At its November meeting, Cape’s Town Council voted against pursuing a plan to charge residents for each bag of trash disposed of at the transfer station. Town officials had put forth the pay-per-bag (sometimes called pay-per-throw) proposal partially as a means to recoup a portion of the town’s payments to ecomaine for waste management, and partially to encourage residents to recycle more of their waste. How the council went from an overall positive view of the measure to a unanimous vote against it is a textbook example of democracy.
At the council’s request, Cape’s Recycling Committee, a volunteer citizen committee, discussed the pay-per-bag concept, reported that they had found a number of “challenges” to applying the concept in Cape Elizabeth, and “endorsed the concept of . . . exploration of developing a [pay-per-bag] program”. At their July 12 workshop, councilors on the whole gave short shrift to the Recycling Committee’s recommendations and questions and expressed general support for implementing pay-per-bag – “get it off the ground,” as one councilor put it. Councilor Penny Jordan warned the council about public sentiment against pay-per-bag, but other councilors did not pick up on that concern.
At its Aug. 9 workshop, the council moved the issue forward to a September public hearing, after considering the following facts:
• Since 2006, Cape had decreased its solid waste by 27.5 percent.
• Cape recycles 34 percent more per capita than the average of the 11 comparison communities.
• Cape has increased its recycling every year since 2006.
• Cape’s percentage of recycled materials is closer to 75 percent when construction debris and the like, which cannot be put into the recycling bins, is excluded from the calculation.
Between the time of the workshops and the time of the public hearing, Cape residents received an insert with their property tax bills, almost half of one side of which was devoted to information – and questionable information at that – favoring pay-per-bag. During the same period, the council was deluged with e-mails from Cape residents, most against pay-per-bag.
At the public hearing, many residents spoke against the measure and not one spoke in favor of it. I’m not aware that there was any organized effort to oppose pay-per-bag, and there was no evidence of that at the public hearing. Residents offered a wide variety of reasons for their opposition, the most common being that pay-per-bag is a form of additional taxation. But some residents opposed mandatory use of non-biodegradable, non-reusable, petroleum-based plastic bags as anti-environmental. Collectively, residents arguments against pay-per-bag were an example of the wisdom of the many.
The council discussed pay-per-bag for the final time at its Nov. 1 workshop. At that time, although some councilors still expressed support for the concept and thought it might have some potential in the future, all councilors appreciated that pay-per-bag has little support among residents. At its Nov. 8 meeting, the council, with little discussion, unanimously killed pay-per-bag (for now). But as Councilor Frank Governali had said at one workshop, the issue was “an excellent exercise in getting public input” and “a good model to use for the work we do on issues that deal with the public.”
And indeed it was. This is how democracy is supposed to work. Our elected officials come up with what they think might be a good idea. They research it and get input from the public. And they make a decision that takes into account the concerns of those most affected by their vote: the taxpayers. The system worked. It should work even better in the future, now that the new council rules allow residents to voice their opinions earlier in the process, at council workshops.
Mary Esposito grew up in South Portland and has lived in Cape Elizabeth for over 25 years. A former state legislator, she is the author of many articles on legal issues. Her blog about Cape Elizabeth town government, Cape Elizabeth Voice, is at www.CapeVoice.WordPress.com. She can be reached at CapeVoice.WordPress@gmail.com.
Comments are no longer available on this story