Comments on: Party with the Bag Monsters

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:39:21 +0000

Plastic grocery style bags can be bought in bulk retail for about a penny a piece. I think we can probably all agree how bad they are for the environment, and that re-usable bags are the way to go. However, I can’t see taxing an item at 20 times it’s retail value. It seems there would be a better approach, perhaps an outright ban on them like Styrofoam?

By: Wallyhood

Wallyhood — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:49:19 +0000

The bottling industry made a similar argument trying to keep the $.05 deposit off of cans and bottles in many states (including Washington). They claimed that it was a regressive tax, because the poor drank more soda and could ill-afford the extra nickel.

In practice, those who felt the value of the nickel would take the time to return bottles and cans for deposit, and those who didn’t, didn’t, so it was actually a progressive tax. Better yet, it created a way for the homeless to earn money while improving the environment (by collecting bottles and cans the rich had discarded).

I expect we’ll see similar behavior with bags: those people who really feel the impact of the tax will make sure they bring extra bags. Those people who have money to burn can make donations to the state for the privilege of creating waste.

By: Robb

Robb — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:19:35 +0000

Can someone please hug Eli? He is angry, and can’t spell very well.

By: DOUG.

DOUG. — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:50:36 +0000

Eli: If this ballot measure passes I imagine reusable bags will be made available to those who cannot afford them. To make them free and readily available to all would likely just lead to their frequent disposal and defeat the purpose of the fee.
While I don’t hear Seattle’s advocates for fighting homelessness railing against the proposed fee, I do hear a lot of moaning from 7-11 and the American Chemistry Council. I think that speaks volumes.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:29:08 +0000

I live at Wallingford & 35th & refer to it as “Wallingford-on-the-cusp-of-Fremont” when talking to Fremonsters.

Perhaps the Brewing Co. should rename themselves “Fremont-on-the-cusp-of-Wallingford Brewing Company.”

By: Eli

Eli — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:14:53 +0000

Interesting that no one has actually posted a comment regarding the campaign for bag tax. As much we all love a good green intiative in this town isn’t time we start working on poverty issues. Like the fact that we have one of the most archaic tax structures in the nation. One that disproportionally taxes the poor here we are panties in wad over plastic bags. Listen folks I agree that a plastic bag is one our biggest wastes however porposing an additional tax to that would bear heavily on those with very little means as it is. Here’s an idea why not take all the time money and effort that you’ve put into proposing another nanny law and actually make reusable bags and hand them out to people going into grocers. Maybe focus on the south end of town where you have pushed the low income people. Oh but wait you might be too afraid to leave Wallingford and cross an arbitrary line in the sand for your territory. This is what give librals such a bad name.

By: Wallyhood

Wallyhood — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:51:21 +0000

Updated post. Agree it is within Fremont territory, but I wouldn’t call it secure. Everything up to Aurora will eventually be reclaimed by Wallingford.

By: Christian

Christian — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:43:44 +0000

Indeed, the brewery is behind the Bikram Yoga studio on 34th and is securely in Fremont territory. =-)

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:28:30 +0000

Yep, stop the presses! This is definitely not Wallingford.

By: DOUG.

DOUG. — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:11:27 +0000

According to their website, the Fremont Brewing Company is at 34th and Woodland Park, not Woodlawn. This, of course, makes a huge difference when it comes to Fremont/Wallingford territorial bragging rights.