The premise in this letter is that consumption of bottled water and juices
will go down if the price goes up. I don't agree. What blows my mind is
that the same water that is coming from citizens taps is being bottled and
sold for a profit. This water collected from the Great Lakes water shed or
on top of a super market collection tank is not superior to that that is
provided by the government.
Secondly, water and beverages in plastic bottles take at best 80 years to
degrade into smaller plastic particles that end up in the water and fish
and birds. Discarded bottles plastic are now found at the bottom of lakes,
streams, and rivers. Every public park and beach in WNY, the USA and Canada
currently suffers pollution from discarded plastic bottles that lack
deposits on them. As I stated last week there is now a massive, floating,
plastic dump in the center of the Pacific Ocean that is caused by plastic
bottles and plastic products washing down rivers into our oceans. The cost
to the tax payers to pay for the significant harm and destruction to our
food chain and the public health is vastly greater than the loss of revenue
to private beverage corporations.
Third water in older heated up plastic bottles is not safe to consume. How
many of our citizens are being exposed to cancer causing agents? How many
people are being exposed to toxic agents that promote cancer when drinking
water from older plastic bottles that have been exposed to hot sunlight? My
reading online has exposed warnings about putting bottled water in the
freezer can pose dangers to the public's health.
The regressive tax that Frank Mesiah President of the Buffalo NAACP is
blind to is the cost and burden to tax payers to clean up discarded plastic
bottles in that are polluting not only our environment but will over time
end up in the water and wild life that is part of a delicate food chain.
The costs from degradation to our planets environment and the health of
people across this area and planet from discarded plastics is far, far,
greater than the cost to the bottling industry. At this moment there is
speculation that all the governments of this planet cannot afford the bill
to clean up the floating plastic dump in the Pacific which in fact is
beginning to destroy a vast section of an ocean.
The fact of the matter is that poor people in the City of Buffalo without
health care and little opportunity to get better paying jobs will in fact
benefit by having an expanded bottle bill. As it stands now the discarded
plastic bottles in this city end up either going to the waste dump or in
the streets and getting washed down the storm sewers and dumped directly
into the Niagara River and Lakes Erie and Ontario.
The hard facts in this debate point to higher costs to the public tax payer
burden to pay for the cleaning up our environment from plastics that can
and should be kept out of our water and from the costs we pay to haul off
these plastics and bury them in the ground where they only will do future
harm to future generations.
More harm is going to be done from not passing a bigger and better deposit
bill on plastic products. The substandard buy, toss, and throw mentality
that pervades presently benefits a few for short term profits.
Bigger Better Bottle Bill |
by Paul V. Vukelic |
|
|
While I do appreciate your position on the Bigger Better Bottle Bill, I do not support many of the costs associated with this measure. If the BBBB was truly about the environment then expansion would only include the provision adding the non-carbonated water, tea and juice containers. This alone would accomplish the goal of significantly reducing containers discarded along our roadsides and parks. The most onerous parts of this bill for my industry will add significant cost to our already over-taxed products.
In your issue last week you say that those against the BBBB refer to deposits as a “tax.” I can tell you that we have not and do not consider the deposit a tax. You correctly state that the deposit is fully refundable. What is a tax to the ultimate consumer of deposit beverages are the handling fees we pay out to retailers. In the proposed BBBB, is an increase of 36 cents per case of beverages. This equates to 1.5 cents per container. I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate committee this past Friday, where I assured Senator Thompson and those in attendance, their prices would go up as a result of an increase in the handling fee. This is an added cost of doing business, mandated by the state that will ultimately end up being funded by those least likely to afford it, the consumer. Frank Mesiah President of the Buffalo NAACP testified in agreement with the reality of increased prices to those consumers least likely to afford this regressive tax.
The other provision of the BBBB that we are strongly opposed to is the confiscation of the unredeemed deposits. When the Bottle Bill was first enacted, we as bottlers and distributors were left with all the costs associated with bringing it to market. Before this legislation we were a two shift operation, but with the added time, and cost associated with its enactment, we had to add a third shift. These added costs to this day are, in part underwritten by the unclaimed deposits. The unclaimed nickels do not come close to covering our costs associated with the current bottle bill. While many claim these unredeems are only padding our profits, I can honestly say they do not. Should we lose the unredeems, it will cause us to raise our prices to cover our costs. Put simply, we look at unredeems as our industry’s handling fee.
My company employs 250 people with good paying, full time jobs. We pay over 90 percent of their health care and we provide them with a 401K, a union pension program and a profit sharing program. When our prices go up significantly to our consumers, we see a corresponding decrease in sales. A sales decrease results in less people working and ultimately layoffs. If our elected officials such as Antoine Thompson, Sam Hoyt, Mark Schroeder and Crystal Peoples support the BBBB, then it is a vote for higher taxes on their constituents and a vote for lost jobs. How can we consider any measure that will only add to our already nine percent unemployment rate? Our industry is not fighting for higher profits, we are trying to protect our employees and their families from a state that has and continues to be anti-business and anti-consumer. We are avid supporters for the environment, we do not support measures that will increase our costs through hidden fees, and we do not support higher unemployment.
Thank you for the opportunity for my side to be heard. I would be glad to answer any question you or your staff has in regard to my position on the BBBB.
Paul V. Vukelic
President/COO, Try-It Distributing Co., Inc., Balkan Beverage, LLC
Artvoice reserves the right to edit letters for content and length. Shorter letters have a better chance at being published in their entirety. Please include your name, hometown, and contact number. E-mail letters to: editorial@artvoice.com or write to: Artvoice Letters, 810 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14202
Reader Comments
John Q Blogger 11 Mar 2009, 19:59
joe 13 Mar 2009, 08:58
I for one would not like the prices for my beer and soda and all the other
bottled drinks to go up. I am having a hard enough time getting by with
what I have. the argument that those poor and homeless people can collect
the bottles off the street and make a living is a complete joke and shows
how insulated and ignorant those of whom make it. I am certainly for the environment and want the state to collect all the bottles, but not off of my back through higher prices. Given the choice, I say pass this on collecting the bottles alone and do NOT raise the bottlers cost and let them pass that on to me!
John Q Blogger 14 Mar 2009, 03:07
Question how much did beer and soda go up when a deposit was placed on
these beverages? How did that break your back? There is a bottle collector in Buffalo driving a Hummer. I live in the city and not in CEOville. Anything that brings opportunity to the poor in this city is a blessing instead of a curse. Take back your empties and get your depostit back or switch to city water and brew your own. Put a deposit fee on off shore banking and make corporate America pay their fair share of taxes.
joe 16 Mar 2009, 13:27
So... CEO's cannot and do not live in the city! Hey John, get off your high
horse and get out and see what is reality. If you call picking up nickel
bottles off the street keeping the poor above the poverty line, then you
are so out of touch with reality! Nice try with that arguement as it shows
how truly ignorant you are.
John Q Blogger 17 Mar 2009, 09:57 I never said picking up bottles was the best way of getting people out of poverty but what's the matter with putting a deposit on a water or gator aid bottle and letting some guy make money off all the bottles that are pitched in our streets, parks, waterways and beaches? It's better to give people any opportunity small or large to make extra cash and it's wiser to reuse plastic containers instead of causing tax payers to foot the bill for hauling off billions of discarded plastic to a land fill in someone's community. Joey there are no CEO's on my street. Sorry to offend you with that reality. Have you seen any corporate officers living next to a land fill lately? Please enlighten us.
joe 17 Mar 2009, 11:08
One thing we can agree on is that there should be incentive to recycle,
thus the expansion of this bill. What I do not agree with is expansion that
increases our prices through this handling fee and taking of the unredemed
deposits. These added costs will increase our prices where JUST adding
water and other excluded bottles will not. The one argument I do agree with
is that if this BBBB is truly about the envirnment, then pass this bill
withour the added regressive tax items. We in New York already pay too many
fees and hidden taxes. And we wonder why busines continue to leave this
state. Actually, I do have some corporate types on my street and neighborhood and they are all very friendly and support many causes with their time and money! Maybe you need to move?
John Q Blogger
18 Mar 2009, 01:28
The incentive to recycle should be pride in ones community and to protect
the environment. We who pick up the empty, non-redeemable, bottles everywhere know that deposits must be placed on all bottles. This weekend my family picked up many bottles littering the waters edge at Beaver Island State Park. Everywhere we walk we find these non deposit plastic bottles. The ubiquitous, discarded, plastic, bottles and the government's cost to haul them off and dump them in a land fill is a significant problem that needs fixing now. It takes 80 years for a plastic bottle to degrade into smaller nano plastics that will eventually end up in our food and bodies. The central issue is to get deposits on all plastic beverage bottles as soon as possible. The time has come for change. Leave a Comment:
|
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v8n11 (week of Thursday, March 12, 2009) > Letters to Artvoice > Bigger Better Bottle Bill This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Artvoice TV • Events Calendar • Classifieds |
Subscribe 