replied.
A small fee isn’t going to change anyone’s behavior in Woodside, Councilwoman Deborah Gordon said.
Charging for paper bags is “an income transfer,” Mr. Shanahan said. “It’s 10 cents out of my neighbor’s pocket. It’s not very much but why am I making that decision?”
I would ask Mr. Shanahan if he thinks all such “income transfers” are beyond the purview of government? For instance, charging residents for a sewer system is an income transfer too. You think your neighbor should be able to discharge his waste into the street if he wants?
I am a resident who routinely uses the paper bags from grocery stores to recycle bottles, cans and newspapers. If I have enough of them, I use a reusable bag, as I do at the farmer’s market each week. But I like the convenience of a biodegadeable paper bag to carry out my recycling. These bags are made from wood chips left over when square lumber is cut from round trees and from recycled paper and corrugated boxxes.
I am likely to be shopping at Robert’s more, just for the convenience of getting paper bags. The compostable plastic bags I use for food waste are substantially more expensive. I favor banning the single-use plastic bags which are a blight on the landscape.But charging for the paper bags is silly.
Bravo Woodside!
“Encourage behavior”, “educating the citizens”, contributing to acid rain, and so forth… To pass a ordinance to ban bags, paper or plastic, says to the citizens of Woodside: “You’re basically not smart enough or care enough about the environment to make such critical decisions without our (the council) infinite wisdom and supervision.”
I, for one and perhaps many, find such an attitude by the elected officials of Woodside to be insulting. I highly doubt one will find Robert’s bags floating in the Pacific or littering Asian. Strongly suggest allowing the citizens of Woodside to use their own judgment and intelligence to utilize and dispose of bags without “encouragement” or fines.
Peter Berger said, “…Strongly suggest allowing the citizens of Woodside to use their own judgment and intelligence…”
Oh, heaven forbid, Peter! Don’t you know that elected officials always know best?
Banning plastic bags without a charge on paper bags is a naive decision. First, it will result in a lawsuit from the plastic bag industry, which can claim (even without merit) that an Environmental Impact Report is necessary if bag usage switches from plastic to paper (instead of reusable). Without a fee, most people will continue to use paper.
Second, it fails to note the environmental impacts of paper bags. Forests are cut. Transportation needs increase. Disposal costs increase.
Third, this will increase the cost burden on retailers, who will see their costs increase as usage shifts to more expensive paper bags. This cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Not smart.
I heard a news story today that there have been two unintended consequences of these reuseable bag laws.
First, you probably heard that the number of food-borne illnesses has increased due to people not washing their reuseable bags. Imagine a little raw chicken juice from your last shopping venture sitting at the bottom of your cloth bag as you toss in a few apples.
Second, some stores are reporting shop lifting increases of over 20%. Thieves now go into stores with their own bags and it’s impossible for store owners to determine which items the shopper may have come in with (which is the perpetrator’s claim) and which they took from the shelves.
Beware of unintended consequences.
Remedies can be found for unintended consequences. This is the essence of intelligent decision making and follow through on efforts to create a more livable world — as opposed to throwing the one we have away, which we are rapidly doing.
Where I shop, it is assumed that you don’t want to put a cooked chicken in your cloth bag. That can become a rule if need be.
As for shoplifting, that’s a new problem? The sky is not falling here.
Unintended consequence or market opportunity? Clearly the makers of reusable bags have found their sales booming in recent years. How about a bag-washing service like those for diapers, towels, rags and uniforms? You turn in dirty bags at the store and get clean ones in exchange, for a small fee.
I don’t support this part.
“retailers must keep records of the sale of paper bags.”