Local

[Print]  [Email]        

Butts burn through city’s cash


May 19, 2009

Price of a puff: The City spends $10.7 million a year cleaning up smokers’ discarded cigarette butts. (Getty Images)

SAN FRANCISCO — Smokers in The City may have to pay an additional 33 cents for a pack of cigarettes to subsidize the cleanup of butts and help close a massive budget deficit.

The fee would be tacked on to the  purchase price, which currently can be as high as $7 in San Francisco.

The City spends more than $44 million each year picking up litter throughout San Francisco, and $10.7 million of that is for discarded cigarettes, according to the Mayor’s Office.  The 33-cent fee is expected to raise $11 million annually.

Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposal for the cigarette fee comes just two weeks before he must submit a balanced city budget to the Board of Supervisors for review and adoption. The City faces a projected $438 million deficit for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

“All litter creates unnecessary costs for the city and its taxpayers,” Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard said. “Cigarette butts are a big part of the problem.”

Butts were one the largest sources of trash in the latest litter audit, according to Ed Reiskin, director of the Department of Public Works, which sweeps up the discarded cigarettes.

Under state law, The City cannot tax cigarettes. However, they can charge a fee to recoup the cost of cleaning up trash created by cigarettes.

California smokers already pay an 87-cent-per-pack tobacco tax, according to the California Lung Association. A recent state bill proposes adding an additional $1.50 to the tax, bringing the cost to $2.37 per pack. It would be the fifth highest rate in the nation and, if passed, would be the first increase in California’s tobacco tax in more than a decade.

The federal tax on cigarettes was boosted by 62 cents April 1, bringing that figure to $1.01.

Jim Lazarus, senior vice president of public policy for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said the city proposal raises a number of concerns. Businesses already pay taxes that are supposed to pay for city services, such as cleanup, he said. Lazarus suggested the litterer, not the purchaser, should pay the price.

Retailers would be responsible for reporting and remitting the collected fee back to The City on a regular basis. A final study is due Friday.

Pack of cash

Cigarette prices in The City may increase even more if a new fee is implemented.

$6-$7 Average cost per pack in city

33 cents Fee city wants to tack on to price of cigarettes

87 cents Current state tax per pack

$2.37 Possible state tax per pack, if state Senate bill is passed

$1.01 Current federal tax per pack

$44 million Cost per year of picking up litter throughout The City

$10.7 million City’s annual cleanup cost attributed to cigarette butts

jsabatini@sfexaminer.com



To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Valery Tozer

May 19, 2009

I WILL Quote;
"Under state law, The City cannot tax cigarettes. However, they can charge a fee to recoup the cost of cleaning up trash created by cigarettes."
Then,
"California smokers already pay an 87-cent-per-pack tobacco tax, according to the California Lung Association."
Also keep in mind that most of the cost for "CLEAN UP" is done by pepole who are working for the city for "FREE" to pay back Wellfair IE. Where exacly is this money going that is cost so much to Clean up the "10.7 million City’s annual cleanup cost attributed to cigarette butts" 10.7 Million is going to the Gas for the Street sweepers, water for hoseing down the streets and pay to the empolyees, if that is the case! then Why are we being taxed for water wast, Employee pay, and gas,
in no way dose this cost 10.7 Million, Some one needt to Audit the city !

 

u gotta be kidding

May 19, 2009

Fraud!

 

Earthgranny

May 19, 2009

Cigarette butts are toxic to wildlife and ugly. Stores collect a fee to recycle beverage containers, why not charge two cents a butt to be refunded when butts are returned?

 

Bruce Winnacott-- KippiPaks.

May 19, 2009

There is a dsposable, reusable small extinguishser ashtray on the market...costing"pennies" that provides the means for all smokers to safely and cleanly dispose of the cigarette butt. This product ..slightly larger than a business card and about the same thicjkness opens up into a fire proof extinguisher for cigarette butts...
It will hold 4 or 5 butts twbich can then be properly disposed of in the trash and reused...all for less thn 10c!

These ashtray are patent protected around the world, are manufactured in Canada and the U S using U S material and labor!
Smokers do not have to do anything but drop the still lit end into the pouch, close the top..and wu=ith in 7 seconds on avaerage..the coal is extinguished

Bruce Winnacott
kippi@rogers.com
647-349-5982

 

Finally

May 19, 2009

Good. Finally we begin to address the tragedy of the commons. Most people could care less about anything 1 inch beyond their nose. Not even aware that someone has to pickup, sweep up, the butts.

 

Non-Smoker

May 19, 2009

I'd smoke a carton of unfiltered cigarettes before I'd vote for Newsom.

 

Zach

May 19, 2009

OK, so now that I'm going to specifically be taxed for it, I will just go ahead and throw butts in the street rather than looking for an ashtray. Surely some portion of street trash is chewing gum wrappers -- why not tax those sales as well? Maybe they should also consider taxing some of the homeless folk who leave human excrement in the streets.

 

U92

May 19, 2009

Discarded cigarette butts are not just a huge source of litter; they are toxic and a fire risk, since few smokers can be bothered to put them out before tossing them away, even during dry spells. From their perspective, better that 1,000 people should be burned out of their homes than that they should have to spend two seconds properly disposing of their butts. But then it is this selfish, lazy attitude that has created the need to extensively legislate what should be just common sense and good manners.

Who besides the people creating the problem should be paying for cleanup? Seriously, is it really asking too much for smokers to behave like the adults they constantly insist they are and remember to carry disposal cases for their butts?

 

NapSak

May 19, 2009

I have issues w/some smokers (some are polite), even as an X-smoker; like having a unit below you smoke & it permeates into your home above. Thank God for legal recourse in this case, but as a City work, even I'm confused where the City spends $10.7 Mil just for butt clean-up. If a guy sweeps a street, or a street-cleaner vrooms by, who distinguishes what part of the litter is plain ole trash vs. cig. butts? OH, there's the cost of $10.7 Mil; it's the butt counter guy. And to build on V.T., actually much of the City gets swepped by those doing community service in the Sheriff's Dept. S.W.A.P. program, so that is free labor. Even I admit, why tax an entire group for some others behavior; better putting the $$ into actually being aggressive & fine folks for littering. The only ones who complain are those being cited.

 

livinintheloin

May 19, 2009

Could The City spend a few bucks on cleaning up the urine and feces in the streets?!?

 

Paul Walker

May 19, 2009

Newsom is a but head. How can they claim picking up cigarette buts costs 11 million dollars? What is the math calculation. Did someone count the buts as compared to say coffee cups, newspapers, or leafs? Why not tax, opps put a fee on dog poop. A better way to save money would be to fire the idiots who proposed this nonsense.

 

TheAnswerIsNo

May 19, 2009

An opportunistic tax idea that does nothing to stop litter. Will taxing one group decrease the amount of trash on the streets?

 

Newsom Is A Tool

May 19, 2009

Another gem from the genius Mayor who REDUCED garbage cans on SF streets to DECREASE litter.

 

glenn

May 20, 2009

I would like the cigarette taxes raised high enough to discourage smoking entirely. I know that this will not add to the coffers of the city because non-smokers will not pay taxes but the reduction in disease of all citizens will lessen all costs.

 

Dec 19, 2009

lowongan kerja 2010 lowongan kerja bank lowongan kerja terbaru lowongan pekerjaan lowongan cpns lowongan pekerjaan terbaru internet marketing ferri yanto angelica faustina high paying keyword

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




World

Fortune tellers: Year of Tiger isn't Tiger's year, but Obama to shine

It's the Year of the Tiger, but Chinese fortune tellers say it'll be a rough patch for the world's most famous one: disgraced golfer Tiger Woods. Full story

Local

Notorious penguin Harry survives infection

Fans of The City’s most famous penguins can... Full story

Local

Jackson doctor back in court in April to find out date for next major step in case

Michael Jackson's doctor returns to court in April to find out the date for the next major step in the case — a proceeding that will reveal for the first time the evidence the prosecution believes will show his "gross negligence" was the direct cause of the pop star's death. Full story