Skip to main content
By its very definition, the news is unfamiliar and alarming. So many headlines feel like dispatches from a future we are not prepared for, and which has no room for us. Perhaps that begins to explain why the announcement that Metro has begun accepting pizza boxes in the recycling bin struck a chord (Dr. Know, WW, Nov. 11). There is some comfort in remembering that the recycling policy baffles and annoys you, just as it baffled and annoyed your parents, and just as it will baffle and annoy your children. Perhaps 300 years from now, the robots that live in your descendants’ eyeglasses will be composing emoji messages about how none of the other eyeglass robots understands that the Soylent Green cups go in the blue bins. Perhaps your confusion will live on. Meanwhile, here’s what our readers had to say:
surethingsatan, via Reddit: “I remember when we were supposed to put them in the recycling bin. And I remember when we had to put them in the compost bin. And I remember when we weren’t supposed to put them in the compost bin anymore.
“What a wild waste management ride it has been.”
HighMarshalSigismund, in reply: “Maybe the real waste management was the pizza we ate along the way.”
Dave Lister, via wweek.com: “When Portland came out with its forced composting program, Sam Adams was all excited and said, ‘Now we can recycle our pizza boxes.’ That was 15 or 20 years ago.”
danfish_77, via Reddit: “I kind of assumed that if they were grease and food free they were already OK, but it’s good to know a little is acceptable. I don’t like how this headline is worded though, like the city was being tyrannical in not allowing us to do it.”
Ragweed, in reply: “I’ve been cutting the clean parts away from the soiled parts. Eighty percent of the box is usually unsoiled.”
Shannon Saunders, via Facebook: “Did anyone read the article? It says you may put pizza boxes in the recycling if they are mostly grease free; if not, put it in the compost still.”
voxadam, via Reddit: “It’s helpful for those of us who live in apartments that don’t have access to compost bins.”
ThomaasPlaine, via Reddit: “It’s also helpful for the ~45,000 people who were already doing it every week.”
A WISH LIST FOR STARVING OREGON
I think WW’s readers deserve some additional context regarding your article about the Tax Foundation’s business tax rankings (“Oregon Plunges in Tax Competitiveness Rankings,” wweek.com, Nov. 12).
The Tax Foundation is a corporate-funded think tank that churns out content used to fight against higher taxes that pay for schools and public services. The thing to know about their “State Tax Competitiveness Index” is that the ranking bears no relation to the actual amount of taxes paid by businesses. Instead, the rankings are a scorecard for tax policies that benefit big corporations and the wealthy. For example, the Tax Foundation doesn’t like progressive taxes, where individuals and corporations with more income pay higher rates. Therefore, the more tax brackets a state uses, the lower the Tax Foundation scores them. They also penalize states with alternative minimum taxes and rules that ensure all corporate income is taxed, so that profitable corporations don’t get away with paying nothing.
The Tax Foundation’s index is a wish list of things that would starve Oregon of revenue while making our tax system much more regressive. It’s no wonder their rankings are such a poor predictor of economic growth and employment. Oregonians value public services and want a fair tax system to pay for them. If we’re falling in the Tax Foundation rankings, it probably means we’re on the right track.
Daniel Morris
Northeast Portland
WYOMING? WHY NOT
I saw your article about Oregon’ tax competitiveness according to the Tax Foundation. I found it funny that they’re holding up Wyoming as a state to emulate for a couple reasons. For one, there’s less people in that entire state than live in Pelosi’s California district or that live in Portland. Apples and oranges.
Even more interesting is that Wyoming has a huge upcoming deficit. That state faces projected budget deficits in its general fund ($10 million by 2029–2030) and school foundation program ($686 million by 2029–2030). The Wyoming Department of Transportation also has a significant projected deficit, now closer to $600 million. (Ironic considering the ODOT issues Republicans are pushing in Oregon.) That’s around a $2,100 per capita deficit for every man, woman and child in Wyoming. To avoid a constitutional deficit, the state must use its savings accounts, cut spending, or raise revenues.
Might have been a good idea to include those little details to give the whole story of “tax competitiveness.”
Jerry Orlando
Beaverton
Letters to the editor must include the author’s street address and phone number for verification. Letters must be 250 or fewer words. Submit to:
P.O. Box 10770
Portland, OR 97296
Email: amesh@wweek.com
