Fee boycott may not be the answer By G. Michael Dobbs Managing Editor Few things in life are as certain as death, taxes and trash. No matter what we do in life we have to clean up the mess and put it somewhere. How we do it is a big issue from landfills to recycling to modern incinerators and how we pay for it is another. Trash may be worthless to us, but it represents big money to others. And in Springfield's case, it is a possible revenue stream. Now I'm willing to bet you a Chef Wayne's poor boy sandwich that no one in the city is ready and eager to cough up $90 a year to pay for something for which he or she is already paying for through taxes. I'm a homeowner in the city and I'm not happy. However, these are tough times and the city has done an admirable job cleaning up the financial mess left by the previous administration. Granted, the contracts for the teachers and the patrolmen still hang over our heads, but overall the reduction of the deficit and the re-establishment of some stability are causes for celebration. The Financial Control Board's decision to approve a $90 annual trash fee was designed to bridge the diminished but still present financial gap. It was a move that made no one happy. I'm not sure, though, that State Representative Cheryl Coakley-Rivera's call for a boycott is the right solution. At the meeting last week at the Church in the Acres, Coakley-Rivera handed out a spreadsheet to show how the Legislature has allocated the city quite a chunk of change over the past three fiscal years. The monies that Coakley-Rivera discussed, though, were all designated for specific uses. Some of the funding she cited were grants that have definite end dates. Although Coakley-Rivera spoke of suing the city, what really motivated many of the 200 or so people who attended the event was her call for a boycott. Coakley-Rivera also said that establishing a residency clause for new city employees would be a better way to boost the city's finances than the trash fee. Where the city needs an increase is in Additional Assistance, which can be used for discretionary purposes. We still only get $1.8 million. Coakley-Rivera did not speak about trying to come up with a formula that would be more equitable than the current system in determining how these funds are distributed. I'm all in favor in fighting the trash fee legally once we all know the details. I'm curious to see how this system will be enforced. Will putting a lien on rental properties owned by an absentee landlord really coerce them into paying? Many don't keep their properties maintained as is. Will seniors get a break? How will the $90 fee affect bulk pick-ups fees? What I think we need to do in the city is to work through the courts and the Legislature to receive some needed relief on this issue. A boycott may be emotionally satisfying, but it may not get the job done. This column actually represents the opinions of its author. Send your comments to mdobbs@reminderpublications.com or to 280 N. Main St., East Longmeadow, MA 01028.