After walking around the Highlands and Newton Centre today, I imagine everyone is seeing these plastic bags with a few rocks and a flyer for a landscaping company. I am not a fan of the ban craze but the elimination of this form of litter, or to some – advertizing, is something I think I can get behind. It seems bad enough that one or more of these bags is dropped in everyones driveways but the rocks are not sufficient to keep them in easy reach for disposal as I saw many of them in the streets and front yards. Just what I need for my lawn mower to find during spring cleanup.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
What makes these annual plastic bag advertisements even more annoying is that if you call the company that is doing this to ask for a quote they blow you off and won’t give an estimate . Let’s think about what else we can ban in Newton next? I know!!! Let’s be like concord and ban plastic water bottles next!!! This will be great!
Groot, the BOA had the opportunity to ban these plastic bags, and chose not to include them in the recently announced plastic bag ban. Probably because they were too similar to the plastic bags used by the TAB. The BOA would never ban the TAB’s use of plastic bags; that may generate some bad press for them.
At least the rocks offer sufficient weight to keep the bags from floating up into our trees.
It’s easy to be cynical about our electeds. It’s also true that the aldermen choose not to include newspaper bags and dry cleaners bags in the bag ban. But I believe they did so because there does not appear to be a good alternative.
I just thought of something else that could be banned. How about those little plastic discs that they put in pizza boxes to keep the lid of the box from smushing the pizza. Those things are terrible. Let’s ban them!!!
Greg, I hope you are not inferring that we can not be critical (you say “cynical”) of decisions made by the BOA. They chose to make their decision so they can defend it. In my opinion their “good alternative” for plastic bags is not acceptable. And multiple of the BOA, who voted for the plastic ban, agree with me given their comments in the public discussion prior to their vote (check the meeting video for specifics). Your “good alternative” defense is weak at best.
If you can be cynical of the comments made by private citizens on this blog, I believe private bloggers can be critical of our public figures on this blog. JMO.
@Patrick: No, I meant cynical.
And also to be clear, I’m not saying people here aren’t allowed to be cynical as a Village 14 policy. Participants here are free to be as cynical as they want.
I’m just expressing one person’s view.
In this instance I was merely saying that your suggestion that aldermen did not ban newspaper bags because it “may generate some bad press for them” in the TAB felt cynical to me. I attended those committee meetings and I know that they exempted newspaper bags (also used by the Globe, the Herald, The Wall Street Journal etc.) because there is no good alternative way to keep them dry, whereas there are alternatives to plastic grocery bags.
Our aldermen occasionally do things I find misguided. I personally don’t think this was one of them.
I have been in correspondence with the City’s law department about how best to approach this since 2012 and maybe even before then. Basically, the only way to possibly approach this is through the littering ordinance. I had let the ball drop on this one but will follow up with the law department.
Speaking of litter and plastic bags….when I jog down Comm Ave, I often see plastic bags filled with dog poop, left on the side of the road. I suppose the dog owners who do this give themselves a pat on the back for “cleaning up after their dog”, but then negate their action by not cleaning up after themselves. I suppose these people see it as someone else’s problem. Just plain arrogant.
@amysangiolo, thank you for looking into this issue. At one time I thought it was one company but it may be a few now so a bigger problem in my opinion.
@Groot – It’s more than one. For the past few years I’ve been saving the “ballast” stones in order to make a small garden somewhere. Perhaps we can all pitch them in as a Newton Serves project.
Greg, you say cynical; I say critical.
There are “good alternatives” to the plastic bags used by newspaper companies; however each alternative includes added cost, lost revenue, and/or extra effort somewhat similar to the impact of banning the retail plastic bags. The optics of the new plastic bag ban are not positive in the view of a segment of the residents. How big the segment is will not be known since the issue did not go to a public vote.
@Patrick: what are the “good alternatives” to a plastic newspaper bag?
@Patrick, as a member of the optics industry I am not sure how optics come into the conversation unless the plastic bag ban is to be enforced by laser or video surveillance 😉
Groot, I should have said the optics of banning retail plastic bags and such a narrow segment of the type of plastic bags used.
@Patrick, I was teasing you on the incorrect usage of the term “optics” which has become an in-vogue term to describe something other than optics, a field of physics.
Groot, you got me. I was pleased I had survived April 1st without any pranks so my guard was down. You picked a good topic to tease me because I am emotionally invested in the issue.
I typically do not use the word “optics”; however I was trying to be hip for a change of pace. Serves me right for trying to change my image. (smiley emoticon)
Hi Patrick,
Your point about the exemption for plastic bags that enclose the newspaper is well taken. I see the ban as a process, not as an end in itself. It takes time to change consumer behaviors and to allow businesses to find alternatives to currently widely used plastic products. Also, the Newton Tab’s offices (Gatehouse media) are in Needham, so it enforcement may be more difficult. I would suggest a letter to Andy Levin, the Tab editor.
Just an aside… I cringed when I read Alderman Leary’s post. If Newton needed an anti-business, anti-consumer Board member, we certainly got one with Alison. Too much government–focused on the wrong things–and using the “ban” as a weapon to “change consumer behaviors.” It appears that “Big Brother” has a little sister, and she’s sitting on the Newton Board of Aldermen.
Greg, when the expansion of the plastic bag ban goes to the BOA as Alderwoman Leary suggests and wants, I hope you have a dedicated thread on V14. I would welcome hearing legitimate information from people who spend more time than me studying this topic.
I assume the BOA will continue its current behavior of banning and/or hindering the availability of items that are currently legal in Massachusetts and the US. So here are some “good alternatives”:
1) The BOA could ban home delivery of newspapers; the internet version is now available.
2) Companies could stop home deliveries; deliver via the internet or hard copy in local stores.
3) The BOA could require any house receiving a newspaper to install a newspaper-only mailbox.
4) The newspaper companies could pay to install the newspaper-only mailboxes.
5) The newspaper companies could return to the use of local delivery people, who were required by the company to place the newspaper in the door mail slot or between the doors. The Boston Globe required this action 20 years ago when my son delivered their papers. The News Tribune required this 50 years ago when I delivered the local paper.
6) The newspaper companies could require the current adult drivers to place the paper in a dry spot on rainy days and toss the paper w/o a plastic cover on dry days. That was how it was done up until about 10 years ago.
There are 6 options w/o a lot of scientific research. As I said above they all involve some level of added cost, lost revenue, and/or extra effort somewhat similar to the impact of banning the retail plastic bags. I am confident that someone in the V14 community has an even better alternative. It will just be a question of who pays for and/or sacrifices with the change.
@Patrick: I’m confident that any legislative initiative that would ban (or even significantly regulate) delivery of newspapers would be found unconstitutional. In fact, I was publisher of the Cambridge TAB when their City Council tried and failed to do just that.
And while you suggested that aldermen wouldn’t do this out of fear of bad press in the TAB, more than that they should fear a lawsuit from the Globe, Herald and Gatehouse.
As for decisions by the Globe or the old News Tribune as to how the papers were placed, those were business decisions made by publishers, not legislators.
Alderwoman Leary, let me be clear, I did not support the local plastic bag ban, and I will not support any expansion of it without better alternatives offered. As an example, the reusable bags offered for sale by the stores are made of plastic so I do not think the ban will be as effective as the BOA thinks it will be in reducing the plastic in our global environment. The turtles are still in danger.
Your comment about the TAB’s offices confuses me. What difference does it make where their offices are located? Using that reasoning, why would the Star Market, Stop & Shop, etc be compelled to obey the new plastic bag ban since their business offices are also outside of Newton. They have retail stores for distribution; the TAB uses other companies’ stores and drivers for distribution.
Alderman Sangiolo’s approach of classifying the rocks in the plastic bag as a violation of the littering ordinance could also apply to the TAB since it is another unsolicited item in a plastic bag left on our front walkways. At least the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, WSJ, NYT, etc are fee based subscriptions.
I have a hard time believing that the constitution protects the plastic wrapper around free speech … but I suppose stranger things are true when it comes to the law.
Greg, I am not a lawyer nor a journalist so I find your comments informative and interesting. Without knowing the actual answer, I would guess that the subscription based newspapers changed to throwing plastic bag covered newspapers for economical reasons, as may also be the reason for changing to adult drivers who can cover larger routes quicker. I would also guess that retail stores changed to plastic bags for economical reasons. So there is similarity to the two situations. I agree with Jerry’s comment above. I also think the BOA would have some regulatory control over how that delivery of free speech takes place.
Maybe a lawyer could argue that even though some people perceive the TAB as a newspaper, others could say it should be regulated by the littering ordinance that Alderman Sangiolo identified since it is unsolicited. Unsolicited mail is hand delivered and placed in a mailbox or mail slot.
I am confused by the TAB’s subscription policies and procedures. One of my neighbors tried for nearly a year to cancel delivery to his house; the TAB continued to deliver nonetheless. Another new neighbor was told the TAB was not accepting new “customers” when he phoned to get the newspaper delivered. Go figure; must have been different customer service agents.
I actually like the TAB; I have already started reading today’s version. I find it informative and well structured. What I do not like is the unbalanced treatment received by businesses when it comes to using plastic bags. Gatehouse Media is no local village business, yet receives the same exemption.
@Patrick: Lawyers have been known to make all sorts of arguments but I don’t know how one could argue that the TAB, Globe, Herald, Wall Street Journal, etc. aren’t newspapers. That’s just silly.
Wisely (in my view) the aldermen allowed for several exemptions in the bag ban (small business, loose produce, dry cleaner bags, newspaper bags and perhaps others that slip my mind at the moment).
I participated in the discussions regarding this ban. Newspaper bags were on the exception list not out of fear of bad press (as you suggested) but becasue there is not a reasonable alternative that would keep the paper from ruin if left on lawns on a rainy/snowy day.
But I do think that if they had attempted to regulate delivery of the TAB, The Globe, Herald and Wall Street Journal, it would have been subject to a challenge on First Amendment grounds. Would it succeed? I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know for sure, but I’m confident it would tie up a lot of time and money either way.
Lucky for us taxpayers and newspaper readers, that didn’t happen.
Greg, as Jerry so wisely said: “stranger things are true when it comes to the law”. I separate the TAB from the other papers because the delivery parameters of the TAB are different; it is a free document that does not require a subscription and delivery is unsolicited. A lawyer could argue that action opens the door for all sorts of “information / free speech” being thrown on our front walks without any recourse from the residents. An example would be the original topic of this thread.
And as Jerry pointed out, the constitution does not appear to dictate the dryness of the free speech being delivered. The fee based papers need to keep their specific paying customers happy with dry papers to encourage renewal revenue. They appear to have chosen the most economical option, not the most environmentally correct option. The TAB seems to be able to just keep throwing their paper without that concern. The TAB uses my house without my permission to add to their distribution count, which can increase their advertisement fees and revenue. That is a different dynamic.
BTW, I too attended and spoke at multiple BOA meetings addressing this ban. THM commented at one that I was the first to introduce the term “dog poop” to the conversation.
@Patrick: Good luck to the city lawyer who you would like to defend a ban on plastic bags used for free newspapers but no ban on papers that aren’t free all the while arguing that the TAB isn’t a newspaper. Bad luck to us taxpayers who would foot the bill for such a lost cause.
The newspaper problem is ultimately self-rectifying. I expect that in 10-20 years home delivery of newspapers, free or subscription, will no longer be economically viable except perhaps in densely populated cities. Not so sure about the landscaper ads or the surprisingly resilient yellow pages that go straight to the trash. But even junk mail seems to be decreasing as everything goes digital.
Technically, one could argue that tossing unrequested items onto private property isn’t allowed. Any lawyers want to chime in on that one?
@Charlie: I’d never say never but I can tell you in the past that my former employer was able to successfully argue against attempts by municipalities (not Newton) to do just that.
Bruce, of course you mean the Yellow Pages go directly into the “recycling,” yes? 😉
There already is a reasonable alternative that would keep the paper from ruin if left on lawns on a rainy/snowy day: put it in the screen door, put it in the regular door, on the covered porch, in the vestibule, in the mail slot, in the mail box etc That is what they used to do.