City of San Carlos sues man who reduces garbage, cancels trash service

motivez · 02-10-2008, 01:45 PM

A man who claims to have reduced his waste to nearly nothing out of concern for the environment now faces a lawsuit from San Carlos for canceling his garbage-collection service.

Eddie House, 53, says he was shocked when he was served with a lawsuit Sunday at his Cedar Street home.

The lawsuit, filed by San Carlos Deputy City Attorney Linda Noeske in San Mateo Superior Court on Jan. 22, seeks a permanent injunction forcing House to maintain garbage service. City officials are also seeking to recoup from House the costs of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims House broke the city’s municipal code requiring all residential, commercial and industrial properties to contract with Allied Waste for pickup at least once a week — a standard requirement in most cities, San Carlos Deputy City Manager Brian Moura said.

House says he stopped his service with Allied Waste about a year ago after realizing that his garbage cans were nearly always empty.

“It’s just me and my dog, so I don’t have a whole lot of garbage to begin with and I recycle everything,” he said.

House recycles paper, metal and plastics, regularly hauling them in his pickup truck to a recycling center and collecting the refund, he said. What little backyard waste he generates is ground into powder by his wood chipper and food scraps are either pulverized by his garbage disposal or eaten by his dog. House’s larger items are either sold or given to people on Craigslist, he said.

“I don’t understand a city ordinance that requires you to fill up a can. That’s downright foolishness,” he said.

Moura said House’s lack of garbage service was brought to the attention of city officials after neighbors complained that House was causing foul smells by burning his garbage.

House acknowledges that the fire department was called to his house several times, but says that each time he was simply burning firewood. House has made ongoing complaints to city officials over the apartment building next door, which he claims was built too close to his home and generates litter and parking problems. He said he fears that being sued by the city is retribution for being a “sore thumb.”

Moura denied the city’s action was personal.

“We don’t go out looking for these things. When the city does take code enforcement action, it’s usually something that’s brought to our attention by neighbors,” he said.

This is the strangest thing I've ever heard of.. for starters, why should a city require citizens to contract with a specific company for garbage collection pickup?

Why shouldn't they be able to sign up with whoever they want?

I think a city needs to make sure that waste is handled properly, but mandating that citizens go with a specific company seems foolish.. I'm sure that company lobbied hard for the contract, though.

And secondly, if this guy has no need for a service and isn't allowing garbage to pile up everywhere.. why should he be forced by the city to do it? It doesn't make any sense

If anything, the guy should get a key to the city and highlighted as an example for being self sufficient and reducing waste.. not penalized for it.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-10-2008, 01:56 PM

So you're ok with the guy choosing who or what he wants with regard to garbage collection? This guy should have the freedom to pay or not pay?

Yet you also are ok with Hillary Clinton mandating something like healthcare? GARNISHING wages from poor/low income who think they can't or choose not to pay for it...

Using your same logic, I'd think you'd be against a government run/mandated healthcare system.

On something as trivial as garbage pickup, I dont really care if he pays or doesn't pay. If he quits paying or opts out he should definately be able to do so.

motivez · 02-10-2008, 02:02 PM

He shouldn't have to pay that specific company, no.

I can understand the city mandating garbage being taken care of, you can't have someone who says "I don't want to get rid of it, so I'm going to let it pile up several stories and never do anything about it", that's a health hazard for people who live around him.. but not telling him he has to use a specific company.

So long as he's meeting the responsibility of taking care of it, he should be allowed to use whatever company he wants.. if that means using a company that pays him to bring them things that are recyclable, then so be it.

Publius · 02-10-2008, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

He shouldn't have to pay that specific company, no.

I can understand the city mandating garbage being taken care of, you can't have someone who says "I don't want to get rid of it, so I'm going to let it pile up several stories and never do anything about it", that's a health hazard for people who live around him.. but not telling him he has to use a specific company.

So long as he's meeting the responsibility of taking care of it, he should be allowed to use whatever company he wants.. if that means using a company that pays him to bring them things that are recyclable, then so be it.

So in other words you have no problem with him being forced to pay for something he doesn't use, your only qualm is that the government is telling him which company to use?

motivez · 02-10-2008, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

So in other words you have no problem with him being forced to pay for something he doesn't use, your only qualm is that the government is telling him which company to use?

No, try reading what I wrote again

If a city wants to mandate that citizens take care of their garbage, I'm fine with that. That doesn't mean he necessarily has to pay for anything. Right now it looks like he's using a company that pays him to bring them recyclables.. that's perfectly in line with a mandate telling citizens they have to take care of their garbage.. but not forcing him to pay for something he doesn't use.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-10-2008, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

He shouldn't have to pay that specific company, no.

I can understand the city mandating garbage being taken care of, you can't have someone who says "I don't want to get rid of it, so I'm going to let it pile up several stories and never do anything about it", that's a health hazard for people who live around him.. but not telling him he has to use a specific company.

So long as he's meeting the responsibility of taking care of it, he should be allowed to use whatever company he wants.. if that means using a company that pays him to bring them things that are recyclable, then so be it.

I think that it's good when people take actions to reduce their waste. I also think if you take care of your waste in a legal manner you should be able to opt out of the government service. The same can be said for those who get their own water from wells and such.

Then the question becomes, what happens if the majority of people opt out and it drastically raises the costs of city services for those who do not or can not opt out?

Publius · 02-10-2008, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

No, try reading what I wrote again

If a city wants to mandate that citizens take care of their garbage, I'm fine with that. That doesn't mean he necessarily has to pay for anything. Right now it looks like he's using a company that pays him to bring them recyclables.. that's perfectly in line with a mandate telling citizens they have to take care of their garbage.. but not forcing him to pay for something he doesn't use.

He isn't recycling EVERYTHING though, according to the first article. Some things he pulverizes and others he (allegedly) burns.

motivez · 02-10-2008, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

He isn't recycling EVERYTHING though, according to the first article. Some things he pulverizes and others he (allegedly) burns.

I read it as though the stuff he pulverizes, etc.. he's using as compost or whatever.. and the other stuff that he can't make use of he's taking to a recycling plant, selling on Craigslist, etc.

I don't really know about the burning, it says he was only burning firewood, so.. unless there's laws about burning garbage where he lives, I don't know that there's really any reason for him to have to make use of a specific service the city has a contract with

kinggovernor · 02-10-2008, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

He isn't recycling EVERYTHING though, according to the first article. Some things he pulverizes and others he (allegedly) burns.

and that is the problem, he needs some garbage service.

motivez · 02-10-2008, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

and that is the problem, he needs some garbage service.

So far when they've responded to complaints he's only been burning firewood though

I mean, even if he was burning certain things.. it still doesn't mean he should be forced to sign up with a specific company, there might be better options for his specific situation

6SpeedTA95 · 02-10-2008, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So far when they've responded to complaints he's only been burning firewood though

I mean, even if he was burning certain things.. it still doesn't mean he should be forced to sign up with a specific company, there might be better options for his specific situation

Depends completely on what those "certain things" are. Burning garbage is illegal here in Oklahoma, I would guess that it definately is in California, the environment issues it creates are quite large.

So if he is burning garbage as a couple articles allege that would be a problem.

However, I do think if he is or has a safe means of disposing of the garbage thats his perogative. Although I think we'll see even more government mandates regarding garbage in the coming years, especially since we're finding it is a very good source of energy.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-10-2008, 02:33 PM

Also, I'm sure due to privacy hte fire department was unable to enter the man's house, he just said he was burning firewood. Firewood and garbage smell NOTHING alike FYI.

I made the mistake of burning garbage before I knew it was illegal out at the lake when I was a kid

JaJae · 02-10-2008, 02:38 PM

In many states burning garbage is illegal because of it's clear foul smell that really can't be mistaken and the environmental impacts. It is unpleasant to neighbors. It is also pretty toxic. It is not the same as a garbage incinerating plant where the temperature burns much hotter. Fireplaces and/or backyard fires burn much cooler and therefore the garbage burns much slower letting off large amounts of toxins and a very foul odor. It is far worse for the environment to burn garbage than it is to have it collected.

It makes absolutely no sense that the man wouldn't be burning garbage in his fireplace from time to time if he has no pickup. I would have to say logic is against his story and I'm sure if the story grows there will be statements from the fire department and other neighbors complaining about the odors from his property. In which case the city is justified. And I'm sure they wouldn't have slapped him with such a strong lawsuit if they didn't already have such statements to use against him.

RMNIXON · 02-10-2008, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If a city wants to mandate that citizens take care of their garbage, I'm fine with that. That doesn't mean he necessarily has to pay for anything. Right now it looks like he's using a company that pays him to bring them recyclables.. that's perfectly in line with a mandate telling citizens they have to take care of their garbage.. but not forcing him to pay for something he doesn't use.

So if I want to pay for my healthcare, out of pocket, when I need it that is OK with you? Or I should be forced into a healthcare plan or plans and have that money taken out of my wages and/or be a hidden cost to my employer?

This is really about forcing people into a system. Don't try to make it about the big bad trash company. They just do their job as contracted.

We all know what Health Insurance is about and why it works. When a large number of people pool their money those who encounter serious health problems are covered by those who do not. And as long as people seek such arrangments as individuals or accept them as benefits of employment I am OK with that. Where I draw the line is the notion that a portion of my income (productivity) is part of a government mandated system by force of law. I must either pay up or just not be productive at all, and only then do I get my Free Healthcare!