If You Want to Toss It, Pay for It : Trash: As long as we have free pick-up service, Los Angeles will continue to be the garbage-disposing capital.

“Out of sight, out of mind.” That has been the predominant attitude of most Americans toward their trash. And in Los Angeles, this reckless attitude is now taking its toll. The last remaining major city landfill, Lopez Canyon, reaches new heights daily, shortening its life span. In partial response, the city has embarked on a mandatory recycling program. It has merit, but make it more effective, we should add two elements: per-can garbage collection charges and private collection service for the recyclables.

Coping with ever-growing trash heaps has become a critical public problem of the ‘80s. Some 85% of the 150 million tons of trash generated by Americans each year ends up in landfills. As they fill up, the cost for unloading garbage at landfill sites has skyrocketed. Nationwide, just since 1982, these unloading fees have nearly doubled.

For Los Angeles, the declining availability of landfill has reached crisis proportions. It’s high time that residents became less profligate about generating garbage.

Unlike growing numbers of other major urban areas, Los Angeles does not charge residents for garbage pick-up service. Responding to this free service, we throw out about three times more garbage daily than the national average. Some of this can be attributed to year-round garden waste, but Angelenos generate more garbage in every category.

As long as citizens receive garbage service at little direct cost to them, they have no incentive to reduce the amount of trash they put on the curb. The city’s plan attempts to get around this lack of incentive by mandating recycling. This approach will force residents to sort certain kinds of trash for pickup, but it will not influence them to generate less trash overall by purchasing goods in recyclable packaging, in larger containers or containers brought from home, or by compacting, composting and so on.

Residents of other industrialized societies produce much less trash per household than Americans. Japan, for example, produces only 76% of the waste that we do, France 60% and West Germany, with longstanding recycling programs and a no-waste ethic, just 40%.

In the United States, cities that go beyond flat rates and charge for garbage service based on the volume of waste have experienced significant declines in the amount of garbage collected.

To be most effective in reducing waste output, charges must reflect the real costs of garbage collection and disposal, and the rate for extra cans (or for large cans) must be significant. That variable rates can have a notable effect has been demonstrated in Seattle and several East Coast communities. High Bridge, N.J., for example, reduced its total tonnage of garbage by 25% after introducing variable rate charges. And after introduction of per-can charges in Perkasie, Pa., the total amount of trash picked up dropped by 28.7%.

Some L.A. legislators have denounced the concept of charging for garbage pick-up, out of concern that low-income groups would be unable to pay. However, the city could follow Seattle in providing a low rate to qualifying households. We do not, after all, subsidize the food purchases of all citizens out of concern for the nutrition of low-income groups. Instead, we offer relief to those who need it.

A more valid concern raised by some is that per-can charges will result in illegal dumping, or even in sneaking a can or two to the neighbor’s curb. The experience of Seattle and other cities indicates that good monitoring and response to complaints mitigates this problem.

Los Angeles should also experiment with private collection of recyclables. There is no reason why recycling services need to be provided by a single public entity. Seattle has contracted with two private firms to collect glass, aluminum, tin cans, paper and cardboard in different parts of the city.

A degree of private contracting could spread out the risks of the wildly volatile market for recycled materials, introduce competition with the city-provided service and provide the city with an independent measure of its own performance.

In many municipalities, up to 75% of recycled garbage is collected by private haulers who have developed knowledge of the unstable markets for such materials. Los Angeles would benefit from tapping into this expertise.

Variable collection charges and private-sector contracting would likely improve the success of the recycling program, reduce overall costs, and encourage more responsible behavior on the part of Los Angeles residents with respect to their trash. The city’s waste-disposal crisis warrants consideration of these policies, which are proving successful elsewhere in the nation.