NEW  YORK, OCTOBER  14, 1916





PROBLEM  OF ASH  AND  TRADE  WASTE REMOVAL
AFFECTS   EVERY  REALTY  OWNER





ONE of the problems facing real es¬
tate owners, tenants and building
managers is the ash and trade waste
removal question, and the importance
of this matter cannot be overestimated,
for it is brought home clearly and forc¬
ibly to all interested in real estate. The
Real Estate Board of New York and
the New York Building Managers' As¬
sociation made an e.xhaustive study of
the question some time ago, with the
result that a protest was made to the
Board of Estimate. The protest was
based upon discrimination, some of the
buildings having received courtesies
while others were denied them. The
contention was made that all should be
treated alike and no  favoritism  shown.

Discrimination.

J. T. Fetherston, Commissioner of
Street Cleaning, said this week to a
representative of the Record and Guide:
"One of the hardest problems that we
have to face is not to discriminate in
the matter of ash and waste removal.
The practical way out of the difficulty
is for some plan to be devised whereby
each person pays an amount in propor¬
tion to the amount of material removed.
The law does not require the depart¬
ment to remove ashes and waste; in
fact we have not got any appropriation
for this purpose, and even were we so
inclined, we could not do the work. We
have a list of private cartmen, which
we give to those making application,
and then they can make their own
choice as to the firm or individual to
do  the  carting.

"In my report to the Mayor I went
into this subject exhaustively after an
extensive study of conditions. I made
two recommendations to the Board of
Estimate. One was that the city dis¬
continue the collection of such trade
waste as may now be removed by city
vehicles from distinctly business build¬
ings. This recommendation the Board
of Estimate approved. The second one
asked that the city charge private cart¬
men the cost of receiving at the dumps
and disposing of trade waste (exclud¬
ing those kind of materia' affected by
the injunction) from distinctly business
buildings, the following being the rates
during 1916:

(Truck
Capacity Basis)
Per Cubic Yard

Borough—               Ashes.       Rubbish.

Manhattan    ...........$0.23           $0.05

The   Bronx   ...........25              .05

Brooklyn    .............47              .02

"This recommendation was denied.

Early History.

"In New York, as in most all other
cities, householders and tradesmen orig¬
inally disposed of ashes, garbage and
rubbish directly on the premises, or at
nearby dumps. As the city grew and
population increased, householders, by
arrangement with private cartmen, had
refuse removed and deposited on land
fills or in nearby waters, while at the
same time tradesmen generally carted
their  own  wastes  to  the  public  dumps.

"Later on, the citizens finding that
the private cart owners were giving in¬
adequate service or charging excessive
prices, demanded the collections of
wastes by the municipality, and the
tradesmen   as   well   took   advantage   of





this service at public expense. Con¬
tract work proving unsatisfactory or
e.xcessive in cost, was replaced by mu¬
nicipal collection, and until the bur¬
den of trade waste removal and dis¬
posal attracted attention, refuse from
stores, office buildings, factories, etc.,
was collected and disposed of by the
municipality  at  public  expense.

"The growth of the city outstripped
the appropriations in the Department of
Street Cleaning for collection and dis¬
posal of refuse, and in 1903 the then
Commissioner, John McGaw Wood¬
bury, refused to remove certain classes
of trade waste. His contentions were
upheld by the Supreme Court (People
ex rel. .\dams Dry Goods Co. vs. Wood¬
bury, 88 A. D., 443), and since that time
the city has refused to collect certain
classes of trade waste, the line of dis¬
tinction being drawn on ashes or rub¬
bish from factories or other establish¬
ments used for manufacturing purposes
and not for heating or domestic pur¬
poses.

"The definition of trade waste in the
department has never been accurately
determined. Endless complaint has re¬
sulted from failure of the city to re¬
move all classes of wastes from all
kinds of buildings. For years the city
has been and is receiving ashes from
some oftice buildings used only for
commercial purposes; rubbish from all
kinds of stores and business establish¬
ments; ashes from steam heating plants,
such as that of the New York Steam
Company, have been disposed of at city
expense. The city has been and is to¬
day, in fact, disposing of ashes and rub¬
bish from many power plants, from bus¬
iness buildings and other commercial es¬
tablishments without charge, though
private carts as a rule deliver these
materials to city dumps at the expense
of the owners or companies concerned.
1,200 Permits Issued.

"There are approximately 1,200 per¬
mits issued to private cartmen, employ¬
ing 350 to 400 vehicles, mainly two-
horse trucks, engaged in collecting re¬
fuse and delivering most of the mate¬
rial at the city dumps for disposal at
general city expense, while the Depart¬
ment of Street Cleaning has on the av¬
erage 1,800 single horse carts collecting
and disposing of refuse from house¬
holds, small stores, apartment houses,
and other buildings not served by the
private collectors. The demands for
the extension of collection service at
city expense have increased year by
year, so that a definite policy must be
adopted by the city respecting both the_
collection and disposal of all classes of
refuse, including trade waste. Most
cities in this country and abroad do not
collect trade waste at public expense.

"Chapter 534 of the Charter contains
the only provision of law pertaining to
the city's duty to remove refuse of any
kind. It requires the Department o*
Street Cleaning, among other things, 'to
remove and dispose, as often as the pub¬
lic health and the use of the streets
may require, of ashes, street sweepings,
garbage and other light refuse and rub¬
bish.'

"In 1899, in the case of Quill vs. the
Mayor, etc. (36 A. D., 481) the court
held that the duty imposed upon the
municipality by its charter, of removing
refuse, was not a governmental func¬
tion,  but  a  private   duty,  which   would





otherwise rest upon the residents and
property owners within the municipal¬
ity. In 1903, in the case of the Adams
Dry Goods Company vs. Woodbury (88
A. D., 443) the Supreme Court decided
tliat the Department was not obliged to
remove trade waste, whether in the
form of ashes, garbage or other form of
refuse material. It was also stated in
this case that the Commissioner of
Street Cleaning, in his discretion, might
legally discriminate in favor of some
of the inhabitants of the city as against
others, so long as this discrimination
was not arbitrary and was necessary
owing to inadequate appropriation or
insufficiency  of  department  equipment.

Bearing on Problem.

"These two cases bear directly upon
tlie problem of trade waste collection
and disposal in New York City. Ap¬
parently the collection and disposal of
any class of refuse is a private duty
which the city has taken over and un¬
der both the Charter and the decision
in the Woodbury case, the city may
draw the line with respect to the serv¬
ice rendered, 'provided no discrimina¬
tion exists therefrom. This naturally
gives the city the opportunity of de¬
fining its policy with respect to the col¬
lection as well as the disposal of solid
wastes, and there arise nt this point
' important questions:

"Shall the city collect and dispose of
all classes of refuse regardless of the
source of the material, on the ground
that the payment for this service comes
from general ta.xation, or shall the city
restrict this service so as to exclude
some portions of the refuse from spe¬
cific sources?

"Where shall the line be drawn be¬
tween the classes of service which the
city may render at public expense and
that which shall be conducted at pri¬
vate   expense?

"Shall the city collect and dispose of
all classes of waste on the ground that
the payment for this service comes from
general taxation, or shall the city re¬
strict this service so as to exclude some
portions of the refuse?

• Taxes and Service.

"If it be accepted that the amount of
taxes paid should be returned by com¬
mensurate service on the part of the
city, then the largest producers of trade
waste would be entitled to correspond¬
ing service. The New York Edison
Company, the New York Steam Com¬
pany, and similar power plants, might
thus demand from the city that ashes
from boilers be collected and disposed
of at the general expense of the tax¬
payers. Yet those using the product of
such plants are unquestionably charged
with the cost of collecting and dispos¬
ing of the wastes therein produced. Un»
doubtedly department stores, factories,
etc., charge consumers with the ex¬
penses incident to waste collection and
also disposal. In extreme cases on this
theory building construction wastes, cel¬
lar excavations, remains of condemned
buildings, etc., would be removed at
public expense. Brief consideration of
any plan for rendering service commen¬
surate with the amount of taxes paid
shows the impossibility of even approx¬
imating this condition, and the duty im¬
posed upon the department of remov¬
ing refuse 'as often as the use of the
(Continued on page 524).