Letters to the Editor

Expanded Bottle Bill

The Courant is again promoting expansion of the bottle bill [editorial, Nov. 14, "Many More Happy Returns"]: a 1970s solution to a 2008 challenge.

The Courant's logic is a great example of how vacuous leadership is in this state. The editorial proposes that to gain revenue, we should expand a law that doesn't work. Instead of going after unclaimed deposits (not an easy task), why not just propose increasing taxes? In the end, that is what The Courant is proposing.

I am not reflexively opposed to raising taxes, but let's just be honest about it instead of expanding a law that we hope fails. Why doesn't The Courant advocate not returning containers currently with a deposit, thereby leaving even more nickels to collect?

Ben Davol, Farmington

The deposit scheme should most certainly be expanded to cover non-carbonated beverages. But equally important, the deposit amount should be adjusted for inflation.

Five cents, 30 years ago, is equivalent to about 15 cents today. And if 5 cents was fair then, it must follow that 15 cents is fair now. And at 15 cents a pop, I bet there would be much better take-up of the scheme overall.

David Rose, Hebron

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-digbrflets1116.art0nov16,0,670614.story