June 14, 2010
As law languishes, trash falls where it may
Litter citations in steep decline
In Arlo Guthrie’s rambling ’60s classic “Alice’s Restaurant,’’ the hippie folk singer ends up in jail for littering in Stockbridge. These days, Guthrie would probably get off with a warning.
Enforcement of littering laws is decidedly lax, a Globe review of state records has found. Few offenders are cited, and most escape without a fine. The Registry of Motor Vehicles does not suspend scofflaws’ licenses, although state law gives them that authority.
Statewide, 345 citations were issued for littering last year, down from 463 in 2007. In the first four months of this year, just 61 people were cited. Despite ominous roadside signs warning of $10,000 fines, most citations did not carry a penalty.
Antilittering activists say the hands-off approach is contributing to the abundance of debris cluttering the region’s roadsides, and that littering should be treated as a serious offense.
“I understand that nobody wants to divert police from their important crime and public safety work,’’ said Phillip Sego of the Massachusetts Sierra Club. “But they are also the front line of enforcement of quality of life issues, and we urge them to redouble their efforts to enforce these laws.’’
Authorities say tougher scrutiny is unlikely. The Registry of Motor Vehicles says it would be too expensive to create a hearing process for suspended licenses, and State Police say they will continue to concentrate on protecting public safety.
“Littering is nothing we condone, but we want to keep our focus on erratic drivers who can cause harm to others,’’ said David Procopio, a spokesman for the State Police.
There are three primary state laws against littering. The toughest regulation calls for fines as high as $5,500 for first offenders, and $15,000 for subsequent violations. This law also gives authorities the power to seize vehicles used to dump more than 7 cubic feet of rubbish.
Just 79 violations of this law were recorded last year.
A second law prohibits littering from motor vehicles, and allows the registry to suspend licenses for a week. A third prohibits the tossing of lighted cigarettes from vehicles. Statewide, the number of citations for discarding lighted cigarettes declined from 85 in 2007 to 49 last year.
Environmentalists say the minimal enforcement reflects society’s dwindling interest in littering. Since the days of the iconic “crying Indian’’ commercial and the dawn of the modern environmental movement, littering has lost some luster as an environmental cause, elbowed aside by far-reaching fears of climate change, catastrophic oil spills, and dwindling natural resources.
Amid such sweeping concerns, some fear the most basic taboo — blithely tossing trash on the ground — may have faded.
“We’ve slipped a little,’’ said Ken Pruitt, managing director of the Environmental League of Massachusetts. “We need a reinvestment in civic pride, and we need to renew the message that it’s socially unacceptable to litter. We need today’s version of the crying Indian.’’
Many observers believe litter has slowly declined over the years, and collection efforts have become more vigorous. Widespread public aversion toward littering, coupled with a growing awareness of the benefits of recycling, has made inroads, they say.
For instance, a 2009 study by Keep America Beautiful found that litter has declined 61 percent over the past four decades, with dramatic reductions in the amount of discarded metal, glass, and paper. Over the same time, plastic litter has increased 165 percent.
Motorists are responsible for more than half of litter, the study found. Observation of nearly 10,000 people found that nearly 17 percent of all the items they threw away was in the form of litter, the study reported. By far the most frequent were cigarette butts, at 57 percent, followed by food remnants, food wrappers, and beverage cans.
The study estimated there are more than 51 billion pieces of litter on the road, and some say that progress has been halting. People still discard coffee cups, candy wrappers, and crushed beer cans. Water bottles, usually seen as a sign of personal health, are so widely strewn they have become a symbol of public blight.
“I don’t think it’s getting better at all,’’ said Paul Lauenstein, a Sharon resident who recently organized an Earth Day cleanup. “There’s a lot of trash out there, and it’s disheartening. Seeing fresh litter, it just irks me.’’
Lauenstein and other advocates say that light enforcement compounds the problem. People are more likely to litter in places where litter is common. In the same vein, police become more hesitant to enforce laws that are so widely flouted.
“I think they are almost embarrassed to cite someone,’’ he said. “But it’s like speeding. If they issue a few tickets, people will slow down.’’
In 2009, the State Police issued just 57 citations for littering, down from 78 in 2007. That includes tossing cigarettes, which can draw $100 fines.
“You’d think you’d get 57 over Memorial Day weekend,’’ Pruitt said incredulously.
But others say the rate is understandable. Police have more pressing priorities, and don’t often spot scofflaws in the act.
“The burden of proof is so difficult,’’ said Claire Sullivan, who directs the South Shore Recycling Cooperative. “A bottle out the window — that’s never going to be enforced.’’
Others believe that enforcement can only do so much. Urging people to clean up their act through public service ads are a better approach, many say.
“Education is better than fines,’’ said Renata von Tscharner, president of the Charles River Conservancy. “Shaming is better than punishment. It’s the civility that needs to improve.’’
Littering laws rarely enter the political realm. But in 2005, Governor Mitt Romney, dismayed by trash-lined roadways, said the state needed to “get serious’’ about enforcement.
Frankly, we don’t give out a lot of tickets for littering,’’ Romney said at the time. “And we probably ought to do a better job.’’
The former governor said he believed police could enforce antilittering laws without distracting them from their chief duties.
But most environmentalists say it is the bottle law — the measure that requires a nickel deposit on beer and soda containers — that holds the greatest potential to reduce litter. Expanding the deposit to water, juice, and sport drink bottles, they say, would sharply reduce the number of those containers that wind up discarded by the side of the road.
“It’s a stunning example of how if we put the right infrastructure in place good things happen,’’ said Janet Domenitz, executive director of MASSPIRG, a public interest advocacy group. “It’s a simple but kind of brilliant way to make all the right things happen.’’
Yet bottle bill proponents are quick to admit that reducing litter is a secondary focus of their campaign. Litter has taken a back seat to more contemporary environmental concerns.
But some find it hard to imagine society making gains against climate change when people can’t be bothered to throw their trash in a bin. The persistence of littering reflects systemic problems — indifference to community concerns and a me-first attitude that values personal convenience above all else, observers say.
“It’s the most fundamental pollution issue,’’ said New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang, who has stepped up enforcement of littering laws as part of a broad cleanup campaign. “What are you going to do with that piece of paper in your hand right now? If you just take ownership of your little corner of the world it makes a big difference.’’
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/06/14/state_laws_are_tough_on_littering_but_they_are_rarely_enforced/
