The case against Lexington's new recy...

The case against Lexington's new recycling partnership with Doxicom.

Posted in the Antioch Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jul 10

Chatsworth, GA

#1 Oct 26, 2010
I only see a few possible rationales for the new partnership with Doxicom, none of which involve savings for the participants of the recycling program, or the taxpayer in general.

It is my understanding that the city will be expending additional resources (labor, fuel and maintenance costs) to collect the recycled material and transport it to where Doxicom retrieves it, and eventually resells it at a profit.

I will examine a best case and worst-case scenario for the program and point out what I believe are flaws in the rationale.

Case 1.

Assuming a best case scenario, with 100% participation and a 70% reduction in the material that goes to Lexington's landfill, then the participants themselves still see no savings, unless the actual dollar amount of the savings would have been enough to entice them to expend the extra time and resources which they expended in the act of participation in the program.(I.e. they would perform the same tasks for the same amount of time, voluntarily, for the amount of the savings) For example:

If a person spent one hour per month performing the extra tasks and expending the extra resources (in the form of water to rinse containers, and extra space for the recyclables) and he received a two dollar savings on his bill, then he could only see a real savings if he valued that time and those resources at less than the two dollars he saved. Basically if you could have paid him two dollars to do the extra work than he would've broken even and not saved any money.

Even if the city were being paid by Doxicom for the materials which the citizens have separated out, then the above example still holds. Most people value their time and labor at at least the minimum wage, and unless a savings of 6 or more dollars per hour expended in recycling were received, then the program has the effect of assessing an additional fee in the form of the time and resources that participants expend in the act of participation.

Case 2.

Assuming 0% participation and no reduction in the material that goes to Lexington's landfill, then the money going to pay for the extra truck and labor are completely wasted. In this case, entering into this partnership is an irresponsible use of taxpayer money.

In reality, participation will probably be somewhere between these two extremes.

Since even the best case scenario only brings a savings to the city itself, at the expense of the time and resources of the participant who, most likely, would not have traded that time and those resources so cheaply, the only other possible rationale would be the advancement of the environmental movement. Advancement of a particular global political stance (that being environmentalism) is not, nor should it be within the authority of a municipal government.

The only net effect of this partnership that I can see, is the additional expenditure of taxpayer money, time and resources for the benefit of city employees (in the form of extra hours and/or employees) and a private environmental organization.

Since: Jul 10

Chatsworth, GA

#2 Oct 26, 2010
My above examination does not include any future case in which participation in the program would become mandatory. Such a case would have the effect of FORCING taxpayers to expend time and resources for the benefit of city employees and a private environmental organization. Even the above example skirts very close to that in expending extra taxpayer money for the benefit of a private organization.

Since: Jul 10

Chatsworth, GA

#3 Oct 26, 2010
no comments? no nothing??? they are planning to waste our money, people.
justme

Summerville, GA

#4 Oct 27, 2010
got some bags with a paper wrapped around it. If ya askme isnt that littering if you throw something in somebody's yard that didnt order it? Oh well; they made great leaf bags. An intelegent proposal shoul;da been thought out before goin forward. Im n genius but maybe if by recycling the money for the cans, cardbourd, etc shouild be put back into the system and make our garbage pickup bill cheaper then yea, until then they will make great leaf bags.
cccccc

Jackson, TN

#5 Nov 2, 2010
It's gonna flop
helmetnut2000

Martin, TN

#6 Nov 3, 2010
I would like to know where the documents are that indicates there will be no revenue stream for Lexington by Doxicom. Or is this another case of the uninformed spreading misinformation.

Since: Jul 10

Chatsworth, GA

#7 Nov 3, 2010
helmetnut2000 wrote:
I would like to know where the documents are that indicates there will be no revenue stream for Lexington by Doxicom. Or is this another case of the uninformed spreading misinformation.
I have no information either way, the way I understand it, doxicom "caps" lexington's present landfill bill (lexington pays doxicom, and doxicom pays the landfill) and doxicom pockets ~80% of the savings due to lower landfill volume. Doxicom also gives Lexington a percentage of the proceeds from selling the recyclables.(I am led to believe, by other municipalities, that this is not a significant source of revenue) I have no problem with this so far. My problem is only that lexington will have to expend more taxpayer resources on fuel, labor, and maintenance in collecting the recyclables. If these extra resources cost the same as the landfill savings (most likely not the case or doxicom would be collecting the recyclables themselves) then only the city itself saves money, not the participants in the program. The garbage bill would not go down. At best it remains the same, and the participant has expended his own time, effort and resources in recycling (time and resources he could have spent on other, more satisfying, pursuits). In short, the financial incentive is not to participate.

I am neither condoning nor condemning recycling in and of itself, but to force taxpayers to pay for recycling to the sole boon of city employees, and a private organization, is an irresponsible use of taxpayer money.

--cct
GoGreen

Jackson, TN

#8 Nov 10, 2010
let me take a moment to clear up any confusion with the cost of the program. the city of lexington and doxicom have come up with a sponsorship program to help wiht the cost of the program. the sponsors will in turn give the participants 'rewards for recycling' so look in your bags weekly (starting next month) to see who in lexington is sponsors this.

Now, on the subject of more satisfying pursuits...seriously! What will the next few generations have to deal with if we don't start now....starting now means getting involved!
cct101010

Chatsworth, GA

#9 Nov 12, 2010
GoGreen wrote:
let me take a moment to clear up any confusion with the cost of the program. the city of lexington and doxicom have come up with a sponsorship program to help wiht the cost of the program. the sponsors will in turn give the participants 'rewards for recycling' so look in your bags weekly (starting next month) to see who in lexington is sponsors this.
Now, on the subject of more satisfying pursuits...seriously! What will the next few generations have to deal with if we don't start now....starting now means getting involved!
I will begin at the end, as it were. Your last comment on more satisfying pursuits is an attempt at what is known as "argument from intimidation" It is a rhetorical device used when your opponent has no (or a very weak) argument for his side,

"The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always:“Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”--Ayn Rand

The exclamation "Seriously!" fulfills the "only those who are" part of the description. It implies that I was not being serious, or that my viewpoint was not to be taken seriously.

The next few generations will have to deal with no more than we had to deal with, and the phrase "starting now means getting involved" is a platitude (kind of like the "yes we can" slogan from the 2008 election).

"A platitude is a trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic statement that is presented as if it were significant and original." (from Wikipedia)

On a greater "green movement" it is nothing more than the chimera "for the greater good" that the collectivists have used for more than a century now. It is used to "guilt" into action, or inaction ( see argument from intimidation above). But that is neither here nor there.

The only ethical argument that can be made for supporting this recycling program is an economic one. If the cost of the additional labor, fuel and maintenance is completely offset by the donations of sponsors, and other revenue streams and savings realized by implementation of the program, then that argument is successfully made, and the program is a great success. If not, then expending additional taxpayer money on the program is unethical, and that it falls outside the authority of a municipality (it is not in the city charter) to promote a particular political view (especially a global one) at taxpayer expense.

In short, I have no problem with the aims of the program, or even the means, so long as those means are paid for only by those who shared the aims.
rip

Portland, TN

#10 Nov 16, 2010
They are a minority group feeding off the government with grants, etc.. they do not have a warehouse, balers, trucks. They care absolutely nothing about the environment. Everything they do is for $$. I think the people of the jackson, trenton, lexington area need to dig deep into these doxicom people's business. They won't like what they find out.

Since: Jul 10

Chatsworth, GA

#11 Nov 18, 2010
rip wrote:
They are a minority group feeding off the government with grants, etc..
probably.

[QUOTE ]
they do not have a warehouse, balers, trucks. They care absolutely nothing about the environment.

[/QUOTE]

evidence? links? Empty or unfounded statements for, or against are equally damaging to the argument.

[QUOTE ]
Everything they do is for $$.
[/QUOTE]

So long as they trade value for value with people who volunteer to trade, this is good. If they leech off the government's (involuntary) taxation powers, this is a bad thing.

[QUOTE ]I think the people of the jackson, trenton, lexington area need to dig deep into these doxicom people's business. They won't like what they find out.[/QUOTE]

I agree.
amazed at the ignorance

Jackson, TN

#12 Nov 18, 2010
I think I possed this question of kickbacks a few months back and I was told that no one was getting any kickback but from the pass dealings of this company and the present leadership in the city of lexington there exist a great opportuntity for this to happen. But I was told that there were open meetings and all was looked into and on the up and up. Oh well lets see who is getting screwed now
Fannie Foo Foo

Union Star, KY

#13 Nov 19, 2010
Where do you recycle aluminum? I have alot of aluminum that was taken off a home I was restoring.
Is it worth anything?
lol

Jackson, TN

#14 Nov 20, 2010
cct101010 wrote:
<quoted text>
I will begin at the end, as it were. Your last comment on more satisfying pursuits is an attempt at what is known as "argument from intimidation" It is a rhetorical device used when your opponent has no (or a very weak) argument for his side,
"The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always:“Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”--Ayn Rand
The exclamation "Seriously!" fulfills the "only those who are" part of the description. It implies that I was not being serious, or that my viewpoint was not to be taken seriously.
The next few generations will have to deal with no more than we had to deal with, and the phrase "starting now means getting involved" is a platitude (kind of like the "yes we can" slogan from the 2008 election).
"A platitude is a trite, meaningless, biased, or prosaic statement that is presented as if it were significant and original." (from Wikipedia)
On a greater "green movement" it is nothing more than the chimera "for the greater good" that the collectivists have used for more than a century now. It is used to "guilt" into action, or inaction ( see argument from intimidation above). But that is neither here nor there.
The only ethical argument that can be made for supporting this recycling program is an economic one. If the cost of the additional labor, fuel and maintenance is completely offset by the donations of sponsors, and other revenue streams and savings realized by implementation of the program, then that argument is successfully made, and the program is a great success. If not, then expending additional taxpayer money on the program is unethical, and that it falls outside the authority of a municipality (it is not in the city charter) to promote a particular political view (especially a global one) at taxpayer expense.
In short, I have no problem with the aims of the program, or even the means, so long as those means are paid for only by those who shared the aims.
lmao, good post :)
So what

Jackson, TN

#15 Nov 20, 2010
They are a minority group feeding off the government with grants, etc.. they do not have a warehouse, balers, trucks. They care absolutely nothing about the environment. Everything they do is for $$. I think the people of the jackson, trenton, lexington area need to dig deep into these doxicom people's business. They won't like what they find out.Why is the fact they are a minority business that gets government grants a problem.

MIG's is a minority business and gets government and state grants and a business is in business to make money. Every company should be looked into with the same diligency that does business with the city, not based on their racial ownership status. Progress does not come in any particular color last I checked.

Since: Jul 10

Chatsworth, GA

#16 Nov 21, 2010
So what wrote:
They are a minority group feeding off the government with grants, etc.. they do not have a warehouse, balers, trucks. They care absolutely nothing about the environment. Everything they do is for $$. I think the people of the jackson, trenton, lexington area need to dig deep into these doxicom people's business. They won't like what they find out.Why is the fact they are a minority business that gets government grants a problem.
MIG's is a minority business and gets government and state grants and a business is in business to make money. Every company should be looked into with the same diligency that does business with the city, not based on their racial ownership status. Progress does not come in any particular color last I checked.
i wholeheartedly agree. we are all a member of the ultimate minority...the individual.

Since: Jul 10

Chatsworth, GA

#18 Nov 25, 2010
No rebuttal from GoGreen?
peter

Portland, TN

#19 Dec 1, 2010
speaking of recycling companies - i've heard alot of positive things about a recycling company out of union city, tn greenway is it's name - i think.
PAW

Panama City, FL

#20 Dec 1, 2010
What Up with this??
citizen

Jackson, TN

#21 Dec 11, 2010
we are doing the recycling.wonder why it took so long to get here. think it's a great idea.also have a trash compactor to help reduce the amount of space alot of items use.love the recycling

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Antioch Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
White supermacy loons 2 hr Rambo 3
Question for the men. 2 hr Rambo 16
economic development 3 hr james a 3
Brandy Hayes 7 hr Witch is right 7
Tristan McLean 8 hr You know 2
Divorced 9 hr Atticus Pinchaloaf 9
Willow courts 9 hr STUMPY 2

Antioch Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Antioch Mortgages