Westneat Gets it Wrong on Bag Fee

Erica, thank you again for calling BS on the Times.

I’ve become increasingly frustrated with their coverage of certain things –omitting information and details that could change the whole tone and validity of an article. This is not journalism. When business interests contribute to the slant of an article it’s propaganda.

Erica, thank you again for calling BS on the Times.

I’ve become increasingly frustrated with their coverage of certain things –omitting information and details that could change the whole tone and validity of an article. This is not journalism. When business interests contribute to the slant of an article it’s propaganda.

I don’t really love the bag tax–if the problem is so fucking pressing, let’s just ban plastic bags and be done with it–but the idea of anti-tax interests using the poor as a human shield turns my stomach.

I don’t really love the bag tax–if the problem is so fucking pressing, let’s just ban plastic bags and be done with it–but the idea of anti-tax interests using the poor as a human shield turns my stomach.

I am constantly told by people with money how unfair this fee is (it’s not a tax) to people without money. However, I really don’t think that just because people don’t have money they don’t care about the environment. Or are somehow unable to re-use bags.

I am constantly told by people with money how unfair this fee is (it’s not a tax) to people without money. However, I really don’t think that just because people don’t have money they don’t care about the environment. Or are somehow unable to re-use bags.

The customers he writes about may shop at places that are not exempt as well as those that are. Yes the story could have been written in a more complete manner, but the point of the story was that the tax is regressive and will probably be paid by people who are on the margin economically.

The customers he writes about may shop at places that are not exempt as well as those that are. Yes the story could have been written in a more complete manner, but the point of the story was that the tax is regressive and will probably be paid by people who are on the margin economically.

This CAMP bit is so odd, it seems to clearly be a willful misunderstanding of the bag law. Makes me wonder if this isn’t driven by a big donor or someone on their Board who has other interests in the matter. A grocery store owner? A plastics industry hack? Anyone have a list of CAMP Board members so we can try to figure it out?

This CAMP bit is so odd, it seems to clearly be a willful misunderstanding of the bag law. Makes me wonder if this isn’t driven by a big donor or someone on their Board who has other interests in the matter. A grocery store owner? A plastics industry hack? Anyone have a list of CAMP Board members so we can try to figure it out?

ignorance accounts for more, than conspiracy…

ignorance accounts for more, than conspiracy…

Right, CAMP is just filled with corporate shills who want to do nothing more than piss off their public sector funders who support this tax.

That is one stupid accusation, pal.

Maybe, just maybe, since CAMP works with poor people all of the time they understand their plight a lot better than a bunch of privileged white middle-class self-styled urban enviros do.

Right, CAMP is just filled with corporate shills who want to do nothing more than piss off their public sector funders who support this tax.

That is one stupid accusation, pal.

Maybe, just maybe, since CAMP works with poor people all of the time they understand their plight a lot better than a bunch of privileged white middle-class self-styled urban enviros do.

4 is right.

it may exempt food banks, but not poor people who don’t always use food banks but do shop in stores.

the point of CAMP’s experiment was to arm their customers with bags (ala the free bag giveaways proposed under the initiative) and see what happens when they try to use them in every day life.

4 is right.

it may exempt food banks, but not poor people who don’t always use food banks but do shop in stores.

the point of CAMP’s experiment was to arm their customers with bags (ala the free bag giveaways proposed under the initiative) and see what happens when they try to use them in every day life.

Danny Westneat is well known for being a lazy reporter who can’t be bothered to make a phone call to get his facts straight.

Danny Westneat is well known for being a lazy reporter who can’t be bothered to make a phone call to get his facts straight.

This is hooey. CAMP’s point wasn’t that their food bank would have to charge the bag fees, but that the fees would likely end up falling disproportionately on the low-income at grocery stores. It’s the same reason Jan Drago opposed the bag fees, and the same reason New York City recently tabled the idea of imposing bag fees. And by the way, I did mention that the city is going to give away free reusable bags — CAMP’s board specifically discussed that fact — and that CAMP is alone in its opposition.

This is hooey. CAMP’s point wasn’t that their food bank would have to charge the bag fees, but that the fees would likely end up falling disproportionately on the low-income at grocery stores. It’s the same reason Jan Drago opposed the bag fees, and the same reason New York City recently tabled the idea of imposing bag fees. And by the way, I did mention that the city is going to give away free reusable bags — CAMP’s board specifically discussed that fact — and that CAMP is alone in its opposition.

I love all the bag fee proponents, but we need to do what Edmonds did and just ban plastic bags instead.

I love all the bag fee proponents, but we need to do what Edmonds did and just ban plastic bags instead.

Danny@ 10: Not true. In fact, you say that CAMP said they’d stop providing bags because of the expense to CAMP of the fee.

From your story:

“Patrons were told to use them when picking up food, and that the agency would stop providing paper or plastic bags due to the expense of the coming bag fee (this was back when the City Council first approved the fee).”

While you did mention that the city was giving out free bags, you didn’t mention all the other things the city is doing to help low-income people—including exempting low-income folks from the fee even if they don’t bring their own bags, and providing bags to food banks if the fee results in fewer people using disposable bags.

Danny@ 10: Not true. In fact, you say that CAMP said they’d stop providing bags because of the expense to CAMP of the fee.

From your story:

“Patrons were told to use them when picking up food, and that the agency would stop providing paper or plastic bags due to the expense of the coming bag fee (this was back when the City Council first approved the fee).”

While you did mention that the city was giving out free bags, you didn’t mention all the other things the city is doing to help low-income people—including exempting low-income folks from the fee even if they don’t bring their own bags, and providing bags to food banks if the fee results in fewer people using disposable bags.

With the past exceptions of Terry McDermott and Rick Anderson, the Times columnists have long been from the “I think” rather than the “I report” school, with no sense of a scene, and lacking writer’s style to boot.

With the past exceptions of Terry McDermott and Rick Anderson, the Times columnists have long been from the “I think” rather than the “I report” school, with no sense of a scene, and lacking writer’s style to boot.

Westneat’s column isn’t going to do nearly as much damage as the hit piece I (and 10s of thousands of others) just got in the mail. Claims from the “no on 1″ campaign:

“While bureaucrats could exempt big box stores, like Walmart and Target, there are NO exemptions for food banks and homeless shelters that depend on disposable bags to distribute food to those in need.”

The main talking points “hurts those who can least afford it,” “filled with loopholes and exemptions,” and “more government spending and bureaucracy.”

It will be tough to undo these lies in what little time remains.

Westneat’s column isn’t going to do nearly as much damage as the hit piece I (and 10s of thousands of others) just got in the mail. Claims from the “no on 1″ campaign:

“While bureaucrats could exempt big box stores, like Walmart and Target, there are NO exemptions for food banks and homeless shelters that depend on disposable bags to distribute food to those in need.”

The main talking points “hurts those who can least afford it,” “filled with loopholes and exemptions,” and “more government spending and bureaucracy.”

It will be tough to undo these lies in what little time remains.

Erica, CAMP told its patrons it was going to stop providing paper or plastic bags because a) it was trying get people to use the cloth bags they had just given them and b) because they are worried that once there is a fee on bags that people won’t donate as many bags to the food bank. It’s a food bank — they aren’t charging any of their customers for anything.

Erica, CAMP told its patrons it was going to stop providing paper or plastic bags because a) it was trying get people to use the cloth bags they had just given them and b) because they are worried that once there is a fee on bags that people won’t donate as many bags to the food bank. It’s a food bank — they aren’t charging any of their customers for anything.

I was on the fence on this issue for precisely the reason that Danny explains in @10. But no longer–any equity concerns can be addressed through a simple “used bag exchange rack.”

I think that it is elitist of Westneat and CAMP to assert that low-income people cannot plan ahead or keep a spare bag with them for shopping.

This ballot measure is pursuing a swift change in our behavior toward sustainable means–for an important purpose.

I was on the fence on this issue for precisely the reason that Danny explains in @10. But no longer–any equity concerns can be addressed through a simple “used bag exchange rack.”

I think that it is elitist of Westneat and CAMP to assert that low-income people cannot plan ahead or keep a spare bag with them for shopping.

This ballot measure is pursuing a swift change in our behavior toward sustainable means–for an important purpose.

@15: You didn’t say anything at all in your story—not one mention—about donations of bags to food banks.

You said, as I quoted above: “Patrons were told to use them when picking up food, and that the agency would stop providing paper or plastic bags due to the expense of the coming bag fee.”

Not due to a lack of donations. “Due to the expense of the coming bag fee.”

Nor did you mention that the legislation has explicit provisions for providing bags to food banks in the event that donations of bags dwindle so much that food banks can’t provide bags to their clients.

@15: You didn’t say anything at all in your story—not one mention—about donations of bags to food banks.

You said, as I quoted above: “Patrons were told to use them when picking up food, and that the agency would stop providing paper or plastic bags due to the expense of the coming bag fee.”

Not due to a lack of donations. “Due to the expense of the coming bag fee.”

Nor did you mention that the legislation has explicit provisions for providing bags to food banks in the event that donations of bags dwindle so much that food banks can’t provide bags to their clients.

Thank you ECB for taking up this fight. The clear-as-a-bell implication of the Westneat piece was that food banks would have to pay for bags, dovetailing nicely with the accusations of the plastic industry.

I never thought of chemical manufacturers as particular friends of the poor, but maybe that’s the real reason they like to locate their facilities in poor neighborhoods — simple fondness for poor people.

Thank you ECB for taking up this fight. The clear-as-a-bell implication of the Westneat piece was that food banks would have to pay for bags, dovetailing nicely with the accusations of the plastic industry.

I never thought of chemical manufacturers as particular friends of the poor, but maybe that’s the real reason they like to locate their facilities in poor neighborhoods — simple fondness for poor people.

@14 That’s just outright 100% lying in the pro-bag mailpiece with regard to shelters & food banks, no? Just disgusting. Why not just say the bag tax will kill puppies?

And I still suspect there’s somebody on the CAMP board who’s feeding them a line. Otherwise, this just doesn’t make sense.

@14 That’s just outright 100% lying in the pro-bag mailpiece with regard to shelters & food banks, no? Just disgusting. Why not just say the bag tax will kill puppies?

And I still suspect there’s somebody on the CAMP board who’s feeding them a line. Otherwise, this just doesn’t make sense.

This has turned into a major disservice to CAMP. So just to be clear: CAMP is not opposing the bag fees because they think they will have to pay them or that it will impact their food bank in a major way. They are opposing it because they think the fees will disproportionately affect their clients at grocery stores. As to the elitist charge, the city estimates it will collect $3 million or so in fees a year. Who will pay those fees? Who will be hurt the most? That’s the question CAMP was wrestling with, not food bank policies.

This has turned into a major disservice to CAMP. So just to be clear: CAMP is not opposing the bag fees because they think they will have to pay them or that it will impact their food bank in a major way. They are opposing it because they think the fees will disproportionately affect their clients at grocery stores. As to the elitist charge, the city estimates it will collect $3 million or so in fees a year. Who will pay those fees? Who will be hurt the most? That’s the question CAMP was wrestling with, not food bank policies.

anyone know why this is restricted to grocery/drug stores? seems regressive to me. i’m with danny westneat on this one (probably in the minority here). i’d be less miffed about putting this same tax on other kinds of retailers…

i don’t think it’s that poor people can’t plan. it’s that poor people are more apt to do their shopping when they get a chance and may or may not have remembered to bring their canvas bags on the bus with them. (unlike other folks who just leave a few in their cars.) i know because, as a carless-by-choice person who gets around by bus, i almost always need to resort to getting a bag at the grocery store because i didn’t realize i was going to get stuck working late and wouldn’t have time to go home before going to the store… and plastic ones are easier to carry when i’m carrying more than one bag… and so on… i don’t mind paying some small fee for those plastic bags, but resent it on behalf of those who are less able to spare a dollar or two.

anyone know why this is restricted to grocery/drug stores? seems regressive to me. i’m with danny westneat on this one (probably in the minority here). i’d be less miffed about putting this same tax on other kinds of retailers…

i don’t think it’s that poor people can’t plan. it’s that poor people are more apt to do their shopping when they get a chance and may or may not have remembered to bring their canvas bags on the bus with them. (unlike other folks who just leave a few in their cars.) i know because, as a carless-by-choice person who gets around by bus, i almost always need to resort to getting a bag at the grocery store because i didn’t realize i was going to get stuck working late and wouldn’t have time to go home before going to the store… and plastic ones are easier to carry when i’m carrying more than one bag… and so on… i don’t mind paying some small fee for those plastic bags, but resent it on behalf of those who are less able to spare a dollar or two.

@21, Great post.

@16, You want elitism? Assuming those fees won’t make a difference to someone with less than $5 in their pocket who forgot their reusable bag but still has to go shopping. 40 cents is 4 top ramens (generic) to a poor person.

@21, Great post.

@16, You want elitism? Assuming those fees won’t make a difference to someone with less than $5 in their pocket who forgot their reusable bag but still has to go shopping. 40 cents is 4 top ramens (generic) to a poor person.

When Food banks or Homeless shelters go to grocery stores to buy food, they are NOT exempt from the bag tax. They have to pay, thus reducing the amount of funds they have for services. The ordinance recognized this by saying as an attachment that the city should look into the harm caused to non-profits such as food banks.

When Food banks or Homeless shelters go to grocery stores to buy food, they are NOT exempt from the bag tax. They have to pay, thus reducing the amount of funds they have for services. The ordinance recognized this by saying as an attachment that the city should look into the harm caused to non-profits such as food banks.

Erica and most of the rest of you,

I’m not sure what I think of the bag-fee measure, but I’m pretty sure you have a reading comprehension problem.

The overall gist of Danny’s column was obvious to anyone willing to listen to another point of view: CAMP is concerned with the overall effect of the bag fee on poor people generally, who shop at all kinds of places besides food banks and whose impoverishment is not always provable at the checkout line.

That’s a concern well-rooted in common sense. But if you have no common sense, CAMP can point to first-hand wisdom. If you aren’t willing to thoughtfully consider that, well, there are conspiracy theories. They can explain just about anything.

I would like to add that Danny Westneat, a longtime former colleague, is one of the smartest, most-thoughtful reporters I’ve ever worked with. If you think he’s lazy, you’re the idiot, not him. I’ve also worked with Erica.

Erica and most of the rest of you,

I’m not sure what I think of the bag-fee measure, but I’m pretty sure you have a reading comprehension problem.

The overall gist of Danny’s column was obvious to anyone willing to listen to another point of view: CAMP is concerned with the overall effect of the bag fee on poor people generally, who shop at all kinds of places besides food banks and whose impoverishment is not always provable at the checkout line.

That’s a concern well-rooted in common sense. But if you have no common sense, CAMP can point to first-hand wisdom. If you aren’t willing to thoughtfully consider that, well, there are conspiracy theories. They can explain just about anything.

I would like to add that Danny Westneat, a longtime former colleague, is one of the smartest, most-thoughtful reporters I’ve ever worked with. If you think he’s lazy, you’re the idiot, not him. I’ve also worked with Erica.

Those who accuse others of elitism are usually guilty of it themselves. Circles of elitist finger-pointing are full of well-manicured nails.

Is it elitist for me to make that accusation?

Those who accuse others of elitism are usually guilty of it themselves. Circles of elitist finger-pointing are full of well-manicured nails.

Is it elitist for me to make that accusation?

@24,

The “overall gist” of Westneat’s column?

That’s nice, but what Westneat reported was this:

“… the agency would stop providing paper or plastic bags due to the expense of the coming bag fee.”

What Erica has now reported is that food banks are exempted from the bag fee.

That’s a major omission from Westneat’s column and would have certainly changed the “overall gist.”

@24,

The “overall gist” of Westneat’s column?

That’s nice, but what Westneat reported was this:

“… the agency would stop providing paper or plastic bags due to the expense of the coming bag fee.”

What Erica has now reported is that food banks are exempted from the bag fee.

That’s a major omission from Westneat’s column and would have certainly changed the “overall gist.”

All of this faux economic populism by the chemical industry would be so much easier to refute if there were no proposed fee on recycled paper bags. Noone wants a zillion paper bags like they want a zillion plastic ones– their size encourages you to group things together instead of having a bag for each item. And even if there’s a carbon footprint from shipping paper bags, at least they don’t create small islands of trash twice the size of the continental United States floating in the Pacific Ocean:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html

All of this faux economic populism by the chemical industry would be so much easier to refute if there were no proposed fee on recycled paper bags. Noone wants a zillion paper bags like they want a zillion plastic ones– their size encourages you to group things together instead of having a bag for each item. And even if there’s a carbon footprint from shipping paper bags, at least they don’t create small islands of trash twice the size of the continental United States floating in the Pacific Ocean:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html

Josh, your rebuttal rebuts itself. The column was primarily about the implications for poor people, not food banks.

Josh, your rebuttal rebuts itself. The column was primarily about the implications for poor people, not food banks.

Josh, you are being obtuse. Food banks are exempt from charging the bag fees. They are not exempt from the effects of there being a bag fee (i.e. that paper and plastic bags may become scarce — let’s hope so, as that’s the entire point of the law.) So food banks must either use cloth, get bags donated, or buy bags like everyone else. I didn’t get into these details because, as stated above, the column is not about food bank policies. It’s about the effects of the bag fee on the poor. That you guys are saying the column is factually wrong based on food banks being exempt is itself factually wrong. Food bank policies have nothing to do with the experiment CAMP conducted.

Josh, you are being obtuse. Food banks are exempt from charging the bag fees. They are not exempt from the effects of there being a bag fee (i.e. that paper and plastic bags may become scarce — let’s hope so, as that’s the entire point of the law.) So food banks must either use cloth, get bags donated, or buy bags like everyone else. I didn’t get into these details because, as stated above, the column is not about food bank policies. It’s about the effects of the bag fee on the poor. That you guys are saying the column is factually wrong based on food banks being exempt is itself factually wrong. Food bank policies have nothing to do with the experiment CAMP conducted.

@29: Is that why you didn’t report on how much the bag fee would actually cost food banks? Because it’s nowhere in the story. CAMP’s experiment presumes that the expense is far too much of a burden to handle. But is it? Why is the donation route impossible again? And why couldn’t they buy wholesale, instead of “buy[ing] bags like everyone else”, thus keeping costs low? Your article is about CAMP’s accusations, which are good to note regardless of their veracity. But you didn’t actually investigate “the effects of the bag fee on the poor.”

It also doesn’t feed right into the claims the plastics industry is making to say that food banks are exempt. Sadly, that message is also in their radio campaigns.

@29: Is that why you didn’t report on how much the bag fee would actually cost food banks? Because it’s nowhere in the story. CAMP’s experiment presumes that the expense is far too much of a burden to handle. But is it? Why is the donation route impossible again? And why couldn’t they buy wholesale, instead of “buy[ing] bags like everyone else”, thus keeping costs low? Your article is about CAMP’s accusations, which are good to note regardless of their veracity. But you didn’t actually investigate “the effects of the bag fee on the poor.”

It also doesn’t feed right into the claims the plastics industry is making to say that food banks are exempt. Sadly, that message is also in their radio campaigns.

A few things:

Paper bags are just as bad for the environment (production, shipping, etc) as plastic, which is why banning plastic doesn’t solve our environmental problems. While plastics may be the problem in the ocean, the largest damage is the amount of waste and toxins that go into producing millions and millions of bags regardless of material. I’ll try and actually post the studies for the non-believers later.

A few things:

Paper bags are just as bad for the environment (production, shipping, etc) as plastic, which is why banning plastic doesn’t solve our environmental problems. While plastics may be the problem in the ocean, the largest damage is the amount of waste and toxins that go into producing millions and millions of bags regardless of material. I’ll try and actually post the studies for the non-believers later.

Something new has come out of this dialogue: food banks get donations in plastic bags. One wonders, once the bags get home, what happens to them? What percent go and float in an ocean (immediately, or at some point), what percent are used to scoop up pet litter, what percent are used to line trash cans, what percent are recycled, etc. Does anyone have that breakdown?

Something new has come out of this dialogue: food banks get donations in plastic bags. One wonders, once the bags get home, what happens to them? What percent go and float in an ocean (immediately, or at some point), what percent are used to scoop up pet litter, what percent are used to line trash cans, what percent are recycled, etc. Does anyone have that breakdown?

Back in ’03, a plastic grocery bag cost about a penny to purchase, according to National Geographic.

So $1 million in plastic industry donations to the referendum campaign could have funded 100 million plastic bags for CAMP & others.

The scale of the resources expended on this issue by the plastic industry just doesn’t match the pseudo-Marxist minutia of their objections. And it’s just amazing how many voters & industries (i.e. the Seattle Times!) care about poor people when it’s a matter of “red-washing” an inconvenience to themselves in a faux class analysis. Quite similar to the anti-light rail campaign, the pro-viaduct-rebuild campaign, etc.

Give me a break, they don’t care about bag ladies, they care about the bags.

Back in ’03, a plastic grocery bag cost about a penny to purchase, according to National Geographic.

So $1 million in plastic industry donations to the referendum campaign could have funded 100 million plastic bags for CAMP & others.

The scale of the resources expended on this issue by the plastic industry just doesn’t match the pseudo-Marxist minutia of their objections. And it’s just amazing how many voters & industries (i.e. the Seattle Times!) care about poor people when it’s a matter of “red-washing” an inconvenience to themselves in a faux class analysis. Quite similar to the anti-light rail campaign, the pro-viaduct-rebuild campaign, etc.

Give me a break, they don’t care about bag ladies, they care about the bags.

Regarding poor people purchasing food at grocery stores, there is a really really easy fix: anyone who uses an EBT card for their purchase is not charged the fee.

Anyone on state public benefits (TANF, Food Stamps, GAU, etc.) has an EBT card. Anyone who is poor qualifies for at least Food Stamps. Problem solved.

Regarding poor people purchasing food at grocery stores, there is a really really easy fix: anyone who uses an EBT card for their purchase is not charged the fee.

Anyone on state public benefits (TANF, Food Stamps, GAU, etc.) has an EBT card. Anyone who is poor qualifies for at least Food Stamps. Problem solved.

The argument that the bag fee is somehow regressive is ludicrous. Just like tobacco and cigarettes, plastic bags are OPTIONAL. Are cigarette and alcohol taxes regressive, or is this just more hypocrisy? Furthermore, Will @11 repeats Jan Drago’s transparently disingenuous position that we need to ban the bags rather than put a fee on them. That might have some credibility if someone like…Jan Drago? had ever tried to amend the bag fee bill or offer an alternative one to ban the bags. In fact, she’s never offered any such bill, and I’ve seen no one else make any effort to ban the bags. And even now, Drago says we should wait how the vote turns out before deciding whether to proceed with a bag ban like Edmonds and San Francisco. Boy, that’s strict, honest logic for you! I majored in philosophy and can’t figure it out. She can’t say whether the referendum’s success or failure would be better for a bag ban, or why. Hmm…

Am I an inside elitist who doesn’t give a crap about the poor? Well, I’ve qualified for the federal Earned Income Credit for 2007 and 2008. I was on food stamps for 5 months this year and am about to be forced off Basic Health after 11 months of coverage. Oh, and I refuse to stop harping on Metro’s regressive, anti-environment fare increases–three in 3 years when DC’s buses cost just $1.25!

Sure is easy to throw the “regressive” argument around when you’re in the 31% tax bracket.

The argument that the bag fee is somehow regressive is ludicrous. Just like tobacco and cigarettes, plastic bags are OPTIONAL. Are cigarette and alcohol taxes regressive, or is this just more hypocrisy? Furthermore, Will @11 repeats Jan Drago’s transparently disingenuous position that we need to ban the bags rather than put a fee on them. That might have some credibility if someone like…Jan Drago? had ever tried to amend the bag fee bill or offer an alternative one to ban the bags. In fact, she’s never offered any such bill, and I’ve seen no one else make any effort to ban the bags. And even now, Drago says we should wait how the vote turns out before deciding whether to proceed with a bag ban like Edmonds and San Francisco. Boy, that’s strict, honest logic for you! I majored in philosophy and can’t figure it out. She can’t say whether the referendum’s success or failure would be better for a bag ban, or why. Hmm…

Am I an inside elitist who doesn’t give a crap about the poor? Well, I’ve qualified for the federal Earned Income Credit for 2007 and 2008. I was on food stamps for 5 months this year and am about to be forced off Basic Health after 11 months of coverage. Oh, and I refuse to stop harping on Metro’s regressive, anti-environment fare increases–three in 3 years when DC’s buses cost just $1.25!

Sure is easy to throw the “regressive” argument around when you’re in the 31% tax bracket.

hmm, the subplot is Danny responding to this site. get in the gutter with a gutter snipe? not sure i’d go there.

hmm, the subplot is Danny responding to this site. get in the gutter with a gutter snipe? not sure i’d go there.

The fact that the American Chemistry Council has dumped a record $1.4M into the “No on Ref. 1″ campaign indicates to me that this bag tax will do more to harm the powerful than it will the poor.

I am voting to approve Referendum #1.

The fact that the American Chemistry Council has dumped a record $1.4M into the “No on Ref. 1″ campaign indicates to me that this bag tax will do more to harm the powerful than it will the poor.

I am voting to approve Referendum #1.

OK, so you all sound like a bunch of whining babies trying to prove who said what and who is more accurate. (And who can get the upper hand on whom for bragging rights.)
To coin an old phrase, can’t we all just get along.. (and try being civil and constructive?)

OK, so you all sound like a bunch of whining babies trying to prove who said what and who is more accurate. (And who can get the upper hand on whom for bragging rights.)
To coin an old phrase, can’t we all just get along.. (and try being civil and constructive?)

As we all know, poor people in places that have banned plastic bags, like Ireland and San Francisco, are much worse off than poor people where plastic bags are not banned, like Bangladesh and Seattle.

What’s elitist is insisting that poor people are not capable of learning to use reusable bags. Believe it or not – and despite the conservative myth that if you are poor its because you’re immoral, stupid and lazy – about the third time you forget your bag when going to the store it’ll sink in. Even if you’re a neo-con or a bag man for the plastics industry.

As we all know, poor people in places that have banned plastic bags, like Ireland and San Francisco, are much worse off than poor people where plastic bags are not banned, like Bangladesh and Seattle.

What’s elitist is insisting that poor people are not capable of learning to use reusable bags. Believe it or not – and despite the conservative myth that if you are poor its because you’re immoral, stupid and lazy – about the third time you forget your bag when going to the store it’ll sink in. Even if you’re a neo-con or a bag man for the plastics industry.

“They are opposing it because they think the fees will disproportionately affect their clients at grocery stores.”

I thought this was the point from the word – go.
The fact of the matter is that people that can afford 99 cents (plus 9 cents tax) for a reusable bag is a lot of money when you do not have money (been there, I call it the 1980′s), those of you that have the 1.09 to throw around might find a positive way to solve your bag problem.

Take your extra reusable bags to the food bank.
Taxing people to solve a problem this freakishly simple is not the only solution to the problem.

“They are opposing it because they think the fees will disproportionately affect their clients at grocery stores.”

I thought this was the point from the word – go.
The fact of the matter is that people that can afford 99 cents (plus 9 cents tax) for a reusable bag is a lot of money when you do not have money (been there, I call it the 1980′s), those of you that have the 1.09 to throw around might find a positive way to solve your bag problem.

Take your extra reusable bags to the food bank.
Taxing people to solve a problem this freakishly simple is not the only solution to the problem.

Just sprout some berries and ban the bag.

Just sprout some berries and ban the bag.

@41. Thanks — I agree. I’m not reflexively anti-bag tax. I like the idea of trying to alter consumer behavior. However, I think reality is such that some individuals will be hurt by this and those individuals are more likely to be poor. If this impact can be avoided, I’m all for it.

@41. Thanks — I agree. I’m not reflexively anti-bag tax. I like the idea of trying to alter consumer behavior. However, I think reality is such that some individuals will be hurt by this and those individuals are more likely to be poor. If this impact can be avoided, I’m all for it.

I work at a food bank. One of the things that isn’t being covered is that due to fears of this tax, plastic bag prices have raised substantially this year. Many of our patrons do bring their own bags, or return with the cloth bags we give them. But the fee has already been levied, if you ask me.

I work at a food bank. One of the things that isn’t being covered is that due to fears of this tax, plastic bag prices have raised substantially this year. Many of our patrons do bring their own bags, or return with the cloth bags we give them. But the fee has already been levied, if you ask me.

@40 & 42 for the win!

@40 & 42 for the win!

#44, very interesting.

And if the free bags the city is going to give out are the cheap petroleum-product ones that don’t fold or wash well, they’ll all be worn out in a month anyway.

I volunteer at an animal shelter and we rely on donated (used) plastic bags for our dogwalking program. Since we’re not going to stop picking up the poop, we’ll still need bags, but if this passes we’ll have to buy them, another expense in a year when donations are down and demand for services is up. That means less of something for the animals – food, care, time. The poor aren’t the only vulnerable group that will be affected by the disproportionate demonization of the plastic bag. Or maybe I’m just “red-washing.”

#44, very interesting.

And if the free bags the city is going to give out are the cheap petroleum-product ones that don’t fold or wash well, they’ll all be worn out in a month anyway.

I volunteer at an animal shelter and we rely on donated (used) plastic bags for our dogwalking program. Since we’re not going to stop picking up the poop, we’ll still need bags, but if this passes we’ll have to buy them, another expense in a year when donations are down and demand for services is up. That means less of something for the animals – food, care, time. The poor aren’t the only vulnerable group that will be affected by the disproportionate demonization of the plastic bag. Or maybe I’m just “red-washing.”

1) Fat-tailed @34 very lucidly points out what the Chemical Association’s polls told them would be the best message to sway predominantly liberal Seattelites to oppose Ref 1: “hurt the poor” plays better than “hurt our profits.”

2) The poor — and all of us — already pay for paper and plastic bags! Do you think bag manufacturers just give them away? The price of bags (ranging from $.03 to $.14) is wrapped into the price of groceries. I’d rather have a choice about paying for my bag when I shop rather than having the fee embedded in the price of goods. I’m not assuming that prices will drop once stores aren’t buying so many bags for their customers but prices might not rise so steeply when that “freebie” isn’t free any more.

3) Some candidates try to maintain their enviro cred by saying they support the spirit of the bag fee but would rather see a “voluntary” program instead. There already IS a voluntary program: bring your own bag to the store and get 5 or 10 cents off your bill per bag. See how well it’s working???

1) Fat-tailed @34 very lucidly points out what the Chemical Association’s polls told them would be the best message to sway predominantly liberal Seattelites to oppose Ref 1: “hurt the poor” plays better than “hurt our profits.”

2) The poor — and all of us — already pay for paper and plastic bags! Do you think bag manufacturers just give them away? The price of bags (ranging from $.03 to $.14) is wrapped into the price of groceries. I’d rather have a choice about paying for my bag when I shop rather than having the fee embedded in the price of goods. I’m not assuming that prices will drop once stores aren’t buying so many bags for their customers but prices might not rise so steeply when that “freebie” isn’t free any more.

3) Some candidates try to maintain their enviro cred by saying they support the spirit of the bag fee but would rather see a “voluntary” program instead. There already IS a voluntary program: bring your own bag to the store and get 5 or 10 cents off your bill per bag. See how well it’s working???