I originally supported the idea of unified trash collection, accepting the need for increased efficiency, as well as reduced air pollution and reduced wear and tear on our publicly funded roads.

But why can’t the City of St. Paul admit it’s made a mistake over the trash policy — and take overdue steps to rectify it by attempting to renegotiate the contract?

In 2018, a group of citizens gathered over 6,000 signatures (certified as valid by Ramsey County elections) so the residents could vote on whether to keep the new trash policy. The city council refused to put this on the ballot, afraid it would put them in conflict with the existing contract. The citizens fought the city all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court. In spite of city appeals and delay, this question will be on the ballot this fall.

Here are (some of) the deficiencies of the current trash system:

The current trash system put out of business the small haulers it was trying to protect.

The current trash policy doesn’t allow bin-sharing for those who don’t generate enough trash to need an entire bin and bill.

This hurts people on fixed incomes as well as those who are environmentally conscious and who try to limit the waste they create by reducing, reusing, and recycling.

The current trash system unfairly penalizes small landlords with four or fewer units by requiring a bin for every unit, regardless of whether it is needed. As a small landlord of affordable housing with a triplex I’ve owned for 10 years (three units), we have never needed more than one large bin. However, as it stands it triples my cost — even though I still only have one bin. I am paying for a service I am not receiving. To make it plain, I do not want or need the extra bins, even if they were to be provided.

The level of dysfunction with the current large haulers and the city is stupendous.

Even outside the disagreement over what the service is or should be, I have never had a consistent bill. I have spent over 20 hours on the phone between Republic and the city attempting to resolve this issue over months. Every time I call, it’s as if I’ve never called before — it seems they can’t find evidence that I called or have any notes to refer to. I have heard plenty of anecdotal evidence about the same situation with other haulers. Republic referred me to a city person who doesn’t return my call. My neighbors in the same boat say, “Oh, the city person doesn’t return the call until you’ve called three times.” Really? In the absence of an actual response from a human, I’m threatened with a transfer of the still-disputed charges to my next year’s property tax bill. Really?

And for some background:

As a small landlord/business owner, my tenants routinely include single mothers with children who work as nurse’s aides, teachers, retail store clerks. They have included immigrants for whom English is their second language. Over half of my tenants have been people of color. I have rented to people with Section 8 housing vouchers, and to those who receive subsidies from the tribes.

After much thought, I once rented to a former felon who turned his life around and was working for a nonprofit helping others like himself. (This was a risk as even though such information is private, my tenants themselves have sometimes volunteered that they don’t wish to share space with former felons.) The overwhelming majority of people I rent to have credit scores that are considered bad. Over and over, I have had to turn down people who were equally worthy and equally desperate. I have wished I owned more units.

I am not alone. In my West Side neighborhood, there are at least two other neighbors I know who are also small landlords providing affordable units. One of them belongs to artists who decorate their units with self-designed stained glass. The other couple provides affordable housing that is $200-$300 less than market standards. Their units are top of the line — with hardwood floors, front and back balconies, and space for gardens.

Sometimes we have been let down. People have not honored their contracts. Once I had to go to court, and even though the judge ruled in my favor, it is unlikely I will ever see the unpaid rent I am owed — five months’ worth. The majority of my tenants have paid more or less on time. I am — or try to be — on friendly terms with all, and to respond promptly to tenants’ needs.

We small landlords contribute to the stability of our West Side neighborhood. Our folks stay for longer periods of time and we have no trouble filling our units. We haven’t routinely raised our rents every year. We live in the same neighborhoods as the people to whom we rent. We understand how difficult it is for many people to find affordable housing. We take pride in the service we provide. We don’t do this for the money alone. But who do they think will bear the brunt of increased cost for trash?

I am astonished and disheartened by the cavalier attitude to these concerns by most of the city council, the mayor and the entire DFL Party who recently voted to endorse the current policy. In a time when everyone recognizes the desperate need for affordable housing, why are the small landlords who provide affordable housing being punished? In a time when everyone is starting to recognize the need to reduce waste for the sake of the planet and ourselves, why aren’t there better incentives for those who already generate less waste?

In the spring, the mayor characterized the people behind the ballot initiative as a small minority. In city elections, where so few people participate, 6,000 people are not a small minority. In city elections where so few participate, 6,000 people (plus all the others who are now angry that the will of the people was thwarted) can swing elections.

Instead of brushing aside the concerns of ordinary people and small landlords, the city circled the wagons, characterizing the opposition as a handful of malcontents, and disseminating half-truths, trying to scare people with the threat of raising taxes if the trash policy is repealed in the November ballot. I expected better.

In June a number of us requested a town hall meeting with the mayor on the trash referendum. We were quietly refused “due to ongoing litigation.”

Additionally, I would be amused by the some of the opposition’s reasons for keeping the current system — the vote yes campaign — if it weren’t so painful.

According to them:

“Voting no will raise taxes.” (Even if the cost of trash is transferred to property taxes, it can hardly be worse than the current system. Those who own the least would pay the least. The increased tax cost is still less than my current trash bill under this scenario.)

“Voting No could force commercial property owners to pay for a service they don’t receive.” (That’s already happening to owners of four units or less.)

“Voting No could cost renters more if their landlord’s property taxes go up.” (That will happen either way if this current policy persists.)

The “force majeure” clause in the current trash contract allows for unforeseeable circumstances that might prevent either party from fulfilling their obligations. The current judicial actions outside the city’s control meet that definition and render the contract void.

Is the city waiting for a “no” vote so they have an enhanced chance of meeting the “force majeure” clause? Who is the city really protecting by digging in their heels? Does the city council need protection from a bad decision? Do the large-scale haulers need protection?

Or do the actual residents merit some consideration?

Up until now the city policy seems to be Deny. Attack. Minimize. Negate.

D.A.M.N. those who dare to ask for something better.

Under those conditions, I suggest we help them along and vote no. They don’t seem to be listening to anyone — or to anything –else.

Elizabeth Dickinson of St. Paul was a Green Party candidate for St. Paul mayor in 2017.