T he town of Carrboro recently decided to hire a consultant to explore the feasibility of a pay-as-you-throw solid waste disposal system . Citizens would be charged a fee based on the volume or weight of the trash they produce . The main objective of this research is to find a system that would give neighborhoods an incentive to produce less waste.
While the overall idea is great, the proposed system needs revision. The system calls for the implementation of a credit system. The resulting revenues would be given as a credit to the neighborhoods where the money came from. It would then be allocated however the neighborhood sees fit.
This proposal presents several flaws. For example, if the credit system is implemented on top of the current property tax rate already partially allocated towards solid waste disposal, Carrboro would be “double-dipping” into citizens’ pockets. Essentially, citizens would have to pay for their trash removal twice: by paying the current tax while also paying for the new system.
The neighborhood credit system would give citizens a chance to join in a participatory budget system — meaning citizens would get to choose where the collected public funds go. However, this system is unfair because it would force citizens to pay more than they need to for trash disposal. Citizens should not be forced to pay extra for disposal if the additional revenue collected would be going towards an additional local perk.
Carrboro should continue exploring ways to encourage citizens to reduce waste output — perhaps even a revision of this proposal. But forced ridership is not the way to do so.
