Wet-Dry recycling coming to downtown businesses, restaurants

[Robin Garr]

Central Business District Wet-Dry Recycling

Louisville's Central Business District is going green in a big way! Louisville Metro is launching a cutting edge "Wet-Dry" recycling pilot program for all Metro-serviced businesses and residents in the Central Business District. This program is expected to launch in March 2014. Read more below!

This program is the first of its kind in this region and truly changes the way we think about waste. Here, garbage is viewed first as a resource, not just something that is thrown away.

What is “Wet-Dry”? Wet-Dry refers to the way waste is separated for curbside collection. 'Wet' waste includes foods, liquids, used tissues, and dirty paper towels. This waste is most common in bathrooms, breakrooms, and kitchen areas.

'Dry' waste is basically everything else. Plastics, paper, clean cardboard, aluminum containers, metals, glass, etc. In most office settings, well over 75% of waste is recyclable - in some cases it is over 90%! This program allows us to recycle almost all of this material . . . and you don't even have to throw it in a recycle bin!

Why is this a big deal? It is the first municipal program of its kind in the region and among a very few in the entire country. Under existing conditions, only 11% of waste collected by Louisville Metro in the Central Business District is recycled.

With this program, nearly 90% of the stuff we throw away will be recycled!

Check out the details on the Metro website:
http://www.louisvilleky.gov/SolidWaste/ ... ng/CBD.htm

Central Business District Wet-Dry Recyclingfor all Metro-serviced businesses and residents in the Central Business District.

Except those residents who live in apartments, who assuredly still won't be allowed to participate in the city recycling program.

[Robin Garr]

Except those residents who live in apartments, who assuredly still won't be allowed to participate in the city recycling program.

Tell us more about that, Jeff. What's the deal? Apartment garbage disposal outsourced to private firms who won't do it? Or something else? Is it an issue that could be taken to Mayor Greg or the Metro Council under the harsh light of publicity?

Except those residents who live in apartments, who assuredly still won't be allowed to participate in the city recycling program.

Tell us more about that, Jeff. What's the deal? Apartment garbage disposal outsourced to private firms who won't do it? Or something else? Is it an issue that could be taken to Mayor Greg or the Metro Council under the harsh light of publicity?

As I understand it, the city doesn't provide recycling bins to apartment complexes, even though garbage removal is provided via the standard city-provided bins. Either the property owners have to pay for recycling, or residents have to take their recycling materials to a drop-off location.

I would push the Mayor's office on that. If you have Metro garbage pickup, the same route applies for recycling on a different day. They have large orange containers for recycling that would be good for apartments. Get all the neighbors to call Metro Call, the mayor responds well to numbers.

I contacted Tina Ward Pugh about the expanded recycling program last year. This is what they told me regarding condos and apartments.

Apartment buildings with less than 8 units are eligible for the expanded recycling through Louisville Metro Government. There is a limit of 4 carts per apartment building.

Condos must request carts through the condo association.

Has anybody seen any cost/benefit analysis of this program? I'm wondering if it's being done to save money or if it's just going to be a "feel-good" program. If it's going to cost the taxpayers more money I have to ask why it's being done.

[Robin Garr]

Has anybody seen any cost/benefit analysis of this program? I'm wondering if it's being done to save money or if it's just going to be a "feel-good" program. If it's going to cost the taxpayers more money I have to ask why it's being done.

The news release at the top of this discussion explains that:

Why is this a big deal? ... Under existing conditions, only 11% of waste collected by Louisville Metro in the Central Business District is recycled.

With this program, nearly 90% of the stuff we throw away will be recycled!

Has anybody seen any cost/benefit analysis of this program? I'm wondering if it's being done to save money or if it's just going to be a "feel-good" program. If it's going to cost the taxpayers more money I have to ask why it's being done.

The news release at the top of this discussion explains that:

The news release really doesn't say anything about costs other than the fact that some of the pilot locations saved money. My question is much wider than that. Maybe the businesses can save money by separating these 2 extremes but how much is it costing Metro government to pick up these 2 waste streams separately? The bottom line is what government and the taxpayers are interested in. It's great if the businesses save $ by the cost the taxpayers more $ to do that I really don't see any advantage. In many cases disposing of recycled materials actually cost more than disposing of conventional waste.

it is my understanding that the waste that goes to the landfill is costing a lot in fees and the landfill is getting full. The recycling, including cyber cycle, actually generates some income in selling the materials. The cost of the pickup was was eased some by going to one day a week general trash pick up and the recycling is the former 2nd day. To some the payoff of not having landfills every 2 miles is what counts.

[Robin Garr]

The news release really doesn't say anything about costs other than the fact that some of the pilot locations saved money. My question is much wider than that. Maybe the businesses can save money by separating these 2 extremes but how much is it costing Metro government to pick up these 2 waste streams separately? The bottom line is what government and the taxpayers are interested in. It's great if the businesses save $ by the cost the taxpayers more $ to do that I really don't see any advantage. In many cases disposing of recycled materials actually cost more than disposing of conventional waste.

Sometimes we pay taxes and our government officials make decisions for the good of the order. This appears to me to be one of those times. Recycling and stewardship are increasingly important, and I'm glad our city officials have decided that it's worth making an added effort to do a better job of it. I'm an urban services district taxpayer, and I am not going to whine about this.

Since you are in the urban services district you are getting the advantages of this service along with many others. Those of us outside of that district getting our taxes increased to pay for services that we are not getting. Considering there is no accounting to show how the costs of the urban services district aligned with its income nobody has a clear picture.

Those of us in the USD pay more in property taxes to pay for the services.

Those of us in the USD pay more in property taxes to pay for the services.

I certainly agree with that but I still think that if you look at the cost of the services you receive with what you pay for them you're coming out ahead. Especially when you look at Metro PD when probably 75% of the officers time is spent in the USD.

Those of us in the USD pay more in property taxes to pay for the services.

I certainly agree with that but I still think that if you look at the cost of the services you receive with what you pay for them you're coming out ahead. Especially when you look at Metro PD when probably 75% of the officers time is spent in the USD.

While acknowledging that there is (and has always been) an issue with uneven returns on taxes in the consolidated city-county, I don't buy your 75% argument. And, even if we accept that it is accurate, I don't think anyone wants police officer "time" divided based on a goal to provide each part of the country a "fair" amount of time coverage.

Unless you feel that your end of town has a safety issue relative to poor police coverage*, your argument doesn't hold much water. You don't get a particular amount of police coverage in exchange for your taxes. You receive police protection and also contribute to effective police coverage across the entire city. There's always going to be an issue of prioritization. You could pay more taxes for more coverage or introduce more efficiency into the current system, but those ideas are separate conversations.

All that said, the city has drug its feet on figuring out how to provide basic services across the city. It's the longstanding issue relating to consolidation and, worse, it seems like the discussion of this issue has been filled with half-promises from the start.

*And, you could always argue that you deserve "great safety" no matter what the numbers say or what is possible...