Clark County Recycling, One Last Time?

HARBESON: Recycling: Will it ever stop coming around?

SELLERSBURG — Counting today, I’ve written about the topic of recycling seven times now. That’s a lot. Even Sylvester Stallone only played Rocky six times. But I had to jump in the ring again because it looks like we might have only one more chance to deliver a knockout punch to Clark County’s mandatory recycling program.

This all began after passage of a state law intended to lessen the amount of waste going into landfills. In response, Clark County officials decided to implement a program that included curbside pickup and charged a fee to all households, whether they used the pickup service or not. Throughout the early years, the Solid Waste District consistently pounded the idea that this program was required by state law. But it wasn’t.

The state law did not require counties to create a mandatory program. But Clark County chose to create one anyway. They decided to use force rather than voluntary action and this led to a large stinking mess.

The mandatory fee created constant friction. When some individuals refused to pay, the district sued, pitting neighbor against neighbor, creating more ill will. In 2001, the state reported that “often a mandatory ordinance will reduce public support rather than increase participation” and encouraged voluntary persuasion to boost participation. Still, the county continued to force.

About 5 years after that report, Clark County Commissioners finally set free those living in unincorporated areas. However, if you read their statement, you can clearly see it was not based on any real insight about the benefits of voluntary means. On the contrary, they seem proud and certain that the coercion sufficiently trained people, like dogs, to robotically continue. (Read it for yourself: http://www.co.clark.in.us/recycling.html.)

Even though their reasoning wasn’t so respectful, they did remove the coercion — for some people. But due to the government system, those living in incorporated areas needed their town or city councils to act if they wanted freedom from the coercion.

This year, it looks like Borden will soon be free, in part because a large percentage of residents are simply not paying anyway. (Effective civil disobedience?)

Clarksville tried to opt out once. But after receiving complaints, they caved and continued to mandate fees for all. They should not have done so. Clearly, the only way a council can respect all residents is to vote for a voluntary program so everyone is free to choose.

Clarksville has a new council now, so could this finally be accomplished? Do they really want to institute change? If so, this is certainly one area where they can take action and show residents they respect each individual’s freedom to make his or her own decisions.

Jeffersonville’s political makeup has also changed significantly. While commissioner, Mike Moore never seemed to be bothered by the coercion — his focus was on efficiency through privatization. But now that he’s a mayor who campaigned to lower the tax burden on city residents, will he verify that commitment by promoting a voluntary program for Jeffersonville residents?

Even though I think recycling should be an individual, not collective, decision because there are many ways to be environmentally friendly, I don’t even care whether or not town and city officials make a change for principled reasons based on individual freedom. It would be good enough if they behaved like the county officials and made the program voluntary simply because they feel like people are “sufficiently trained” to recycle.

Taking action this year is important because the Solid Waste District is making plans to put the fee on the county tax bills and if that happens, I doubt if it will ever be possible for a countywide voluntary program to be instituted.

So what will the future hold? Will the new mayor and councils really bring change to Clark County? Is the Clark County mandatory recycling program finally against the ropes?

I hope so because I really don’t want to write yet another sequel to this sordid tale that would surely smell worse than Rocky’s armpits.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson thinks it’s time to throw in the towel on the idea of using coercive means to accomplish goals.

Staring Blankly Is Hard

HARBESON: Readers write, Dear Debbie


> SOUTHERN INDIANA — This past weekend, if someone mentioned my column or a local controversial issue, I just stared at them blankly. Even if they mentioned a local politician, I still just stared at them blankly.

Then when they asked if I was feeling OK, I shrugged my shoulders and said I just didn’t have an opinion one way or another. Then they stared at me blankly.

All of this blank staring was beginning to look like a legislative session so to snap us out of it, I explained that I was only trying to celebrate Labor Day weekend the way most people do — by taking a rest from my work.

It completely wore me out.

I don’t have the energy to write a column now so you know what that means. Yes, time to share reader’s opinions.

The column about storing a gun in your locked car while at work led to several people writing in with additional examples of why someone might want to do so.

One writer said, “No pun intended, but you hit a bull’s-eye on this one. There are a myriad of reasons for possessing weapons secured in your automobile on your employers property while you are working. Following are just a few of many:

1. You live in a desolate section of Clark County with the nearest neighbor 1/2 mile through the woods and you return from work at midnight.

2. Your workplace parking lot is unlit and unsecured. You work the second shift. You would want your weapon handy

3. Coming home from work at midnight — or any other time — your car breaks down on a desolate stretch of a county road.

4. Car jackings at night at stop lights are not uncommon. You would want your weapon handy.

You get the drift ... Galligan doesn’t!”

•••

Several people wrote in response to my column on the tax referendum for Clarksville schools, where I suggested that those for a tax can always pay it voluntarily. Some didn’t seem to think my idea would work:

“I’ll bet this one is going to go over well! I’m amazed how often people will demand a general tax increase; but, if there is not one, they will be the LAST people on earth to freely give any money to the cause.”

“Gee, I know those people that voted yes will run right over to the school and give them money.”

•••

After a recycling column, I found out one reader also shares her opinion regularly with the solid waste district:

“Every year the bill irritates me no end; I write [in red] “Paid under Protest” on my check and the bill remittance.”

•••

The responses on the Lee Hamilton column had the predictable love it, hate it responses but I found out that many are a bit conflicted about our government system:

“Your article on Hamilton and career politicians was 100 percent accurate. Hopefully people will listen. Having said that I still would prefer Hamilton over Hill if that were the only choices I had. Naw ... maybe I just wouldn’t vote. I hate voting for the lesser of two evils.”

“… I have to commend you on an honest look at what Lee was saying … Lee did some good things. But I agree with you, he was very instrumental in giving us a huge government that appears to be nearly out of control.”



Finally, let me share one last tidbit from someone advising me on my topic ideas:

“Ease up on my buddy, Tom, would you? Give somebody else your attention for a while. How’s this for an idea: ‘The reason I write so much about Tom Galligan is that he appears to be the only elected official in Clark County who is really making things happen!’ ????”

When I read that, I just stared at my computer screen blankly.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson enjoys staring blankly at readers’ responses.

Recycling the Topic of Recycling

HARBESON: Some trash talk about forced recycling

By DEBBIE HARBESON Local Columnist

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — I believe I’ve proven beyond a shadow cast by a tall stack of orange plastic bins that I’m really into recycling. I say this with confidence because I’ve written about Clark County’s recycling fiascoes at least six times.

Why, I’ve recycled the topic of recycling so many times, trying to get people to see the effects of government force, that I have a permanent mark 2 inches above my eyebrows. You know, the kind you get from banging your head against brick walls.

I have learned to pad my forehead now though. It’s a great way to recycle an old phone book, even if it is kind of heavy and means the Clark County Solid Waste District can’t use it to collect more revenue.

But that’s not important anyway since this government entity can collect revenue whether we actually use the “service” or not.

Anyway, today I considered offering more proof of my commitment to recycling by simply recycling excerpts from those past letters and columns. But then the district made local news again so I decided to create a brand-new column. Don’t worry, it’s recyclable.

Over the years, I’ve watched the county’s recycled officials discuss various recycling decisions, which led to revised decisions and then revisions to the revised decisions. All in an effort to tweak a bad idea so it works “right.”

Lately, the district’s board has been recycling the idea of completely taking over recycling operations. Currently, they have granted monopoly privileges to Inland Services Corp.

Some board members don’t like “sharing the revenue” with Inland and want to control all the funds. Apparently, they don’t like handing over money to the people actually doing the work.

These officials also believe the government can be much more efficient, which they think would mean more money to spend. They need more money because the current building is in need of repair.

Some think that fixing or replacing that building may not be the best decision. So, a proposal was made to spend three times the cost and move to a much larger space in the Clark Maritime Centre. If there’s one thing people in government know how to do, it’s proposing grand ideas for growth.

However, the board wasted time and energy discussing this potential move because members didn’t do their homework first. They discovered that their government operation would not be an authorized use of the property.

The new director said they were “unaware of the number of restrictions” at the port authority. But all they had to do was go to their website. The entire Declaration of Restrictions and loads of other information is easily accessible online.

I have to admit I found it to be pretty funny watching a government entity being prevented from growth because of government-imposed zoning rules.

Whether or not they move — if they do take full control over the forcibly funded program — what can we expect? Well, they have already said they will have to buy equipment and hire more employees.

Does it seem smart to you to add people to a government payroll these days? As they create ways to grow, how long do you think the mandatory fee for this “service” will remain at the current level?

It’s such a shame that we may never know what could have been done without government stepping in and forcing a singular solution.

My continued hope is that all of this helps more people realize we need to trash the proverbial box we trap ourselves in when we believe government is the answer. And I’ll be so glad because I can finally take this phone book off my head.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson has no idea if she’ll ever write about recycling again. But she’s keeping a phone book around just in case.