Shoreview Report
On February 21, 2023, Shoreview’s environment commission, which calls itself the EQC, brought forward a report to the city council supporting government managed trash collection. (See report here)
The group’s members are Brooklyn Park Recycling Manger Tim Pratt, Susan Rengstorf, Jennifer Olson, and Kathy Radosevich. Supporters include Paul Gardner and Susan Young, both of whom have been on the payroll for various environmental consulting firms, government entities, or groups.
The report was of the type that sadly is often seen in government. First, a small group of activists make a decision on an issue. Then they write the report to support that decision. In this case, they first decided that government managed trash collection is awesome and will solve all problems real or imaginary. Then they wrote a report that reached this decision. All one has to do is look at the second slide in their presentation to see this. This group does not even bother hiding their intentions. (See report, page 14 in lower right corner)
The report proclaims that residents are paying too much, that the current system is inefficient, and that the cure is a new government new government managed trash collection program.
The report also proclaims that everyone will save money, that the environment will be protected, that climate change will somehow be addressed, and that it is supported by the 2022 survey (the one where 74% of the recipients threw it in the trash).
Interestingly, the report mentions nothing about their government managed trash collection system improving customer service, creating better value, or lowering property taxes. Also ignored is how senior citizens who currently share cans will be forced to have separate service at greater cost, and how others are nickeled and dimed under these government contracts.
Then the report proclaims that everyone supports government managed trash collection because one household says so. (See report, page 15 in lower right corner) These homeowners state that the number of trucks on the street each week creates noise and air pollution, is inefficient and unsafe, and also adds additional wear and tear on the city’s streets. How factual are these statements?
Willson’s letter was found through a public data request with the city and it turns out that they live on a dead end street on the south side of Turtle Lake. (See email)
Are there a lot of trucks on their dead end street that create noise and air pollution? Perhaps, but trash trucks only operate in their neighborhood during daytime hours on Wednesday. Likely there are 100 trucks spread across a 7 day week, delivering and collecting everything imaginable. A government managed trash collection program may reduce that to 95 trucks a week. Most trucks driving down any residential street have nothing to do with trash collection.
The Willsons state that trash trucks are inefficient and unsafe. First, it is easy to see declare anything imaginable as inefficient, but the fact is that most people like having a choice of plumbers, electricians, gas stations, vehicle manufacturers, and barbers. Concerning safety, a trash truck is your friend.
Trash trucks are the safest vehicles in the city. What is frightening, are city owned and operated vehicles that are actually 100 times more dangerous. In Bloomington, a 20 year review of accident records showed 0 trash truck accidents vs. 100’s of city vehicle accidents. City vehicles crashed into other vehicles, bicycle riders, and pedestrians on a regular basis, along with driving into light poles and drainage ponds.
The Willsons claim of street wear and tear is untrue and strongly refuted by the city’s longtime public works director. (See Public Works Director email of February 14, 2023)
Then the report claims that the new 2022 citizen survey now supports government managed trash collection, and its lower cost. (See report, page 16-17 in lower right corner) This is the survey by mail that 74% of residents threw in the trash, not the professional and scientific surveys that the city did in 2010, 2013, and 2018. (See more on this survey here)
The most egregious part of this group’s report is the claim that government managed trash collection cities pay less, which they support with a chart labeled “Organized Cities Lower Rates”. Unfortunately their chart is riddled with errors. (See report, page 19-20 in lower right corner)
To do an equal comparison, one must include property tax increases and additional city employees that come with a government managed trash collection program. They fail to include either.
Claiming that Shoreview residents can get the low rates found in North Saint Paul and White Bear Lake is beyond deceptive. It is an outright lie. The fees listed for these cities in their report only pay for part of trash service.
Property taxes subsidize the true cost of government managed trash programs. In North Saint Paul, the monthly fee residents pay only covers collection. It does not include customer service, carts, or the tipping fee paid at the disposal center. This is all paid for with property tax increases. This tax subsidy exists in White Bear Lake and the other cities referenced. In Maplewood, property taxes so far have paid close to $1 million for city ownership and maintenance of trash carts.
Then the report cites other potential benefits. (See report, page 21 in lower right corner) As previously referenced, street wear has been discredited by city staff and there are no traffic or pedestrian safety issues. As noted, reducing the number of trucks on any given city street from 100 a week to 95, is unlikely to have any measurable effect on noise or emissions, especially when trash trucks are running clean compressed natural gas (CNG) and soon will be running electric. Your neighbor’s SUV is far more polluting than CNG or electric trash trucks.
In conclusion, the report supporting government managed trash collection that was provided to the city council on February 21, 2023 is primarily a piece of political propaganda, with little to no scientific or factual information contained within it.
Of great concern is that no one on the city council has been willing to ask tough questions about the accuracy of this report. To date, no one has been willing to hold the authors of the report accountable for the false information contained within it.
Updated 3/7/24
On February 21, 2023, Shoreview’s environment commission, which calls itself the EQC, brought forward a report to the city council supporting government managed trash collection. (See report here)
The group’s members are Brooklyn Park Recycling Manger Tim Pratt, Susan Rengstorf, Jennifer Olson, and Kathy Radosevich. Supporters include Paul Gardner and Susan Young, both of whom have been on the payroll for various environmental consulting firms, government entities, or groups.
The report was of the type that sadly is often seen in government. First, a small group of activists make a decision on an issue. Then they write the report to support that decision. In this case, they first decided that government managed trash collection is awesome and will solve all problems real or imaginary. Then they wrote a report that reached this decision. All one has to do is look at the second slide in their presentation to see this. This group does not even bother hiding their intentions. (See report, page 14 in lower right corner)
The report proclaims that residents are paying too much, that the current system is inefficient, and that the cure is a new government new government managed trash collection program.
The report also proclaims that everyone will save money, that the environment will be protected, that climate change will somehow be addressed, and that it is supported by the 2022 survey (the one where 74% of the recipients threw it in the trash).
Interestingly, the report mentions nothing about their government managed trash collection system improving customer service, creating better value, or lowering property taxes. Also ignored is how senior citizens who currently share cans will be forced to have separate service at greater cost, and how others are nickeled and dimed under these government contracts.
Then the report proclaims that everyone supports government managed trash collection because one household says so. (See report, page 15 in lower right corner) These homeowners state that the number of trucks on the street each week creates noise and air pollution, is inefficient and unsafe, and also adds additional wear and tear on the city’s streets. How factual are these statements?
Willson’s letter was found through a public data request with the city and it turns out that they live on a dead end street on the south side of Turtle Lake. (See email)
Are there a lot of trucks on their dead end street that create noise and air pollution? Perhaps, but trash trucks only operate in their neighborhood during daytime hours on Wednesday. Likely there are 100 trucks spread across a 7 day week, delivering and collecting everything imaginable. A government managed trash collection program may reduce that to 95 trucks a week. Most trucks driving down any residential street have nothing to do with trash collection.
The Willsons state that trash trucks are inefficient and unsafe. First, it is easy to see declare anything imaginable as inefficient, but the fact is that most people like having a choice of plumbers, electricians, gas stations, vehicle manufacturers, and barbers. Concerning safety, a trash truck is your friend.
Trash trucks are the safest vehicles in the city. What is frightening, are city owned and operated vehicles that are actually 100 times more dangerous. In Bloomington, a 20 year review of accident records showed 0 trash truck accidents vs. 100’s of city vehicle accidents. City vehicles crashed into other vehicles, bicycle riders, and pedestrians on a regular basis, along with driving into light poles and drainage ponds.
The Willsons claim of street wear and tear is untrue and strongly refuted by the city’s longtime public works director. (See Public Works Director email of February 14, 2023)
Then the report claims that the new 2022 citizen survey now supports government managed trash collection, and its lower cost. (See report, page 16-17 in lower right corner) This is the survey by mail that 74% of residents threw in the trash, not the professional and scientific surveys that the city did in 2010, 2013, and 2018. (See more on this survey here)
The most egregious part of this group’s report is the claim that government managed trash collection cities pay less, which they support with a chart labeled “Organized Cities Lower Rates”. Unfortunately their chart is riddled with errors. (See report, page 19-20 in lower right corner)
To do an equal comparison, one must include property tax increases and additional city employees that come with a government managed trash collection program. They fail to include either.
Claiming that Shoreview residents can get the low rates found in North Saint Paul and White Bear Lake is beyond deceptive. It is an outright lie. The fees listed for these cities in their report only pay for part of trash service.
Property taxes subsidize the true cost of government managed trash programs. In North Saint Paul, the monthly fee residents pay only covers collection. It does not include customer service, carts, or the tipping fee paid at the disposal center. This is all paid for with property tax increases. This tax subsidy exists in White Bear Lake and the other cities referenced. In Maplewood, property taxes so far have paid close to $1 million for city ownership and maintenance of trash carts.
Then the report cites other potential benefits. (See report, page 21 in lower right corner) As previously referenced, street wear has been discredited by city staff and there are no traffic or pedestrian safety issues. As noted, reducing the number of trucks on any given city street from 100 a week to 95, is unlikely to have any measurable effect on noise or emissions, especially when trash trucks are running clean compressed natural gas (CNG) and soon will be running electric. Your neighbor’s SUV is far more polluting than CNG or electric trash trucks.
In conclusion, the report supporting government managed trash collection that was provided to the city council on February 21, 2023 is primarily a piece of political propaganda, with little to no scientific or factual information contained within it.
Of great concern is that no one on the city council has been willing to ask tough questions about the accuracy of this report. To date, no one has been willing to hold the authors of the report accountable for the false information contained within it.
Updated 3/7/24