PDA

View Full Version : San Francisco considers fee on grocery bags



TeamCasey
01-26-2005, 01:04 PM
(They're also banning smoking in many outdoor places.)


SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- City officials are considering a proposal to slap a 17-cent surcharge on paper or plastic shopping bags, a debate sure to be watched as a bellwether for other communities.

While no other U.S. city imposes a shopping bag tax, such a strategy has been successfully employed in the nations of Ireland, South Africa, Bangladesh, Australia and Taiwan.

If approved by the city's Board of Supervisors, the fee would apply only to grocery stores that report more than $2 million in annual sales. Other stores could eventually be targeted.

Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi introduced a resolution Tuesday requesting a more detailed study on how much the city pays to collect and dispose of paper and plastic sacks.

Such a study is required before the city can legally impose the fee, and the research will help determine the precise charge, Mirkarimi said. The study should be published by April 30.

Environmentalists say plastic bags jam machinery, pollute waterways, suffocate wildlife and often end up as eyesores in trees or bushes. San Francisco shoppers bring home about 50 million bags each year, according to an environmental study.

Grocers, bag manufacturers and trade groups say many people already reuse their plastic bags. Other opponents call the plan an unfair and regressive tax on shoppers.

During a meeting Tuesday evening of San Francisco's Commission on the Environment, a stream of residents -- many toting canvas bags -- expressed their support for the tax proposal.

"As consumers, we need to think outside the bag," said Jim Rhoads of the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council, one of several residents who praised the commission.

Roy Tucker
01-26-2005, 01:20 PM
If they ban plastic grocery bags, what will I use for dog poop bags?

:confused:

Chip R
01-26-2005, 01:27 PM
Oh, man. I was going to post this last night but I forgot about it.

zombie-a-go-go
01-26-2005, 01:30 PM
This is what happens when you let hippies congregate. I've been warning people for years. ;)

Rojo
01-26-2005, 01:39 PM
I think its a fine idea. I wonder, however, how many folks will just say "paper".

Roy Tucker
01-26-2005, 01:53 PM
We try to be judicious about shopping bags.

Most times, I tell the clerk to not bag it. Probably 80-90% of the time, I don't really need a bag. If clerks would ask, I bet stores would decrease their usage by 50%.

We switch back and forth between paper and plastic at the grocery store. Plastic gets used for above dog purposes and paper gets used to put newpapers in for recycling, cut up to put cookies on, cover school books, etc etc.

If we get too many of either one of them, I put them in the recycling.

Stores could do like Costco and put cardboard boxes out they don't want. That way, they don't have to pay to have them hauled away and customers have something to put items in.

A while back, a local store (Biggs) didn't provide bags (or they charged for tehm, I don't recall). We did the canvas tote bag thing. Once you get used to it, its no big deal.

One other thing Biggs does is charge a quarter for a shopping cart. You get the quarter back when you return the cart. Unlike most other grocery stores which have shopping carts all over their parking lot, 99% of the carts are put back at Biggs.

My kids jump all over it when they see an abandoned cart to get their free quarter.

Unassisted
01-26-2005, 01:57 PM
The grocery store chain Aldi already charges for bags... and you have to pay a deposit to use their carts. They do have low, low prices, though. If you're cheap like I am, it's easier to get your mind around the notion of paying for bags and carts. I wish Aldi would open a store here.

BTW, once you've paid for those bags, you tend to be more thoughtful about what you do with them when you're done with them. I think that's SF's goal here.

Steve4192
01-26-2005, 01:57 PM
Doesn't this tax disproportionately hit the lower income brackets?

If you are DINK couple making a couple hundred grand, 17 cents a bag won't hurt you in the least. But if you are a single mother with 3 kids trying to make ends meet on fifteen grand a year, it will definitely hurt.

So much for progressively taxing the 'rich'.

westofyou
01-26-2005, 02:00 PM
But if you are a single mother with 3 kids trying to make ends meet on fifteen grand a year, it will definitely hurt.

If you're a mother with 3 kids and making 15K a year chances are you don't live in San Francisco County.

Steve4192
01-26-2005, 02:05 PM
I'm sure there is some section 8 approved housing in the county. The U.S. government has no problem paying market rate on the rent and landlords love 'em because their checks never bounce and they're always on time.

westofyou
01-26-2005, 02:06 PM
I'm sure there is probably some section 8 approved housing in the county.

Perhaps in Hunters Point or deep in the Mission District... not too many supermarkets in those neighborhoods though.

Redsland
01-26-2005, 02:07 PM
If you're a mother with 3 kids and making 15K a year chances are you don't live in San Francisco County.
Okay, two mothers of three kids.

;)

westofyou
01-26-2005, 02:09 PM
Okay, two mothers of three kids.

;)

Nah... that family unit would most likely be in Oakland, Berkeley or Rockridge.

Steve4192
01-26-2005, 02:18 PM
Rockridge?

Have we now come full circle with the baby names thread?

RANDOLPH SCOTT!

westofyou
01-26-2005, 02:21 PM
Rockridge?

Rockridge is a neighborhood in-between Berekeley and Oakland, it probably is in Oakland but feels more Berkeley like in the shops and restaurants. It's a main location for the two mother families.

TeamCasey
01-26-2005, 02:24 PM
I think it's ridiculous, but I don't have any problems finding secondary uses for paper or plastic bags. (Another situation where the small business owner should decide, not the government, IMO.)

On a related and opposite note: I think the Cincinnati area sucks at recycling. They don't make it very easy and it costs more to do it. (That may be state wide. I wasn't sure.)

New York does a much better job. We used to separate, wash and break down everything. It didn't cost more. We had bins that went out with our trash. They would not pick up your trash if there were things in there that should be recycled. You just got used to doing it, and felt good about doing it.

It's bizarre to me to throw a soda can away. We used to take them the the Blue Ash recycling center but it just wasn't convenient to do all the time.

RedFanAlways1966
01-26-2005, 02:33 PM
Oh boy... Great idea. Here are some more (fair is fair)...

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist kids who have the nerve to buy notebook paper? $0.17 per sheet.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist soda drinkers who have the nerve to buy plastic 2-Liter containers? $1.17/container.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist parents and grandparents who have the nerve to buy plastic Fisher-Price toys for kids? $17.00 per toy.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist stoners who have the nerve to use rolling papers to smoke their dope? $0.17/joint.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist people who have the nerve to buy a Lexmark printer (HP and the rest too)? $100/year to cover all paper that will be used in the printer for one year.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist body shops? $7 per paper floormat that is used to keep your floorboard clean.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist eateries who have the nerve to put paper placemats on the table? $0.17/placemat.

I could go on... but I think you get the point. For a city who prides itself on diversity, fair is fair. Right?

Chip R
01-26-2005, 02:46 PM
I think it's ridiculous, but I don't have any problems finding secondary uses for paper or plastic bags. (Another situation where the small business owner should decide, not the government, IMO.)

On a related and opposite note: I think the Cincinnati area sucks at recycling. They don't make it very easy and it costs more to do it. (That may be state wide. I wasn't sure.)

New York does a much better job. We used to separate, wash and break down everything. It didn't cost more. We had bins that went out with our trash. They would not pick up your trash if there were things in there that should be recycled. You just got used to doing it, and felt good about doing it.

It's bizarre to me to throw a soda can away. We used to take them the the Blue Ash recycling center but it just wasn't convenient to do all the time.I used to shop at a Thriftway before it closed and they had a bin where you could put your plastic bags in to recycle. I really liked that. Unfortunately Kroger or Biggs doesn't have that. I'm pretty close to two recycling dropoff areas. One in Cheviot and another in Green Township. I need to go there cause I have a lot of cans I have to take over there. Iowa has a nickel deposit on the cans but I think fewer places are taking them back. In Kansas, they didn't have a deposit but you had to crush your cans before you took them back to the recycling place.

REDREAD
01-26-2005, 02:47 PM
Some people say that it's better to use plastic bags vs paper if you are away from coastline areas. The theory is that the plastic bags take less space in the landfill than the amount of paper bags to hold the same amount of groceries.
Once they are in the landfill, it really doesn't matter if they break down.

If they are going to charge 17 cents, how about if you get your 17 cents back if you recycle the plastic bags? We save all ours and take them to kroger to get recycled. Although you never know if the stores actually recycle them or just toss them.. I had a buddy working at radio shack part time. They had bins for people to turn in dead batteries, since batteries contain hazardous substances.. The batteries ended up getting tossed in the dumpster :rolleyes:

TeamCasey
01-26-2005, 03:06 PM
I wouldn't want to use a recycled bag for my groceries. I don't think it's sanitary. We've all bought chicken and other meats that are sticky/leaky.

Imagine that dripping in your bag that you recycle. Next person buys bread or fruit and uses the Salmonella bag that's been fermenting in some bin.

Yuck!

Give me a fresh bag ..... we re-use them all around the house. The chicken one gets used for garbage.

Chip R
01-26-2005, 03:13 PM
I wouldn't want to use a recycled bag for my groceries. I don't think it's sanitary. We've all bought chicken and other meats that are sticky/leaky.

Imagine that dripping in your bag that you recycle. Next person buys bread or fruit and uses the Salmonella bag that's been fermenting in some bin.

Yuck!

Give me a fresh bag ..... we re-use them all around the house. The chicken one gets used for garbage.
Don't they recycle them for other purposes?

TeamCasey
01-26-2005, 03:14 PM
Don't they recycle them for other purposes?

I thought the stores took them back to reuse them. :barf:

I really don't know.

REDREAD
01-26-2005, 03:19 PM
I thought the stores took them back to reuse them. :barf:

I really don't know.


I think the plastic is shredded, cleaned and used again in manufacturing. I think they can use a certian precentage of recycled material in the manufacture of "new" bags.. don't worry, you won't get your groceries in someone's used dog poop bag :MandJ:

cumberlandreds
01-26-2005, 03:21 PM
If they ban plastic grocery bags, what will I use for dog poop bags?

:confused:

How about cat poop bags too? I use them when I clean out the litter box. I guess I wll have to teach my cat to flush!

TeamCasey
01-26-2005, 03:27 PM
There you go. I learned something out of all this.

pedro
01-26-2005, 03:59 PM
Oh boy... Great idea. Here are some more (fair is fair)...

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist kids who have the nerve to buy notebook paper? $0.17 per sheet.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist soda drinkers who have the nerve to buy plastic 2-Liter containers? $1.17/container.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist parents and grandparents who have the nerve to buy plastic Fisher-Price toys for kids? $17.00 per toy.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist stoners who have the nerve to use rolling papers to smoke their dope? $0.17/joint.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist people who have the nerve to buy a Lexmark printer (HP and the rest too)? $100/year to cover all paper that will be used in the printer for one year.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist body shops? $7 per paper floormat that is used to keep your floorboard clean.

How about we start taxing all non-environmentalist eateries who have the nerve to put paper placemats on the table? $0.17/placemat.

I could go on... but I think you get the point. For a city who prides itself on diversity, fair is fair. Right?


I'm in favor of a $0.17 tax on every "angry white guy" post on a message board.

Falls City Beer
01-26-2005, 04:14 PM
I'm in favor of a $0.17 tax on every "angry white guy" post on a message board.


:MandJ:

The internet: the last bastion of anonymous hatred. All of the hate, all of the impunity...all of the time.

REDREAD
01-26-2005, 04:40 PM
I'm in favor of a $0.17 tax on every "angry white guy" post on a message board.

Dude, you're going to send me to the poorhouse before Allen retires..

GoReds
01-26-2005, 04:47 PM
How do they do that?

17 cents.

Where does that come from? 15 cents wasn't good enough? 20 cents would be too much? Did they draw numbers out of a hat?

pedro
01-26-2005, 04:52 PM
Dude, you're going to send me to the poorhouse before Allen retires..

I think a loop hole for reds related rants would be appropriate.

RedFanAlways1966
01-26-2005, 04:53 PM
I'm in favor of a $0.17 tax on every "angry white guy" post on a message board.

Sorry. Should I change my opinions for you? Nah...

Don't agree with me? Too bad. Just tax me or something. Sorry that I am angry if I do not agree with you. And from reading this board you must assume I am very angry all the time. I'll take that as a compliment... of coure! Me so happy! :)

RedFanAlways1966
01-26-2005, 04:55 PM
The internet: the last bastion of anonymous hatred. All of the hate, all of the impunity...all of the time.

I am sure President Bush would agree... don't ya think? :thumbup: :thumbup:

pedro
01-26-2005, 04:59 PM
There are stores here that give you .05 off if you bring your own bag. A lot of people do it too.

Reds4Life
01-26-2005, 05:05 PM
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/26/BAG0DB00F41.DTL

That article should give you some insight into the maturity level of the fine folks in charge of San Francisco.

Rojo
01-26-2005, 05:10 PM
But if you are a single mother with 3 kids trying to make ends meet on fifteen grand a year, it will definitely hurt.

Its the "three kids" part that's an anomoly. I don't see many of those in this town.

Live in SF or have kids -- take your pick.

I thought about the regressiveness factor but you figure if you use five bags a week, that's 85 cents or $44.20 a year.

RedFanAlways1966
01-26-2005, 05:16 PM
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/26/BAG0DB00F41.DTL

That article should give you some insight into the maturity level of the fine folks in charge of San Francisco.

They must not be "angry white guys". Of course only "angry white guys" don't agree with taxing some plastic and paper products, but not all. Sounds fair, right? I'll let my friends on the other-side answer that. Perhaps instead of attacking they can actually address the issue. Tell us "angry white guys" why it is fair to tax some paper/plastic but not all? Why is a grocery paperbag any different than any other paper (does the brown color matter?)? I expect a "non-angry, non-white, non-sex" type of answer... and smoking reefer before answering is cheating!

Believe it or not... patience is on my side. So I will wait for your educated answers. Hard to believe that an "angry white guy" type can have patience... but so true.

pedro
01-26-2005, 05:27 PM
They must not be "angry white guys". Of course only "angry white guys" don't agree with taxing some plastic and paper products, but not all. Sounds fair, right? I'll let my friends on the other-side answer that. Perhaps instead of attacking they can actually address the issue. Tell us "angry white guys" why it is fair to tax some paper/plastic but not all? Why is a grocery paperbag any different than any other paper (does the brown color matter?)? I expect a "non-angry, non-white, non-sex" type of answer... and smoking reefer before answering is cheating!

Believe it or not... patience is on my side. So I will wait for your educated answers. Hard to believe that an "angry white guy" type can have patience... but so true.

I never said I was in favor of the bag tax.

As for a response perhaps I missed the "educated" or "thoughtful" aspects of your original post, I guess they were lost in the sarcastic old man ranting.

I'm just worried about you having a stroke "friend". Maybe you ought to "light one up". You sure talk about it enough.

pedro
01-26-2005, 05:32 PM
for the record, I'm not in favor of a "bag tax". I think it's regressive and somewhat arbitrary.

Rojo
01-26-2005, 06:56 PM
This is what happens when you let hippies congregate. I've been warning people for years.

Don't forget that high-per-capita incomes, consistently high levels of tourism and the accolades of being one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

Now the question is "what happens when you let hicks congregate?"

Answer: Branson, MO (http://www.branson.com/)

Almost forgot, ;)

LawFive
01-26-2005, 08:30 PM
now, now, children...once again a thread goes from educated debate to just this side of personal attacks. No, I'm not a mod here, and I'm fairly new so I don't really know all the personallities yet...but I do appreciate when people have the opportunity to intellegently exchange ideas, and I dislike people that act in such a way to have those opportunities taken from us.

GAC
01-26-2005, 09:23 PM
Environmentalists say plastic bags jam machinery, pollute waterways, suffocate wildlife and often end up as eyesores in trees or bushes. San Francisco shoppers bring home about 50 million bags each year, according to an environmental study.

Does anyone else doubt a study by environmentalists in California?

pedro
01-26-2005, 09:30 PM
Does anyone else doubt a study by environmentalists in California?

I don't.

I just don't think creating a tax on the bags is a good idea.

westofyou
01-26-2005, 09:43 PM
Does anyone else doubt a study by environmentalists in California?

I lived in California for 19 years... so I'd say..... No.

GAC
01-27-2005, 06:36 PM
I lived in California for 19 years... so I'd say..... No.

But you're an environmentailst aren't you? ;)

westofyou
01-27-2005, 06:40 PM
But you're an environmentailst aren't you? ;)

Yeah *shudder* that's me.

God knows we're a bunch of whack jobs.

GAC
01-28-2005, 09:30 AM
Yeah *shudder* that's me.

God knows we're a bunch of whack jobs.

I never said or implied you were. And I don't lump all environmentalists together either. But I, and many, many Americans express strong doubts and apprehensions about some environmentalist groups and organizations attempt to do in this country. Lets face it... some have earned their reputation well. And there are extremes in all ideologies. ;)

westofyou
01-28-2005, 10:31 AM
And I don't lump all environmentalists together either.

Of course you don't....just those that are lawmakers from the west coast right? ;)


And there are extremes in all ideologies.
Really?

I haven't noticed. ;)

MWM
01-28-2005, 11:45 AM
Thank god for the environmentalists. Without them, half the population would be dead from emphysema. I know I wouldn't have made it through childhood with the asthma I've had my entire life.

GAC
01-28-2005, 09:47 PM
Of course you don't....just those that are lawmakers from the west coast right? ;)

And who, in Caifornia, influences/lobbys those lawmakers? Didn't the article state it was based on a study by environmentalists? I look at it more as a way for lawmakers to make more money/extract taxes.



Really?

I haven't noticed. ;)

Respectfully, I 'd really like you to show me specific examples where I have? And not simply a statement that I made that expresses doubt on an environmental study out of California.

Yes, as MWM, just stated, there have been some great advances environmentally in this country in the last couple of decades....cleaner and fuel efficient cars, cleaner air standards, emphasis on recycling, etc, etc.

But as I stated earlier, there are extremists in the environmentalist movement that try to take things way too far, and impose their beliefs on others. And if you don't want to avow that, then that is fine woy.

The Kyoto Protocol, IMO, is one exmaple of that.

westofyou
01-28-2005, 09:59 PM
Didn't the article state it was based on a study by environmentalists?

And what is so scary about the word enviromentalist?

Do you see exploding cars and protestors when you hear the word "enviromentalists?"

I don't, I see my friends, neighbors and other folks around my area.

As for a study about the enviroment and the impact of items on the enviroment whom would you suggest they have do the the study?

Besides enviromentalists?

Grocery clerks?

MWM
01-28-2005, 10:08 PM
Who's supposed to study the environment if it isn't the environmentalists?

MWM
01-28-2005, 10:14 PM
One thing I've never understood about the right is their resistence to environmentalism. I would think that environmental issues would be something that wouldn't cut across ideological lines. Frankly, besides a few of the extremists (eco-terrorists), I don't see the downside to almost all the environmental causes.

GAC
01-28-2005, 10:24 PM
And what is so scary about the word enviromentalist?

First off, I never said there was. But there are those within the environmental movement who, because of their agenda and some of the extreme stances/positions they have taken on the past, have done a very good job themselves of promoting that "scare" (apprehension) among the masses in this country. They themselves use "fear" to promote their agenda in certain areas.There are also those groups that like to hide behind the word "environmentalist", and to somehow express anything counter to their agenda means one is anti-environment or doesn't care.

I'm the training auditor within my department. One of the programs that we instituted years ago, and which I am in charge of training, is implementing, and educating, the employees to the company's environmental standards, policies, and practices. Which I wholehearedly agree with.

There's a thing called balance woy. And I acknowledge that environmentalists have done a great job at raising awareness in this country. Something that needed to be done. But there are many that take things to greater extremes, and IMO, do greater harm.


I don't, I see my friends, neighbors and other folks around my area.

Were they (the average citizen) asked or involved in this decision by lawmakers to impose this fee? I doubt it.


As for a study about the enviroment and the impact of items on the enviroment whom would you suggest they have do the the study?

Besides enviromentalists?

Grocery clerks?

I've just come to express doubt at some of these enviromnmental studies. And I don't think my "fears" or apprehensions are unfounded.

TeamCasey
01-28-2005, 10:25 PM
:MandJ: Gac and I posted at the same time and it looked dumb out of sequence. I'm going to go have a beer now. :)

westofyou
01-28-2005, 11:13 PM
First off, I never said there was. But there are those within the environmental movement who, because of their agenda and some of the extreme stances/positions they have taken on the past, have done a very good job themselves of promoting that "scare" (apprehension) among the masses in this country. They themselves use "fear" to promote their agenda in certain areas.There are also those groups that like to hide behind the word "environmentalist", and to somehow express anything counter to their agenda means one is anti-environment or doesn't care.

If you substitute the word enviromentalist with "Christian" or "Conservative" I bet many here would take offense at it.

Others would shake their heads in agreement.

GAC
01-29-2005, 09:40 AM
One thing I've never understood about the right is their resistence to environmentalism.

The "right" (whoever that is) is not resistent to environmentalism. What we are resistent to are the extremes some within that movement want go to, and that as an industrialized nation, it would/could be devastating to us economically.

I believe that corporations/industry need to be held accountable and also cooperative in providing a safer environment. I'm all for clean air, water, and better stewardship/management of our natural resources. And compared to 30-40 years ago, great strides and improvements have been made implemented. And more needs to be done.

But what happens when some want standards that economically hurt a country or various regions, and cause people to lose their jobs because of some of the restrictive regulations/stipulations that some environmental groups want to see enacted?

I'm against extremism, not environmentalism. Examples?...

Have you ever read the Kyoto Protocol Mike? It would have a very devasting effect on this country, and other countries as well, economically speaking if it were fully implemented. But because there are those that oppose this agreement, they are "painted" as anti-environment.

Have you ever read Gore's environmentalist book "Earth In The Balance"? I have (several years ago)... some scary stuff in there. Is this the mind/thought process that dictates the "new" environmental movement? If so, then we all need to be somewhat apprehensive and guarded.

I am very wary of such environmental organizations as the Sierra Club. Yes, they do some good and beneficial things. But when I hear John Muir, co-founder of the Sierra Club: "I have precious little sympathy for the selfish propriety of civilized man, and if a war of races should occur between the wild beasts and Lord Man, I would be tempted to sympathize with the bears."... and refers to humanity as a "cancer" on the earth, then don't you think that is a little extreme?

Environmentalist philosophy has a religious dimension to it (again see Gore's book). A popular idea among environmentalists is writer James Lovelock's "Gaia hypothesis" -- the idea that the Earth is a living entity with a super-consciousness of its own, of which we are all a part (Gaia was, of course, the ancient Greek goddess of the Earth.) Native American religions with their nature worship are popular as well.

I believe in good stewardship... but not worship of the environment.

I think people have a justification at being somewhat wary of certain segments of the environmentalist movement and their ideology, and such organizations a Green Peace, Earth Liberation Front, and some others.

But I am not against a balanced and rational approach to environmentalism.

GAC
01-29-2005, 09:43 AM
If you substitute the word enviromentalist with "Christian" or "Conservative" I bet many here would take offense at it.

Others would shake their heads in agreement.

I wholeheartedly agree. Yet respectfully, that has never stopped you in the past from showing ridicule for religion on here now has it? ;)

This is obvioulsy a "touch" subject for you, at which you do take offense very easily... so I'll graciously exit it.

Maybe the mods need to add "environment" to the new rules along with politics and religion. :lol:

westofyou
01-29-2005, 12:12 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. Yet respectfully, that has never stopped you in the past from showing ridicule for religion on here now has it? ;)

This is obvioulsy a "touch" subject for you, at which you do take offense very easily... so I'll graciously exit it.

Maybe the mods need to add "environment" to the new rules along with politics and religion. :lol:

It's not a "touch" subject for me GAC, I just take offense at your obvious disdain for anything "California"... I find it funny and somewhat mis-aimed.

Here's a couple of quotes that make me think.

Nature never says one thing and wisdom another.

Unknown

We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.