Hey, there! Log in / Register
Election roundup: Get the popcorn ready
By adamg on Tue, 10/21/2014 - 8:44am
Baker and Coakley debate tonight at 7 p.m. on WGBH. The three other candidates were not invited.
Baker is focusing on Boston, but he has little choice.
What can we glean from Baker's handling of mental-health services when he worked for Bill Weld back in '91?
Associated Press looks at the spending on the ballot questions this year.
Bill Galvin quietly gives state contracts to a firm that has worked on his re-election campaigns.
Speaking of bureaucratic positions still filled in elections, you get to choose a state auditor this year.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Headline on bostonglobe.com about Baker is great clickbait
The headline reads "Mental health record may be predictor for Charlie Baker." When I first saw it I thought "Charlie Baker has a mental illness? Jeez - I wonder which one? Did he go through a period of depression? Anxiety? Mania?"
Then I read the article (skimmed, to be honest) and found that it's not about him having mental illness. It's an article about how he outsourced and cut mental illness services in Massachusetts.
I need another cup of Joe before I can cogently comment on the comments but BRAVO to the Globe for that headline. Well done!
p.s. - As someone who does have a couple of mental illnesses rolling around my brain, that Globe headline seems like a nice little jab that helps stigmatize it even more. My first response was "Well that's odd - it seems like this information about Charlie would have come out before now."
But no, it's just another "Vote for Martha" advertisement disguised as a news article.
Escheatage
More play money for the politicians. Every container that doesn't get returned, even those that get properly recycled, means another deposit goes to the state.
Well
We could make the deposit money like the parking meter money and define a specific requirement that it be spent on so it's not "play money" for politicians, then bring in far more than is needed and have a well-funded account that we can't legally use for anything else at all even though there are needs everywhere and people are still paying well under market rate for parking.
We could do that instead.
Yeah
Because they have such a good track record of doing that it the past.
For instance,
AAA World Magazine, Jan/Feb 1991: $120M of revenue from a gas tax increase was supposed to be used to bring in federal matching funds for funding road and bridge projects, but they couldn't keep their hands off it and grabbed all but $7.4M.
No mention of Coakley
receiving campaign donation from NationalGrid prior to their 37% rate increase?
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/joe_battenfeld/2014/...
Can someone explain what
Can someone explain what possible benefit there is to passing question 2?
I recycle everything. I don't even need to put my trash out every week, so much of it gets recycled. But when I have home recycling pickup, why on earth should I be penalized for using it!? I buy a lot of bottled water, for a variety of reasons, and 99.9% of the bottles get recycled. In fact I even often reuse the bottles myself before recycling them. Having to pay a bottle deposit on these would be a significant amount of extra money, raising the price of a case of bottled water by 30% (from $4 to $5.20 for a 24-pack). And it's unrealistic to expect me to save all these bottles (many of which get recycled at work or in recycling bin on the street) and let them accumulate separate from my regular recycling, then carry them down to wherever I can redeem them, when it is several orders of magnitude easier to just place them in my recycling bin with all my other stuff as I use them.
I just can't possibly see how this would benefit anyone.
And the only people who seem to be opposing it are the supermarket and beverage industries.
Is there something I'm missing here?
It's not all bad.
I put an extra bag out with my trash which only contains deposit bottles. There are several low-income elderly people in my neighborhood who collect them to turn in for the deposit. If I can start adding more bottles to that bag then I will.
Of course, you can always buy a reusable plastic or metal bottle and fill it yourself. That right there eliminates any deposit you have to pay.
OK, I'll explain
It's not about you. You recycle everything. Lots of other people don't. Lots of people don't even have curbside recycling. Some people wouldn't recycle their water and juice containers even if they did, because they're all about the convenience -- it's so much more convenient to just toss the bottle on the side of the road as they pass. A deposit addresses their littering two ways: If they know they can get a little cash for the bottle, they might not toss it. If they do toss it anyway, somebody will pick it up, because now it has value.
You are not going to be penalized for recycling. The expanded deposit law will make you responsible for generating water-bottle waste. Currently, people who don't buy water in bottles have to pay for the disposal of the things, so those people are penalized.
If the extra $1.20/case is a burden, perhaps you should consider saving the entire $5.20 by filling a reusable bottle with tap water. Tap water supplied by the MWRA is at least as good as any bottled water, and is rigorously safety-tested, which bottled water isn't. It's also available practically everywhere.
But I'm not "generating water
But I'm not "generating water bottle waste" because I recycle them.
And you never did explain how this doesn't penalize people who recycle at home. You merely scolded me for buying bottled water and suggested I not do so. (Side note, Aquafina tastes SO MUCH BETTER than what comes out my taps up on the North Shore. I'm not sure where exactly my tap water comes from but it's gross. That's not the only reason I buy bottled water though.)
Lets try a different example. I buy cases of tea that I like to bring with me to work, and in the car, which I think would alai be covered by the expanded deposit law. It sounds to me like I would be penalized for recycling these at home. Like I'm being penalized because some other people don't/can't recycle. Why doesn't the state spend money on subsidizing recycling pickup for the towns that somehow in this day and age still don't have it? Are bottle deposits a revenue stream? (Genuine question)
Hey DTP, I get that you are
Hey DTP, I get that you are being thoughtful. But you are most certainly generating waste (it's not free to generate new bottles from the ones your recycle) that others choose not to, for whatever reasons.
I live downtown, there are no-deposit water bottles littered all over the fucking place, when this law passes there will be none.
Making bottles out of
Making bottles out of recycled plastic is not free, no, but it's certainly not wasteful, especially considering I often reuse bottles before recycling them (whether by refilling them with tap water and freezing them to become free ice packs, or by filling them with things like orange juice to drink on the T - which is way less wasteful than buying individual bottles of juice! ).
And no, actually, an expanded deposit law would not make those bottles in the street magically disappear. It would just give homeless people an incentive to pick some of them up, and then push them down the sidewalk in a stolen shopping cart.
Honestly, having grown up somewhere without a deposit law, I don't see any difference in the amount of litter, and I don't see any more people recycling here.
My experience says you're mistaken
I remember when all beverages came in returnable bottles. Then the bev industry changed to disposable plastic bottles, and roadside litter exploded. It was unbelievably ugly, and it cost a huge amount of public money to try and clean it up. The Bottle Bill almost completely eliminated bottle litter -- until bottled water became popular. Used to be, nobody bought water in bottles. Why would they, when the stuff was essentially free? Advertising convinced people that paying money for it was somehow a good idea, and water bottles started winding up all over the countryside.
I am 100% sure that expanding the Bottle Bill to water bottles will do for that class of litter what the original bill did for the beer and soft-drink litter. Those "homeless people" you seem so scornful of would pick up what the hydrated litterbugs left, and they would put the litter into the recycling stream, just like they do with soft-drink bottles today.
And no, actually, an expanded
and ... then redeem them for the deposit. Dude, they don't just hoard them.
While I have you, people scavenging for deposit bottles are not all homeless, it seems to be a popular activity among some of my elderly Chinese-American neighbors. "Frugal" does not equal "Homeless".
"Universal Hub - Come By to See How Little People Actually Understand About the Homeless."
Thankfully
we'll still have used Dunkin' cups littered every-fucking-where
And also the discarded losing
And also the discarded losing Lottery scratch tickets. There should be a waste disposal surcharge on those, half a buck, with credit applied to the next purchased ticket.
That's a good idea
I care less about the lottery tix than the damned cigarette butts all over town. How about a nickel deposit on every cigarette butt?
Cambridge St - Cambridge
Top litter source in the front yard:
Bottles (deposit or not) are pretty low on the litter list. I'd rather they just tack money on to problematic products to pay for people to deal with the resulting litter.
MWRA (Quabbin) water is usually considered quite good
so I'm curious if your town gets its water from MWRA, or somewhere else.
Have you considered a Brita or Pur water filter? Yes, those generate some waste too, but a lot less than continually purchasing bottled water.
No, my town does not get its
No, my town does not get its water from the MWRA. MWRA water is the best tap water I've tasted, but it still doesn't come close to the taste of Aquafina (which is imo the only bottled water that actually tastes better than tap).
And yes, for a while I did have a brita filter, but it still didn't come close to the taste or convenience of bottled water.
You didn't know?
Aquafina IS tap water.
As for filters, if you buy and install a countertop or undersink filter unit (about $75), you'll get excellent-tasting water and save hundreds of dollars a year. Every few months, you'll have to spend $15 and about two minutes replacing the filter element.
Of course Aquafina is just
Of course Aquafina is just tap water. Everyone knows that! But whatever they do to filter it makes it taste significantly better than my tap water. If it didn't, I wouldn't pay for it!
And again, I tried a filter, but it still didn't taste as good as Aquafina, and still isn't as convenient.
Aquafina is just filtered tap
Aquafina is just filtered tap water!
MWRA Water
and water in New England is some of the safest, and freshest drinking water in the world. We, as New Englanders, take our water source for granted. I've yet to see why bottled water is so popular in New England when we have such good water here.
I have friends in Arizona, where brown water coming from the tap is the norm. He wishes he could drink it like he did when he was in New Hampshire. Instead, he has Nestle Water delivered.
As a condo owner, we receive these newsletters every year from the MWRA. And just about every year, they win awards on taste and water quality against other muni's across the US. I think last year they won "best tasting water" in some nationwide completion.
If your water doesn't taste good, it's your town or supply from the street (some of these old houses still have the original 1920s water line to them), not the MWRA.
Living on a dead end
We live on a dead end, and did have some issues with water quality before they replaced all the pipes in our area. It is even better now that they are replacing the gigantic mains on the main road, but during all this construction there has, at times, been sediment, brown water, and off odors.
We solved this when we re-did our kitchen and bought a fridge that dispenses filtered water. We got a selzer machine, so we don't even buy that anymore.
I do keep some multi-gallon tubs of Poland Spring or whatever in storage, which we rotate out by using it when camping. We got caught out without it when the Aquapocolypse hit.
Seltzer Machine
Is probably the best thing I bought for myself in a very long time. I love soda, my teeth not so much, so I found a good alternative. Seltzer with a spritz of fruit juice is yummy.
It's the pipes
The water is only as safe as the pipes carrying it. People living in old houses with lead (or even brass) pipes, fittings and solder are in danger of ingesting neurotoxins with water from their tap, and this can cause a whole range of issues with young children.
It's not just stupid consumerism or mindless preference. There are real health-related reasons why people in New England buy bottled water.
Test your water then
Don't assume that you have lead pipes as a rationalization for incredibly wasteful (and expensive!) bottled water use. Get your water tested. Some municipalities will do this, or you can arrange for it.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/drinking/is-there-lead-in...
http://www.mwra.com/04water/html/qual6leadinfo.htm
http://www.bwsc.org/COMMUNITY/lead/lead.asp
BWSC Lead Hotline: (617) 989-7888
I have tested my water
Don't assume? Physician, heal thyself.
But the links are likely useful for others.
Even if one HAS lead pipes....
... is this a problem if one runs the water for 2 or 3 minutes before drinking/using it?
Sure
Well it should flush the contaminated water from the line, and it's fine for me, but if you have little children in the house, or are mixing formula, whatever, running the tap for a few minutes each time isn't very practical.
I was simply saying there are valid reasons for purchasing water. The community here of course knows better.
I don't think you have to pre-run water....
... every time you use a faucet -- only if it hasn't been used for several hours. I feel more confident over MWRA water than bottled water -- and we used tap water (pre-run) even when our kids were still actually kids. ;-}
True
True, if the water hasn't been standing for hours it should be fine.
Okay then
I assume that you are also aware of problems with the plasticizers in some plastic bottles as well (BPA?) and their potential effects?
Seems you just can't win.
Yes
Of course you cannot win, but you have to pick your battles with risk mitigation. Lead is to be avoided with young children. Period.
Exactly! Thank you! We're not
Exactly! Thank you! We're not buying luxury items like sugary soft drinks, we're buying water. Water is essential, Pepsi, Mountain Dew are not. Old building, old pipes, lead pipes, over chlorination, etc. There are plenty of reasons NOT to shame those of us who buy bottled water and recycle. No need to penalize people who do the right thing.
So get a filter
Like I said, an undersink filter will take out all your lead, chlorine &c, and will save you hundreds of dollars a year. Don't be a chump and buy somebody else's tap water, clean up your own.
Yeah, get a filter, you
Yeah, get a filter, you fucking moron! Geez, it's amazing that you can even breathe on your own without perruptor telling you how to do it correctly!
Will the 5 cents break you?
I'm going to be honest, I am undecided on this one, but some of the arguments against are pretty tough to take.
When I go to a beverage vending machine, everything costs the same. A Pepsi will cost $1.50, a Diet Pepsi will cost $1.50, and the Aquafina will cost $1.50. Essentially, either the deposit is being subsidized or you are being charged the extra nickel for bottled water.
The argument on the other end (how do I bring my bottled water bottles back, or do I even want to? Does this mean the end of curbside recycling, which is a means by which the deposit scavengers get their materials to make money and thereby make the deposit system work) are out there, but crying poverty in a place like Boston because somehow you "have to" buy bottled water is a bit much. Lead pipes are barely an issue (oh, yes, they are an issue, but not for almost all of the city), and purifiers or softeners should handle other issues.
If you can afford the added expense of bottled water, would the extra five cents really destroy your budget?
Is there a reason you aren't fixing the problem?
Or making your landlord fix the problem? In some places, this is required, particularly if you have small children.
Bottled water is a luxury item. Period. Most people have perfectly good tap water, yet many still buy bottled water out of the phony notion that it is healthier.
I suppose it is a "luxury"
I suppose it is a "luxury" item, but the amount of scorn for bottled water drinkers in this thread is alarming. I could care less about an extra nickel but many of you need to lighten up over the fact that some people simply prefer bottled water from time to time.
I'm very aware of, and grateful for, the MWRA and our excellent water quality (growing up in Winthrop, home of Deer Island's enormous water treatment plant meant an entire childhood full of annual field trips to the Quabbin as part of the town's "mitigation" package). That said, once in awhile, or perhaps when I'm out and don't have water with me, I'd like to think I can splurge on a simple bottle of cold water (regardless of its real or phony health benefits) without others acting as if I've just cut down an entire rain forest!
And if you do buy that bottle of water
I'd like to see it end up in the recycling stream, not in the trash (or, worse, in a nearby river). That's why I support Question 2.
Nothing against bottled water
However, why should bottled water be treated different than tonic or iced tea or some other beverage? When someone says they "need" bottled water and that the deposit would be onerous, sure, hackles will be raised.
Yes, this
I suppose I'm one of the people being accused of having "scorn for bottled water," but it's not that. Buying the stuff is a choice, and some people may honestly believe that they have good reasons for that choice. When they then go on to claim it's a necessity, and that a nickle deposit is punishment, I do tend to lose patience with them. It's not a necessity; free or much cheaper alternatives are readily available. A nickle deposit is not a punishment; it's a fee for contributing a specific item to the waste stream.
Recycled material is still part of the waste stream. Towns pay to have recycling bins emptied. They pay less than for emptying trash barrels, but they still pay. Yes, lots of other things are also common litter, and I would not object to seeing lottery tickets and Dunkin' Donuts cups and the like having a deposit.
I don't hate bottled water; I just don't want to pay for the collateral waste, or have to pick it up from in front of my house.
The process of recycling is
The process of recycling is not without waste, nor is the creation of the bottles in the first place. Sure, you may contribute less to a pile of garbage, but you are contributing more to pollution and other negatives by not just using tap water.
It seems to be pretty well documented that bottled water is evil in pretty much every way.
Triple the recycling rate
According to supporters, the recycling rate for bottles with a deposit is 80% (that includes both redemption and regular recycling). The recycling rate for bottles without a deposit is 23%.
Unfortunately I can't find any more detail about where those statistics come from, but if the deposits are anywhere near that useful, that's an amazingly successful program.
Best source I could find: http://www.yeson2ma.org/wp/learn-more/
Do you redeem your beer bottles?
If yes, then you'll probably redeem your water bottles too. They're a lot nicer to deal with after a few weeks of sitting around waiting to be taken in than a beer bottle is, that's for sure.
If no, then what do you care? You are already willing to pay $1.20 for a 24 pack of beer cans and lose the $1.20 to whomever is collecting them from your recycling or it's just being lost to the government who can use the money to deal with any societal ills that come from selling beer in boxes of 24 at a time.
So, what's the point? We waste a lot. If waste has value, then there'd be less of it. How many littered soda cans do you see around the city? How many Dunkin cups in comparison? Now, imagine if Dunkin cups had a 5 cent deposit on them...
I currently rarely buy
I currently rarely buy anything with bottle deposits. I sometimes buy soda out of vending machines at work (no deposit), and I rarely ever buy beer or soda or similar at the grocery store. That's why I care. Not sure why you made this about beer.
And I've never seen anyone dig bottles out of my recycling, but maybe that's because I live in the suburbs.
Again, if the bottle deposits overall increase recycling rates, that's great, but isn't there some other way to accomplish this besides penalizing people who already recycle? Like ensuring everyone has curbside pickup, and making recycling cans as ubiquitous on street corners as trash cans?
Soda from vending machines has a deposit
if it's dispensed in a bottle or can, as most vending machines do. Maybe you have one of those old-fashioned machines that dispenses the soda into a paper or plastic cup, but I doubt it.
It's actually a very modern
It's actually a very modern machine that even takes credit cards, and dispenses all manner of bottles, cans, etc.
The price is $1.50 for 20-ounce soda bottles. Maybe the deposit is included in that $1.50, but it's certainly not in addition to the regular price, and $1.50 was a fairly standard vending machine price back when I lived in a state without a deposit law as well, so it sure doesn't feel like I'm paying anything extra.
Yes, the deposit is included
Soda in bottles or cans cannot be sold in MA without charging a deposit. Because someone doesn't tell you doesn't mean you're not paying the deposit. If you read the label on the bottle, it will tell you it's returnable for deposit in MA. the price may be the same as when you lived in that other place, but that's just because the price is wildly inflated . . . for your convenience.
yes, the price of the deposit
yes, the price of the deposit is included in the listed price on the vending machine. every bottle or can sold in Massachusetts has to be depositable. just because the nickel isn't specifically mentioned on a vending machine doesn't mean the nickel isn't there.
And I'm fine with that,
And I'm fine with that, because I'm not paying anything extra. I still pay the same price I always have, so I don't care. If the state gets a nickel from it, cool.
I only have a problem when that extra nickel is passed on to me and I don't get it back because I throw the bottle in a recycling can at work rather than carry it home with me and save it until the next time I go to a bottle redemption center.
Makes no sense
If you took that can that you "paid nothing extra for" to the redemption center, then you'd get a nickel. That isn't the state paying you for a can that you didn't put a deposit on. Just because in your mind you're blindly happy to pay the extra five cents as part of what you THINK is the cost you are paying to the soda company instead of the machine saying "$1.45 + 0.05 deposit", that doesn't mean you're not paying an extra nickel passed on to you and you don't get it back if you recycle it at work.
That's EXACTLY what's happening even if you willingly don't accept it because the price says "$1.50" and you think that's how much a bottle of soda should cost.
If that works for you, then when this passes, just THINK that the cost of Aquafina in the store went up $0.05 when you weren't looking and you won't feel punished there either.
deposits
$1.50 for 20 oz vs $1.05 for a 2 liter.
2 liters = 67.628 oz
$0.075/oz (vending machine) vs $0.0155/oz (Stop & Shop)
If you are worried about paying extra money for bottled beverages, this might be a good place to start.
Also, consider that it is a $0.05 deposit regardless of vessel size. Buying larger bottles means you will be paying less in deposits.
And where does that money come from?
Your suggestions cost the state money to accomplish and come with no suggestion on where that funding should come from.
The proposal in question generates the state money to accomplish what you suggest as well as providing its own incentives to recycle/redeem.
Also, if you're claim is that you're in a special category where you buy only water products, never purchase soda or beer from a store, and recycle everything that enters your house, then vote no. Nobody said you had to vote yes. If you feel compelled to vote against YOUR better interests on this for some reason, then maybe there's actually a reason to do so outside of your own little bubble you've generated for why this sucks to be you because you're such the perfect isolated example. I've already shown you why the community will benefit from this in the form of reduced waste, but you've returned to making yourself a victim. So, be a victim and vote in your selfish best interest and vote no. Good luck. The rest of us will be voting yes.
So, if having a deposit law
So, if having a deposit law raises the money necessary for the state to pay for curbside recycling pickup, then explain two things to me:
1) why after several decades do we still have towns without it?
2) how do other states workout deposit laws fund recycling? I've moved around a fair bit and everywhere I've ever lived, and everywhere I've visited family or friends has curbside recycling, even where they do not have a deposit law.
I doubt deposits actually make the state any money anyway. I bet it costs more than 5 cents per bottle to administer the program, considering you have to pay for the fancy machines and to haul the bottles to a recycling center (rather than collecting them with the rest of people's recycling - which is more efficient!)
I'm not just being selfish. I'm not saying people are trying to force me to vote yes. I'm not saying I'm perfect. I'm not saying I love in a bubble. And I'm certainly not making myself out to be the "victim".
I'm just asking why I seem to be the only person who thinks it doesn't make sense to penalize people who recycle at home.
I don't deny that bottle deposits increase recycling rates. I just don't think it is fair to still penalize people who recycle at home as if we didn't recycle at all. We may as well just do away with curbside pickup of bottls and cans, if we're just going to penalize people who make use of it.
Finally, I don't know why you feel the need to insult me because I don't share your opinion about this. Can't we have an educational, constructive discussion without resorting to insulting people who disagree? I've tried not to insult anyone.
Discussion requires accepting the answer you get
You asked a question. You got an answer. Yet you don't like the answer and your only response is to continue to characterize yourself as the victim.
You begin with "why should I vote yes?". Answers aplenty about recycling and reduced littering and revenue generation to handle problems of waste and recycling.
But you protest "I already recycle and don't litter, am I being punished?". Answers aplenty, you still generate waste, recycling isn't free, you don't have to pay/feel punished if you just stop drinking bottled water.
But you protest "I hate tap water and all my soda comes from vending machines so the deposit is included and I don't feel punished there either"...
Your answers aren't in favor of keeping the deposits where they are at now. They're just defensive responses to why living with more deposits will punish you and yet you feel compelled to vote yes and you don't want to feel like you're voting against your best interests. That's playing the victim. Oh woe is your life of living with no deposits and yet having to either change your lifestyle or pay for something that you refuse to accept there are any direct benefits to you from (like living in a world with less litter).
So, no, I'm not insulting you. I'm calling this tet-a-tet what it is. You're never going to accept anything anyone has to say which demonstrates voting yes is beneficial in a lot of ways because you'll always find a way in which you still "don't understand" why you have to be punished. SO VOTE NO and stop feigning ignorance or wasting peoples' time trying to explain it to you when you don't want to hear their answers.
You aren't thinking this through
The deposit law does not cost the state money; it generates revenue. Unredeemed deposits go to the state. In 2007, that was almost $40 million. Expanding the law to water & juice is expected to generate $20 million more. Retailers bear the burden of the machines etc., but for every redeemed container, they get 2-1/4 cents.
Again - you are not going to be "penalized for recycling." You can get every penny you pay as deposits returned to you, the next time you visit the store where you buy your water. It can't possibly be as much of an inconvenience to take cases of nearly-weightless water bottles to the store as it is to take heavy cases of full ones home.
The state gets the leftovers
Are you kidding me? The state gets the $$$ for whatever doesn't get returned. Not bad for doing nothing. That's free money.
Short Answer....
http://www.container-recycling.org/index.php/beverage-container-redempti...
It increases recycling rates. Which is "probably" better for the environment...
Michigan looks damn outstanding compared to US average.
As someone who's originally
As someone who's originally from Michigan, the deposit is a huge incentive there. Almost EVERYONE takes back their empties for the deposit. My parents used to give me or my brother the bottles to take back sometimes if they wanted to give us a little extra money.
Kramer and Newman thought so
Kramer and Newman thought so as well.
Outstanding !
Outstanding !
My main gripe is just that if
My main gripe is just that if you recycle at home you lose the deposit. This seems to me like it is discouraging home recycling, and encouraging people to dig through your trash and recycling (which is bad because they'll undoubtedly spill it, and leave the lids open attracting raccoons, and accidentally knock something over, startling someone into thinking someone is trying to break into the house).
For this to be fair, and not penalize people who already recycle, there needs to be a way to get your deposit back for things you recycle at home. Whether that is only charging deposits in towns that don't have curbside pickup, or somehow allowing you a tax credit if you recycle, I don't know. But this doesn't seem like the answer to me.
Why put recyclables in the trash?
In another neighborhood where I used to live, people put their empties out separately from their trash, for the convenience of a mentally handicapped guy from the neighborhood who came around and collected them for a little extra pocket money. He had a regular route, and some of us put the bottles in hiding places known only to him, to keep other scavengers from poaching his route.
Bottle Return
I'm probably the last person on earth that returns the bottles to the store (and I am not a bottle collector). Why? I don't know, I guess I don't like giving the state free money, and I get money off my grocery bill for my few minutes I spend at the redemption machine.
I welcome Question 2. My only complaint is the increase for inflation. Its just too much. I think starting with a flat fee and then in 10 years re-evaluate it if it needs to increased.
Inflation increase
I can guarantee that the cost of road (etc.) construction and maintenance will increase at a higher rate than the increase in this (pretty minimal -- on a worldwide basis) tax.
Snoozefest
Popcorn? More like a bottle of Whiskey and a pillow to fall asleep on.
Why I might vote for a Republican this election
See: that Galvin-izing Globe article where Galvin has the gall to gallivant around the point and act so gall-darn dismissive of the reporter!
(Come on Dave D'Arcangelo (R) for Secretary of State of MA, these jokes write themselves)
Reclusive politician does reclusive political thing
What would Bill Galvin have to do to lose his election? Some light treason?
I think we have a new pun-dit here
If Adam ever needs an idea man for clever headlines or posts, I think you should be his go-to guy.
Galvin
The attitude is absolutely appalling. Running "public service announcements" right up until election day in a race he's running in (the same thing that Cahill was prosecuted for), refusing to release records, directing public funds to his campaign PR people ($25k a year...until election year when it spiked to $100k??). Typical "this is my office and I'll do whatever I want" attitude that most career politicians (both Dem and Repub) have.
My gripe is with ballot questions in general...
I think that ballot questions put out to the entire Commonwealth (or any state) is a poor way to govern. We have elected officials for a reason. I am not saying that elected officials always get it right (far from it), but isn't the legislature best suited to examine questions like this, take testimony, have hearings, etc.? After that, they can decide on what the law should look like and act accordingly and then present it to the Gov. I just think that putting these questions out to people who are (largely) uninformed about all of the implications of the changes is a bad way to do it.
For the record, I plan to vote no on question 2.
Ideally?
Sure. But we don't live in an ideal world. Politics has become a career instead of a public service. We have capitalistic politicians who only do or say things because it makes them more money either in office or after being in office. Their decisions on who, what, and how to draft questions and legislation like this are geared for their end goal, not the citizens they represent or the state as a whole. As a result, these ballot questions are the closest that we'll ever get to true democracy right now, even if large portions of the voters are uninformed or unable to grasp all of the implications of their decisions.
Our system of governance is ill. Until it's medicated to fix this issue of career politicians and self-serving representation, let's not question the ballot questions.
No one said we live in an ideal world.
My larger point is that this country (and this Commonwealth) is set up as a republic, not a direct democracy. If we want to change that, fine. But until then, making spot ballot questions for some issues and not others seems to be the wrong way to go about things.
Some, not all
We'd have ballot questions for all issues...IF the issues rose to a level of significance that people felt compelled to want them on the ballot (and they are phrased correctly and don't violate one of the exclusions which ballot questions aren't allowed to address). Also, the legislature of the republic which you want involved IS involved in the ballot question process too. And if the legislature felt that the question had a better alternative that they are more in the know about, they could file to have an alternative to the question listed on the ballot for voters to consider against the peoples' petition.
https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/State-Ballot-Question-Petitions-7...
They are the only way at present....
.. to get around DeLeo,
I would agree with you if
I would agree with you if politicians were actually still in touch with their constituents (and reality), but for the most part, they are not. Just look at the Boston city council, for example.....
Even if voters are uninformed, at least with a ballot question they are directly responsible for anything they pass, and can't blame it on politicians.
They aren't in touch because
They aren't in touch because they know they don't have to be. Mass voters almost never throw the bums out and allow 50% of incumbents to run unopposed.
Difficulty comes from party system
Most politicians in MA are Democrats. The Republican Party is a dead breed here. They have few candidates, most are awful, and recent Tea Party shifting to the right means the Republicans remaining in the state have to choose between shifting right too (completely unelectable here) or pretending like they're not a part of the current Republican Party platform of social and fiscal disarray.
So, in order to replace a bum (D) currently in office, you need a reformist (D) to primary them. Except going from reformist to reformist (D) is impossible because that would require the Democrats to accept two things: 1) their current winner is a bum, not a hero and 2) they should tell the voters that they have screwed up by continuing to support a bum. So, the party will never want to primary its own guy in office whom they might even have a chance of elevating to a higher position of power later because of his longevity/name recognition/etc. even though he's a bum.
Getting on a primary ballot without the party's backing to knock out their supported known quantity when it's THEIR ballot you're trying to get on is REALLY Sisyphean.
The answer really needs to be term limits so the party is forced to deal with the adjusting electorate more often and most politicans are a public servant and not a career again.
The (r)s left in this state
The (r)s left in this state are solidly GOP(e) which is perfectly content to be the strawman punching bag if they still get to eat crumbs and attend fun cocktail parties.
They are the equivalent of the Boston Shamrocks or Washington Generals playing the Harlem Globe Trotters. Except those fake basketball teams actually are competent at their jobs.
WGBH
No invite for the other three candidates? That's shameful.
I'm not arguing for the platforms of any of the three. Agreeing or disagreeing with any of them is not the point. The point is the job of media; to inform, not to decide. And most especially, I would think, when it is a public broadcasting outlet.
I hope at least one of the three has the bucks to bring suit. It might not fly if brought against a privately-owned broadcast station, but WGBH is funded via federal dollars and there may be a very good test case in this.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Oil, natural gas and coal
Oil, natural gas and coal prices have fallen.
Meanwhile, Coakley's utility industry bundlers are sticking us with 37% of "Necessarily Skyrocket", good and hard.
Well
National Grid contributed to her campaign!
Fuel is only one function of the price...
There is also Distribution and Generation capacity. =/
My two cents'
Just want to say (as I did before) that I agree with DTP 100%. There are much better ways to increase recycling available to us today that will affect the entire waste stream, not just bottles, and the state should be looking for ways to make it easier and more convenient to do so instead of clinging to an anachronistic system that requires more time and effort from anyone attempting to do the right thing.
Carry on.
Great
And you'd pay for that from which random pool of money again?
Anyone attempting to do the right thing
Anyone attempting to do the right thing would refrain from buying bottled water. Bottled water is unnecessary, it harms the environment, and it costs the anyone a lot of money that they don't need to spend.
If you've got a better way, bring it on. Nobody is introducing any laws that outperform the Bottle Bill. If they were, the grocers' trade association would be telling us about it. Calling the deposit law "anachronistic" is empty noise. Sort of like calling child-labor laws or minimum-wage laws anachronistic, because they're, you know, old, and they cut into business profits.
So then you're in favor of
So then you're in favor of not buying Pepsi, Sprite, Schlitz, Coors, Sam Adams, Gatorade, etc.? Otherwise you're a hypocrite and a danger to the environment!
No, I'm in favor of what I say I'm in favor of
I don't have to buy water in bottles, because it comes out of my tap. Since you want to change the subject, I haven't made my own beer in years, and it never was up to Sam Adams's standards, so I will buy beer and return those bottles. I don't even like your sugar-water beverages, so I don't need to either buy or make them.
Please look up the word hypocrite. You clearly don't know what it means.
Listen, I'm the water drinker
Listen, I'm the water drinker. I do not drink Coke, Pepsi, Gatorade, etc. If you read my comment more closely you would have figured that out on your own. Pro tips: Walk instead of drive. Eat less beef. Stop buying Chinese-made crap from Walmart. These are far more critical things YOU can do to help the environment rather than whine that some people drink water and recycle their water bottles.
Anyone attempting to do the
Ah, moral clarity. How do people ever survive when they don't have other people around to tell them how to live?
And your "much better ways to increase recycling"?
What are they? If you know but don't tell us, you're preventing us from doing the right thing. What does that say about you that you want to keep such important information secret?
It says that I'm a horrible,
It says that I'm a horrible, horrible person who should be shunned by polite society.
Not that that's a bad thing
*