Cooked Man's Podcast - Littering and the Law

The transcription discusses the issue of littering in Philadelphia and the efforts to address it. The city has a bad reputation due to the improper disposal of waste items like food wrappers and plastic bottles. The new mayor, Sherell Parker, has promised to create programs to target littering. Littering is considered a crime in Pennsylvania, with fines and penalties for offenders. There are two sides to the issue, with some stakeholders supporting stricter enforcement and others arguing for increased public education. Stricter enforcement may be challenging due to difficulties in catching offenders in the act. Opponents also argue that fines may disproportionately impact low-income residents. The transcription proposes a multi-pronged approach to combat littering, including increased enforcement with incentives, improved infrastructure and education, and deposit return systems. The goal is to reduce littering, promote community ownership, and lower cleanup costs. Overall, addressing l My name is Daniel Adams, and today we're going to discuss a topic that should be very hard to overlook, but alas, it is overlooked, and it's most likely overlooked because it is visible everywhere and has quite become the normality of the city you and I live in. I'm speaking of the litter issue, which, if you don't know, you probably do, refers to the improper disposal of any waste items, including food wrappers, cigarette butts, and plastic bottles, just naming a few, in which mayor after mayor, and policy after policy has been used in the hopes of lessening the presence of what has given the city a bad image and a bad nickname to go with it. You've probably heard people say Filthy Philly or Filfidolfia. Our new mayor, Sherell Parker, is the latest in the fight, having promised the creation of many programs to target littering. It's a persistent issue plaguing Philadelphia, impacting public health, aesthetics, and the environment. I'll be using this time to delve into the problem, to explore arguments from various stakeholders, and to propose a solution. In Pennsylvania, Title 18 of Chapter 65 of the General Assembly outlines littering as a crime, prohibiting and providing punishments for the discarding of waste on roads, public or private land, and water waste. I have with me in exact words what the statute says. A person is guilty of an offense if he or they causes any waste water, sweepings, ashes, household waste, glass, metal, or fuse, or rubbish, or any dangerous or detrimental substance to be deposited into or upon any road, street, highway, alley, or railroad, right of way, or upon the land of another, or into the waters of this commonwealth. They're also guilty if they interfere with, scatters, or disturbs the contents of any receptable that contains ashes, garbage, household waste, or rubbish, or is the owner of an operator or an agent of either a trash, garbage, or debris collection vehicle, including private automobiles and small trucks, or any other type of vehicles used to collect or transport trash, garbage, or debris, who knownly causes to be deposited or deposits the vehicles load or any part thereof upon any road, street, highway, alley, or railroad, right of way, or upon the land of another, or into the waters of this commonwealth. The penalties incorporate a tier system of offense occurrences, which include fines from 50 to 300 for the first offense and subjection to trash pickup. Later fines and the debt of misdemeanors and possible incarceration increase with the amount of offenses. Still, littering is a persistent issue, and as always, there's two sides to a situation. For the policy against litter, there are also two perspectives from stakeholders who are supportive and those who are detractors. Stakeholders that agree with the policy will say that Philadelphia spends millions annually cleaning up litter and illegal dumping, a burden on taxpayers like yourself and I. The litter not only detracts the city's image but also poses health risks by attracting pests and harboring contaminants. That is especially important because in an extreme case where a civilian contracts an illness or sustained injuries from pest bites and that citizen decides to take legal action, the city of Philadelphia would then be liable under a tort law involving negligence. Illegal dumping can block waterways, contaminate soil, or release harmful toxins. Even in the wake of trash collection, there is still a huge amount of trash in the streets, which makes our efforts in voting and funding through taxpaying seem the least worthwhile. In 2021, a group of activists were so appalled about the trash collection, they protested on the steps of the municipal services building, standing next to bags of waste and holding signs. They called for board reservations, better trash pickup strategies, and improved working conditions for sanitation workers, for which the latter is the most probable cause for post-collection trash. Then as now, dumping and litter were among the residents' top complaints. That's what journalists Reed and Schmidt had to say concerning Philadelphia residents. For them, it's accountability and nothing else. Opponents of stricter enforcement argue that the responsibility lies with individuals in disposing of trash properly. They may argue for increased public education campaigns, stressing personal responsibility. In addition, enforcement remains challenging. No one can really catch someone in the act of littering unless the litterer chooses to litter in front of enforcement. People throwing things out of moving cars make identification difficult, leading to low conviction rates. Fines may disproportionately impact low-income residents. Besides, residents in under-resourced neighborhoods might have limited access to proper trash disposal options, leading to more littering. When discussing with some police, they mentioned to me that the city of Philadelphia has far more issues to worry about, including gun violence and poverty, the latter of which may correlate to the lead littering issue. So why should, of all things, we choose to worry about litter? That's the viewpoint of people who oppose tight enforcement. As with the overwhelming majority, I hate littering, and I hate noticing the trash that I often see in the sidewalks, the cluster of trash stuck in the grass, and even more loathe the scent of some areas like the subway system because they smell of garbage. I won't say that because it is hard to enforce littering laws that we should let the problem continue to multiply. As a believer in the social contract theory, I believe that we all live in a society because there is a set of standards that we all have implicitly agreed to. A set of standards that establishes moral rules that respects the law. People should be deterred from disrespecting the law. To combat littering and illegal dumping, I have proposed a multi-pronged approach. Increased enforcement with incentives. The city can supplement the policy through sustainability programs that enhance enforcement efforts through dedicated anti-littering patrols and community watch programs. Such could be to offer rewards for reporting littering incidents and organize community cleanup events with incentives like vouchers or gift certificates. Improved infrastructure and education can also be a focus. Investing in comprehensive public awareness campaigns that utilizes social media, public service announcements, and educational programs in school. Increasing the number of public trash cans, particularly in high-littered areas, is also feasible. Deposit return systems, which implements a deposit return system for beverage containers offering small cash rewards for returning those pieces. This incentivizes proper disposal and reduces plastic waste. The proposed approach aims to reduce littering by increasing enforcement and incentives that will deter littering while promoting community ownership through engaging residents in cleanup efforts that will foster a sense of community ownership and responsibility. The proposal also aims to reduce costs. Lower litter volumes leads to reduced cleanup costs for the city. Some foreseeable limitations are still enforcement challenges. Enforcing littering laws remains challenging, requiring consistent commitment which can be incentivized by greater investment into policing or something of supervisory e-protocol. In conclusion, littering is a complex issue demanding a multifaceted approach. While enforcement of policy plays a role, public education, infrastructure improvements, and community engagement are crucial for long-term success. Building a culture of individual responsibility combined with accessible waste disposal options offers a promising path towards a cleaner and healthier Philadelphia. Thank you.