Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1975/10/07 Item 14,15,16CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~ ITEM NO. l~ , 15 , 16 - ~' - ' COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 10/7/75 '~ql~ FOR MEETING OF: A) Resolution Supporting AB 1 ITEM TITLE: B) Resolution1~+aRequesting League of California Cities to Support Legislation Preventing Fire Districts from Serving Noncontiguous Areas C) Resolution'~~ Urging League of California Cities to Sponsor Legislation Banning the Sale of Pull-Top Cans or Nonreturnable Beverage Containers SUBMITTED BY~ City Attorney ITEM EXPLANATION The City Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1975, directed that the City Attorney prepare a resolution supporting AB 1 relating to statewide land use policies and regu- lations endorsed by the League of California Cities as well as two other resolutions supporting legislation which would prevent fire districts from serving noncontiguous areas, and establishing a ban on pull-top cans and nonreturnable beverage containers of any kind. Said resolutions have been prepared and are attached hereto for the consideration of the Council. I would urge special consideration for the resolution concerning the nonreturnable beverage containers. (It should be noted that the ban on pull-top cans will probably be law, but it will not be adverse to our interests to reiterate such a position.) The City Attorney has become convinced of the need to impose the most stringent re- strictions on the nonreturnable beverage container situation. He is especially per- suaded by the recent column of the noted conservative and libertarian, James J. Kilpatrick, a copy of which is attached hereto. EXHIBITS ATTACHED Agreement Resolution x Ordinance Plat Other X Environmental Document: Attached Submitted on STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolutions BOARD/ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION A P ~ ~ ©V ~ D ~'r~ Y'''.~' c ±~,~ COt?.AC's 1 ~ }, COUNCIL ACTION .~uia T: ~ sty . C; ~.~-:-~r~~~.~~ Form A-113 (Rev 5-75) JAMES J. KILPATRICK ~~~ ~~~ Sunday, September 26, 1975 THE SAN DIEGO t1NION C-3 Some Legacy: No D~posi~, No Retu~°n •a un est pan r- ien tre of ,let al- be- i in to 174. fed wr- ea >ds. re- hat na- viet >s. ~Y- ore 1100 1. the nps for lass ical ent, em- teel ma- >e of if it ade The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about ready to publish some proposed guidelines for the use of federal agencies. The EPA's purpose is to discourage the use of throwaway containers for beer and soft drinks. Understandably, the beer, soft- drink, bottle and can manufacturers are having conniption fits, but the EPA is on the right track. The issue here, it seems to me, is more arr issue of political philosophy than of economic ~ impact. At the moment, the guidelines are merely propos,.ls; they could not become final until some time next year. Once made final, the guidelines would not. have mandatory effect; if a federal agency concluded that re- turnable containers were not avail- able at reasonable cost, the agency could get out from under the guide- line plan. Even if every federal agency went along with the proposition, sales of beer and soft drinks in throwaway containers would not be significantly affected. The EPA estimates that such sales at federal outlets amount to only 2 to 4 per cent of total sales. The EPA also believes the effect on employment in the can and glass industries would be minimal. Under the proposed guidelines, a five-cent deposit would be required on every carbonated container sold at a federal installation. Nonreturn- able containers could still be sold; but they would cost a nickel more. What we have here is one more conflict between the freedom of the individual and the power of the state. The whole history of govern- ment comes dowm to a beer can. The doctrines of a free society hold that customers should have the greatest possible freedom of choice: They strould be able to purchase any drink they please, in any size and kind of container they desire, and the mar- ketplace alone should limit their selection. But even the most libertarian view of a free society acknowledges that individual rights are not absolute. The community also has rights that may be defined and protected. In this case, A's right to purchase beer in throwaway cans does not give A the right to throw the cans on B's lawn. Agreed, say the can and bottle people: The solution is to arrest A for littering. But as a practical mat- ter, the way the community responds, this is an impossibility: there are not enough police, prosecu- tors, judges and juries in the whole country 'to enforce the anti-litter laws now on the books. if these throwaway containers constitute a public nuisance -and they do -the only effective way to abate the ,nuisance is by attacking the problem at its source: the con- tainer itself. Speaking simply as one citizen who is fed up with litter, I will buy the EPA's approach. The can and bottle manufacturers are fine folks, but their non-returnable containers constitute an ugliness no civilized _~~_ ~ - .-..- 3 - - »~.^ ueac(' ptre adofn~ utarsa,H ,j ~ r• Tl~e People's Watchdog ~~~~ community should have to tolerate. Neither should the people be put to the burden of massive law enforce- ment machinery merely to serve libertarian theory. The most high-flown theories get shot down by human nature, and that is the case here. God made tidy people, but God made trashy people also, and the trashy people have the tidy people outnumbered. No anti- litter laws ever devised will deter the swinish multitudes from hurling their empty six packs all over the countryside, but the experience of Oregon with its law on non-return- ables indicates that the economic pressure of a mandatory deposit will lessen the evil. Ours is a beautiful country. Nei- ther the special interests of the can and bottle makers, nor the liber- tarian's theories of individual free- dom, should o~,erridc .,.,.sty's ef- fort, in this especially pervasive and obnoxious matter, to keep the coun- try beautiful. Other such efforts have been sus- tained by the courts. Historic zoning laws, anti-billboard laws, junkyard screening laws - these and many other regulations are infringements upon property rights and personal freedom, but they command wide- spread public support. It was Professor Louis 1). Rubin Jr., I believe, who once speculated upon t-te time, thousands of years hence, when archeologists from a distant galaxy would sturnble over the dead planet Earth. Alighting from their spacecraft, they would explore what obviously hac; been roads and highways, and they would be puzzled by millions of identical small green artifacts. The archeologists would take these to be symbols of the religion prac- ticed by the vanished race of Ameri- cans. No deposit, no return. Surely, it would seem to me, our civilization could leave something more meaningful behind. t ~~~ -[n91e.'wrb Coplev News Service