Thursday, April 7, 2016
My Big Fight This Week with Roxy Ross
It was during the Commission meeting, and it started out as a point of agreement. Somehow, it worked its way around to a dispute.
We were talking about the garbage. Specifically, we were discussing when it could be placed for pick-up, and where it should be placed. Come to think of it, Rox and I have had two big fights about the garbage. When, and now where.
A couple of months or so ago, Rox proposed that garbage should be placed for pick-up as soon as 9:00 AM the day before pick-up (so Monday morning and Thursday morning), and empty containers should be removed by homeowners by 9:00 AM the morning after pick-up (so Wednesday morning and Saturday morning). It seemed to me this left way too much time in the week (four days!) that containers could rest as a lingering blight in front of BP houses. I said so. I said no. I proposed placement not before 5:00 PM the day before pickup, and removal by the end of the day of pick-up. I got outvoted for two reasons. One was that Roxy said that she likes the symmetry of the same number for the first placement hour and the last removal hour (9), and she thought it would be easier to remember, and the other was that she and others (she's very persuasive, in that charming way of hers) agreed (with each other, not with me!) that the hours I proposed wouldn't leave enough time and opportunity for people to be able to set out their garbage, then remove the empty containers. I won't even summarize some of the ridiculous hypothetical examples of people who couldn't theoretically do this. Just take my word for it: the others were wrong, and I was right. But still, Rox and I fought about this at the meeting some months ago.
Anyway, this past Tuesday, at the Commission meeting, we revisited the matter of when the garbage could be put out, and empty containers removed. Although I had already been outvoted on this matter, I thought I'd just take the last opportunity to harp, and wouldn't you know, Rox changed her mind. Or, as we say in my business, she apparently overcame her OCD. She agreed that we could switch the placement time to 5:00 PM the day before pick-up, and for whatever reasons, others generally agreed with her. Or maybe it was always 2-2, and she was just the swing vote. In any event, we agreed to change the placement time, and I agreed not to fuss about the removal time: 9:00 AM the day after pick-up.
Since I was on a bit of a roll, I decided to whine about the where of garbage pick-up, too. This was also to address a point raised by Dan Keys, regarding how far back on the property garbage and containers could be placed. Dan's point, which was not technically wrong, was that if we use the property line as a standard (garbage and containers could be placed essentially on the property line), then those people with oddly platted lots, with property lines as deep as 30 feet from the street, could place their garbage that far back.
The easy way to solve this, which we soon enough adopted, was to say that the reference for where garbage could be placed would be the street edge, not the property line. But I suggested one other possibility. Because Dan theoretically had no complaint about how far off the street garbage could be left, and since some of our neighbors want pick-up so far from the street that it's in the side yard of the house, I suggested that we just use the street as a reference (no more than 10 feet from the street edge, was my suggestion), and eliminate side yard pick-up altogether.
This suggestion inflamed Dan, with whom I was also having a fight this week (I know, I need to see someone about all this fighting in which I seem to get myself involved), and Dan argued that side yard garbage and trash pick-up was a long-standing "right" of BP residents. We discussed this further, and Dan was perhaps very grudgingly willing to understand that what he was describing was an unquestioned (thus far) tradition, not a "right." But he and some others still held to the idea that it would be some sort of deprivation to remove from BP residents the opportunity to have garbage men waste their time collecting garbage and trash from side yards, then return empty containers there. There was not even an attempt to describe the kind of person who could take garbage and trash from inside the house or from the yard, and deposit it at the side yard, but not take it to the "curb."
But in the meantime, Rox came to adopt the same ill-tempered and depriving imposition that I suggested. She, too, thought we should eliminate side yard garbage and trash service. That was the moment of agreement between us regarding that issue. But the moment didn't last long, because Dan was making such a stink, and I could see I was outvoted on this matter and didn't need to stand on principle about it, that I told myself that I would just agree not to oppose side yard pick-up.
When the final vote on this whole matter was taken, Rox voted an emphatic "NO," Barbara Watts voted "No, but for a different [unrevealed] reason," and the rest of us (the boys) voted yes.
Roxy Ross is a genius of public service. She has great instincts, works harder than anyone I've ever known, and is very nearly never wrong. I hate going against her, especially when she's agreeing with a position I VERY recently took for myself. But that's what happened. And she later publicly scolded me for it. Of course, she was right. I lost my nerve. I'm sorry, Rox, As always, or perhaps very, very nearly always, you were right.
Ah yes, side yard service... the ultimate in entitlement and laziness. I have never lived anywhere nor known anyone who has lived anywhere where such a service is even offered, let alone expected. It diminishes the efficiency of pick-up, and speaks volumes about the person who can't be bothered to take their garbage/waste to the curb a couple times per week. I may even be friends with some of the people who utilize this service (I don't know), but it really is a bizarre practice. I suppose the only step up is giving house keys to WastePro so they can collect garbage from each of your receptacles scattered throughout your house. I probably shouldn't have put that idea out there...
ReplyDeleteAbsent laryngitis, I would have said the same things. And since we've gone this far, I suspect it's something about not having to admit to a beer budget, if you can enact satisfaction of champagne tastes. Or maybe even inventing champagne tastes to distract from the budgetary reality.
DeleteFred
I guess the Park has always been lazy for 50 years. Most cities did the same years ago.
DeleteEven where I lived in the Bahamas did
When everyone used side yard pickup , for the past 50 years or so, there was never a problem with cans being left out.
ReplyDeleteHarvey,
DeleteI'm sure that's true. Cans would not have been left out, if our garbage collectors put them back. And I have no reason to think they didn't. But it took them more than twice as long to do the collection. In changing from a garbage service which we ran to one run by someone else, one of the objects was greater efficiency. That gets undermined, if collectors have to go to side yards, twice. Our motivation to have them do it, whether it's what Brian said or what I said, is another matter.
Fred
When we switched to Waste Pro, we were all told the service would be the same.
DeleteSame service, cheaper price.
That's right. The service is the same, and the price is lower. And it gets done in less than half the time. Some of us (I, Roxy, and Brian McNoldy) merely discussed the possibility that it would be acceptable, and more efficient for the collectors, is we did not have side yard service. There wasn't much support for that idea, so we codified what we have been doing anyway.
DeleteFred
I have to do this in several comments due to the character restrictions:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all Fred, let me correct you regarding your statement that I ever said that trash (yard waste) collection was ever provided at the side yard. To my knowledge the collection of yard waste was never provided at the side of homes and I never said it was. The collection of garbage or kitchen waste from the side yard, however, has always been provided in Biscayne Park. That is not tradition, it is a baseline level of service (a right) that it was previously unnecessarily to write into the code. Everyone knew it was the way it was and made changes around that knowledge. You correctly voted to codify the long standing level of service.
Brian's assertion that people who take advantage of this bought and paid for side yard service are lazy, doesn't make sense any more than is the fact of any of us taking advantage of any service provider that we may hire. I consider it a cost for services issue and I compare the cost incurred in my man hours of labor (or possibly the monitory costs of personally hired labor) of 1500 residents each carrying garbage to the curb and back, to the cost of our contractor doing it all year (20?, 30?, 40? dollars a year as part of our contract with Waste Pro)? To me, the cost to do it by a contractor or public employees is worth it, just as I consider the cost of having my oil changed, my roof repaired, my house painted, my lawn cut to be a good value. My time away from a job, my family, community meeting, etc. are worth more than that small cost for the contractor. That anyone choses to buy a higher level of service should not be denigrated. By the way (to Brian) there are at least two cities in Miami-Dade County (Coral Gables and Miami Beach) that provide back yard garbage service and in the case of the Gables both garbage and recycling is collected from that location (no cans on the street, ever - you get a fine if you do it). I can tell you, in the case of Coral Gables, that when the cost of converting to curb side collection was calculated (each year as one of my responsibilities towards producing a budget), the savings were small compared to the value of the service to individuals and to the City's appearance.
Possibly, during our next round of contract letting, we should first ask ourselves (before and RFP is produced) what we want aesthetically for our community (no cans or containers on the street, ever???? Require that there be no set outs of containers) and find out what that costs. Contractors respond and compete for providing services that are requested. They compete against each others, not the customer. Don't ask for two levels of service in the same RFP, because you will get an inflated cost for the service that provides the least profit for the contractor. What City's do we wish to emulate, the uglier (and less resident considerate) communities or the nicer ones? We pay more for a police force, recreation services, landscape services etc., why not for a no can on street City? In the interest of efficiency taken to absurd extreme from the standpoint of the governments responsibility (but not that of individuals), why not just require everyone to pile all of their trash and garbage into the family Cadillac and take it to the dump in Medly every week?
Dan,
DeleteThe fact that you're willing to say something twice doesn't make it more correct, or imply that it is more correct, than if you only said it once. We have traditionally done something here for a long time. That makes it customary. It does not make it a "right." You might remember that ours is an "inclusive" Code. If something is not there, no matter how sensible it seems or even common it might be, it is not legal.
My vote to codify what you want was not "correct." It was just in line with what you want. Again, you must separate concepts of what you like from concepts of what is true, or good, or right. You did not get truth or goodness or correctness on Tuesday. You got satisfaction. Enjoy it, and don't make it more than it is. And you're welcome.
Your other point about what we might want, in terms of image or function, is a very good point. It's what we can all discuss. Again, don't confuse what you think with what is true or real.
If you could have thought about it on Tuesday, you might have appreciated a dilemma. Some people wanted codified side yard service, and some people complained that it took too long, until too late in the day, to collect the garbage. Understand that those two things work against each other. You are free to choose, or conclude a preference, or decide which you would like to sacrifice for the other, but don't lose sight of the dilemma.
Dan, you need to run for office again. Clearly, you think you have all the right answers to everything, and it's painful to see you work so hard to get other people to do it your way, and abandon their own thought processes.
Fred
By the way, Dan, where were all your insights about the Codes, and about how much better it is for the community to have side yard garbage pick-up when you were a Commissioner? You could have had your way directly with the Codes then, and you could have persuaded those Commissions to mandate all-Village side yard garbage service. Why did you fail to do these things when you could have, then you criticize subsequent Commissions for not doing them later? And your insight about side yard pick-up really suggests that everyone should use this service-- that it's actually better for the overall appearance of the Village never to have bins out. Why were you simply content that our new contractor would continue to provide the service, but you didn't take the opportunity to suggest we make it mandatory? What side of which issues are you on?
DeleteFred
It wasn't necessary back then, Fred, because everyone on the Commission knew it was the service that was being purchased by means of our waste fee, as it is today. Thanks to you and two other voters on the Commission, we now have what has always been a reality explicitly written into the Code.
DeleteAs to running again, Fred, I think that you must consider it more painful (for some reason) that residents and Commissioners alike often (not always) see that I make good suggestions to the extent that proposed legislation is changed and in some cases abandoned. Often, I see you denigrate my requests for consideration of what you and others may not have even conceptualized. Contrary to your assertion above, I don't ask people to abandon their thought processes, I ask them to consider broader thought processes.
Dan, it was a subtle distinction, and I missed it at first. Now, I'm reading you more carefully, and I think I understand it. People should not simply agree to anything you say, just because you said it. They should understand that you have the most unique perspective, and the highest insight and intelligence, that you are the real final arbiter of things BP, and they should always come to agree with you, if they're educable, because you're always right. Clearly, there is no reason for anything to go the other way-- for you to "learn" anything from anyone else-- because no one has anything to teach you about which you are not yourself superior anyway.
DeleteDid I pass?
Fred
PS: I can't say you're wrong-- because that can't happen-- but in fact, all that was codified was what you and some others want. It was never "right" and it was never a "right." It's just what some people prefer and to which they have become accustomed. I hope your arithmetic skills are sufficient to allow you to accept that taking the time to provide side yard service slows down the process. But hey, if that's what you and others want, and if you and others won't complain about the longer time it takes to get the job done, who am I to stand in your way?
Fred, Harvey is absolutely correct, but you make the assumption in your response to him that cans were inefficiently brought to the street and returned. In fact, solid waste workers took bins to the rear storage locations and removed the garbage (usually in paper bags back then) from the cans. Today, they do much the same by removing plastic bags of garbage and taking just them to the street. They never take my can to the street. In Coral Gables, carts are used for this purpose from house to house until they are dumped when full.
ReplyDeleteIn the recent change to a contractor, the administration rightly assumed that a contractor could perform the tasks less expensively than the Village. We got a lower cost regardless of the level of efficiency by the contractor within their operation. By diminishing the level of service (the term for requiring the resident to do more and the contractor to do less), we could save even more money.
Based on the level of service contracted for and previously expected as the level of service under the Village operation (Garbage brought out or left at the side yard and recycling and yard wast brought out), the most efficient location for set out of these materials for collection (when required) is at the edge of the roadway. Thus the change made last night clearly directs residents where to put these materials and eliminates the ambiguousness of the previous language. You voted correctly.
Now if I can only get you and the rest of the Commission to champion the correction of the conflicting and missing definitions is the Solid Waste section of the code (to name only one issue), I would be getting somewhere.
I will say it now, because believe that ultimately we will only fix our horrendous code only by emulating one or several good codes already in existence as to structure (and wherever desired, content). Don't try to fix our code. Find a code with good structure and make it ours as our wishes may dictate. Those that worked on creating the Village Charter learned this lesson. We soon found out that trying to work with the existing charter to make it work with the intended changes, just didn't work. Only when we started to study other codes with good structure and content (produced with copious dollars of professional expert input), did we been to make progress towards success.
The side yard service is a concept that was totally new to me upon moving here. I recognize that it's a higher level of service that we pay for, and that it's in the contract... that's fine (it is not something I would have put in the contract, but that's beside the point).
ReplyDeleteI have lived in very nice cities and not-so-nice cities across different states and never heard of such a service before. You put your trash out by the curb either on the evening before pick-up or in the early morning on the day of pick-up. Then you bring it back in once it has been emptied. At most, people's cans are out for ~24 hours, and the trucks can move very efficiently down the street.
The service doesn't really matter to me, because I'll continue to take mine to the curb like always. It just seems like minimal additional effort/time is required by a resident to wheel a trash can from their house to the curb, but when you flip it around to the viewpoint of the collectors, that amount of effort/time is multiplied by a few hundred or even a thousand homes.
Now, if side yard service is required of everyone to eliminate seeing trash cans along the street, I would expect that we would pay more and that it would take a lot longer, neither of which are too attractive.
I'll add this topic to my list of "challenges in assimilating into south Florida culture" and blissfully carry on.
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteThe commission took upon themselves to fix a system that was not broken.
The issue was SOME people were leaving their cans and yard trash on the wrong days.
Code enforcement does not work on Sundays so lets penalize all of residents instead of adjusting his schedule
Is there anything I missed?
Harvey,
DeletePlease don't rehash this. Of course the system was broken. It cost way too much, and it was very inefficient. Now, it costs much less, it's much more stable and efficient, and we simply considered tightening things just a bit more. But don't worry. Those of us who had that ambition got outvoted, so we can all still have side yard service. I'm still not sure what this is really all about, but there it is, and it will continue to make the route take that much longer, leading some people to complain that their trash wasn't picked up early enough.
Can we drop this now?
Fred