OccupySacto.org

Hi all.

My name is Joey and I founded a company called Set It Aside a year ago. Our little company acts as a recycling Currier service for customers, picking up, sorting, weighing, and selling recyclables on behalf of our customers. Many of our customers don't have the means to take in their materials themselves and so love our service.

Of course, this meant we were taking money away from Waste Management and once they found out, our fight began.

First, we got a phone call from Cal Recycle telling us we were operating illegally. When we pointed out the law and asked them what law we were in violation of, they told us that we were operating in a loophole and they didn't like it.

A short time later we received a cease and desist from being an uncertified recycler. We again pointed out that by the bottle law we were not any kind of recycler by definition and therefor could not be could not be uncertified for something we didn't have to certify for and immediately filed for a hearing.

We contacted CalRecycle many times over a period of months requesting our hearing and were given the run around.

Finally, we filed with the Supreme Court for a hearing and suddenly Cal Recycle spoke up stating we had not gone through due process by having an administrative hearing. The reason they want the administrative hearing is because they can bring in here say and are not bound by the letter of the law.

So here we are, a company looking to put money back into local economies, put money into schools, help the environment in a sensible way, keep a majority of materials out of landfills that end up there everyday, create green jobs, and even help those who could not otherwise get money for their materials, and Waste Management and Republic, who have over 90% of the countries recycling contracts are targeting us through CalRecycle and trying to shut us down.

Just another example of the 1% rearing up against us.

Hi Joey,

I don’t know about the substance of the law, not having read it. However, I think that Cal Recycle is correct that the due process rights were violated; furthermore, I that the state ran waste management system is a good thing.

Cal Recycle’s due process rights were violated when you directly sued them in superior court without first exhausting administrative remedies. Generally, you’re going to have to play by the rules when you’re challenging an executive branch of the government. One of the most common hurdles is an exhaustion of administrative remedies within an executive body of government, here Cal Recycle. There are very good reasons for this requirement. First, there is the separation of powers between the judiciary and other branches of government. Second, it’s supported by practical considerations of efficiency and proper procedure. Third, Cal Recycle is better equipped to interpret the laws created by the legislature which they issue regulations to enforce. Your failure to exhaust administrative remedies violated their due process rights because it gave an unelected judge the power to intrude on executive power, made Cal Recycle waste taxpayer money in court, and was not the correct venue to contest them. Because you failed to exhaust administrative remedies, you deprived Cal Recycle of Due Process.

I also think that a government monopoly on waste management is a good thing. Here, you attempted to infringe on the government monopoly of Waste Management, operated under the rules and regulations of Cal Recycle. Just as fedex/UPS cannot deliever regular postal mail, there are good reasons to disallow private businesses to compete with important government functions. Some reasons are: equality, the unavailability of public goods in the market, and the free ride problem. Now, this analysis may not apply in all situations and I know there are certain legislative/regulatory exceptions (bakery waste exception, oil exception, toxic substance exception).

Ironically, Cal Recycle seems to be enforcing a law that is anti-corporate. In this case, you're the corporation trying to interfere with an important state public service.

Actually, just to correct you on a few points it isn't CalRecycle that is running waste managment, it is the other way around.

Next, we attempted for many months to be granted an administrative hearing and it was only after we were not given a date after repeated requests that we finally filed with the Superior court.

Finally, there is no interpretation of the law in this case. The bottle law states clearly that a recycler is:

14519.5. "Recycler" means a recycling
center, dropoff or collection program, or
curbside program.

The closest that Set It Aside would come to any definition would be a curbside program. However this is the definition of a curbside program:

14509.5. “Curbside program” means a
recycling program which meets all of the
following criteria:
(a) The program picks up empty
beverage containers from individual ormultiple family residences, or both, and the
empty beverage containers are separated
from waste materials prior to being picked
up.
(Which we do not)
(b) The program is operated by, or
pursuant to a contract with, a city, county, or
other public agency, or is acknowledged, in
writing, by a city, county, or other public
agency.
(Which we do not)
(c) The program accepts empty beverage
containers from consumers with the intent to
recycle them, but does not pay the refund
value.
(Our customers pay us, not the other way around, and therefore is not applicable)

Finally, there is no government monopoly as better than 90% of all recycling programs in the state of California are managed and profited by large private corporations.

This is a case where the large corporations are working through the government to stop money from going back to consumers to whom it rightly belongs.

Set it aside,

Keep up the good work. You seem to know what you are doing and you made the effort to talk with them. The resonalbleness gets lost in the laws.

Nice that you are attempting to do the right thing,but sometimes the laws are written to set up an advantage and control for one group with the justification of making a program work economicly. It seems at some level that we all want recyling and better energy efficiancy, but it is sad that you are fighting over garbage and a niche in the economic system.

Good luck. David