CCI 19-3

2/11/2019 7:48 PM

Bruce Becker

Against

I strongly oppose any penalties for compliance regarding the payment of the citywide garbage system. This system was implemented without fair and upfront disclosure regarding costs. It favors the trash haulers while harming the citizens; why harm them further?

+1

CCI 19-3

2/11/2019 7:21 PM

Dave B (St Paul)

Against

Odd our Mayor signed off on this while telling the Library fines just make people feel bad. City Council just wants to hammer us into compliance with their flawed trash program. Pls vote no.

+2

2/11/2019 6:14 PM

I have been a resident of Saint Paul for over 20 years. I worked very hard to become a zero waste composting recycling reusing anything possible that I can do to keep our environment friendly. Now I am forced to pay for garbage to be hauled away when I have none! Isn't that the goal we all should be working toward is to be more self-sufficient more efficient to our environment more eco-friendly? Then why is the billing upside down where you get a better rate for more garbage? Why is there no option to opt out because we're zero wasters.? For residents to have zero choice and then force them by putting the bill on their taxes is totally disgraceful I thought Saint Paul was better than that! And as for the people that drop off their garbage on boulevards in parks that is still continuing to happen so this is not a solution for that issue. I am hoping we can find a resolution that we all can live with and can vote on thank you

CCI 19-3

2/11/2019 6:14 PM

anonymous

Against

Please do not change the charter to stifle civil disobedience, aimed at the over 5000 petitioners, and many other St Paul residents, who do not support the ill-thought-out thrash plan. How about truly building community by enlisting active community members who oppose the plan as written, and listening to why so many issues of this thrash plan have been rejected by so many St. Paul residents? Admitting errors in this plan is not a bad thing, and would serve the City and all of its residents well. Imposing more fines and penalties for "civil disobedience" is NOT the answer. This plan has many drawbacks that need to be addresses with those providers you contracted with. Instead of the overkill of threats and penalties, I strongly suggest that those who do not support it should not be put in a category that will stifle dissent, but rather be used as a resource to fix what is broken. You have no right to stifle free speech. Nor do I believe you should subvert the ordinance as it is now.

+4

CCI 19-1

2/11/2019 4:19 PM

Anonymous

Against

I'm posting as "anonymous" because I'm feeling a dangerous change occur lately in the St. Paul City Council. Question: These "special meetings" that the Council is requesting authority to hold....are notices of them to be published beforehand? Are the meetings conforming to Open Meeting laws? Are the proceedings going to be recorded and available to public view and comment? What is going on here??

+3 -1

CCI 19-3

2/11/2019 4:03 PM

Anonymous (additional)

Against

There are those who aren’t paying the new trash service invoices. There are those who are active in the St. Paul Trash referendum work. All have angered the Council to the degree that NOW the Council sees a need to silence the resistance. The Council knows that if the referendum is successful, their trash policy, and all the fines and penalties, and all the additional charges on your property taxes related to the trash ordinance GO AWAY. Today, the Council seeks the Charter Commission to partner with it to silence the trash resistors. Who will it seek to silence tomorrow?

+8 -1

CCI 19-3

2/11/2019 3:32 PM

Anonymous

Against

Going back to the founding of the City of St. Paul in 1854, the City Council has never found it necessary to ask for a change to the City Charter to punish acts of Civil Disobedience. For 165 years, the country, along with St. Paul, has been through two World Wars, a Depression, major labor unrest during the trucker's strike of the 30's, protests here and around the country over Vietnam, Civil rights protests, the turmoil around the 2008 Republican National Convention, and so on. However, NOW, the fearful Council decides it needs the Charter Commission to grant it iron fist authority to impose fines and penalties on those protesting its ordinances. What is this issue that causes the Council to tremble and to attempt to stifle dissent? It's the Mandatory Trash Collection Policy imposed on the residents of St. Paul. Does the Charter Commission stand for the people's right to peacefully challenge their government, or is the Commission a collaborator to deny citizens this right?

+9 -1

CCI 19-3

2/11/2019 8:40 AM

Eric Lein (again)

Against

A fairly large number of city trash "customers" are refusing to pay for empty, unused and unnecessary trash carts that are mandated by the City's new garbage program. If the City's public works garbage department has its way, our civil disobedience (i.e., citizens' refusal to pay private haulers or the City for unconscionable charges) will be punished via levies on our property taxes. The recommended amendments to Chapter 6.03.1 of the City Charter say loud and clear, "CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE SHALL BE CRUSHED!" Please do NOT adopt these changes without first submitting the proposed amendment to all voters citywide.

+8

CCI 19-3

2/11/2019 8:26 AM

Eric Lein

Against

St. Paul’s new trash collection scheme rewards customers who create more solid waste. Perversely, responsible stewards of the environment who create less waste for landfills and further the goals of the Waste Management Act are punished with higher rates for a service they do not need and cannot opt out of. The City granted itself authority to enforce payment for empty, unused & unnecessary trash carts via property tax levies. PLEASE DISCOURAGE THIS KIND OF UNCONSCIONABLE PUBLIC POLICY. Please do NOT adopt these proposed changes to the City Charter without a citywide vote.

+9

CCI 19-6

2/11/2019 8:02 AM

Eric Lein

Against

I support Peter Butler's position. I draw your attention to the following: "People who sign the petition and then move to another St. Paul address will have their signatures rejected. People can easily register or update their registration on election day. Requiring an exact match between a petition signature and a current voter registration record makes it harder to sign a petition than to actually vote." To encourage voting, Mr. Mansky urged the City Council to require landlords to provide voter registration information to renters. Voters' right to PETITION for referendum is just as important as the right to VOTE. Please do not "simplify" the City's job by devaluing and hindering petitioners' efforts.

+3