More uselessness from DBC

[Gladys]

5 hours ago, Viddy well said:

Perhaps you live in leafy suburbia, with a generous drive and a garage and the issues being raised don't affect you. I get it.

But if you live in a third floor flat in Tynwald Street then (a) you are competing with the other four tenants for trash space in the communal bin and (b) storing your new recycling bins in your lounge because health and safety prevents them from being stored in the communal area, you can't store them in the corridor to your bedrooms because that only leaves 30cm passing space and if you put them in your galley kitchen then you are constantly shifting them to get to the cooker, the washing machine and the tumble drier.

What do you do? You appeal to the Council for weekly bin collections to be restored and when that fails, you shrug your shoulders and just fill the back lane with binbags that never get collected.

This is a catastrophic failure of planning as well as a failure of local democracy, which is causing unprecedented distress to constituents and it is happening on the Council leader's watch. I can forgive an amateurish effort at reform but I can't forgive a stubborn entrenchment and the generation of a patently false counter-narrative.

After two months, the system hasn't "bedded in" but rather it's collapsing for a significant minority of the population. Why should that be acceptable?

The first port of call by tenants is to their landlord who must look after the common areas and services to the property.   I have also said several times that there are some areas that need reviewing and multiple occupancy premises are one such area. 

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

The first port of call by tenants is to their landlord who must look after the common areas and services to the property.   I have also said several times that there are some areas that need reviewing and multiple occupancy premises are one such area. 

I think his point is that forward planning comes before retrospective reviewing. 

It good that it's being reviewed but would it not be sensible to return to weekly for these cases until it's sorted? 

[mollag]

13 hours ago, genericUserName said:

Recycling obviously needs to happen. That should clearly be the starting point. Though better still we discourage the need for recycling by charging people according to how much they put in their various bins. Households should be charged for the amount of waste they put out.

We should not expect it to be something on which we can necessarily break even or which pays for itself. And obviously we live in a place where, over time, most things are inevitably going to be typically more expensive. But that's a choice we make.

Are we not already charged for waste services within our rates and Gov tax ? to many it seems we are paying twice.

I would like to see the emphasis of penalisation for waste transferred to the originators, ie, Manufacturers. We end users do not demand more plastic packaging or cardboard, these decisions and creation stem for them, not the end user.

[Gladys]

54 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I think his point is that forward planning comes before retrospective reviewing. 

It good that it's being reviewed but would it not be sensible to return to weekly for these cases until it's sorted? 

Yes, I get his point, but did the landlords engage when this was at the policy stage? 

It would be sensible to return to weekly collections while things were being reviewed, you would think.  But I can see some tactical issues in that, climb down, once reversed others will want the same etc. 

How was rubbish collected from areas like Tynwald Street before?  I can't see the bin lorries being able to access the back lanes, so where were the bins left for the weekly collections? 

 

[Whiskey]

Demesne Road bins are out the front. And no need for green waste collection, the only green things are the pavement weeds. 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Yes, I get his point, but did the landlords engage when this was at the policy stage? 

It would be sensible to return to weekly collections while things were being reviewed, you would think.  But I can see some tactical issues in that, climb down, once reversed others will want the same etc. 

How was rubbish collected from areas like Tynwald Street before?  I can't see the bin lorries being able to access the back lanes, so where were the bins left for the weekly collections? 

 

The landlords were probably as guilty as the rest of us for not spotting the communication (let's not open that one up again!). 

We are where we are though.

It seems there are 3 categories.

1. Those that can, do and will.

2.Those that can but won't 

3. Those that can't

It hard to separate 2 and 3. We need to move ones in 2 up to 3. We have some friends that are entrenched in 2. They refuse point blank.  

It's a challenge that's for sure. You have to protect those who can't. But you also have to cater for those who won't because their actions affect others. 

[genericUserName]

2 hours ago, mollag said:

iI would like to see the emphasis of penalisation for waste transferred to the originators, ie, Manufacturers. We end users do not demand more plastic packaging or cardboard, these decisions and creation stem for them, not the end user.

A packaging tax charged at the point of sale would discourage people from buying overly packaged goods. It would encourage manufacturers to compete on price to reduce the amount of packaging they use.

Govt could also build in insensitives to encourage resuse of packaging - i.e. to discourage single use (which would likely also benefit more local producers). And, for example, there could be an incentive to encourage the use of certain packaging types over others. - e.g. aluminium cans make much more sense than either glass or plastic bottles.

Realistically the IOM is likely much too small to introduce such a system alone. But what the IOM could do in the shorter term would be to charge people for the quantity of rubbish and recycling they put out. There would then be a clear incentive to buy ingredients in paper bags rather than buying ready meals wrapped in layers of plastic, polystyrene and cardboard.

Edited December 3, 2022 by genericUserName

[genericUserName]

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

They do, it’s called rates. 

No. The rates do not charge you differently according to how much packaging you dispose of.

The more packaging a household buys, the more they should be charged.

[Gladys]

15 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

The landlords were probably as guilty as the rest of us for not spotting the communication (let's not open that one up again!). 

We are where we are though.

It seems there are 3 categories.

1. Those that can, do and will.

2.Those that can but won't 

3. Those that can't

It hard to separate 2 and 3. We need to move ones in 2 up to 3. We have some friends that are entrenched in 2. They refuse point blank.  

It's a challenge that's for sure. You have to protect those who can't. But you also have to cater for those who won't because their actions affect others. 

That's a fair summary, HD.  Two points though, for landlords the property is their business, they should be reading their post.  What if it was to do with a change in fire regs?  

We need to move those in 2 and 3 to 1.

Generic makes good points about packaging.  A couple of years ago, Tesco stopped wrapping multiple tinned goods in plastic.  How, I wondered, are they going to give the multiple buy discount?  Simples, you scan 4 (or whatever) individual items and the system applies the discount.  It’s easy, especially with the scan technology, to not need packaging to group already packaged items.   Some packaging is necessary to protect the goods, but some is just over the top, although the reduction in unnecessary packaging is noticeable.  Tesco were offering to put stuff ftom their fresh meat and fish counters into your own container.  Not sure if they still do that, but it is that kind of lateral thinking that reduces unnecessary waste. 

One thing which really grates on me now is how the range of bars of soap have reduced.  You can buy the old soap but in liquid soap form, all they have done is add the water to the bars of soap that you would add at home then put it in a plastic bottle!  More plastic waste and increased carriage costs!  

Some enterprising firms are now offering shampoo and conditioner bars, very expensive but appealing to the Greens.  Hey, we have had soap bars for donkey's years. 

 

[Happier diner]

13 minutes ago, genericUserName said:

No. The rates do not charge you differently according to how much packaging you dispose of.

The more packaging a household buys, the more they should be charged.

Do they not pay for their packaging when they buy the packaging? Packaging isn't free.

I don't disagree that there is lots of waste packaging but finding a waste charging formula and method would be tricky.

[genericUserName]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

Do they not pay for their packaging when they buy the packaging? Packaging isn't free.

They should be paying for the cost to society of dealing with that packaging.

Longer term it might be possible to devise a system where the use of packaging was taxed at the point of sale and that money was funnelled directly into the cost of processing and / or recycling. Shorter term it seems fair to charge people according to how much they dispose of.

[Amadeus]

"They are not listening to us!"

Joins group to see if there are things I can pick up on.

Get blocked from group. (I'm not the only one this happened to btw) 

[Apple]

23 minutes ago, genericUserName said:

Shorter term it seems fair to charge people according to how much they dispose of.

That would increase the costs of childcare.

(bring back Terry towelling nappies).

[WTF]

4 minutes ago, Apple said:

That would increase the costs of childcare.

(bring back Terry towelling nappies).

bring back solid fuel open fires and incinerate at home rather than ship from all over the island to one big fire

[Happier diner]

Just now, WTF said:

bring back solid fuel open fires and incinerate at home rather than ship from all over the island to one big fire

Yeah and kill us all with airborne particulates. That's a great idea.