Many proposals, bad or good, seem to be wrapped in “good for the environment” packaging to make the bitter pill go down.
That is what is being sold by village trustees Susan Buchanan and Arti Walker-Peddakotla regarding the regressive plan for us homeowners to bag our leaves and then pay to have them taken away.
Basically, they are increasing our workload while instituting more fees to do this job.
There are simply too many leaves to compost and that is why environmentalists like me would like to keep the present plan.
1. Leaf pickup now is easy and effective. We compost what we can and rake the rest to the curb for mass pickup block by block, which is currently included in our refuse fees. This is convenient and easy for us.
2. Bagging is labor intensive and expensive. First you have to buy the paper yard bags. Next you have to cram the leaves you used to rake to the curb into the bags. Then you tote them somewhere so they can be picked up. That is an increased burden for the homeowner.
One argument is that gathering these leaves from the curb wastes fuel and five-man crews to pick them all up. That fuel supposedly would be saved but, of course, there is fuel and laborers needed to pick up the bags. Instead, the homeowner bears the brunt of this “environmentally friendly” proposal by his increased toil and trouble.
The fact is that having us buy the paper bags and pay per bag for disposal is really a shift of expense from the village budget to us as taxpayers. A tax increase, as you will, in the name of saving the environment.
I want to save the environment as much as these two trustees, but I resent their trying to prescribe a really bitter medicine for saving the environment when it is just a tax-and-switch budget balancer.
P.S. I am paying a $15 “service fee” on my water/sewer/refuse bill. How about using that to pay for leaf removal?
Charles Chauncey Wells, Oak Park