Columbia University Libraries Digital Collections: The Real Estate Record

Real estate record and builders' guide: [v. 98, no. 2535: Articles]: October 14, 1916

Text version:

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).