I was so relieved that the trash guys came and collected today. They were really late, and a part of me wondered if Columbia had decided not to collect trash anymore.
I can see it now, a proclamation in the Long Reach Community newsletter, or even more likely, a cryptic note on the CA website stating the following:
"In response to the rapid filling of the landfill on I-70 the Columbia Association will no longer collect trash from private residences. Residents must provide their own trash removal services. Entry to the landfill requires a Class 5 commercial vehicle and commercial waste removal permit. Homeowners are required to remove trash in a timely fashion, or will face fines and penalties as determined by the Columbia Association bylaws."
That's pretty much the junk policy. If you have furniture or other large items that are too big for the garbage truck, you are out of luck. You must drive them up to the landfill in your own vehicle. For those of us who do not own a pick-up truck or SUV, we simply have to let the junk accumulate. We've tried bribing various delivery services to remove old items when dropping off new ones (grill, sofa, pool table, etc...), but alas, they wanted no part of our Sanfordia.
If you cannot remove the junk, you must hide it. Under no circumstances can junk be left out in plain view. It might offend the neighbors, or more likely, it might offend the Columbia Association. However, the definition of junk is rather fluid.
On our street there is a house that is poorly-maintained, and host to a variety of junk-like items (a dead car, an old storm door, various bright orange plastic cones and several cast-off pieces of styrofoam). For some reason, this house does not get penalized, or if they do, the penalties are not sufficient to motivate the owner/renter to dispose of his junk.
Yet another neighbor had the audacity to build a pagoda-style enclosure for their hot tub. For this grievous offense, there was indeed a penalty stiff enough to encourage immediate action. The Long Reach association (a localized *arm* of the Columbia Association), slapped them with a threat of steep monetary fines if they didn't demolish their pagoda and re-build it in a style more in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. Apparently, their pagoda was *too* Asian. A quick walk past the surrounding houses in their cul-de-sac showed a number of yards with distinctly zen-like fixtures. So what made their pagoda too Asian? And what is wrong with tasteful Asian styling on a pagoda that hides a hot tub, and it's possibly naked bathers, from view?
Sadly, we'll probably never know the answers to these questions. In the meantime, I will continue to count the orange plastic cones and track the movements of styrofoam chunks, hoping and praying that they will cross the property line so that I may dispose of them in the proper manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi, 12Saint. Did you ever hit the nail on the head with the Columbia Association's screwiness! Since this is a cranky blog, and I can hold my own in the Cranky Department, allow me, please, to crank on.
I find CA's negligence in allowing the most dilapidated and untended of homes to "just be" without penalty: fiscal, legal or whatever the heck else they can conjure up, highly irresponsible to their own standards, to Columbians and to the promise of a reasonably maintained community, as a whole.
Then, adding insult to injury, they come out of the woodwork with speed and puffy chests about architectural injustices when folk spruce up their homes.
Where CA/the village boards put their attention and where they don't -- vis-a-vis our community and "architectural guidelines" is a mess that requires some addressing.
They have been most negligent in allowing homes to just deteriorate without pressure on homeowners to spruce up. It drives me batty!
Yeah for pagodas.
Down with icky, old, untended homes and yards.
PS -- I'm in the Bay Area as I write this and spent the day in San Francisco, so I'm a bit sensitive (and cranky) on this subject. :)
Post a Comment