I say no

Yes we should sort and recycle but at home not at a centralized collection station. Berkeley is such a pass-the-buck community. We're quite happy to pay immigrants poor wages to sort our debris, but we're unwilling to make real changes in our personal behavior. The only way we'll become cognizant of our frighteningly negative impact on the environment is to take responsibility at home. Recycling, like all good habits, begins at home. Each of us needs to separate our garbage at home. Each of us needs to recognize the contribution our extravagantly wasteful lifestyle makes to our growing environmental problems. This was easily done by our predecessors in Berkeley during World War II and it needs to be done again, here today. Additionally each of us needs to reduce our use of pesticides and household cleaning products. Each of us needs to eliminate our consumption of extravagantly-packaged consumer products. Each of us needs to participate in our food production, even if only in a symbolic way. Bring back the Victory Garden.

I say no

who has room for all this? i barely have room now for the green, the containers, the paper. it's too much!

I say no

On the one hand, the idea of full recycling/ reclaiming sounds great. All material should go back through the system. I question the value of reclaiming. What is really done with the trash that is "reclaimed"? It must be burned for energy or end up in a land fill, no?

On the other hand, it is important that we be aware of the material that we buy and trash. I lived in Oakland where all trash is "recycled" now. I now live in Berkeley and I am glad that in Berkeley we must still be consciously aware of the truly recyclable items. This affects our comsumer tendencies. We should be separating the trash ourselves, closly monitoring what we "throw out" and what we recycle.

The poaching of the valuable recycling goods is pretty much good for the local economy; I'm sure that the poachers buy locally.

We, the citizens of Berkeley, should be knowledgeable of recycling in order to take the personal responsibility to see that material is properly recycled when possible.

I say maybe

Need comprehensive cost/benefit analysis given the City's budget profligacy.

I say maybe

Got to admit the use of "we" in the title confused me -- some of "us" aren't going to do much more than we're now doing, unless there is a financial benefit that we can see (lower recycling/trash fees would do it).

Before supporting this issue I'd want to know who had the jobs doing the sorting, and what kind of security there was concerning sensitive documents and items that go into the trash.

I guess if the jobs go to non-English speaking undocumented potential immigrants credit card info, etc. would be fairly secure.

Don't see this generating enough revenue to pay for the program, though.

I say no

My concern with this way of dealing with recycling is that it does not teach people to be conscious of recycling. It is someon elses job rather than everyones job.

I say maybe

There really needs to be more information on this. Gimme some numbers! Just last night I put out my recycling. Between one trip into the house and the next the local "entrepreneurs" had taken all my recyclable glass and plastic. Maybe they can be employed by the city. They seem more efficient than the guys with the big trucks. Neater too. More gender balanced for that matter.

I say no

I'm concerned about the expense, the poachers, and the lack of sufficient information to consider this proposal.

I say no

There's very little evidence that very much valuable recycled material is now going into the general trash. Citywide we've reduced our garbage by at least 50% over the past 20 years. Sure, some valuable stuff ends up in the garbage, but not enough to pay for the sorting.

The Ecology Center who is the contractor for the City is loathe to say so, but poaching of the valuable recyclables from the curbside is a major drain on revenue. The poachers get every piece of valuable recyclable before the trucks roll up on our block. We've even had our bundled newspapers, cardboard and mixed paper regularly poached. The Ecology Center suggests that we call the police when we see the small army of poachers at work. Sure! In our neighborhood, the police have much significant real crime to deal with.

So, I suggest that instead of competing with or fighting the poachers, we declare "victory" and find a way to work with the poachers to increase the amount of recyclable materials taken from the waste stream. In other words, since these people are going through and sorting our trash anyways, and we can't stop them, give them some incentive to bring in the less valuable material.

Every time I see an Ecology Center truck come by and go past our already emptied bins, I think what a waste of labor and fuel.

I say no

Many other municipalities accept everything, including jugs of waste oil, modest amounts of hazardous waste like paint, etc. San Francisco accepts all recyclables in the same can.
Insisting that everything be sorted by the citizens creates extra containers, and inevitably reduces the amount recycled because it is not worth the trouble.
There is NO GOOD REASON to implement this idea.

I say yes

We have a midnight collection crew that comes through and claims the cream of the recycling. I would expect central recycling would allow Berkeley to claim the income from recycling offsetting recycling cost instead of another hidden contribution to the gray market.

I say maybe

I also would like to learn about how this would differ from what we/the city does now. It also might be an issue of "hazardous" waste if there are people whose job it is to sort through trash with broken glass, sharp object (needles?), toxic cleaning supplies and who knows what else.

I say maybe

I'm very pleased with the personal results from the recent introduction of kitchen waste recycling. It has reduced our trash load by about 30-40% and is extending the life of our feeble disposal. I don't know how sorting ALL trash will reduce costs or generate revenue. Show us some numbers.

I say no

If it were really true that the city would generate revenue from this, then this would not need to be a matter for debate. I am guessing that the truth is the opposite. In any case, I think this issue is something that best left to the Public Works Department, which is in a better position than voters to know how practical this really this.

I say no

I am very disappointed with our recycling program and feel there has been some unusual contractual history many of us are not aware of. How did this company get this contract over other bidders? Who is their competition? Who will be in charge of the proposed "reclaimed" program? The same group? We citizens who carefully bundle and separate and often place out at great distances from our homes our recycling are still treated as if we are being done a great favor by rude and sloppy recycling center employees. Trucks roar through our neighborhoods, scattering trash and upending containers leaving them in driveways or in the streets. How responsible will this "reclaiming" be? Who will monitor the budgets and the income? It sounds to me like another excuse for more bureaucracy at the City level which in the long run will cost us more money for less return. I would like to see or read the details of the proposed system changes.

I say maybe

I need more info to make a decision on this. How would this work? Would this replace or supplement curbside separation?

Is it done elsewhere? What would it cost compared to the current approach? What would we gain financially and in resource reclamation?

Are there any downsides? Are there resources that are harder to separate (and do might be lost) in a central facility than in home?

Would this reduce curbside scavenging? Or make it worse by encouraging scavengers to go through trash?

I say yes

Upstream separation is better, but if the consumer can't/won't then this is needed.

I say maybe

Do reduced disposal costs mean actually increased costs overall? Landfill costs may go down, but where will this sorting be done? At what cost for the land and labor?

Waste Management with its so so reputation says they already do this, if so...should the City with its greater costs for labor compete?

Finally,an additional concern is that we all might become more casual about our own recycling.

I agree with the the underlying thrust to have more recycling and thus reduce landfill costs...but

I say maybe

We have so many city employees now, that adding to that cost in retirement benefits and medical care may lead the city to bankruptcy in the future. We already have so many employees that none are willing to take responsibility for their jobs. Many of our employees have retired at age 50 with almost full salary. This is very expensive down the road. I would like to know how much this is costing the city now in retirees.

I am neutral

How can voters have an opinion on this with no costs, details, location, noise, health impacts, etc etc provided? Is this a break-even operation? If so, what are the start-up investments required? How soon will it break even? If a long term cost item, how will it be paid for? User fees? A tax increase? Without some financial and operational information this question is mere speculation, and the results of this exercise are of no use to anyone.