Keeping a checkbook has become an increasingly rare phenomenon these days — even antiquated to some. However, it serves as an important mnemonic device for paying bills on time, keeps the beleaguered postal service alive, and helps one know exactly where money has gone. Like everywhere, we are faced with increasing bills for even the most basic commodities, and now, for the third consecutive year, San Mateo residents are facing a $4.16 to $6.50 increase in monthly waste collection fees. This may seem like a paltry sum, but it translates to those amounts being multiplied for each container.
Reasons given for these increases are “heightened operating costs” and “previously deferred rate increases” that presumably “lowered rates in 2025.” Are we meant to infer from this that the city of San Mateo was being generous to residents in 2025 by not increasing rates even more than it did?
Each year residents are asked to decrease waste, and many single-family homes don’t come anywhere near filling the containers provided to them by Recology. Also, particularly in the private sector, there’s a substantial amount of “rustling” recyclable cans and plastic items that significantly reduces a potential financial return for Recology. Are these problems being addressed, or is it just easier to put the onus of payment on the consumer?
Thanks for your letter, Ms. Christensson, but ever-increasing union Recology worker salaries, pensions, and benefits must be paid. Actually, isn’t Recology San Mateo going on strike again? So they can get their slice of the pie from this upcoming rate increase? As for an answer to your question… Yes, it is just easier to put the onus of payment on the consumer? Is there any choice other than Recology? I wouldn’t be surprised that if it were an option, folks would burn their garbage.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
Thanks for your letter, Ms. Christensson, but ever-increasing union Recology worker salaries, pensions, and benefits must be paid. Actually, isn’t Recology San Mateo going on strike again? So they can get their slice of the pie from this upcoming rate increase? As for an answer to your question… Yes, it is just easier to put the onus of payment on the consumer? Is there any choice other than Recology? I wouldn’t be surprised that if it were an option, folks would burn their garbage.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.