Fed up with burger wrappers, french fry containers and paper cups, Oakland officials have decided to force fast-food restaurants, convenience stores and other businesses to help pay for cleaning up street trash.
Under a tax approved Tuesday night by the City Council, businesses will be assessed between $230 and $3,815 annually, depending on their size. More than three-quarters of the affected businesses would only pay the minimum fee, which amounts to 63 cents a day.
Litter from fast-food restaurants has become a major problem in communities nationwide.
Recent surveys show that fast-food packaging makes up about 20 percent of all litter, with packaging for chip bags, drink containers, candy wrappers and other snacks comprising another 20 percent…
Since most of this kind of garbage accumulates in neighborhoods around high schools and middle schools, why not take whichever kids are serving detention, from day to day, and drag them outdoors to clean up after their peers?
Of course the businesses shouldn’t be taxes. Who’s littering? Not the businesses. I’m all for responsibility, but it should be applied to the responsible parties, not just the convenient ones.
Taxes can be used to shape peoples behaviors; they can be used to increase or decrease the cost of doing business. Thus we have taxes on cigarettes and tax rebates on solar heating.
If oakland wants to decrease litter, it should tax based on the amount of non-recycled packaging produced. Fast food (and much processed food) sucks because it produces a lot of non-recycled packaging. Tax the packaging, and businesses will produce less of it.
As in most states littering is illegal in California.
I realise that the police are so busy combatting terrorists, but it seems to me that if the state wants money from litter, maybe the police should enforce laws that already exist rather than create new taxes and do nothing about reducing the amount of litter.
The fine for littering is $200.00 and up.
Of course the businesses should pay a litter tax. And not just Fast Food restaurants. Any business that sells non-returnable containers should contribute to the cost of cleaning the sides of roads. Only businesses that sell the majority of their product in non-returnable containers should be taxed. This would eliminate sit down restaurants, offices, and hair cutting places.
On the highway in front of my house right now, 130 ft frontage, there are probably a dozen beer cans, maybe twice that in pop cans and bottles, as well as chip bags, candy wrappers, cigarette packages, an old American flag with car window pole, and several supermarket bags. Twice a year I clean the front of my lot, usually filling at least one large garbage bag. Oh yes, fast food bags, wrappers, cups, etc. make up a sizable portion of the mess.
If all the businesses in our county were taxed then the Sheriff could use some of that money to supervise prisoners to clean the roads. It wouldn’t matter if the litter came from another county, their businesses would be paying the tax too. Part of the money could also be used to fund garbage cans and their disposal in the city limits.
Oh darn, I used that TAX word. I suspect that most people that would object to a tax are: 1) contributing to the litter, and 2) not the ones expected to clean it up. Isn’t it great when you can scream that a tax isn’t necessary when you are part of the problem and not the solution.
If everything works that way, pay more and they will use less of it. The oil industry has our best interests in mind by increasing the prices, thus lowering our dependency.
Individual responsibility is getting lost in today’s society. Why must someone else be blamed for the individuals actions. Hold the individuals accountable.
Maybe the recycle companies should start suing individuals (following the RIIA’s example) for lost revenue.
Accontability and public awareness would be the best start I think.
Honestly i think this is a great idea, with the aditional tax the fast food places will need to raise there prices thus the people littering are the ones paying the taxes.
We did this in Princeton, NJ. A fast food store was allowed into town provided it would clean its litter. The store produced a lot of nearby litter, and they had an employee to go out a lot and clean it up. The store made money and town stayed pretty clean.
– precision blogger
Fine the person that makes the litter. Its that simple.
Local Business is good for the local economy.
They pay taxes, provide a service and create jobs.
A clean business always attracts customer and companies like Mcd’s understands this.
Without local Business tumble weeds rule.
first of all…..you mess it, you clean it. Personal responseability is becoming a thing of the past. *I failed math class because of the stupid teacher*….* i am a druggie because i’m poor*….no one seems to know how to say….I screqwed up….I’m to blame.
Taxing these businesses is ludicrious. Especially in Oakland. If there is that big a money shortage maybe they could use tax payer money for city goverment responseabilities instead of Eubonics, and foriegn affairs. We all pay taxes to all levels of goverment each time we buy anything, a home, a car, clothes, groceries, etc…..these monies are supposed to provide services, such as fire, school, police, parks and garbage disposal services. On top of that all of these businesses pay a very large amount of taxes already just to do business in these cities, add to that they provide jobs which allow others to pay taxes, they usually provide community support monies for various programs, and now one of the most dysfunctional city goverments in this country wants them to pay for a bunch of litter bugs…..bull sh*t
How about putting a recycling fee on the containers and wrappers much like is done now with bottles and cans. If they want to throw that money out the window, let them, and someone else can benefit from picking it up. The litterer is paying for the cleanup by not returning it for refund, and the business is not penalized for providing a service and creating jobs.
joshua
Yup, just like I said above. Isn’t it great when you can scream that a tax isn’t necessary when you are part of the problem and not the solution.
Saying someone is not being responsible doesn’t mean a toot when some believe they have a RIGHT to do something.
Or as better put by GregAllen, If the government pays for fast food crap (litter or refuge), that’s a taxpayer subsidy.
It should not be Government’s responsibility to encourage people to not litter. Those that contribute to the litter should be the ones discouraging littering. That includes restaurants, convenience stores, and the other waste contributers.
It will never fly. At those types of fees, you could put a competitor out of business by purchasing a bunch of their product and dumping onto the streets. The main problem with littering is that the littering laws never seem to be enforced. I see people litter all the time and the police never seem to do anything about it.
There are better ways of achieving the goal of reduced litter than taxes. Tax breaks, money paid for trash pickup, recycle money on cups and other items are just some of the ideas. Incentives are far more effective than fines or taxes in achieving goals such as this one.
hey Pat
First….I’m not part of the problem, I am one of those fools who picks up other peoples trash and puts it in it’s proper place, and I’m an avid recycler. I also refuse to buy products that don’t come in recyleble containers or wrappings.
Second….I haven’t been into a fast food outlet of any kind since I was 13….10 years ago.
Third…..Many people don’t seem to realize that these businesses provide jobs, and plenty of tax revenue. Everytime the cost of operating the business goes up, for whatever reason, it’s you and I that pick up the tab, not city goverment.
Fourth…..the worst group in California for tossing it’s trash on the streets are the under 18 y/o’s…..maybe if Oakland quit spending it’s time passing resolutions against the war and other crap it could look to finding a way to instill an anti-litter mentality into it’s young people, they could even do it in Eubonics.