Inorganic collection must remain

Re Waitakere City Council's proposal to abolish the annual inorganic rubbish collection. We were alarmed to learn of the proposal. We have lived in this area for approximately 30 years and, as we recall, the current inorganic service provided to Waitakere City residents was instituted in an attempt to eliminate the then very widespread practice of dumping inorganic rubbish in parks and roadside reserves areas in the city.
Indeed, we both seem to recall that not too many years ago, a weekly inorganic collection was provided by the council.
In our view, the Council's possible $45 pay-as-you-go scheme just will not work and we believe that very many residents will seek to avoid the charge and return to the practice of roadside dumping i.e, a return to the state of affairs which led to the adoption of the present system was designed to eliminate.
We believe that the current annual collection has been largely successful in this regard and since we have no wish to the former state of affairs, we are opposed to the proposed abolition of the service.
The argument mentioned in your article that the present system is paid for by many residents who do not use the system seems a rather debatable one.
The same argument is not mounted against roading costs or rating contributions to parks and recreation areas.
All residents are required to contribute to roading costs and to the development/maintenance of parks and recreation facilities - whether or not they own/drive a car, or whether or not they make use of council parks and recreation facilities.
The worry of some councillors regarding the disposal of computers, TVs etc touches on a current nationwide problem which clearly needs more attention than any local body arrangement.
We have heard a strong rumour that efforts are currently underway via Central Government, to formulate a policy/strategy whereby retailers/suppliers would take responsibility for the disposal of white-ware/TVs/computers etc as is now in place in a number of countries.
If and when such a provision was in place, the problems mentioned by councillors regarding disposal of such materials would not arise.
And even if the current situation were to continue, it would clearly better to have such equipment conveyed to a designated area rather than their being dumped elsewhere.
In the circumstances, we believe that the proposed abolition would represent an unfortunate, and very regrettable, short-sighted/wrong-sighted step. We strongly oppose the proposal.
Ruth & Keri Wilton Titirangi