Like a couple of letter writers who have weighed in on the dreaded disposable bag issue, I am a friend of the feline. I won’t embarrass myself by revealing the precise number of these creatures that live in my home, but between the cats’ nutritional demands and their leavings, suffice it to say that our family’s City Market bag ration does at least double duty. It is disgusting, really.
For the, shall we say, pleasure of abundant bags for kitty-related toting, I am willing to pay or happy not to. But my personal bag consumption has little to do with the merits of the City Council’s ordinance on the bothersome buggers. Call it a fee, tax, ban or nanny-state attempt at controlling behavior and taking over the world. Or just call it in a poorly crafted policy that misses the mark. What it is not is an issue worth the collective snit this community has twisted itself into.
To begin with, the good. The four city councilors who have steadfastly shepherded the bag ordinance through the city’s processes are demonstrating their dedication to all the right things: reducing waste, encouraging sustainability, leading the community in the right direction, adhering to the city’s “strong commitment to protect our environment and preserve the open space of our beautiful natural lands.” They deserve hugs and high fives for that commitment and their attempt to embody it in city policy. It is an unmitigated good thing these people are trying to do, and it reflects the wishes of plenty of their constituents.
But then there is the other side. There are plenty of constituents who think the bag ordinance is a lousy idea – perhaps equal numbers to those who love it. Those people place the majority on the council and those who support its bag-related activities somewhere along a spectrum ranging from mildly ineffective to overtly intrusive. Further, they claim that no one really wants this ordinance and that it should be done away with. So strongly does this group believe in its position that it put the issue on the ballot: Do we repeal the ordinance with a “yes” vote or do we keep it with a “no.”
From a democracy and policy-process perspective, this is great. Council passes ordinance. Some people hate it. Said people ask voters what they think. Come Tuesday, we will know exactly what city voters really believe about the bag ordinance and that will be that.
In the meantime, though, people on both sides of the issue are behaving as though we were discussing a military campaign or comprehensive health care legislation. Questions about personal motives, values and basic human decency are being lobbed by bag lovers and haters alike. My goodness, folks. Either the ordinance will be repealed or it won’t. We will all still love our families and do our jobs and go to church and recycle our plastics regardless.
Setting aside the question of whether the bag ordinance – which would charge a 10-cent fee for each disposable bag dispensed at the two City Market stores, Albertsons and Walmart – will have a real or merely symbolic effect on the number of bags floating around the community, at issue is whether that is what Durango residents really want. Some say, strongly, vehemently, and persuasively, “Yes!” Some say, vociferously, convincingly, and passionately, “No!” Who is right? Won’t it be fun to find out?
This is an issue about which reasonable people can disagree and still remain in good standing as members of the Durango and human community. Most bag-ordinance proponents are not communist sympathizers bent on imposing a plastic-free lifestyle for all Durangoans. Nor, I would venture, are most opponents of the measure secretly adorning local great blue herons with City Market bag headdresses. The level of emotion both sides are demonstrating, though, would suggest otherwise. Perhaps that is a good sign – that the most distressing thing in so many lives is whether or not bags at some stores in Durango will cost 10 cents; it must mean everything else is going very well. These are, indeed, problems of the privileged that everyone should be so lucky to have.
Megan Graham is a Herald editorial writer and policy analyst. Reach her at meg@durangoherald.com.
