Trevor Dailey's Weblog

Most citizens willingly accept a municipal tax on their garbage. Yes, a garbage tax. Most people buy into the "green religion" so "environmental" taxes are easy to create with few people questioning the value of such things. What is a garbage bag tax?

A garbage bag tax when the municipality you live in allows a homeowner to only put a certain number of garbage bags out for municipal waste collection. Any bags over the limit allowed will not be collected unless a special tag is attached showing that the homeowner paid to have the bag collected. This is a garbage bag tax.

The City of London Ontario has a current 4 bag limit before a homeowner must pay the garbage bag tax, and here is the problem for the tax and spend London City Council. There isn't enough tax revenue for the City to waste, so the City Councillors are always looking for new ways to tax the citizens of London. Few people would stand for a tax on their garbage so "greenwash" is applied to deceive people.

The first garbage tax, although indirect, was recycling through the Blue Box programme. Municipalities used "greenwash" to convince the citizens that in order to save landfill space, something that is not a problem (With compaction at the [London] landfill an average family’s yearly garbage is reduced to 1 cubic metre (a space about the size of your refrigerator)), people needed to spend their valuable time sorting through their garbage and separate the recyclables to reduce the waste stream. The scheme was to get citizens to sort their garbage, for free, and give any valuable recycling material, mostly aluminium, to the City. The Municipalities would make money by selling the recyclable material it got for free. The City takes money from the people by force, all tax is by force, to provide a so-called service of recycling, and uses the "service" solely to generate more money for the City. It did not work.

Anything of value is going to be picked out of the garbage by people. This has always been true recycling. Aluminum, mostly in the form of soda cans, is one such material that can be sold for a decent amount of money. Paper, plastic and glass are not worth it. Most recyclables end up in the landfill because it is cheaper to send it there than to recycle it. One of the most valuable materials in household garbage, aluminum soda cans, was being given to charities, or scavenged from the blue boxes at night by people. This left the Municipalities with less than what they planned they would get. The next scheme was to tax non recyclable garbage.

A garbage bag tax seems like an easy way of generating revenue for a Municipality. Charge citizens to have their garbage collected, even though the citizens are already paying property taxes for garbage collection, "greenwash" it, and nobody will question it. This tax worked for a while until households reduced the number of garbage bags they put out at the curb, and few households were over the limit anymore. This meant the City was again seeing a decline in the garbage tax revenue.

The City of London, for example, came up with the idea to only have garbage collection once every two weeks instead of every week. This, the City reasoned, would force households to go over the bag limit and pay the garbage bag tax. It did not matter to the City Councillors that the citizens of London are paying more in property taxes each year, but getting less in municipal services, and the City was making the citizens to pay twice for garbage collection. Once again, things were not going according to plan as this did not increase the number of garbage bags put out at the curb. The City tried other things, like bag weight limits, to try to force citizens to use more garbage bags, and go over the limit, but nothing really worked.

London City Councillors are now deciding if they will force households to pay the garbage bag tax by lowering the bag limit to as low as two bags of garbage before households must pay the garbage bag tax to have their garbage collected.

It should be noted that those living in apartment buildings, and many businesses, are not subject to this garbage bag tax. Likely because the City of London has not thought of a scheme yet to tax all garbage; however, I am sure London City Councillors are working hard at it.

Some argue garbage collection costs the city money to provide, so it is reasonable to charge people for the service. The answer to this is to privatize garbage collection, let each homeowner hire a company to pick up their garbage, and the city will not have to pay for garbage collection. But municipal services are not about service anymore, they are about generating revenue for the city.   

© Trevor Dailey

Ontario's electricity company was started with just one employee named, Hydro who was dependable, and hard working. Over the coming years, the demand for electricity increased, and another employee was hired. This employee was named, Coal. Like Hydro, Coal was dependable and hard working. As the demand for electricity continued to expand, the Company hired a third employee named, Nuclear. As with Hydro, and Coal, Nuclear was dependable, and hard working. These three employees stayed with the Company over the years, always dependable, and always hard working. Customers were served with the electricity they wanted. Then things began to change.

The Liberal government now owns the Company, and decided the Company would be better off without Coal. A decision was made to terminate Coal's employment with the Company. Always improving, Coal was more efficient and harder working at the time Coal was dismissed from the Company. Coal was forced from the Company, but the work Coal did still needed to be done. So the Liberal government gave Coal's old job to two of the Liberal government's close friends named, Wind and Solar. These two new employees were not experienced nor skilled in the job like Coal was. They also have a different work ethic than Coal.

Wind and Solar both come into work whenever they want, and work however long as they want. Wind and Solar turned out to not be dependable and hard working like Coal was. They worked out their own high pay rate with the Liberal government who was more than happy to give them special treatment, and more pay for less work. Because the poor work rate of Wind and Solar, the Liberal's had to find a way to get the work done Wind and Solar was not doing. Gas was hired by the Liberals to do the work Wind and Solar would not do. Gas has been put on call to work when Wind and Solar are late, do not show up for their shifts, decide to work odd hours, or go home early.

Because of the lack of productivity of Wind and Solar, the special treatment, and the high wages they demand, the Company is forced to pass on the cost of Wind and Solar to the customers. This contributes to the rise in electricity prices in Ontario.

Hydro and Nuclear still work for the Company, and remain as dependable and as hard working as ever, but Coal is gone replaced by three new workers who do the work Coal did once did alone for a lower price. Some are still hopeful one day dependable, hard working, and now even more efficient Coal will return to the Company to do the good work Coal once did for the benefit of the electricity customers of Ontario.

© Trevor Dailey

Where is my Electricity Coming From at this Hour? (if I live in Ontario)

The doorknobs are strewn across the desk. She selects one, and holds it up.

"A lot of people like this one" she says, turning the knob slightly back and forth to demonstrate the device. Putting it down, she grabs another one.

"This is another popular one. There are so many, it is hard to say which one is the best" she says.

The selection of doorknobs is impressive. Every design type one could imagine. All in different sizes and styles. I ask her what she thinks of the doorknob ban that will replace all doorknobs with a door lever.

"Asinine" she says as she shakes her head with annoyance. "It is a solution to a problem that will never exist. It is just another chip out of our freedom, out of our self determination. A way for politicians to get votes who are only really thinking of getting themselves elected. Ever notice how these stupid things always show up around an election? Or how they get sneaked in behind the voters' back? Politicians just want to leave a mark, a legacy, no matter how dumb or damaging it is. Communism is by force, and socialism is by vote."

I tell her she doesn't have to paraphrase Ayn Rand to me. I tell her about the benefits of the ban, how it will make life easier for the elderly and the disabled.

"Really?!" she says, "Is every elderly or disabled person the same? They all have the same needs? They are all helpless?

I mention older people with arthritis, and how a lever would be easier to use than a doorknob.

"How do you know that?" she asks. "Do you have arthritis? Is arthritis the same for everyone? Have you asked all the elderly and disabled people if they want a doorknob or a door lever?"

I reply that of course I haven't.

"Then how do you know what they want?" she says. "Why do you even think anyone, especially a politician, a bureaucrat, or an administration knows what is best for anyone else?"

She turns her chair, and takes a door lever from behind her. Turning back to the desk, she takes one of the doorknobs in the other hand, and holds them both above the desk as she shows them to me.

"This is one choice, " she says referring to the doorknob "and this is another choice" she says referring the the lever door handle. "Everyone has always had the choice of one or the other; and the thumb latch if we want to bring that one in to the mix, too. The point is, what is wrong with people having a choice?"

There is nothing wrong with choice, I tell her, but society needs to be all inclusive, to include everyone regardless of age or disability.

"Society doesn't owe you anything" she says, "Society isn't 'inclusive' when government takes away the rights of people."

I tell her the ban only applies to public buildings, and to newly constructed buildings. The doorknobs already in place in house will be permitted to stay.

"That's wonderful" she says, "the government is going to allow me to keep the doorknobs on my existing home. How should I thank the government for granting me this privilege? And what about new homes? Are the elderly and the disabled buying a lot of new homes these days? If someone does not like the doorknob on their door, there is nobody stopping them from removing it and putting a lever door handle, a thumb latch, or a piece of rope, or chain, or whatever they want in its place. People buy new homes and change things about the house all the time."

I remind her it is just a doorknob.

"That's right, it is just a doorknob. A doorknob the government is using force against me to make me not use. And if I do, the government will use the power of law to fine me, or even imprison me, for installing a doorknob. I can be fined or imprisoned for installing a doorknob."

Nobody is going to go to jail for using a door knob I tell her.

"Then why is there a law?" she says, "What you you think the punishment for installing a doorknob should be?"

I tell her this doorknob ban is a good thing, it is the right thing to do.

"It isn't the right thing to do," she says, "A 'good thing' done by force is never a 'good thing'."

I tell her she has been reading too much Ayn Rand, and that she doesn't understand they way the world is today.

"We shall see," she says, "We shall see."

© Trevor Dailey

In the city of London, Ontario, there are a few impressive looking buildings, and many of these buildings have been part of London for many decades, or more than a century.

Some Londoners look at these relics of a bygone society as examples of architecture that needs to be preserved because buildings are just not designed like that anymore. This is true.

What is built in the city today appears to be mostly unprepossessing, myopic designs that have replaced the beauty of the inspiring designs of yesterday, if anything is even built at all.

If you want to know why development in the city of London is is such a deplorable state, the answer may be here:

Just Right July 10, 2014 Audio 60 minutes

Guest: Arnon Kaplansky – London Mayoral Candidate – Today’s Howard Roark?

© Trevor Dailey

London, Ontario is due for another municipal election in October of 2014. If you are like me, you find municipal politics either worth ignoring, or municipal politics makes you angry.

With a now former Mayor who was recently convicted of criminal offences, London just might get interesting debate on the hustings. Perhaps we will, but I expect more of the usual pork barrel politics.

If you are interested in voting in the October 2014 municipal election, then I recommend listening to these two radio shows from Just Right. Each radio show is about 60 minutes.

The "Little Boxes" song played on the following episode in its many versions might get annoying for the listener.

Just Right-274-November 1, 2012

GUEST: Orlando Zamprogna - Former Controller, Past Deputy-Mayor Of The City Of London

Just Right-324-October 31, 2013

GUEST: Ted Wernham, President, Wernham Wealth Management, Past Chair, London Transit Commission; Four-term member of London's City Council

Here is the 2014 City Budget:

City Council approved the 2014 Budget on Thursday, February 27th, 2014. The Budget was approved with a 2.8 per cent tax increase from rates which equates to an increase of approximately $66 to the average home assessed at $208,000. Please visit the Newsroom page at www.london.ca for more details.

© Trevor Dailey