The Future of Annapolis Shopping

Recently, I obtained this prototype of a reusable canvas shopping bag that will be politely offered to the consumers of the city. The reusable bag program is one of the new initiatives enveloped in O-27-07 Revised "D", which is the 2nd cousin, once removed, of the plastic bag ban.

People's Republic Of China Shames Annapolis; Bans Plastic Bags

Or so Alderman Shropshire would argue.

In a move certain to influence City Hall lawmakers, the People's Republic of China has semi-banned plastic bags:

China is banning free plastic bags common at shops and supermarkets and
ordering customers to be charged for any they use, the government said
Wednesday.

The rules, which take effect June 1, come as the country tries to tackle a
significant source of litter, a statement on the government's Web site
said.

The bags also are banned from all public transportation, including
buses, trains and planes and from airports and scenic locations, the government
said.

Shops have been instructed to mark the price of the plastic bags clearly
and not fold them into the cost of other items.

My first point is that banning private market transactions is what socialists do. The Chinese government is telling businesses what prices to charge! That should not be what happens here, and we should not interpret China's action as an example for us. Take a look at the penalty for non-compliance:

Companies caught breaking the new rules face fines and possible forfeiture of
goods, the government said.

The government tells you what to do, what price to charge, and confiscates your inventory if you fail to comply! Sounds like a great place to start a business.

Now for my second point: China's plan is actually less communistic/socialistic than the plan that would have been implemented in Annapolis! The Chinese government at least allows for the option to buy plastic bags for an additional cost, whereas the Annapolis plan would have banned them altogether.

For me, China's plastic bag policy should not be our example to follow; rather, it further proves why the council did the right thing in shooting the bill down, albeit in a crooked, back-room way.

Holy (Green) Crap

The mayor, along with the co-sponsorship or every (sworn in) alderman except Hoyle and Stankivic, introduced an omnibus environmental bill under the guise of the revised plastic bag ban. I say 'guise' because it is a totally different bill, bearing no resemblance to the original. O-27-07 revised'D' seeks to promote recycling, which is quite better than banning plastic bags, but it does a lot more than that! I mean a lot more!! The bill would:

-Establish an Environmental Review Committee comprised of the Directors of
Rec and Parks, Public Works, Central Services, and DNEP, the last of which will
chair the group.

-Align Annapolis city purchasing to standards outlined in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Comprehensive procurement guides for
products.

-Specify standards for procurement of environmentally friendly materials,
including photocopy paper, print paper, janitorial paper, cleaning supplies, CFC
refrigerants, plastic bags, wood products, electronics, motor oil, recycled
antifreeze for city vehicles, paint, pest management supplies, and according to
the bill, these are the "minimum"!

-By law, by next year, have the Committee issue green procurement
standards for EVERYTHING in the above bullet point AND MORE, and give preference to said items even if they are up to 10% more expensive than what is currently being used.

-(whoops, I just got dizzy)

-Require ALL city funded construction to meet Silver LEED
environmental building standards

-Give procurement preference to items from suppliers located within a
"reasonable" geographic distance.

This makes me a little bit crazy. I am of the belief that the affect we can have on global warming is overstated. I am not interested in debating this, but for curiosity's sake of anybody reading this, a small part of why I believe such is that Al Gore said this:

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a
problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an
over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming)
is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions
are...

...former Vice President Al Gore(now, chairman and co-founder of
Generation Investment Management-- a London-based business that sells carbon
credits)(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An
Inconvenient Truth)

So, I'll put it to you. Do you believe in the human threat to detrimental climate change enough to accept 10% (minimum) increases in the $80 million city budget that already goes up by 8% each year. If so, encourage your alderman to vote for this bill. If not, start writing a blog and move to the county!

Making Sense Of What Happened With The Plastic Bags

See the crosspost and the full stories at Annapolis Politics.

Several months back, Annapolis Alderman Sam Shropshire introduced O-27-07, a bill that would ban the distribution of plastic bags by retailers in the city of Annapolis. The debate surrounding the issue since then has been nothing short of a circus.

The debate has been fierce. Alderman Shropshire maintains to this day that he genuinely believes this ban to be in the best interest of both the city and the environment. His opponents sharply point out that the evidence is less than overwhelming that plastic bags are even worse than paper bags in the first place, that Alderman Sam is simply pandering for media attention, and that there are much better places to start if you want to improve the environment (such as actually putting recycling bins downtown).

The bill was up for a vote last night, and true to form, the meeting was covered by print and broadcast media. Wow, did they see a show.

In a weekend news dump, the mayor announced that she would attempt so supersede Mr. Shropshire's bill with a much tamer plan that wouldn't ban anything, but instead would create a commission to study the matter further. Wonderful. But as of the start of the meeting, the city attorney was the only one that knew exactly how this was going to be done.

The mayor, along with several co-sponsoring aldermen, introduced 2 versions of the same (new) bill: O-55-07 and O-27-07 REVISED. In doing this, the council never intended to vote on the issue! There is a rule that if a substantive change is made to a bill by an amendment, the bill then has to be pulled and a new public hearing held regarding the substantive changes. By introducing a new bill and calling it a revised version of the old bill, the council guaranteed that such a substantive change existed!

Alderman Shropshire fought the tactic, but to no avail. The council passed a motion to accept the "revised" version of the bill, then immediately passed a motion to declare the changes substantive. The bill was removed from consideration, and the whole process will drag on.

O-55-07 was just a backup plan. If anything went wrong and a vote on the original bill actually happened, the council could still seek political cover by voting in favor of O-55, which appeared later in the agenda. As it happened, this was unnecessary and O-55 was pulled.

As could be expected, this made people crazy. The city spokesman was assaulted (metaphorically) in the hallway by supporters of the ban demanding to know what happened. Despite the fact that such is his job, he was so angry at the council for putting on a worthless dog and pony show, that after the meeting ended, he approached the council and mayor and launched into a tirade! He had to be calmed by the city attorney!

So the result is a lot of angry people, and no resolution to the issue.

For those of you who thought you would be better entertained watching Monday Night Football, for once you were mistaken.

Fallout Immediate Over Plastic Bag Chaos**

**Rumor Alert. Rumor Policy.

This is actually only part rumor, and thanks to the unnamed source who clued me in. But the other part is first hand.

People are pissed! The plan all along was to avoid a vote on the issue. Nobody knows what is going on because it is too confusing.

While Alderman Sam was in the hallway (while the council meeting was going on in the chambers), Alderwoman Stankivic came in the hallway and told him to get his ass back inside!

A certain city official, returning into the chambers after being haggled by crazed supporters of the ban, was frustrated to the point of verbally promising an ass-kicking to the council and/or members of the council for causing such a clusterF___*.

(*my word)

Exiting stuff.

11/19 City Council Meeting: Real-Time

In an landmark moment in journalistic history, this post is being brought to you real-time, from the rear of the city council chamber while the meeting is going on!

(If you are watching on TV, channel 99, you will see me in the back at the conference table. I have 2 browser windows open: one for this post, and one for the gamecast of the Maryland-UCLA game.)

Early speculation is that the 2 a.m. bill will be pulled. Reporters from The Post, The Sun, and The Capital are here. There are like a billion people here: the public, the special interests, and TV station(s)!

7:45: A local historian says some things.

7:51: Sam Shropshire's environmental scientist is making a last-minute plea to the council in support of plastic bags.

(UCLA 25, UMD 16)

7:55
Even though this is not a public hearing meeting, the public is being heard. The good thing about legislative meetings is that usually fewer people speak. The bad thing is that if people want to speak at the beginning of a legislative meeting, they can say whatever they want. Some actual examples from today:

"Please consider a levy on take-home food containers".

(UCLA 28, UMD 18)

7:58
The 'cool' crowd is seated here in the back. While various environmentalists are making various claims, we are snidely quipping under our breaths that this is not a public hearing.

7:59
If everyone goes over their allotted time to speak, we will be here until the next round of bar wars in, 2017.

Also, my right foot is falling asleep....oop, there goes the left one too.

(UCLA 28, UMD 18, halftime. HALFTIME! Geez, I can score more points than that shooting half-court shots as a novelty act during intermission.)

8:02
Tony Evans! I love him. He says he would like to be 18 years old so he could debate the plastic bag bill in high school. To quote: "This bill is an economic, bureaucratic, and logistical nightmare...let's make the best of it! Vote for the ban."

8:06
Sam Shropshire is arguing with a speaker who was against the bill. This is not the time! This is terrible! All of my limbs are asleep! My brain is soon to follow!

8:07
Alderman Sam just finished--oop, and started again--a quasi-tirade that is sure to be caught by the TV camera. The mayor seems to be getting annoyed. I am annoyed. My feet hurt. Maryland is losing. Sentence sizes are decreasing.

8:11
The 2 a.m. bill appears to be set for a vote. No early moves by the sponsor to remove it from the agenda.

8:14
Oooh, O'Brien's is here. Two people are dressed in fancy suits. They are THE PROBLEM BAR that everyone talks about when talking about the evil bars downtown.

They need 8 security personnel on Friday and Saturday nights--umm, maybe you should let in different people.

Now, they are not here to speak on any given bill, as far as I can see. So why are they here? Maybe they are afraid that there will be a movement to ALL midnight licenses. Don't count on that. More likely: a new 2 a.m. bill will be introduced that actually punishes a bar that causes problems. (GASP!!) They want to start beating the drum that they try hard; that they are good; and that they should keep their valuable 2 a.m. license.

Also possible: they are feeling the heat for not meeting food/booze sales ratios.

8:18
Alderman Israel suggests levying fees on bars to pay for additional police.

Also, public testimony is still going on. This is a legislative meeting, yet there has not been a single vote cast (except to approve the minutes).

(UCLA 36, UMD 23)

8:21
Sam Shropshire is arguing again--I have never seen such a violent meeting! The mayor just had to bang her gavel! This is total acting! Get the TV cameras out of here so we can get some work done!

A speaker pointed out that the Downtown Business Association submitted a letter against the ban, and Alderman Sam said "they didn't say they were against it, they said they didn't support it."

No bullshit.

The speaker just called out Alderman Sam for speaking into the camera. Good stuff.

8:25
Hopefully there is at least 1 bar that will be open until 2 a.m. today, because I will need a drink and this meeting will go on until then!

8:26
The cameras are leaving!

8:26:30
A speaker just compared what we do to what other countries do: "In other countries, people bring their own bags and baskets; the retailers don't provide it." I hate that. We have plastic bags because the private market has arrived at that outcome. There are avagadro's number of factors that contribute to this. Enough with the comparison.

(#1 UCLA 43, UMD 29)

8:31
Public testimony threatens to end.

8:31:45
The supply of speakers is exhausted. Time to vote.

8:33
I just re-applied my chapstick.

8:33:07
Damn it! The cameras just came back.

8:34
The voting is starting. I have to spend my time writing with a pen (a traditional, pre-blog-era communication device) to make notes. I will real-time post the 2 am and plastic bag results, and summarize the rest tomorrow.

(UCLA 46, UMD 35)

Ok I lied, they are dragging their feet and I can keep up real-time for now.

R-63-07 is moved to the front of the agenda, and passes.

Twin bills to establish a department of economic development, CA 01-07 and O-11-07 are being debated. Vote to postpone for more time to study. Postponed.

O-56-06 passes. Adds Compromise St. to parking District 2.

0-14-07: fire prevention: postponed.

O-22-07: Notifying public of information regarding sign applications. Amendments. Terribly boring and technical.

(UCLA 56, UMD 43)

8:55
Receive real-time email from real-life reader. Encouraged to keep typing.

8:57
We are still talking about signs*. Actually, we are staring into space while the aldermen and city attorney talk about signs. The aldermen don't really know parliamentary procedure, which is frustrating to me** and I'm sure to the city attorney.

(*Quote from the cool back-room crowd: "We're talking about signs here.")

(**I was parliamentarian in 7th grade for the Annapolis Middle School Student Government Association.)

9:00
The signs bill, O-22-07, passes, I think.

2 a.m. time.

9:01
Classie Hoyle JUST NOW moves to withdraw the 2 a.m. bill. She could have done this before. For example: 1.5 hours ago, when I still could have caught the UCLA-UMD game on TV.

Alderman Israel opposes postponement, calls for a vote today.

9:05
Still debating the postponement.

9:09

Postponement fails! Vote on the bill coming now.

O-23-07 fails. No votes for the bill, not even the sponsor. Bill fails on second reader. Current 2 a.m. rules remain.

O-26-07, relating to food/booze sales ratios, postponed.

9:13

Plastic bags. Ban moved by Shropshire, seconded by Stankivic. Arnett moves to supercede with O-27-07 (revised), or O-55-07--we don't really know!! A lot of shadiness and politics, I can't even follow it! Neither can the guy who is responsible for writing the legislation.

Shropshire is giving a soliloquy. Various environmentalists are holding up signs, which I cannot view because I am with the cool crowd in the back of the room. My left eye is drooping a bit because I am sleepy. I haven't seen this much propaganda since my second grade teacher tried to make me believe that I wouldn't be able to function in society without learning how to write in cursive.

What we know is that there is new legislation to kill the original bill. As of the start of the meeting, only the city attorney had copies of the new bill.

Stankivic makes substantive change motion, which postpones the bill and requires a new public hearing. DAMN ALL OF THEM!! WHY DID WE GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS??

This is freeking horsecrap. Vote yes or no so we can be done with this issue. They should have introduced a separate bill so that we could vote on that bill and not a substantive change of the original bill.

Wait, maybe they did. I have no idea what's going on...and as you loyal readers know, I usually know everything! I will do my best to figure out what's going on. This may take a while.

Shropshire warns that people in Arizona and Colorado are waiting for the decision of the council on this bill, handily forgetting that he was not elected to serve Arizonians or Coloradians.

(UCLA 71, UMD 59, final)

The best I can see, O-27-07 revised and O-55-07 are the same thing! So, if they vote on the "revised" bill, they can postpone based on substantive change to a bill. If they vote on O-55, they can end this thing today!

Moyer and Shropshire are arguing. Arnett and Shropshire are arguing...on the floor!! Shropshire is demanding the floor! Mayor ignores!

It is 9:33.

Shropshire requests a vote on O-27-07 (original) and a separate vote on O-55-07. He is absolutely right on this.

O-27-07 REVISED is accepted! Stankivic moves a substantive change has been made. Plastic bag ISSUE is postponed!!

Unbelievable cowardice. I can't believe they sidestepped the vote like this. I will be sending the city a bill for my time.

That's enough for this post. I'll finish the rest later.

Mayor Moyer Sends Message To Shropshire

In what can be described as a political power play, the Mayor is set to destroy months of propaganda and lobbying efforts by Sam Shropshire by passing a bill that supersedes his ban on plastic bags. Such a bill is not yet on the online agenda, but The Capital reports:

The mayor said she will introduce a revised version of the bill on Monday
that would instead establish an environmental review committee to tout the
city's greening efforts and encourage the review of residential and business
practices and policies.

"This is far broader than just the bags," she said. "It enlarges the
scope and is far more environmentally sensitive in a whole host of ways, setting
an example for the public."

If Ms. Moyer's revised version of the bill is approved by the Council on
Monday, it would replace Mr. Shropshire's bill.

The mayor has been rather vigilant, at least on face, with her environmental concerns; Lord knows she's travelled the country and the wide world learning about climate change. But the timing of this is just too perfect. The plastic bag bill was first proposed in the summer, and the mayor waits until now to introduce a bill that would wipe out the ban?!! I refuse to be convinced that the idea just came to the mayor, nor that her motivation is anything but showing Alderman Shropshire that she still has control of the circus.

In this blog's estimation, this is the mayor's second stab at limiting the shock value of Alderman Sam's ban. She previously introduced a R-52-07, a bill that would increase fines for littering. While such an action was probably meant to address the ban, the mayor stumbled upon the proper logic on this issue. Much like liquor licenses cannot urinate on flower pots, plastic bags need human accomplices to do their harm. Memo: DEAL WITH THE PEOPLE!

Politically, this works out well for Alderman Cordle. He can seize the rare opportunity to find common ground with the mayor:

Alderman David H. Cordle, R-Ward 5, said the citywide ban was not right for
Annapolis and he is encouraged by the alternate bill.

"I would support not doing the ban, but promoting education and
voluntary use [of reusable bags] ," he said. "People want the plastic bags. I
have many uses for them, I reuse them and others recycle them, but people want
them."

It will be an interesting night, and one with an early start: 6:30 on Monday. As always, anybody wishing to participate in a pre-meeting tailgate in Hillman Garage needs only to email me with what they are going to bring.

October News From Alderman Sam

Alderman Shropshire's October newsletter made its way to my inbox this morning, and some of my comments regarding its contents will make their way to these pages right now.

Never has it been so difficult for the American family. It's like we're besieged from every direction.


Today our family loyalties are divided as never before.


Perhaps this is just a pet peeve of mine and it's not as important as I might make it out to be, but enough with the superlatives. Let's take the American family of 200 years ago...they didn't have electricity. Or cars. Or bathrooms! That situation would have been more difficult--less complex--but more difficult.

Every time someone tries to sell you a bill of goods, they use superlatives, and I hate it:

"It has never been so difficult for the American family."
"Mortgage rates have never been higher."
"There has never been a better time to buy."

I would be much happier with the advertisement: "This is a reasonably good time to buy, provided you can afford it, and if the product is useful for you." Ahh, how nice. Nonetheless, Alderman Sam's letter advocates more family time, which is surely a good thing.

The letter continues to pursue support for Mr. Shropshire's bill to ban plastic bags, and this visual was used as persuasion:

A bit sensational if you ask me. Alarmingly, Alderman Sam claims broad support for his proposed ban:

The legislation has strong support from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Alice Ferguson Foundation, the Sierra Club of Anne Arundel County, the Alliance for Sustainable Communities, EarthEcho (the Cousteau family), the Audubon Society, Oceana, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and other environmental organizations.

But here is evidence to the contrary. The last I heard, these organizations praise the motive, but advise other ways to focus our efforts that are more effective:

Sierra Club of A.A. County: "This is not a solution; the best solution is reusable bags."

Alice Ferguson Foundation: "Plastic bags are not the most important problem...we should focus on education."

Progressive Bag Alliance: "Paper bags are worse for the environment. Plastic bags are 100% recyclable. We need to increase focus on recycling."

Maryland Retailers Association: "This legislation goes too far and doesn't achieve what he (Alderman Shropshire) wants. Plastic bags don't litter--people litter! Citizen education is more important, and we need to enforce the litter laws that we already have."

Restaurant Association of Maryland: "Behavior is the culprit here."

Sveinn Storm: "In 3 decades of working downtown, I have never seen a citation issued for littering. But there are plenty of paid city employees who clean up the trash."

On a positive note, Alderman Sam favors strengthening nuisance laws:

Also, I requested a City Council study session with the Annapolis Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. I will be requesting stricter enforcement of laws and stiffer penalties for serving underage drinkers and for over-serving other restaurant/bar patrons.

If underage drinkers, late night hooligans, and law-ignoring bars were all dealt with appropriately, maybe the law-abiding bars could have some reasonable privileges.

The political debates will certainly be interesting.

A Message From Uncle...err, Alderman Sam

Alderman Sam Shropshire sent out a rhetoric-laced 'newsletter' today......and I quote:



Somewhere in the northern Pacific floats a non-biodegradable petrochemical blob that's twice the size of Texas. Much of this deadly mess originated when someone innocently took home their shopping in a plastic bag.





In the U.S. alone, we throw away 100 billion plastic bags each year -- the equivalent of 12 million barrels of oil. Yikes!




Think globally! Act locally! Let's do our part to make a small change in our bahavior (sic) to help preserve the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries for future generations. Let's put a stop to retail distribution of plastic checkout bags.



I don't know if it was on purpose, but notice that there aren't any people in that picture of a plastic bag. I can tell you with a high level of certainty that the plastic bag in question did not grow wings and get there on its own. I am confident that a homo-sapien acquired the bag and failed to dispose of this properly.

If we want act responsibly about the environment, there are better places to start. In the opinion of this blog, efforts to increase recycling at businesses, as well as actually putting recycling bins downtown, would be much more appropriate first steps.

Plastic Bags: Those Pesky Things

Busy day.....wedding in Mrs. Politics' family (second wedding in 2 weeks)...must make a post....letter to the editor about plastic bags!

Regarding the proposal by Alderman Sam Shropshire, D-Ward 7, to ban plastic bag distribution in Annapolis:

Yes?

A Safeway lobbyist reportedly called Mr. Shropshire's bill un-American, saying it would take choices away from consumers.

Sounds about accurate.

I agree with Safeway.

Good.

Being an American is truly about our right of choice, and I would like the choice to live in Maryland without plastic bags whirling from car to car, collecting in the marshes or our shorelines, or coloring our ditches, where they are removed by highway cleanup crews we pay for with our tax dollars.

Tricky! I see...you took Safeway's own words, and turned them around a bit, using sarcasm. OK, I'm with you. This is more of a right than a choice, and if you want to address this problem, we should try and find a way to stop the PEOPLE who litter.

Also, we could be so lucky as to have our tax dollars pay for cleanup...here is some of what your tax dollars have bought in Annapolis:

-a proposal to ban plastic bags.
-a mayor that refused to fill 23 vacancies on the police department while homicides are on a record pace
-a bill in support of a midshipman—an issue that falls under U.S. Navy jurisdiction.
-increases in property tax receipts over past 4 years (2004-2007 proj.) of $4.89 million: average of 7.2% per year!
-Market House! Elimination of city history and character, 2 years of vacancy, loss of parking spaces, poor project supervision, inadequate HVAC design that is still not fixed
-$30,000 for flowers downtown
-apology for slavery

This choice is what is so great about America, and what is so poor about Safeway's perspective.

Giant got it Wrong too when spokesman Barry Sher said that the ban "sounds good until you consider the cost". Rather than ban plastic bags, he would have Annapolis enforce its existing litter laws.

Enforcing existing laws sounds like a fabulous solution, or at least a fabulous first step before we go banning things.

Giant is offering a solution for a symptom of the problem--littering--instead of the cause: distribution of plastic bags at the checkout counter.

I feel like this.

I have never seen such a precisely wrong statement in my life. LITTERING IS THE PROBLEM--IT IS NOT THE SYMPTOM. Plastic bags do not get up, stroll to the rivers, and jump in--they are put there by people!

To say that the problem is having plastic bags available at the checkout counter is a defiance of reason only equalled by your previous claim. You must also believe the following things to be true:

"Speeding is a symptom--the cause is allowing people to buy cars."

"Paedophilia is just a symptom--the cause is the internet that gives these people access to children."

"Assault is just a symptom--the cause is God because he gave us fists to hit people."

By your logic, we should ban cars and the Internet, and cut off everybody's right arm so if we wanted to assault somebody, at least it would be with our weak hand!

See the point? It is problems with people that cause violations of the law.

The total cost should be taken into account. This includes everything from extracting petroleum and natural gas, to making plastic, transporting the bags, and disposing of them.

Agreed--and the total cost of plastic bags is at least the same as paper bags, if not better.

One hundred billion plastic bags are made each year in the United States. In 2005, about 95 percent of them were not recycled, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Giant does not want us to know that the hidden cost to the environment is the reason the bags are so cheap.

What kind of economic reasoning is this? The following is NOT the way a production meeting at Giant would go:

"Bill, how much is it costing us to buy these plastic bags?"
"Well, Ray, the raw materials costs have gone up by 31%"
"Fine then. Jenkins, tell marketing to raise the prices for milk and ice cream by 31%."
(A faint, but stern, voice is heard in the background. It's Cynthia:)
"Wait! Our bags harm the environment. We can keep prices the same as long as we keep this cost a secret."
(All:) "Right-O. Let's play golf."

Pollution is an externality of production, not a cost of production.

Mr. Shropshire's bill offers voters a choice. What could be more American than that?
TERESA DARRAH, Annapolis

Did I miss something? Before, we could choose from bags A, B, and C. (Their real names have been withheld to protect the innocent.) Now we can choose from bags A, or B. Unless this is "opposite day", our choice has been limited.

(Note to readers: One time, in third grade, I was informed by one of my classmates that it indeed was 'opposite day'. The very next thing he told me was that it was not 'opposite day'. I have been quite confused ever since.)

For a more comprehensive analysis of the plastic bag bill, click here. The bottom line is this: we all like the environment, but there are much better places to start than a ban on plastic bags.

Paper or Plastic...We Still Haven't Decided?

If an alien from outer space were to have landed in Annapolis 1 month ago, they could send a report back to the Omicron Galaxy that elected officials on Earth govern by press releases and media quotes. This is because the city council does not meet in August.

But now we are in September, and actual meetings with agendas will take place. And certainly near the top of the agenda will be plastic bags.

To recap, AP's position on this issue is as follows:
-It is not clear whether plastic bags or paper bags are better for the environment.
-Reusable bags would be the best solution.
-This bill does not promote reusable bags, it just bans plastic bags.
-Banning plastic bags is, like, step Z, and we need to take steps A-Y. For example, private industry can work with government and citizens rather than argue with them. (Note: what I have just described is known as the Reverse of the Moyer Approach.)
-Litterers, not plastic bags, are the problem.

Let's use a letter to the editor of The Capital that had the misfortune of not being published. You can see letters that don't appear in the paper here.

I am writing in support of Sam Shropshire’s proposal to ban plastic bag distribution in Annapolis.

You are the only one.

I was thrilled that Annapolis could possibly lead the way in something environmentally inventive, since I usually read with envy about these ideas going on in California.

You sound like a west coast liberal. Although, I kinda' see what you are saying--the city council has spent their time on things that don't really matter, like Midshipman Owens, and you would like to see them lead the way in something relevant. What? You weren't' saying that? Oh well, I tried.

I have used canvas bags for shopping for years, and although I turn them down for small purchases, I still find it impressive how many plastic bags I end up with at home from newspapers, packaging and incidental purchases.

I once turned down a bag for a small purchase at 7-11, only to realize later that I needed somewhere to put my discarded banana peel. As it were, the banana peel remained and created a heck of a sanitation problem. It was embarrassing for everyone involved.

In an interview with a representative of a large grocery store chain, I found it disturbing that the fact that bags can be recycled into materials used to make benches was used as an argument to keep using them. The twisted logic misses the obvious point. The benches came out of desperation to find something to do with all of those bags that we generated.

First of all, the resins created by the recycled plastic bags are useful in a whole lot of things--not just benches.

Second of all, why you hatin' on supermarkets? ('Why you hatin' is slang for 'why do you have a negative attitude towards'. Doesn't it sound cooler?) If they found a way to recycle bags, and can even make money doing it (therefore perhaps hiring more workers or lowering prices), who are you to complain?

And C, benches are very useful. Have you ever needed to bend over to tie your shoe? Have you ever eaten a pretzel at the mall? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you win $1,000,000!! Just kidding--you know we need benches. Here is the list of the top 5 most underrated useful items:

1. an AAA membership
2. ice scraper for your car
3. benches
4. a cell phone case
5. this blog

Another argument raised was that by abandoning plastic bags, purchase and disposal of much thicker trash bag liners will rise, and they are more polluting and aren’t recycled but dumped.

Sounds reasonable (their argument--not your sentence). Point being that we can't possibly know all of the unintended consequences of this (or any other) proposed law.

Kitchen trash bags out of biodegradable materials are a wonderful alternative and already exist. We shouldn't be collecting wasteful plastic bags from stores just because they line our trash cans well. Similarly, I have known people who enjoy getting paper bags so they can neatly store their recycling. Generating trash to store trash doesn’t make sense.

You are right--biodegradable and reusable alternatives are awesome, but Mr. Shropshire's bill has nothing to do with this. It is merely a ban on plastic bags.

People are clever and bright. I refuse to believe this is the best we can do.
JULIE SHAY, Severna Park

I can't wait for September.

Plastic Bag Altruism

Another misguided soul. So sad--to think that because your heart is in the right place--you have a noble goal--and you feel good about helping the environment, that you don't have to evaluate bills on the facts.

Another citizen given a forum (hey, just like me!), courtesy of The Capital. Shall we?

With 40 percent of the Chesapeake Bay declared dead, global warming on everyone's agenda and the irrefutable knowledge that plastic bags harm wildlife and the environment, you seem to treat the effort to rid our city of plastic bags as a pointless whim.

Stop right there! See, this is what I'm talking about. People get so fired up about what they think they should be arguing about, and most of the time they agree with the people they are arguing against. I will ignore your global warming mini-tirade and address the plastic bag bit--NOBODY IS SAYING THAT PLASTIC BAGS ARE GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. We are saying that this bill to ban plastic bags, proposed by Sam Shropshire, is not the best way to help the environment. See the difference? Big difference. The effort, in fact, is a pointless whim because it will be counter-productive.

Exactly who do you think it is who will clean up the bay, protect our wildlife and wilderness areas, and rid our streets of unsightly trash?

Look, lady, banning things does not get rid of the problems people cause by misusing the things. And to answer your question, you will pay city employees to clean the bay, etc.

Someone else is not going to do this for us. It is up to each of us to make a slight change in our daily routines in order to live a bit more sustainably.

You have not given one argument in support of the bill to ban plastic bags. This is what you are talking about, right? I actually agree with you--we all should make slight changes. Take your plastic bags to the store for recycling, for example.

Yes, it can be annoying and inconvenient to change our habits and use cloth bags rather than plastic bags to bring our groceries home.

Alderman Shropshire's bill does not require the use of cloth bags; it merely bans plastic bags.

But if we can't even do something this simple, how in the world is it we think we are going to solve the meta-issues of our time, such as global warming?
CAROLYN HILL, Annapolis

First of all, will someone please proofread these letters? The capital charges people to read, for goodness sake. It's 'mega', not 'meta'. Meta(e) are ancient roman columns.

Now then, we can't solve global warming--that's the whole point. To quote somebody who is more famous than I am, but not famous enough for me to remember his name: "To think that humans in the course of 100 years can change the course of entire existence, and to reverse it nonetheless, is extreme arrogance." But enough about that. And, frankly, enough of your letter. We all want to protect the environment, and this bill is not the way to do it.

Public Hearing, July 23

AP arrived at the public hearing around 6:45 with full intentions of staying for the whole thing. Alas, midway through the plastic bag testimony--around 9:45--I determined that staying any longer would be a detriment to my lifestyle. Nonetheless, I will now recount selected events of the evening.

+Overwhelming testimony was given in support of a proposed development on Annapolis Neck Rd. (R 37-07) Basically, some long-time property owners want to sell their properties to a developer, who in turn will erect affordable workforce housing. Admittedly I do not know the background on this issue, partly because it has been ongoing for 6 years. Seems like they have a pretty darn good argument, provided they can adequately show that allowing their area en exemption will not open the floodgates for everyone else to try and get special exceptions.

+The election code review committee presented their findings. I will devote an entire later post to this issue.

+A bill to allow the proposed triathlon was voted on...I will post on this as well.

+John Hammond, the Anne Arundel County Budget Officer and my roommate's father, challenged the council not to give themselves raises because they don't deserve it. Upon hearing this, alderwoman Hoyle shrewdly quipped "Mr. Hammond, didn't I just read in the paper that you are the highest paid employee in the county?" Quite rude and irrelevant, if you ask me, and if you are reading this blog, you did ask me! (Of note, aldermen should be paid more, but not these aldermen.)

+And for the main event, everybody and their mother wanted to testify on the bill to plan plastic bags. The bill, as it stands, would only ban plastic bags. It would not require the use of reusable bags. I did not hear anybody speak that was entirely for the bill (if somebody stayed longer than I did and heard such a support, email me). The closest anybody got to supporting the bill was saying something like "I applaud your idea and this is a step to help, but there are more effective things we can be doing." I will now present you with some quotes of actual testimony given:

Sierra Club of A.A. County: "This is not a solution; the best solution is reusable bags."

Alice Ferguson Foundation: "Plastic bags are not the most important problem...we should focus on education."

Progressive Bag Alliance: "Paper bags are worse for the environment. Plastic bags are 100% recyclable. We need to increase focus on recycling."

Maryland Retailers Association: "This legislation goes too far and doesn't achieve what he (Alderman Shropshire) wants. Plastic bags don't litter--people litter! Citizen education is more important, and we need to enforce the litter laws that we already have."

(Note to readers: AP was so refreshingly impressed by the comments made by the Maryland Retailers Association, that he immediately mailed a donation check for $20 to the organization. Focusing on the PEOPLE that cause problems and enforcing laws that we already have can solve so many problems.)

Restaurant Association of Maryland: "Behavior is the culprit here."

Sveinn Storm: "In 3 decades of working downtown, I have never seen a citation issued for littering. But there are plenty of paid city employees who clean up the trash."

Giant Food (The awesome grocer that AP uses): "We started using plastic bags 30 years ago due to environmental pressure to stop cutting down trees!"..."Why don't we ban cars because they speed?"

Safeway: "A ban is Un-American--it takes away our right to choose."..."This bill is illogical; it lacks full thought and common sense."..."No other jurisdiction has banned plastic bags."

Alderman Sam Shropshire: "Our emphasis is on reusable."

Note: No it's not. Not the way the bill is written.

Both liberals and conservatives are pro-environment. The difference is: liberals want to punish the entire industry from which the problem stems. Conservatives would rather encourage progress, deal with the problem INDIVIDUALS, and work for a solution that allows plastic bags (or anything else) to be used. The car analogy above was a good one. Any product, if used by an evil person, can be problematic. You don't punish freedom, or capitalism--you deal with the evil in that person.

Capital Punisment: No More Plastic Bags, Sam?

This letter to the editor, which appeared on July 8, is from Ward 7 Alderman Sam Shropshire himself, concerning his proposed legislation to ban plastic bags from the city of Annapolis. Here we go:

Your editorial headlined "Paper-or-plastic issue not as simple as alderman thinks" cast doubt on my legislation to rid Annapolis neighborhoods and waterways, and the Chesapeake Bay, of plastic retail checkout bags.

If true, The Capital can claim a rare success in actually encouraging open thought. To read more about how paper bags are at least the same or WORSE than plastic bags, click here, or here, or here, or here.

You said my "view that shoppers can do without plastic bags makes us wonder how much grocery shopping he has done recently. Has he tried transporting ice cream in a paper bag?"

To prevent this problem, try making your own ice cream.

That makes me wonder just how often Capital writers shop! I shop almost daily. I use reusable shopping bags. And a lot of U.S. supermarkets offer insulated, leak-proof recycled paper bags for transporting ice cream.


OK! Here is our first breach of logic. You claim to use a reusable bag, which is environmentally friendly. But, your legislation does not promote this, it merely bans plastic bags. This will only encourage paper bags. Maybe some people fear paper cuts and will switch to reusable, but you are not really promoting your own solution. Also, I have NEVER seen this insulated, reusable ice cream bag you speak of, and I was not born yesterday.

Plastic checkout bags litter Annapolis streets and waterways. They often fill with silt, acting like sandbags, clogging storm drains and creeks.

Fair enough, but is this really a big problem? Maybe so. Anyway, before we go banning things or telling people how to live their lives, let's try and enforce the littering laws that already exist. Whadda ya think?

Thousands eventually make their way into the bay and out to sea, and some all the way across the Atlantic. En route they often look like jellyfish, and when they are ingested, birds, whales, seals, and turtles die.

I actually found some evidence that this is true, even all the way across the Atlantic. Careful though, this is a classic scare technique designed to make you ignore the facts and support a particular position based on your emotions alone, regardless of fact, logic, or reason. Besides, who really needs turtles, except Terrapins, because they are awesome.

And no matter how much money we spend trying to clean them up, we don't get them all. They just don't go away.

Partly true. We can't get them all, but they do go away eventually.

By most counts, only 1 percent of the 20 billion plastic checkout bags distributed annually in America are being recycled. That leaves 99 percent of these billions to contaminate our waterways or be trucked to dumps, where they will slowly exude toxins over several hundred years.

I don't like the smell of these numbers. I would bet you could argue these facts, if not disprove them. Nonetheless, how about an effort to increase recycling? Rather than banning? Whadda ya think?

My legislation would prohibit the distribution of plastic checkout bags by Annapolis retailers. While this may seem to some like firing a BB at the polluting giant of over consumption, for nervous international polyethylene profiteers it will certainly be a shot heard round the world.
SAM SHROPSHIRE, Alderman Ward 7, Annapolis


I'm surprised he waited this long. Here is my theory on how this legislation came to be: Alderman Sam is sitting at home one day and thinks to himself, "How can I use the phrase 'shot heard round the world' in a public forum?". He then concocts this elaborate scheme, which draws criticism, which requires a letter refuting the criticism, and here we are. I mean, this last paragraph is a fantastically absurd bit of rhetoric. You are not in a movie, Sam.

Also, I did some research. By 2010 the global demand for polyethylene will be 87 million tons. At the current price of about $.55 per pound, this means that by 2010 the international polyethylene market will gross $95,700,000,000--that's 95.7 billion dollars. I doubt that the international polyethylene profiteers are worried about the city of Annapolis banning plastic bags.

Have you ever heard the saying necessity breeds invention? Well, it does. I believe that the microchip was developed because NASA needed to make things smaller to fit on a rocket. This is what economists call a positive externality (and human beings call a good side-effect). If the world, somehow, banned plastic bags, all research concerning plastic bags, their production, distribution, etc. will stop. Any positive externalities that would have occurred along the way will no longer occur.

On the other hand, let's say you let businesses offer whatever the hell types of bags they want, but offer an incentive for recycling plastic bags. So businesses, in their desire to make money, figure out a good way to recycle plastic bags. Maybe their method of recycling also applies to paper bags, and recycling of paper bags increases too! This is called capitalism, and is why America is the richest country, because we are the most capitalist country.

(I would bet that if you calculated the correlation between capitalism and per capita gdp, you would find that the most capitalist countries are the richest. I now offer my apologies, because I do not have the research tools nor the expertise to produce a chart for you in a timely fashion.)

But the thing is, Sam, you don't have to offer businesses an incentive--THEY WILL DO IT THEMSELVES. Businesses have to pay, let's say $.01 each, for their plastic bags. If they figure out a way to recycle, they will have to buy fewer bags and will MAKE MORE MONEY. SO THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING AND THE PROCESS WILL WORK.

Note to readers: the following is a bit geeky, but relevant. Normally the free market process works almost perfectly (at least in the long-run). But, in the case of environmental economics, pollution is an EXTERNALITY of production and not a COST of production. Businesses, therefore, do not consider pollution in their strategic decisions or consider it at a discounted rate. The government has a role here, as protection of the environment is a public good.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: BANNING PLASTIC BAGS IN ANNAPOLIS WILL NOT DECREASE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. IT DISCOURAGES ONE PARTICULAR PROBLEM AND DOES NOT ENCOURAGE ANY COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION.