Every legislative session for nearly two decades, state lawmakers have proposed bills to expand the bottle law, the nickel deposit that encourages recycling of soda, beer, and malt beverage containers.
The bills have died every time, usually cast into the legislative oblivion known as being “sent to study.”
Comments
Well it's about time. The trash on the streets and roadways is way out of control. At least it will put some hard working people to work picking up. I suggest that the money the state sits on be used to actually pay for more prisoners, summer worker kids and community groups to cleanup. The whole state since Deval took over is filthy.
********"The bill, called a tax by opponents, has the strong support of the Patrick administration, which says the state would raise about $58 ........ The state earns revenue from deposits that are not returned when people put their drink containers in recycling bins or the trash or toss them on the ground".********** SO- $58 MILLION IN NEW REVENUE AND THIS IS NOT A TAX?? Of course not----This is Massachusetts not TAXACHUSETTS.
**********My first posting was NOT POSTED.***********************".........The bill, called a TAX by opponents, ........the state would raise about $58 million by allowing redemption of an additional 1.5 billion containers a year,......... The state earns revenue from deposits that are not returned when people put their drink containers in recycling bins or the trash or toss them on the ground".*******************SO---$58 MILLION IN REVENUE IS NOT A TAX. ONLY IN MASSACHUSETTS. WAIT- TAXACHUSETTS
Video of Mass bottle redemption owners testifying to committee at state house in spring about the need to expand bottle bill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6sy0NECjI&sns=em
Video of Mass bottle redemption owners testifying to committee at state house. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6sy0NECjI&sns=em
So what exactly is the rationale for this? On the one hand there are proponents saying that it will help to clean up the environment, which is a good thing, but then you have the Governor being in favor of it because it will raise an additional $20 million for the state's coffers. I thought deposits were a zero sum game - you pay the deposit when you purchase a beverage and get it back when you return the bottle. Interesting how the state views it. The reason why redemption centers have seen such a decline is because people are putting their recyclables, including the types of bottles that will have deposits attached, in bins that get picked up weekly. This wasn't a practice 31 years ago when the bill was enacted. Recycling efforts have worked and there is no need to widen the bill other than to provide the state with a new revenue stream. Sounds like a tax to me!
So in a typically cowardly voice vote, the Senate finally deals with controversial expanded bottle bill -- apparently not wanting to be on record attacking small businesses in "jobs bill". I'd get the environmental concern if I thought it would help, but since people who are financially unconcerned enough to buy their water in plastic bottles in the first place, it doesn't change anything: they'll give up the deposit, which of course is the real reason for this bill: more money for the state from the escheatage. I recommend that the businesses who are drafted to store and process these bottles take them to their state senator's local or State House office and leave them there.
'Municipalities would save as much as $7 million in disposal costs, the administration says.' How can that be? Bottles and cans go into curbside recycling or local transfer station. PET water bottles and aluminum cans are the most valuable commodities IN a local recycling bin. The recycling company sells this for materials value and off-sets total handling costs or pays back $$ to the town in the case of NH communities where there is no deposit. Energy should be spent to educate & encourage greater participation in local recycling, not out-dated redemption system. The bottle bill is redundant to local efforts, inefficient and un-environmental with all of the extra hauling, and only a source of revenue for the state.
This bill is LONG overdue, as was finally demonstrated by the drama-less way in which it passed. And, as Senator Hedlund so correctly points out, there are no grounds for the claim that the deposit is a tax. As long as you are willing to be just a little bit organized, you're not out of pocket in the least: you pay 5 cents and you get 5 cents back. In fact, I would recommend a higher deposit of 10 or 15 cents as they have in Maine--a state less affluent overall than Massachusetts. Maine seems to have adapted very well to the redemption system. At a higher value, even if the bother of retrieving the deposit isn't worth it to you, it's worth it for somebody. Then, containers in the trash and on the roadsides would surely be a thing of the past.
"Drama less"? Is that a new description of not having roll call votes on an issue that is long overdue because it is so controversial? LOL. The word,ksiebert, the only adjective, is "cowardly". I didn't consider it a tax either, as long as the point was to collect a nickel, return a nickel: but now that the governor has explained it's all about getting more revenue for the state, as people toss their bottles in the trash or on the beach, I guess it really is a tax after all.