An unholy alliance

Imagine what might be possible in St. Paul if the DFL party, organized labor, faith-based organizations, and groups traditionally aligned with the political right all came together to address the most entrenched problems facing society today? Issues like how we fix our health care system, end homelessness, build more affordable housing, stop gun violence — or most importantly, how to deal with the existential threat of global warming.

Interestingly, with little fanfare and no public announcement, such a group came together just a few weeks ago.

What was the compelling bipartisan issue that united these various organizations? Trash.

Or, more accurately, preserving an organized trash collection system in St. Paul fraught with problems so that Mayor Melvin Carter can save face for his heavy-handed attempt to block a referendum on trash that appears on the ballot this Tuesday.

Why else would the AFSCME and LIUNA labor unions have spent what could easily approach $50,000 in cash and in-kind contributions to protect a system that has jacked up garbage rates for the poor and those living on fixed incomes?

Why else would a faith-based organization like ISAIAH, whose mission is to supposed to be about “fighting for racial and economic justice in Minnesota,” be spending thousands to keep in place a grossly one-sided contract dominated by multinational behemoths like Waste Management and Republic Services, companies notorious for lousy customer service and questionable business practices?

And why has Mayor Carter failed to denounce Illinois-based Republic Services for funneling $30,000 to a shadowy right-wing group like the Minnesota Jobs Coalition that has spent millions of dollars over the past several years to attack Democratic candidates across Minnesota — and is using this contribution to run ads in favor of the “yes” vote?

With the trash referendum coming up this Tuesday, voters should pay close attention to the big money flowing into the coffers of those organizations supporting the ballot measure.

The faulty trash system we now have in St. Paul has been a huge boost for corporate giants that have been gobbling up smaller haulers. Only five residential haulers remain. As these larger haulers continue to consolidate the market, St. Paul residents will lose any leverage we have to get a better trash contract that lowers costs and allows for opting out and sharing of bins. Minneapolis has curbside pickup of organics and yard waste and allows residents to dispose of a whopping 52 bulky items per year — all for less money than we pay in St. Paul. Why?

Voting yes means sticking with a system that is unfair to low-income residents and renters. Voting yes means waiting several more years before we have the opportunity to make the changes we need. By then, there may be just one hauler left, and our chance to fix a broken system will be gone.

This is the kind of arrangement that labor, the faith community, and the DFL want to perpetuate? So much so that they’re willing to look the other way while out-of-state “dark money” influences our local elections?

The only way to give the city the leverage it needs to negotiate a better deal that will make our trash system affordable and equitable for all of St. Paul is by repealing ordinance 18-39.

Please join me in voting “no” on Nov. 5 so we can fix a badly-flawed trash contract and send a message to the mayor that putting politics before people on Election Day is not the St. Paul way.

Tom Goldstein, St. Paul

The writer, a lawyer and former St. Paul School Board member, lives in the Hamline-Midway neighborhood and was a candidate for mayor in 2017.

Organized trash-hauling is better. The contract can be, too

Election Day this week will bring some answers to the big “trash debate” in my city. As a St. Paul resident for the past 15 years, and as someone whose professional legal career has focused on environmental management issues, I admit to being very puzzled over the years as to why the state’s Capital city continued to cling to the old privatized garbage collection system that was extremely cumbersome, inefficient, polluting, and ultimately inequitable to large numbers of residents. I was one of many who cheered when the City finally passed the ordinance to move to organized collection, and ultimately signed a contract to get the new system in place.

Many of us are pleased with the new system; our costs went down, truck traffic is greatly reduced, and the billing is simple. Initial objections from some fell into two general camps — those who didn’t like government becoming involved in garbage collection and/or resented giving up their choice of a hauler, and those who didn’t like some of the details of the contract requirements, such as needing separate containers for each unit in small rentals or not allowing “sharing” of carts.

As we move closer to the election, it seems clearer that few people now disagree with the overall governmental goals of a coordinated system: It requires fewer polluting trucks down streets and alleys, reduces illegal dumping, and allows the City to enforce consistency and fairness across all zip codes for available cart options and cost reduction. We also better understand the inequities that existed across St. Paul under the old private system depending on what neighborhood demographics existed.

Most residents recognize and reject the environmental and public health harms from the former chaotic collection system. Many also appear to support further waste-reduction infrastructure such as curbside organics collection and enhanced recycling. These are critical government services that will help reduce diesel emissions, reduce public health impacts from air pollution, and ultimately reduce landfilling with its associated negative impacts on groundwater.

So why would we throw out the foundation that allows us to move toward these important environmental, health, and equity goals? The referendum asks the simple question whether residents want to get rid of the ordinance that created the organized trash system. The legally binding contract that was negotiated and signed, spelling out the rules for the system, is not part of the referendum. It exists separately from the ordinance. The Minnesota Supreme Court has weighed in on this already.

I understand the anger of some who wish to punish City Hall by rescinding the ordinance because of the failure to follow rules regarding the referendum. But we can’t turn back the clock and must keep our eyes on the bigger picture. While many of us agree that there are some terms in the contract that could or should be amended or renegotiated in the future, it is risky and misguided to throw the baby out with the bathwater by scuttling the ordinance in the vain hope it will give the city magical leverage to reopen the contract and renegotiate terms now.

Change is hard, and balancing out all the competing interests of cost, fairness, business requirements, and ease of implementation takes compromise. St. Paul took a critical first step in passing an ordinance and negotiating a contract under complicated circumstances with more than a dozen haulers.

If they didn’t before, the mayor and City Council members and candidates certainly now understand that residents are looking for changes to some of the contract terms, and they should begin immediately to lay the groundwork for improving the system in the next round of contract negotiations. Such a massive shift in effectively and equitably delivering a governmental service across the whole city takes time, adjustment, and patience. But the positive progress cannot continue if the very foundation of that system is voted out or endlessly tied up in court.

I strongly encourage my fellow residents who want to see organized collection continue to make sure you vote Yes on Tuesday.

Michelle Beeman, St. Paul

The writer is a former deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Is the city able, or even inclined, to make the trash contract better?

It became clear to me at the League of Women Voters forum on St. Paul trash last month that this whole debate is misplaced.

We are asked to vote this week on a referendum that was needed two years ago to indicate whether St Paul residents were interested in a coordinated trash hauling service. Some people were happy with their old haulers; others had been told that one or more haulers would not accept any new customers in their area. Equity was not in the equation.

Now most of the small haulers are out of business. We are probably stuck with a long contract. We can’t go back.

I don’t know anyone who is not in favor of a unified trash-hauling plan for the city. It is the way to equity, efficiency and protecting our environment.

But most people I know are not in their minds actually voting on the ballot question. Rather, they are voting whether they think the poor contract with haulers can best be fixed by a “yes” vote or a “no” vote.

This is not the question on the ballot, which is pretty much irrelevant at this point. The path to a “solution” will be a crap shoot — no idea how it will get fixed either way. No wonder people are upset … and unfortunately, turning against each other as if a certain vote will actually make something better happen. We just don’t know how it will get resolved, and it will be up to our city government to implement whatever that is. Or not.

Residents two years ago expressed concerns about what the new program should look like, addressing equity, exceptions, preservation of small business and other civic concerns. It was put in the hands of our city government (mayor and city council) to incorporate those concerns into contract negotiations with the haulers. It was at this point that the process took a sharp dive. Negotiations seem to have been heavily biased in favor of the haulers, and the concerns of residents were pretty much ignored. We now are stuck with a bad contract and no good way to fix it.

I regret seeing my neighbors choose sides, as if there were a partisan “right” and “wrong” point of view. Everybody wants reliable and reasonable trash hauling service at a cost that reflects savings of scale and efficiency. But it has not been reasonable for a large number of people, and has been very unresponsive to the differing needs of those especially who are not in single family homes. It needs to be fixed.

I have yet to hear the mayor or city council propose how they will address the problems. I’m hearing, “nothing will change” and “your property taxes will be assessed to cover the contract costs.” No proposal to fix anything.

If the city were to even express a desire to fix it, I would be willing to support them in doing that. Here we are, almost to Election Day, and there is still nothing from our city government to inspire trust in their ability or even inclination, to address the problems they were elected to resolve. I’m waiting …

Pat Willenbring, St. Paul

Reasons to vote Yes on trash

I was having coffee with the Zero Waste Saint Paul co-founder when the Aug. 22 Supreme Court decision on requiring an organized trash collection ordinance referendum on St Paul election ballots came out. The words instantly out of my mouth were far from complimentary. We were just launching several sustainability and climate change advocacy initiatives for our not-for-profit organization. A meeting was called with sustainability advocates and the chair of Sustain Saint Paul, Rob Wales, and I did our best to start a bare-bones “Say Yes” communication campaign. Even though Sustain Saint Paul was just launching their city-wide organization and even though Zero Waste Saint Paul was more than busy with our own sustainability advocacy efforts, Rob and I realized that many people new to the city or residents who were unable to negotiate lower trash rates were paying much more for trash service than residents who lived in St. Paul for years.

We were shocked to learn, via Nextdoor.com, Facebook, and from the city directly, that people were paying between $10-$70 a month. For the same service. From the same hauler. We even found a couple of cases in different parts of the city where haulers were not accepting new customers and refused to provide trash service to new residents. And of course, when they finally found a hauler to accept them as a new customer, they were paying a lot more than longtime residents.

Both Sustain Saint Paul and Zero Waste Saint Paul want to see curbside organics collection happen sooner rather than later. People are hungry for this next municipal-wide sustainability step, and we are impatient for this positive change. Further, we (Zero Waste Saint Paul) worked WITH our city council members to get the majority of them to agree to support the sustainable to-go container ordinance update and to have it launch January 2021. At the time of that vote, curbside organics collection was was supposed to launch in early 2021. Naturally, this initiative is likely on hold indefinitely while we talk trash. When we say we want a “Yes Vote” because we want to move forward on more sustainable, more progressive initiatives, we mean it.

Finally, we know that anything new, or the “first round” of an updated system, is hardest on those now impacted. But compared to all of the residents who pay less than they used to and yes, there are LOTS of residents who pay less, and we do understand that paying more (or the “current market rate”) for the same or worse trash service is hard. Change is often hard. But we say unto you in the words of our sustainability organizations: “Please choose the lowest cost, smallest service option, the small cart, every other week service. Only 7% of residents have chosen that option, according to city staff and it’s hard for us to advocate for even lower cost, smaller service options if more residents don’t take advantage of the lower-cost opportunities that exist today.”

I have outlined three reasons to support a “Yes” vote but we have 16 reasons formally documented on Zero Waste Saint Paul’s website. We probably have several more reasons, but we didn’t want to completely overwhelm residents with too many facts and perspectives. We’ll just say this: “Say Yes” to sustainability, equality and accepting and adjusting to city-wide changes.

Melissa Wenzel, St. Paul

The author is Zero Waste Saint Paul Advocacy Chair

Then. Now.

I do not remember for sure what my opinion was about the decision to split up the city of St. Paul into separate trash-hauling neighborhoods. But I think it appeared to be a decision bound to make trash pick-up more energy efficient. And that’s a great thing, both financially and environmentally speaking. No more “a little here, a little there.” No, everyone in a particular neighborhood would be on the same route.

Well, that was then. And this is now.

First, we lost our private hauler, Bergquist & Sons, a family-owned business that we liked very much. Then we lost our assigned hauler, Pete’s Rubbish Hauling, another family-owned business that we liked a lot, too.

Who do we have now as our assigned hauler? Waste Management — the behemoth of all trash-hauling businesses. So, instead of getting right through to speak to a neighbor when we call, we talk to people who are based somewhere else in the country, people who aren’t at all familiar with our neck of the woods.

Do we have a choice about that? No, none. Is there competition? No, none. And, just like the big utilities (like Xcel, Comcast, etc.), where there’s little-to-no competition, the quality of service diminishes.

So if anyone were to ask for my opinion now, the answer is obvious. Let’s go back to the way it was before.

John Fineberg, St. Paul

Diagnosis

“Itis” is a medical term, a suffix, meaning painful inflammation of. Ergo, St. Paul is suffering from St. Paulitis.

Elizabeth Ellis, St. Paul