Someone came in to my office and gave me some old newspapers, because of some tenant related articles, but there were some other articles that were of interest to me.
Here are parts of one of one of the articles:
Throw Away Council
The Madison City Council decided once again that Madison in not progressive enough a City to implement restrictions on on non-returnable beer and soda containers and thereby taking one tiny step towards combating the waste that is so typical of corporate america.
Two different resolutions were offered by 10th district Ald. Alicia Ashman. One, to ban pop-top cans from the city outright lost 11 - 7. The other, to put a 10 cent tax on each non-returnable container was smashed 13 - 5.
It was the arguments, as much as the topic of the article, that caught my eye. One of the opponents said, Andy Cohn reasoned:
Although "the concept I agree with 100%," Cohn voted against it because he "couldn't put that type of burden on Mon-and-Pop type grocery stores" . . . "People wouldn't drive out of the county, but they would go across the street." Cohn said he would support a resolution by the city council urging the county to vote a ban on non-returnable.
Given our discussions on grocery stores, this comment caught my eye. Carol Wuennenberg voted against the tax.
Her reasoning was that the tax would be "very discriminatory" against older residents who could not be able to return their empties or afford transportation to stores to return them. She hinted that if there were a Kohl's or Eagle's type stores in the central city, she might be easier to convince.
Marv Erickson of the AFL-CIO opposed the resolution:
"because it will throw a number of people out of work", and because Coors has developed a pop-top that went inside the can. He added that "if it (the ban) went into effect statewide, we might consider it. Nationwide would be best.
The article went on to say:
In Oregon a bill went into effect . . . banning poptops and requiring deposits on non-returnables. Despite all the hopes of the wasteful bottling and canning interests, the law has been a success. Litter is down sharply and because of higher non-returnable deposits almost no throwaway cans and bottles are sold in the state. It has also favored regional brewers to the exclusion of the oligopolic beer giants, as returnables can't be shipped long distances as economically.
Nevertheless, groups such as the Wis. Soft Drink Assn, Wis Wholesale Beer Distributors, Wisconsin AFL-CIO, and the Glass Bottle Blowers Assn oppose a similar bill for Wisconsin. Even though 81% of americans favored banning non-returnables, they say "Recycling is the solution to the overall solid waste." . . .
The Dane County/Madison Tavern League distributed a petition which gathered a surprising 7,000 signatures in less than a week. The justification given for opposing the two bills was that they "discriminate against Madison consumers." No explanation of how it would discriminate was given. But the average consumer, battered over the head by price increases everyday, was susceptible to this devious petition. Had the petition called the bills discriminating against certain segments of Madison business, the number of signers would have been much smaller.
They even had facts on their side, to prove that it would be cheaper for the average resident of Madison
At Kohl's, for instance, a 6-pak of 12 oz cans of Coke costs $1.29 of 1.79 cents/oz. For $1.21 plus deposit, you could get eight 16-oz bottles of the nail corroding stuff, at a cost of .94 cents/oz. Similarly, Badger Liquor sells a case of 12-oz cans of Old Milwaukee for $4.50 or 18.75 cents a beer. A case of returnable Old Milwaukee goes for $2.98 plus deposit. This is 12.4 cents a beer. Which means, if you choose to deplete the world's resources as quick as possible, it costs you only 90% more for Coke or 52% more for beer. It tends to bely the state of one Wisconsin Tavern League spokesperson who indicated that throwaways cost the same or even less than returnables.
Here was the conclusion of the article:
Alicia Ashman, used to being beaten by shortsightedness, ignorance and the industry lobbies, is not giving up the fight. In August she will bring up the issue again. This time she will ask for 2 cent deposit on returnables and 5 cent deposit on non-returnables. Here stick-to-it-ness stems from her belief that resources are finite and that "citizens are paying for everything. Boardroom decisions are being made at the profit level, and don't care for the consumer."
Wow. Change the item being voted on and some of the specifics of who the players are and you have all the elements of many of our recent debates.
1. Alderperson proposes a resolution to a problem in the community, with facts and polling data to back them up.
2. Opponents think its "a worthy idea" but the lobbyist argue:
a. it will hurt small business
b. it should be done at the county, state or national level
c. use the "only if" (there were grocery stores downtown) argument
d. propose better ideas (recycling) that they won't work on and will probably argue the same way against if someone proposes it.
3. Then, they scare consumers into thinking it will be bad for them.
People back down from a good idea, nothing happens. Interesting how the specific players and names have changed, the general parties, arguments and strategies haven't.
Of additional interest, on the next page, there was also this little item of note:
Soglin's move on Triangle Project
The Triangle may yet be saved for low-income housing. The developer for the Holiday Inn (Dane County Development Corp) planned for the Triangle area (bounded by Park, Regent & West Washington) failed to meet the deadline for obtaining financing. The city promised to construct housing there when the original residents were expelled from the area. The city then welshed on its promise and approved a Holiday Inn for the Triangle and some token housing for elderly people.
The developers are asking for an extension on the deal. Considering the battle that went on before the hotel was approved, though, the extension is not likely to be approved.
Mayor Paul Soglin defended his support for the hotel project with the explanation that, should the developer fail to obtain financing, the city would have a free hand to do whatever it wanted with the land. Soglin, in his rationalization/calm the radicals session at the Memorial Union several months ago, said that getting housing in the Triangle would be easier if the developers missed their deadline, than if he had pushed it through the council in the first place.
We're watching you, Paul.
Ironically, the next article was this:
Renter's right to review zoning
With all the public attention focused on the PFC and the gun control resolution, an extremely important ordinance was adopted by the City Council. The ordinance states that renters & not just property owners may file petitions to oppose rezonings in their neighborhood. The resolution, introduced by Ald. Sack, will necessitate a 3/4 council approval for a rezoning, rather than the regular majority, if 20% of surrounding residents file a petition against the rezoning. This gives tenants, in the central city especially, an effective vehicle for halting high rises and maybe some for the cancerous cardboard boxes blighting our neighborhoods.
The year was 1975, over 30 years ago, but so much of this is eerily much like the present day.
Read more!
