Haven't We 'Bin' Through This All Before?

I'll use any excuse to re-produce an Alan MacBain classic.

Six months after Pottstown Borough Council disbanded the trash committee and handed its responsibilities over to the Environmental Advisory Council, that body has presented council with some recommendations to deal with complaints about the size of the "big red bins."

Jim Derr, chairman of the EAC presented the recommendation to council, despite the fact that he failed to attach the actual proposal to the e-mail he sent to council prior to Monday's meeting.

Nonetheless, he explained that one of the primary recommendations is for the borough to offer trash bins less than half the size of the 96-gallon red bins that were issued at the beginning of the year.

Numerous complaints about the bins' size and unwieldiness have been filed, often by senior citizens.

However, under the EAC recommendations only those who put their request in writing and provide a note from a doctor saying the property owner is incapable of handling the larger bin can get a smaller one.

"We tried to make it at least as simple as getting a handicapped parking place in town," Derr said.

Mercury Photo by John Strickler

The 96-gallon red trash bins now used in Pottstown are only slightly
less unwieldy for homeowners than they were
for the workers assembling them this winter, some say.

"This is not an option for convenience, but for someone who has an impairment," he said. "Because if we get a whole bunch of people who want the smaller bin, that's going to be a challenge."

The smaller bins would be 45 gallons.

On the subject of the red bins, Public Works Director Doug Yerger told council that the bins are "making their way around" and not just because they have wheels on them.

Most recently, he said, one had been found in West Pottsgrove where a person who owned property in the borough decided to take home for their own use.

"We call the police and get it returned," Yerger said.

He also said that there have been some disagreements with the borough's trash hauler, Mascaro, which owns the bins.

"We had one which got set on fire and I got a bill from Mascaro for $70," Yerger told council. "I told them I'm not paying that. The contract says they have 48 hours to replace a bin that's damaged, it doesn't say how its damaged."

Yerger said disputes about other aspects of the contract are likely to require a sit-down meeting with Mascaro "and I think we're going to need to have the solicitor there to iron some things out."

In the meantime, council indicated it would take the EAC's recommendations under advisement while it considers the changes.

Let's (Not) Talk Trash

POTTSTOWN -- With no comment or discussion, borough council Monday night unanimously authorized the advertisement of a new ordinance that will make property owners responsible for cleaning up the litter dropped in front of their homes.

As I reported in the April 24 edition of The Mercury, the ordinance is based on a Massachusetts law and, at the time it was first publicly broached, generated quite a bit of discussion.

Back then, Borough Manager Jason Bobst told council the law is necessary because the borough has been told time and time again by district judges that under current ordinance, unless a person is witnessed littering, they can’t be prosecuted for it.


Under the new proposal, property owners would be responsible for cleaning up in front of their properties; a problem highlighted in a more recent Mercury report, about a High Street property owned by state Rep. Marcy Toepel.

“That would mean that regardless of how it got there, the property owner would be responsible for keeping the property clean of trash,” is how Mayor Bonnie Heath explained it in April.

Also at the time, Councilwoman Maureen Allen expressed concerns because, she said, some parts of town have more of a litter problem than others. "Why are we always falling back on the property owners?" she asked in April.

Also at the time, Councilman Jody Rhoads warned that if people are made responsible for trash in the alleys dropped by trash collectors, "that's going to be a bad situation."

But Council Vice President Mark Gibson, who each year is involved with borough-wide clean-ups, and Councilman Joseph Kirkland both supported the measure in April; particularly after Bobst said the worst problem in town is with rental properties and tenants leaving and leaving their stuff behind when they move out, to the point where "it looks like their living room threw up in the alley."

Borough  Solicitor Charles D. Garner Jr. was instructed to draft an ordinance in April, but there has been no public discussion of it since then (that I can recall). In fact, not a word was said about it at Monday's meeting, other than the vote itself.

It remains unclear, therefore, what the provisions are, how fines, if any would work, or any of the particulars.

I guess this must be one of those times when it pays to read The Mercury legal notices and keep an eye out for it there, as, in all likelihood, it will come up for a vote next month.

* * *

In other garbage-related news, council also announced that three companies submitted bids for a new trash contract for the borough. And although they have been opened, they have not yet been tabulated.

The three companies that bid are Waste Management, Mascaro & Sons, which currently provides the service, and A.J. Blosenski Inc. The bid will be awarded during a special council meeting, scheduled for Monday, Nov. 28, when the 2012 budget will also be discussed in detail.

The last contract kept trash costs the same throughout all three years of the pact. The results of this bid are likely to have a large impact on the 2012 budget, and any increase will show up in your trash/water bill.