article

There was plenty of trash talking Tuesday over an ordinance on the ballot in St. Paul that could play a key role in trash collection in the city.

Trash is a hot topic on the east side and voters heard from both sides of the referendum before they decide the issue at the ballot box next week.

An overflow crowd packed a cable access channel studio for a forum on the subject hosted by the League of Women Voters.

“An ideal system is one where we all participate equally and have equal access to service,” said Javier Morillo, from Yes for St. Paul.

“We have a bad deal and it doesn’t matter how we got here,” said Tom Goldstein, who filed the St. Paul trash lawsuit. “Let’s fix it.”


At issue is whether voters should keep the city’s collective garbage pickup program it started last year. Supporters on the “Yes” side of the referendum say the program cuts down on illegal dumping and truck traffic.

“We’ll make sure we get the proper amendments so the contract works equitably for all of us,” said Janae Bates, a minister.

Opponents, on the “No” side, say the program raised collection bills for some people and doesn’t reward people with little or no waste.

“I’m all for everyone who wants trash collection to have it regardless of zip code. I am absolutely for that. What I am not for is passing on the inequities to other people,” said Elizabeth Dickenson.

Opponents say, if the current system is vote down, it could trigger the “act of God” clause in the city’s contract with haulers to force them back to the bargaining table to include options like sharing bins, or opting out.

“Organized trash is here to stay,” said Goldstein. “Our responsibility is to make sure it works for everyone equally.”

Supporters say that is simply not the case.

People at the meeting told FOX 9 after the debate that it really didn’t change their minds on the issue. It more reinforced their previous positions. They will vote on the referendum Nov. 5.

Mayor Melvin Carter said that a "No" vote could cost the city $27 million, requiring a steep property tax increase.