Yesterday, I received a copy of the Gwinett Daily Post’s article on socialized garbage via the Gwinnett Village CID mailing list. There is not really any additional information that was not included in the AJC’s similar story, but again the Post outreports the AJC on Gwinnett issues. However, there are a couple of claims by Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful’s Connie Wiggins I must rebut.
“Based on on-going market studies and rates reported by citizens, the current average price for garbage and recycling service in Gwinnett is $21 per month,” the statement said. “The ‘Greener Tomorrow’ program will provide services at more affordable rates.”
So if $21 per month is the average, then, by definition,some residents are paying less than that. As I outlined in my earlier post, I was paying $18.23 per month to Allied Waste. If others were paying more, that is their decision. Residents could change providers if price was their absolute primary concern. (And before someone complains that their homeowners association selected a single hauler for their neighborhood, that is your neighborhood’s fault for allowing your association’s leadership to take away your economic freedom.) It is not the role of government to ensure equality of outcome. Perhaps this is the local version of “spreading the wealth.”
For residents who have complained that the new system is being forced upon them, GCB Services points to two years of work with more than 5,000 citizens who’ve participated in the community forums and the public hearing process. There is also a citizens advisory board comprised of 50 residents where concerns can be addressed.
Wiggins’s argument simply does not hold water. Since when do my neighbors and fellow Gwinnett residents have the right to deny my economic freedom of choice simply because they worked hard on a program? When I visited the dealer and bought my car, I did not take along a committee that could override my choice of vehicles. When I purchase merchandise, I do not have to go clear it with my next door neighbor.
Finally, the reasons that Wiggins cites for the program are spurious as I have previously outlined. She specifically talks about residents who do not have service and even go to extremes as depicted in the story. If Wiggins feels this is makes it ok for Gwinnett residents to be subjected to this program, I am glad she is not a doctor. If she were, she might decide to cut off an arm rather than stitch up a cut. Here is a better suggestion: if this is that serious of a problem, mandate that all residents have an active garbage service agreement. While I do not like government mandates, such a solution would be preferable to a blanket denial of economic freedom.
I would like to close with a note regarding Connie Wiggins. Ms. Wiggins has been the focus of my comments in this post because she was the official quoted in the article. Ms. Wiggins, however, does not carry the burden of ultimate responsibility for this program. Rather, our county commissioners are the ones that set aside our freedom of choice in favor of socialized garbage. Wiggins is merely the public face at this point who will likely bear an unfair portion of the scorn over what Gwinnett’s government has done to its residents.



