Our statement on the election results:

Obviously, these are not the election results we wanted. We will always hold our heads high because we followed the city charter and got to vote. That is a big win. It didn’t go in our favor in the end, but many eyes have been opened and voices heard. Thank you to all for your support and we’re grateful for meeting so many wonderful people along this journey.




Read the Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion published 10/16/19

STATEMENT FROM “VOTE NO” GROUP ON MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT DECISION

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ST. PAUL, MN—Today the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its formal opinion in the court case brought by petitioners involved with the St. Paul Trash Lawsuit committee seeking to have a ballot question placed before voters in the general election on Nov. 5th, 2019. 

While the Court had previously ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered the city to put the measure on the ballot, today’s Court decision merely affirms that the only way for St. Paul residents to lower their trash bills and fix a broken trash system is to vote no on November 5th.

“Only a ‘no’ vote will allow for a system that’s more affordable and works for all St. Paul residents,” said Alisa Lein, a leader in the Vote No effort.

“A ‘no’ vote gives us the chance to pass a new ordinance, prevent a property tax hike, and fix the numerous problems with the current system,” Lein added.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DIDN’T SAY AND WHY YOUR NO VOTE STILL MATTERS

The Minnesota Supreme Court‘s decision has created a lot of debate about what a “no” vote will mean for the future of St. Paul’s organized trash collection program.

What the Court actually said is that the referendum must go on the ballot and that a referendum does not “impair” the contract between the city and the haulers consortium. The Court clearly avoided ruling on whether or not a repeal of the ordinance would enable the city to void its contract with the hauler consortium.

However, what the media reported, citing the talking points of Mayor Carter, is that the contract cannot be altered and that the only option is to raise taxes to pay the costs of trash collection.

We think the media got it wrong. Buying into the city’s scare tactics that a no vote means “your taxes will go up” is irresponsible and inaccurate. In fact, a successful no vote at the polls is the only way to trigger the agreement’s oft-cited force majeure clause, relieving both parties of their obligation to fulfill the contract. Read more

Read the answers to these hot questions and more on the Frequently Asked Questions page:

Won’t My Taxes Go Up if I Vote No on the Trash Referendum?

What about Commercial Property Owners and those living in Large Apartment Buildings? Why should they have to pay for a service that they don’t use?

What are neighboring cities paying for trash and recycling and how do prices compare to St. Paul’s current contract?

A “NO” VOTE means:

  • Cart-sharing becomes possible for single-family homeowners, multi-family, condominiums, townhomes, AND those living on a fixed income.
  • Opt-out becomes possible for “zero wasters” and those who want to share with neighbors or use a dumpster.
  • Reduce/Reuse/Recycle can be incentivized.
  • High-quality customer service. Competition promotes customer-friendly practices and eliminates numerous billing problems with the new system.

The message is clear: Change will not happen while ORD 18-39 is in effect. Please VOTE NO on Ordinance 18-39.

UNLOCK the door to change – because St. Paul deserves better

VOTE: November 5, 2019, or early