For all the "I don't know, but just don't change anything from the way it's always been voters" You should enjoy this:
Can't get it to embed
When we expect the government to take care of so many of our needs, then we should expect that they will also take away many of our freedoms. We need to stop behaving like dependent children, if we want city hall to stop treating us that way. Let me contract for my own garbage removal and save me from unneeded and unwanted government programs. Garbage cans with tracking chips? Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. ....and you can't opt out, no matter how absurd it gets.
Jim I beg to disagree, it is not a reasonable expectation to have to lose ANY of our freedoms. It is the city government's job to take care of it's citizens needs. Sanitation is one of these needs as much as water, gas, electric and fire protection and police protection.
The biggest surprise here for me are the number who want to cut public safety to keep garbage pick up the way it is. Wow!
How many that voted live and pay taxes in the city..I agree with Jim..this is what happens when we depend on government for every thing..Let me decide how to get rid of my trash..It is shocking John that 94 people would rather cut fire and police to keep things the way they are..Kyle you are wrong about it being the cities problem for you to get gas ,electric ,trash disposal..Thats up to you to get those services..Why didn't you add phone and cable and food..
It is government's job to provide services than can not be provided by an individual. It is not practical for you to provide for your very own police and fire protection. And you have no alternatives to the government provided public safety. In the city, it is not practical to provide your own water and sanitation service, or to plow your street.
But you can pick who provides your TV signal (cable or dish), you can pick who you want to provide your Internet service. You can pick another company for your natural gas instead of National Fuel.
We have a number of companies that can provide trash removal in the area. Some like Waste Management already service the Town of Batavia, and in the Town, they get to pick who they want to sign with. If they can do it in the Town of Batavia, why not here in the City?
It takes a village.
Jim, the government takes it upon itself to take care of our needs, whether we need it or not in most cases.
It's better known as job security.
Nice to know that on a nice snowy day like this, about 20% of the people would like to cut plowing and police to have others help pay for their trash pickup.
A village is populated by people and businesses, NOT government Paul, I don't agree with Hillary, to me "It takes a village" means charity, family and neighbor, not politicians looking after each others needs.
I work in the city, but don't live there so I didn't vote.
My thoughts are this: I side with keeping the folks at ARC employed - even if it costs a few bucks more. Government forces us to give much of our money to charities we don't necessarily agree with and that are often abused such as DSS, medicaid, NEA, NPR etc. through our taxes.
Yet here are folks that WANT to work and be as independent as possible, but city government says it can't afford it.
I just don't get it.
Bob, DSS, MEDICAID, NEA, NPR are NOT, I Say again NOT CHARITIES.
THEY ARE ANTI-CHARITIES
Organizations such as governments, unions, school districts, water districts, Moose Lodges, whatever, are formed out of common desire to address community needs and collectively implement community action. The aim is to pool assets, share management decisions and lower individual cost and responsibility by functioning as a group rather than as individuals. Problems result when any of four situations arise: 1) the representative decision-makers do not act in accordance with the wishes of the greater community, 2) the governing body becomes too top-heavy to function practically, 3) the governing body becomes too complex to be responsive to the community or 4) the governing body develops an agenda serving a favored moiety.
In terms of refuse disposal, all that the City of Batavia lacks is a landfill. It already has an agency with personnel to handle collection. That agency also has the ability to manage the refuse and deliver what cannot be recycled to a landfill. If the City of Batavia entered into contract with a landfill, renewed the contract for collection and devised a fair pay as you go trash fee for businesses and homeowners; doubtless, few would be complaining.
Did you ever read that book?
Yes Paul I have, but her subsequent statements and positions about government and the other book, her health care plan in the nineties caused me to doubt her sincerity.
GEEZE, MARK! THEN USE "CAUSES" RATHER THAN "CHARITIES". The end result is the same.
Kudos to Tim Buckley for listening to the people. I hope others on the council follow suit. When something isn't broken, there's no need to fix it. Keep local people employed! And why force people to have these gigantic totes? If it's the critters eating the bags that is part of the problem, require garbage be put out in garbage cans. It's not the city's business to force all of us to have the same garbage containers when we all pretty much own some sort of one already. Atta boy, Tim!
Why force anybody to buy from ARC?
Why force anybody to buy from Allied?
The city should just let us pick from the many vendors who will compete for our business.
I wonder what the bid results would be without the totes, just as it's put out now. Do we have a huge problem in the city with animals ripping in to trash? I think the " pay as you throw" idea is great, but what's the price to throw as we do now, no totes?
If I'm following this correctly, the lower assessed property owners will pay more, and the higher will pay less.
The problem I see will be people dumping trash in remote areas to avoid paying for it, just saying...
Kudos to Mr. Buckley for taking a longer look into this.
Ooooh, a negative vote for my opinion again! Seems to me that an adult would post a comment about why they disagree, but that's probably more than one could wish for. Yes, I agree that we should have a choice of who picks up our trash, but that doesn't appear to be even a remote possibility. So given that, I'm happy with the ARC and don't want totes shoved down my throat...sue me.
We do have a chance. If the Council was to vote down the proposed change, there also would be no contract with anyone. We can guess the city would continue on an interim basis with ARC. But with no contract and no obligation to any company, that would be the time for the Council just to say, enough. If we can not go with the legal lowest bidder at this time, for any reason, drop the whole thing.
We will have people that will say anything but ARC can not work, But that is not true. They can even continue to have ARC. In fact, ARC would not have to buy any new equipment, has a built in customer base that has said they will stay with them no matter cost, they have name recognition, and they have one heck of a wage advantage since many employees are not paid minimum wage. They should easily get 50% of the business and nobody is forced to buy from anyone. And maybe Waste Management, that already serves many in the Town of Batavia will be really competitive, along with others.
let us make our own decisions.
"But with no contract and no obligation to any company, that would be the time for the Council just to say, enough. If we can not go with the legal lowest bidder at this time, for any reason, drop the whole thing."
John! Lowest bidder? Government? In the same sentence??!!!!
A while ago I posted how the company I work for lost a state customer because we are not minority owned.
It's gotten much more beautiful from there!
The minority owned business that the agency in question is mandated to buy from now buys from us in order to resell to the state. Um, so now TWO companies are making profit on taxpayer dollars instead of one.
All in the name of diversity.
My point was that they have a legally binding bid out now. It requires a change to the local law to go from a captive contract with ARC to this other company. It that law is approved, they have to take the bid. Then we go through all this again in 5 years.
But, if the local law was not passed, the bid would be moot. Then council has all sorts of options. It could just raise taxes and go with ARC (and go through this again when the contract is up), could delay for awhile and put it out to bid again, or just get out of the garbage business and let us have free choice.