This is a Wednesday morning blog entry with an entirely gratuitous photo of Alanis Morissette

First of all, I would just like to say that it is not fair that Sean Daly gets to interview Alanis Morissette and I have to write about Amendment 1 and property taxes. So there.

On today's fronts:

* This is an important story about Florida's universities. For my money, higher education is the Biggest Crisis Nobody Gets Yet in this state. In fact, we are in deep denial over the problem: a recent statewide poll gave higher ed in Florida a bigger "excellent" or "good" rating than any other institution.

* Apparently, state CFO Alex Sink will say all sorts of interesting things --provided that you ask her first.

* At this news of a possible countywide recycling program in Pinellas County, will longtime opponent and St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker twirl his mustache and try to figure out how to keep it out of the city?

* My colleague Sue Carlton, in a nice way, calls out Linda Saul-Sena of the Tampa City Council for her freelance and somewhat clumsy threatening of Ikea. Here's hoping Linda doesn't post an anti-Sue video on YouTube!

* They're trying to regulate a swingers' club in Pasco County. Speaking as a former resident of Pasco County (Port Richey, 1982-1983), I feel kinda like those cranky establishment guys in the '60s who were cranky because they missed out on the Summer of Love.

Comments

http://www.vote4norm.com/Pages/ToyTown%20Page.html

norm, was that brian's idea too?

[Bland]

Howard,

Regarding recycling in Pinellas County, I would like to share a perspective.

First, if all three boilers of the Waste to Energy plant are up, all of the solid waste is burned and produces energy. The emissions are placed in a fairly new $100,000,000 precipitator. What is released in the air meets the continuing emissions monitoring established into law in 1990. It is my understanding it is a very clean operation.

Second, when the ash recovery plant at the end of the incinerator is operating, currently the county is building a new system, “all” of the ferrous and non ferrous (i.e. nuggets that use to be aluminum cans) metals are recovered. This means that in fact we are recycling all metals. The remaining wet ash is used in the landfill for cover, known as vector control. When dried the ash has the consistency of concrete meaning small animals can not dig into the landfill and it makes the contents impenetrable to the rain and the environment.

Finally, the management of the Pinellas Solid Waste Facility has a surplus of dollars today which no doubt could be set aside for future capital renovation to the facility instead of starting unnecessary recycling programs in the City of St. Petersburg. Incidentally, the $37.50/NT dump fee is one of the lowest in country and this in one of the most decently populated areas in the U.S. It should be around $100/NT. Again, the access funds should go for capital improvements for the future.

While I usually do not agree with Mayor Baker on many issues, he is correct on his points about the environmental attributes of recycling. These are “feel good” programs which have little positive effect given the above aforementioned. Anyway that is my take on the issue and I do know what I am talking about.

Great idea Bland. Let's triple the rate Pinellas taxpayers pay for solid waste, and NOT step up recycling. Just brilliant.

[20/20]

Bland,

Valid perspective. However, the boilers are not in operation 24/7/365. They go down for regular maintenance, as well as the occasional break down. Therefore, diversion to landfill operations is not uncommon. Nevertheless, it’s a phenomenal operation to say the least.

The one “extremely important” factor to keep in mind is that Pinellas has no room available to move and/or build another operation on this kind. It is therefore paramount that we preserve and extend its’ function and usability to the fullest extent possible. From my perspective, we must look for any and all-possible ways to sustain this operation, and that’s include recycling.

Another important factor is that the EPA issues operation permits every five years. As we continue to allow the encroachment of residential development, this becomes an even greater concern. Sarasota’s original landfill permit was canceled and operation was closed due to public complaints, and it was ¼ of a mile away from any residential developments. We have residential development encroaching as much as 700-feet.

The difference is that Sarasota had room to move their operation; we do not. If our operation were to be closed, at current daily levels, it would require 200+ 18-wheelers a-day to truck our trash out of the county. That won’t be cheep. By the way, that daily high-level of refuse is due in part to many “out of county” haulers coming into Pinellas to take advantage of the “the $37.50/NT dump fee” you mentioned. So I agree a reasonable fee increase would be beneficial in several ways. But I also agree with those who feel that recycling is beneficial beyond that.

Norm = 20/20

[Howard Troxler]

Interesting comments. Indeed, waste to energy is a form of "recycling" as the mayor argues. In addition, against the benefits of recycling, he says we have to consider the fuel, emissions and other impacts of a fleet of trucks to collect the recyclables. One of my projects for a slow day (!) is to see the mayor's numbers on that. On the other hand, as 20/20 points out, maybe we also should consider the "opportunity costs" of plant capacity, possible regulatory impact, etc...

[Bland]

Howard,

Where the county, Solid Waste Department, missed the boat was in the purchase of the land from the City of St. Petersburg adjacent to the landfill. The county wanted to buy the property from the City but the City wanted to develop it instead to get it in the tax base. It would have provided a buffer next to the existing landfill property as well as provide for future expansion. Unfortunately, the City fathers did not want to get it off potential tax roles and work with the county. This will costs everyone in Pinellas County.

As the landfill expands the developed adjacent land will cause a contentious situation with the tenants/owners next to the landfill. It could have been a win-win situation for both the County and the City. Remember the City has to have a place to dump their garbage at $37.50/NT.

To those who did not get the $100/NT charge, let me point out that the nearest landfill large enough to handle our refuge capacity is near Ocala or Okeechobee. The costs to deadhead the freight on top of their dump fees will be near this amount. We need to plan for the future. The costs today to recycle are around $50 to $60/NT based on earlier estimates I have seen from the county. Sooner or later we are all going to pay. Pinellas is built out. We are as crowded as Long Island, New York with less average income. Think about that.

[20/20]

Bland,

To add to your historical recount of the sod farm transaction; you may recall that “originally” the County was the highest bidder on that property and sought to acquire it for future SW operation expansion.

Interesting enough, it turned out that there was a “technical” error made in the bid process, it was re-opened for bidding, and sure enough; the County was out-bid by a developer.

As for recycling; it’s success, or lack thereof, is based on the market structure. I suspect we all recognize how that can be controlled and guided to optimize benefit.

[Boo Boo]

Bland & 20/20
You seem to know alot about the landfill and the WTE Plant. Things like zero emissions. Knowing things like the buliding of the new ash processing building and how the ash is used for landfill cover. Separating the metals calling them "nuggets". The fact that you know that the boilers are not 24/7/365 because of continued maintence and unforseen break downs. Using words like "diversion" and knowing how many 18 Wheelers it would take to transport waste out of county. Calling it "our" operation. Makes me wonder "who are you guys"?

[20/20]

I can’t speak (post) for bland, but I’m just a citizen/taxpayer who pays attention and seeks a change for the better. I refer to things we citizens/taxpayers pay for as “ours”, because they are. A practice I highly recommend!

But beware, Boo Boo, paying attention to the manner in which our assets are being handled has been known to cause dissatisfaction.

The good thing is; that dissatisfaction can lead to a change for the better. Another practice I highly recommend!

20/20 is former County employee Norm Roche.

[Boo Boo]

20/20
Ok I am being very careful. I see it everyday.

[Bland]

Boo Boo,

It does not matter who I am. What should matter is that I speak the truth.

I feel the $10,000,000 to be spent on recycling programs would be better spent on the waste to energy plant and ash recycling process. The recycling program is a smoke screen for our (i.e. citizens of Pinellas County) strategic problem of future trash removal.

FYI, I have lived in this county for over fifty-(50) years. As a taxpayer it is ours not the governments.

[m]

From an circa 2003 article in The New Yorker:
"When I told a friend recently that I thought New York City should be considered the greenest community in America, she looked puzzled, then asked, "Is it because they've started recycling again?" Her question reflected a central failure of the American environmental movement: that too many of us have been made to believe that the most important thing we can do to save the earth and ourselves is to remember each week to set our cans and bottles and newspapers on the curb. Recycling is popular because it enables people to relieve their gathering anxieties about the future without altering the way they live. But most current recycling has, at best, a neutral effect on the environment, and much of it is demonstrably harmful. As William McDonough and Michael Braungart point out in "Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things," most of the materials we place on our curbs are merely "downcycled"-converted to a lower use, providing a pause in their inevitable journey to a landfill or an incinerator-often with a release of toxins and a net loss of fuel, among other undesirable effects."

Further one must factor in the negative environmental effects of a countywide curbside pickup system: truck emissions, resources used in creating and maintaining the trucks, etc.

[20/20]

Bland,

I’m not sure I follow your “smoke screen” assertion. I don’t disagree that expanding the WTE concept is a smart thing. However, from my perspective, a multi-strategy approach to the matter of waste disposal is part of the bigger picture. Recycling is certainly a practical part of the strategy.

As for the potential for additional environmental impacts due to “truck emissions, resources used…” ect… I believe that consolidating the segregated systems we have now could actually lead to a more efficient program, thereby reducing the impact. The “global warming” and/or “environmentally friendly” platform are not going away. Presidential candidates have created, and are already dropping, the “Green Collar” jobs tag in preparation for a move in that direction.

Why not use a forward-thinking approach and capitalize on the inevitable, where it is logical of course.

[jack sieling]

In regards to your homeowners insurance column, I have proposed an alternative that I believe merits discussion. I believe that Citizens should assume a portion of the wndstorm coverage on every homeowners policy if Florida. The situation now is that citizens has huge exposure in the highest risk, highest concentration of values areas and little exposure (and revenue) from elsewhere. No spread of risk. They would set an actuarially sound rate that the policiy issuer would charge for that portion. The carrier could then price the rest of the policy as they saw fit, within reason. The benefits: Citizens would become primarily a reinsurer, auditing premiums and claims, rather than an insurer responsible for processing and claim adjusting. (A problem is that
Citizens can't afford to maintain a large enough full time staff to be prepared for a major storm, the big insurance companies have a national staff to mobilize.); We would be having all the insurance industry capital available to help pay the losses; if a carriers wind exposure is cut in half(for example), they could write twice as many policies and end up with the same exposure, which would introduce competition into the marketplace; Citizens, working with the cat fund may be able to accumulate capital faster that the private markets. Currently, a carrier can build into their rates a factor for future catastrophic losses. However, per the IRS, if these funds are not paid out within 3 years, they are treated as taxable income, which means that 1 out of 3 dollars is lost. The cat fund does not pay these taxes as a public entity. Obviously, the devil is in the details, but i believe this makes more sense that the state assuming all the wind exposure.

[Bland]

20/20,

This is where I have a slightly different perspective.

First, I think the free market approach to what should be recycled is the best method. As I indicated previously, recycling with curb side or area locations is expensive with very marginal opportunities to recover much revenue. Yes, it is about money. In the last few years Pinellas County recovered over $1,500,000 in revenue for recycled metal at the Waste to Energy Plant.

Second, given that perspective, the politicians and alleged environmentally concern want to “appear” as if they are helping the planet by collecting all this “stuff.” I usually use a different word. That is what I mean by the “smokescreen.”

Third, no matter what curbside or specific location recycling programs are put in service, none address my strategic concern. The County leadership needs to be working on how our solid waster program will process material at least fifty or more years out. It is a difficult problem; Pinellas County for all intensive purposes is built out. We need a plan for the future that will work and be the least expensive. Curbside recycling is not the answer. It is a smokescreen to the real problem but it makes the masses feel good.

Smile.

[20/20]

Bland,

Ok, I follow your point. But my point is that the WTE process, metal recovery process, and recycling are all valuable mechanisms that should be considered in developing a strategic “plan for the future”.

From my perspective, the benefits of recycling have yet to be fully realized, due in part to its lack of introduction into the market as a viable commodity. Therefore, impeding the transition from the “appearance” of helping… to actually helping – and – preventing the market from dictating the current imbalance of investment and return.

Curbside recycling may not be the answer, but it can be part of the answer if its practical use is explored and developed.

:-)

[Bland]

20/20,

What utopian place on the planet has made recycling material a practical economic experience?

I can give you many examples of socialistic applications. Germany is the first to come to mind. But these processes do not pay for themselves.

The poor of the Philippines collect vast quantities of recyclable materials at a huge landfill outside of Manila. That is not a viable solution.

No one has invented a flux capacitor to turn the garbage into energy except a waste to energy plant...

:(

[20/20]

Bland, you’re killin me brotha!

I don’t hold recycling up in a utopian or magnanimous light or an suggest it’s the end-all solution to the problem. My position is that it can play a practical role in a strategic, long-term plan.

I get your take on the socialistic application, but I submit its failure is due greatly in part to a failure to incorporate it into the market structure. Make no mistake about it; if there were a market for reusable products, the market would be all over it. The theory that in these times – the “consumer” drives the market – is all but been debunked. Just ask anyone who’d bought a computer lately, and has found themselves forced to accept Vista with no option to stay with what works. I don’t recall any news reports about throngs of consumers storming the gates of, well, Gates… and demanding to migrate from XP. However, soon… the entire home and business computer world will be forced into what will be a major disruption and expense. I don’t believe the impact of this market-driven conversion, on our business community as a whole, has truly been examined. But I digress.

Bottom line, Bland, the true value of reasonable discourse, is the ability for us to agree to disagree. Ultimately I believe we’re both on the same page as it relates to the bigger picture. As long as we keep our focal point on the big picture, with an open dialogue on what’s the best way to get there, the best way to get there will present itself.

Never stop :-)ing

[Bland]

20/20,

I'm done.....

Buy an Apple and pitch the PC. I sold my Microsoft years ago.

I enjoyed the banter.

:)

[Boo Boo]

Bland:
"It does not matter who I am. What should matter is that I speak the truth." Whoa dude I am on your side here. I just wondered how someone else knew these things that I knew. Sorry if ruffled your feathers. I agree the 10 mil could be spent alot wiser. Here we see the BOCC trying to get there hands on money to spend on a program that will require being fed and fed and fed some more. The first 10 mil will gone quick. Then they will another and another with no return.