Letter to the Editor: The Case for Peachtree City’s Single-Hauler Trash Plan

I have been following the debate over Peachtree City’s proposed single-hauler trash service, including my friend Eric Imker’s recent letter urging Council to abandon or substantially revise the proposal.

Normally, I am skeptical of government mandates and monopolies. If the government takes away my ability to choose a company, there had better be a compelling reason and meaningful protection against poor service and escalating prices.

In this case, I think there is.

I currently pay Republic Services $87.60 per quarter at my home for weekly trash and biweekly recycling, and $99.75 at another Peachtree City property I own for the same basic service. Proposals presented to Council included weekly trash and recycling for $63.45; adding biweekly yard debris and curbside limb pickup brought it to $75; adding regular bulk pickup brought it to $85.56.

Those numbers deserve consideration, but price isn’t my only concern.

Having multiple companies send enormous garbage trucks through the same neighborhoods on different mornings every week is noisy, inefficient, and unnecessary. I’ve considered organizing my own neighbors around one provider, but inevitably there would be holdouts and we’d still have multiple trucks.

The strongest argument against a single provider is the loss of competition. But as City Manager Justin Strickland explained to me after I wrote the Council, the City isn’t eliminating competition; it’s simply moving competition from individual households to city-wide procurement.

Six companies competed for this contract. The winner doesn’t get Peachtree City forever. The RFP begins with a 12-month term, allows annual renewals for up to five years, limits price adjustments, and allows the City to terminate at the end of a contract year—or even before that—for poor performance.

Instead of 13,700 households individually shopping for service, Peachtree City can put approximately 13,700 customers on the table and say: Compete for our business. The City also has far greater leverage to enforce standards for missed pickups, customer service, and performance than I do as a single Republic customer.

That’s not a permanent monopoly. It’s periodic exclusivity based on competitive bidding and continued performance.

Eric makes a fair point that the Council should question whether every available service needs to be bundled into the basic package. If removing a service substantially lowers the price, the Council should know that before making a decision. And if the City can negotiate a better deal than those currently before it, by all means, negotiate it.

But I disagree that yard debris collection is inherently “waste” simply because every resident won’t use it equally. I don’t live next to a forest nor a greenbelt. When I have significant yard debris, my choices today are essentially to load it up and haul it to the Rockaway Road debris facility myself or pay someone to take it away.

There is also an unfortunate fourth option that some residents, including Eric, purportedly chooses: dumping yard debris into the greenbelt behind their homes. That isn’t harmless composting in the woods. Peachtree City specifically prohibits dumping yard waste in its greenbelts and has warned that the practice can contribute to both rodents and flooding. It can also introduce unwanted vegetation, create dangerous fuel-load levels, and turn a natural forest into a dumping ground. With the City now prohibiting the burning of yard debris, providing residents an easy, legitimate means of disposing of it has real collective community value. Curbside yard debris collection could provide a legitimate city-wide benefit, even though every household won’t put limbs at the curb every other week.

That’s true of many things we collectively pay for. I don’t have to personally use every service every week for the service to have value to the community.

Eric also points to overwhelming Facebook opposition. The Council should listen—concerns about choice, cost, and government authority are legitimate. But Facebook comments aren’t a referendum. People opposing change are often more motivated to comment than those who support it or haven’t formed an opinion. The Council should ultimately decide based on facts, costs, benefits, and the community’s long-term interests, not simply count Facebook comments.

When we moved here in 2007, I asked why our neighborhood didn’t have an HOA. Neighbors repeatedly told me Peachtree City did such a good job maintaining community standards that we didn’t need one. That stuck with me.

Council shouldn’t rush this, accept a mediocre contract, nor ignore legitimate objections. But it shouldn’t abandon a potentially good idea simply because opposition is louder than support.

If nearly 14,000 households can collectively obtain lower prices, secure enforceable standards, establish practical yard-debris disposal, and see fewer heavy trucks in our neighborhoods while making private companies periodically compete for our business, that’s an idea worth pursuing.

Competition is important.

But competition doesn’t require obnoxious garbage trucks to drive down my street every day of the week.

Bert Close
Peachtree City