Corey Johnson
SFReporter.com, Aug. 27:
“Santa Fe City Council Votes To Ban Plastic Bags”
I oppose that certain businesses are being treated differently than others. The Wal-Marts, Targets, Albertsons, Smith’s and others [that] I consider the working man’s and woman’s shopping places are being targeted, while businesses that tend to have a higher clientele and offer thicker “plastic” bags as a way for their customers to carry out their purchase are not affected by this ordinance.
If this truly was an ordinance about banning plastic bags, then the entire city and all businesses should have to abide by the ordinance, but for some reason, they do not—as this ordinance states, there are some exceptions to the rule.
I am also not keen on having to charge a consumer an additional 10 cents for a paper bag when the cost of the paper bag is 7 cents.
I asked staff a lot of questions, which they tried to answer, but being that this ordinance already had the votes to pass was, [in my opinion], irrelevant to them.
All the time I have been on this council, I have been fair to all parts of the city. What’s good for one side of the community is good for the other, so what’s good for one business should, [in my opinion], be good for all businesses, but as you can see, that didn’t happen on Wednesday night.
I expressed that if you’re going to pass this ordinance, treat the entire city equally, and don’t single out certain businesses.
I understand the concept of being eco-friendly and looking out for the state of the planet, but as a city councilor, I have to look at how this affects all citizens in the city and, [in my opinion], this is not going to stop the use of plastic bags, as consumers will probably buy them at Sam’s Club or online. The ordinance made no mention of not selling plastic bags; it only stated that plastic bags could no longer be used by the retailer, and as the ordinance states that plastic bags of a thicker grade are allowed, who’s to say that these retail stores being affected by the ordinance will not just purchase and offer the thicker plastic bags allowed, to effectively be able to be exempt from this ordinance? Ronald S Trujillo
District 4 City Councilor
SFReporter.com Congrasturbation
What a brilliantly short-sighted solution. What about all of us who use these bags for multiple other purposes? Cleaning up at the dog park, protecting surfaces while painting or other work, trash collection, taking lunches, wrapping books and other articles, rain hats, etc.
Isn’t liberalism about progress and thinking ahead? Isn’t it about finding new solutions in a positive way, rather than implementing knee-jerk, asinine solutions that don’t actually solve the stated problem?
“Oh, but it will keep plastic out of landfills!” Bull. What will happen is people will go out and purchase purpose-made products to address these other uses. And guess what? They’ll be made out of plastic, too. And you’ll pay a premium for them, rather than just use what’s been given to you freely.
Want a real solution?
Educate people. Print alternate uses on the bags; offer incentives to use cloth or durable boxes; require that degradable plastics be used; shore up the recycling programs. Hell, just pull your collective heads out and think about the actual impacts rather than patting yourselves on the back for denying yet another choice and opportunity to excel.
I am so disappointed with this proposal because it’s little more than masturbatory self-congratulation on the part of a few politicians who clearly can’t be bothered to think, let alone put forth any kind of effort. Scott
SFReporter.com
This Isn't Trash?
While I support the ban, it’s a surprising move from a city that doesn’t even have a handle on basic recycling.
Anne
Take Heed
I haven’t always admired David Riedel’s reviews, because I’ve found some of his judgments hard, but I’d recommend that your readers heed two in last week’s SFR [movies, Aug. 30].
Mr. Riedel’s observation that subversive flourishes saved We’re The Millers, it seemed to me, was correct. I didn’t care about contrivances in the movie’s plot or its use of violence and sex—which many reviewers criticized—frankly, because its reason for being was to have a blast sabotaging our American status quo.
But his response to The Spectacular Now went further. He captured the heart of a profound movie, and I’d like to commend him.
Robert Covelli
Santa Fe
