The Bag Fee and The Poor

Edmonds has become the first city in our state to ban plastic grocery bags. The Edmonds City Council considered a 20-cent fee similar to Seattle’s Referendum 1 (which is up for a vote on August 18th), but opted instead for an outright ban. They’re joining the distinguished ranks of other cities who’ve chosen to ban nuisance plastic, like Washington DC, San Francisco (which banned the bags in 2007) and Los Angeles (whose ban will go into effect next year). A few nations around the world have banned or discouraged their use: France and Germany (“Old Europe”), India, and…you’re gonna cringe…China has also seen the light. So what are we waiting for?

Well, we might be waiting for progressive, social justice groups to support this measure. Most have been unwilling to weigh in, probably because they buy the argument that the 20-cent fee will impact the poor more heavily than the rich. Possibly true. Possibly not.

It didn’t help that Danny Westneat wrote in his Seattle Times column on July 29th that the Central Area Motivation Program (CAMP) is against the bag fee. They did an informal survey of their clients, which entailed handing out reusable bags to food recipients and requiring that they bring them back on future trips to the food bank. CAMP found that the poor have a hard time remembering to bring back their reusable bags.

But there were problems with their informal survey. For one thing, CAMP didn’t say how many of their clients don’t speak or understand English well; this can effect whether or not their clients really understand that they should reuse the bags CAMP furnished to them. The same is true for folks who are mentally ill or cognitively impaired. It may take a few tries before these folks grasp the concept. So do we give up just because they don’t get it right the first time? Most people don’t remember to take their reusable bags with them the first couple of times they go to the grocery store—until they get in the habit of remembering to grab them before they head out the door. The poor are no different in that respect.

There were other problems with the survey. Food banks often see a high turnover in clientele. How many of the people who showed up without reusable bags ever received one from CAMP in the first place?

In addition, the survey doesn’t take into account the willingness of green progressives to regularly donate reusable bags for use in food banks, homeless shelters, and other programs that serve the poor. Nor did Westneat mention that part of the money raised through the bag fee will be used to purchase reusable bags for the poor. You might argue that those dollars could be better spent buying food or other services for low income people, but why does it have to be a zero sum game? Can’t we help the poor and the environment at the same time? I think Seattle residents are humane enough to do both, even in tough economic times.

Seattle Head-Tax Repeal

The Seattle Times, in all its kiss-The-Rich glory, led its editorial page today with an opinion piece entitled "Hey, City Hall: What's the holdup on head-tax repeal?" The "head-tax" is the Times' name for the Employee Tax that charges a tiny fee ($25) to each business for each employee that doesn't bike, walk, take the bus, or commute to work in an environmentally friendly way. In other words, if you drive and park to work in Seattle, your boss has to pay $25 per year.

As taxes go, it's progressive in both its effects and its collection: small businesses are given an exemption from the tax, and it encourages businesses to encourage their employees to carpool, bus, bike, and walk to work. Hell, in my workplace, we even have a guy who longboards to work. (Google it and watch a video of longboarders. Who wouldn't want to travel that way if they could?)

In the Times editorial, they bitch and moan about how it's taking the city council forever to repeal the damn tax. Oh, boo hoo that some of the city council members want to wait until the budget discussions start in the fall. That's called "common sense." You know, the kind that makes a reasonable person say, "gosh, maybe we should wait to see how much money is in the city coffers before we repeal a tax that's not particularly burdensome and helps pay for streets and sidewalks." That seems reasonable to me. But I don't work at the Seattle Times, obviously.