You will Obey

[xoxoxoBruce]

In Cleveland, you better recycle and you better make enough trash.

Armed with RFID chips and a disdain for those residents who simply refuse to put out their recyclables in a timely manner, an army of "smart" recycling bins will soon descend on Cleveland to enact their green environmental goodness.

The bins will be an expansion of a 15,000 resident experimental program that tracked whether or not people were putting their recycling bins out on the curb. If a resident does not take their bin out for a few weeks, the system is notified and a fine could levied against the offender if a visiting "trash supervisor" determines their normal trash bins are filled with more than 10% recyclable material.

The $2.5 million program goes into effect next year for 25,000 residents, with 25,000 person expansions planned for each following year until all of Cleveland's 150,000 residents are covered.

If you think this program sounds fantastical and futuristic, it really isn't, as England has used a similar program for several years now to weigh garbage output of its citizens. Those people who throw out too much refuse are fined. Cleveland will implement a similar trash program as part of its smart bin plan as well.

There's a lot to be gained from recyclables if you're the Cleveland cit government. For instance, Cleveland.com reports that for every ton of recyclables they collect, the city makes $26. On the other hand, the city was paying $30 per ton to dump trash in a landfill.

Next up, high tech toilets that check to see you use enough, but not too much, toilet paper.

[limey]

... England has used a similar program for several years now to weigh garbage output of its citizens. Those people who throw out too much refuse are fined ...

Well, some parts of England maybe ...

[Lamplighter]

<snip>
There's a lot to be gained from recyclables if you're the Cleveland cit government.
For instance, Cleveland.com reports that for every ton of recyclables they collect,
the city makes $26. On the other hand, the city was paying $30 per ton to dump trash in a landfill.

If Cleveland is making $26/ton, how much do you suppose Waste Management
or Republic (formerly Allied Waste) are making per billion tons,
that makes such a project to find every last holdout customer
worth the lobbying effort to get the County government to write it into enforcement law ?

When you need them, where's the NRA crying out:
" I'll give you my recyclables when you pry them from my cold, dead trash cart ! "

.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by limey

Well, some parts of England maybe ...

I would assume it would only be worth the expense in the largest cities.

[Undertoad]

Story is from 2010

Update on story in April 2015

Summary of update: nobody has been fined.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's typical, well planned, poorly executed.

[Clodfobble]

In my neighborhood you have to pay extra for the privilege of getting a recycle bin. Only maybe one in five houses has one at all, let alone how much they are or aren't filling it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Here we pay for recycling whether we use it or not, they tack it onto the property tax bill as a separate fee, and hire a contractor to pick it up every other week.
Trash pickup is private contractors we have to hire/pay ourselves.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Summary of update: nobody has been fined.

Plus, even in the original article, you wouldn't be fined for too little trash. If you had too little recycling, your regular trash might be checked for recyclables.

[BigV]

jfc

what a bunch of slackers you all are.

here, here we get garbage cans, recycling cans, and compost cans. we're expected. no. required to separate our garbage from our recycling from our compostables. and no shit, if you put more that about 5% of compostables in a noncompostable can, recycling or garbage, you're liable for a fine up to $50 per offense.

I shit you not.

Now, heh, that means they need to look in my cans to find out what's being put where, right? turns out, in our zeal to protect the privacy of our citizens, our garbage is considered private. and looking at that garbage without a warrant constitutes a legal violation of my privacy. so now the government has no way to collect evidence of violation of the law they've passed.

I'm completely cool with all aspects of the current snafu. in fact, there's a LAWSUIT against the city for a breach of privacy for just this situation. fine. It's right to separate the garbage. I've been to the dump, a lot, and recently. there's many many metric fucktons of just unnecessary crapola in the landfills. stuff that would be cheaper and easier to remake by recycling, *IF* the effort/cost of sorting/streaming it to the right place were not passed on to the next dumber sucker.

still.

it's a bit of a headache to have to maintain three fucking "trash" cans in the kitchen and the alley.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What's the difference between garbage and compostables? Everything in the garbage, except maybe egg shells and coffee grounds, should compost ok. Or are interchanging the word garbage and trash?

Is this a federal law they can't peek in the cans, because I've read several places claiming as soon as it goes to the curb it belongs to the city, so people aren't allow to take anything put out. I think is came about from homeless people looking for aluminum to sell or deposit cans/bottles.

[Lamplighter]

What's the difference between garbage and compostables?...

styrofoam containers and the food that's in them !

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

snip--
Is this a federal law they can't peek in the cans, because I've read several places claiming as soon as it goes to the curb it belongs to the city, so people aren't allow to take anything put out. I think is came about from homeless people looking for aluminum to sell or deposit cans/bottles.

It is from the Washington state constitution. Here's a link that solidifies the decision. The upshot is that in Washington, "private affairs" are not subject to pubilc inspection (my paraphrasing, the brief is very dense reading). It was determined that the laws are written such that garbage being put out for collection is a private affair between the homeowner and the collection company, and not the government. No warrant, no searching.

115 Wn.2d 571, STATE v. BOLAND

CITE: 115 Wn.2d 571, 800 P.2d 1112

STATE v. BOLAND

CAUSE NUMBER: 56666-6

FILE DATE: November 15, 1990

CASE TITLE: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Bradley
M. Boland, Petitioner.

[1] Constitutional Law - Construction - State and Federal Provisions - Independent State Interpretation - Factors. In determining whether the state constitution provides greater protection to individuals than does the federal constitution, a court will examine the following six nonexclusive neutral criteria: (1) the textual language, (2) differences in the texts, (3) constitutional history, (4) preexisting state law, (5) structural differences, and (6) matters of particular state or local concern.

[2] Constitutional Law - Right to Privacy - Interests Protected - In General. Const. art. 1, 7 protects persons from unreasonable governmental intrusions into their private affairs. The privacy interests protected extend to those interests which Washington citizens have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from governmental trespass without a warrant.

[3] Searches and Seizures - Warrantless Search - Garbage Can. A warrantless police search of a person's garbage contained in a trash can and left on a curb outside a residence for collection unreasonably intrudes into the person's private affairs in violation of Const. art. 1, 7.

[4] Constitutional Law - Right to Privacy - Location of Search - Effect. The location of a search is not determinative of whether it unreasonably intrudes into an individual's private affairs in violation of Const. art. 1, 7.

[5] Utility Services - Garbage - Privacy Interest - Reasonable Expectations. A person who leaves a trash can on a curb for pickup must reasonably expect that a licensed trash collector will remove the contents of the can but would not reasonably expect that governmental employees will search through the trash.

[6] Searches and Seizures - Fruit of Unlawful Search or Seizure - Objectives of Exclusionary Rule - Effect. Evidence obtained as the result of an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed regardless of whether suppression will promote the objectives of the exclusionary rule.

NAMES OF CONCURRING OR DISSENTING JUDGES: Guy, Dore, Andersen, and Durham, JJ., dissent by separate opinion.

NATURE OF ACTION: Prosecution for unlawful possession of legend drugs and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The police had obtained a warrant to search the defendant's house based in part on evidence they had obtained from warrantless searches of the contents of the defendant's garbage can.

Superior Court: The Superior Court for Jefferson County, No. 87-1-00037-6, William E. Howard, J., dismissed the charges on November 18, 1987.

Court of Appeals: The court at 55 Wn. App. 657 REVERSED the dismissal and REINSTATED the charges, holding that the state constitution does not recognize a privacy interest in garbage placed outside the curtilage of a residence.

Supreme Court: Holding that the defendant had a protectable state constitution privacy interest in the garbage and that evidence seized from the defendant's house must be excluded, the court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATES the dismissal.

COUNSEL: MICHAEL A. FROST and PETER B. TUCKER, for petitioner.

JOHN F. RAYMOND, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, and MARK HUTH, DEPUTY, for respondent.

RICHARD HANSEN, KATRINA PFLAUMER, ROBERT H. WHALEY, and BRYAN P. HARNETIAUX on behalf of Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, and American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, amici curiae.

AUTHOR OF MAJORITY OPINION: Dolliver, J.-

MAJORITY OPINION: Sometime in September 1986, both the office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Jefferson County and the Port Townsend City Police Department received anonymous letters alleging defendant Bradley Boland was distributing legend drugs. Legend drugs are drugs of which federal law prohibits distribution without a prescription from a physician. The anonymous letter was accompanied by a brochure containing the names of Health West Products and Brad Boland. Shortly after receiving the letter, the investigating officer attempted to order legend drugs from the defendant through the mail. When defendant received the letter, he responded with a letter stating he did not understand the inquiry. The letter, however, was returned to defendant with a notation stating the addressee did not live at the address given.

In October 1986, the investigating officer applied for a search warrant (based on the letter and brochure) in order to gain access to defendant's power records for the purpose of verifying his address. The warrant was served on November 6, 1986, and defendant's address was subsequently verified.

On March 18, 1987, the police began a series of four warrantless searches of defendant's garbage hoping to locate sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant to search his residence. The other three searches occurred on March 25, April 1, and April 8. Before each of the searches, police officers would observe defendant take his trash out to the corner for collection where he would place his trash can in approximately the same location. The lid of defendant's trash container fit securely on the can, and each time defendant took the can out, he would place a heavy piece of wood on top of the lid. On each occasion, the officers returned to defendant's residence during the night, emptied the contents of the trash can into a plastic bag and transported it to the police station. Once there, the trash was made available to state and federal agents who would examine its contents for evidence of drug-related activities. On at least three of these occasions, such evidence was uncovered.

After inquiring with the Washington State Board of Pharmacy in order to verify defendant did not hold a license to dispense legend drugs, the investigating officer applied for a warrant to search defendant's home. The warrant was issued based on the evidence obtained from defendant's trash and the letter and brochure received from the informant. On April 8, 1987, the police searched defendant's house and seized a large quantity of legend drugs as well as a card of tablets and a bottle containing controlled substances. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of legend drugs (RCW 69.41.030) and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (RCW 69.50.401(1)(i) and (ii)).

Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered during the search of his house. Defendant argued the evidence was the fruit of the warrantless search of his garbage which violated the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and Const. art. 1, 7. The trial court granted the motion, stating that in light of Const. art. 1, 7,

"it is clear that a law enforcement officer's examination
of the contents of a garbage container placed curbside
for collection is an unconstitutional intrusion into a
person's private affairs, particularly when the city ordinance
requires the container to be removed from the person's
property and placed at the side of the street for ease
of collection.

The trial court also ordered suppression of the evidence seized in defendant's home since, without the evidence taken from the garbage, no probable cause existed upon which to base the search warrant. The trial court subsequently ordered the charges against defendant be dropped.

The State appealed the trial court's ruling to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court. STATE v. BOLAND, 55 Wn. App. 657, 659, 781 P.2d 490 (1989). Defendant appeals the Court of Appeals decision to this court. We reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court.

We note at the outset that the United States Supreme Court has held under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists in garbage which has been left on the curbside for collection. CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD, 486 U.S. 35, 100 L. Ed. 2d 30, 108 S. Ct. 1625 (1988). Consequently, our review of the privacy interest at issue in this case is limited to an examination under our state constitution. Given that the fundamental purpose of the state constitution is to govern the relationship between the people and their government rather than to govern the relationship between private parties, SOUTHCENTER JOINT VENTURE v. NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMM., 113 Wn.2d 413, 780 P.2d 1282 (1989), it also follows that we concern ourselves only with the reasonableness of governmental intrusion into a private individual's garbage and not the reasonableness of such intrusions by private individuals.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Is that only if you have a private trash picker upper you pay, or also when the local government does the collecting?

[BigV]

Food Waste Requirements

The Seattle City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting food from Seattle’s residential and commercial garbage on September 22, 2014. Effective January 1, 2016, all commercial, single-family, and multi-family garbage containers that have more than 10% recyclables or food waste by volume will face penalties per Seattle municipal code.

Single-family properties:

Single-family properties with more than 10% recyclables or food waste by volume in their garbage will receive a notice on their garbage container.
A $1 fine will appear on their bi-monthly garbage bill beginning January 1, 2016.

Multi-family and commercial properties:

All commercial establishments that generate food waste or compostable paper must subscribe to a composting service, compost their food waste on-site, or self-haul their food waste for processing.
Multi-family and commercial properties whose garbage contains more than 10% recyclables or food waste by volume will receive a warning notice. Upon the third notice, the property will receive a $50 fine beginning January 1, 2016.

What doesn't go in the garbage?

All food and food-soiled paper products – such as paper towels, paper napkins, and cardboard – are now required to be composted. What's accepted as food and yard waste?

Recyclable items, such as paper, uncontaminated cardboard, bottles, cups, jars and cans are currently prohibited from the garbage. What's accepted as recycling?
Businesses and public containers

Public litter cans are exempt from the ordinance.

Garbage containers in customer dining areas are exempt from the ordinance when a business provides containers for recycling and food+ compostables collection.
Reduce waste

The food waste law is projected to divert 38,000 tons of food scraps from the landfill via composting.

SPU’s education campaign went into effect October 2014.
Food waste is prohibited from garbage effective January 1, 2015.
Fines for too much food waste in the garbage are effective January 1, 2016.

The food and yard waste is sent to composting processers, where it is turned into compost for local parks and gardens. Currently, Seattle sends approximately 100,000 tons of food waste 300 miles to a landfill in Eastern Oregon each year.

From here:

Yes! In Your Food and Yard Waste Cart
Food scraps

Fruit and vegetables
Bread, pasta, grains
Eggshells, nutshells
Coffee grounds, filters
Tea bags
Meat, fish, and chicken
Dairy products - milk, butter, cheese
Shells and bones

Food-soiled paper

Paper towels, napkins - kitchen only
Paper plates - uncoated only
Food-soiled newspaper
Greasy pizza boxes
Shredded paper
Paper bags (uncoated) with food scraps
Compostable bags
Approved compostable tableware (pdf)

Yard waste

Plant material
Grass
Leaves, branches, twigs - up to 4 inches in diameter and 4 feet in length
Plant and tree trimmings
House plants - no pots
Small amounts of sod - less than 60 pounds
Holiday trees - no tinsel, ornaments, flocking; not longer than 6 feet long and 4 inches in diameter
Bundles up to 4 feet long and 2 feet in diameter, tied with natural twine

Not! In Your Food and Yard Waste Cart
Garbage can

Biodegradable containers unless marked “Approved” by Cedar Grove
Styrofoam containers
Dirty coated paper cups, plates. Clean ones can be recycled
Disposable utensils
Grease and fats in lidded container
Facial or toilet tissue
Diapers
Pet waste and litter
Household trash/litter
Hoses
Garden tools
Bundles tied with wire, nylon cording or plastic banding
Loose soil
Rocks/gravel

Recycle cart - all items must be clean

Plastic shopping, newspaper, and dry cleaner bags - clean, stuffed together, no produce bags
Milk, juice, ice cream cartons - rinsed
Cardboard - unwaxed, flattened
Plastic bottles, jugs, dairy tubs
Glass bottles and jars
Metal cans
Paper - dry
Nursery pots
Paper and plastic cups - clean
Plastic trays and containers