Anna, please don't fall for the spin and get on top of this. The headline here is NOT "Trash Removal Fees Lowered for Annapolis."

The headline here is "Trash Removal Fees Doubled in Annapolis."

Trash collection is getting cut from twice a week to once a week. Further, I gather that leaf collection is being cut altogether and bulk trask removal is being cut also. That's LESS THAN HALF the service.

Quarterly trash collection fees are SUPPOSED to drop from $106.50 to $94.50. That's an 11% drop.

Do the math. Less than half the service, 11% drop in price. And they aren't even guaranteeing a drop in the price.

Even more, why is there a discussion of how much to "drop" the quarterly bill? Why doesn't the city simply split the cost among the residents? Within a small possible variation based on the tax base size, we should know almost EXACTLY how much it will cost.

This is a TAX hike in hiding. And what happens to all the city workers who were taking away our trash at half the price of the new people? Are they going off the payroll, or are they moving to new city positions that will cost as much or more?

There is ZERO savings here, just a rise in taxes and a cut in services.

Don't fall for the spin. If hamburgers are cut in half and the price drops 10%, the price of hamburgers went UP, NOT DOWN.

Mike, you are correct. We are getting half the service for 11% drop in cost. We have lost 39% of return on the money paid for trash removal. I can manage with once-a-week pickup, but it will create a lot of problems for people with large families and little storage. We will see an increase in the number or rodents and other foraging animals.

Chris Lauer, so, by your math, we could have cut trash removal to once-a-year and you'd be happy with saving 11% on it, because, after all, "you are going to pay less." Further, you are neglecting to address the cuts to bulk trash and leaf removal.

Your claim of "almost no problems" is patently absurd on its face. This very Patch site has been chock full of complaints about how once-a-week IS a problem.

Further, I contend we aren't even going to be paying less. If the city council is (as has been reported multiple times) sitting around ARGUING and VOTING on what the line-item charge for waste removal will be, that means the amount we pay as a line item IS NOT the true cost of trash removal, and IS instead just a number that the council invents. Which means either:

1. trash removal costs less than what they're charging us on the bill, and some of the money collected for it is being siphoned off to other things, OR

2. trash removal costs more than what they're charging us on the bill, and the rest is hidden in other city taxes that we pay.

In either case it's wrong for the city to misrepresent the true costs. And it certainly seems like #1 is more likely with the new contract.

Last, it WON'T be CHEAPER for anyone. This LINE ITEM goes down 11%, but the TOTAL bill goes up. Even if the cost of contracted trash removal is 11% lower, we pay more unless the city lays off all its city-employee trash collectors and sells off the infrastructure...not happening.

Anna, you wrote: "I understand your point about the costs. The reason I chose the headline is because Annapolis residents will pay less for trash this year than they did last year. Yes, they will also be getting less services. The question about whether the cuts in costs justify the cuts in service is one for the community (not the reporter) to decide."

While it is ultimately up to the communitity to decide if the cost "cuts" justify the service cuts, you have ignored the service cuts from the headline. In a good news/bad news tradeoff, your headline is only the good news. One doesn't report that LBJ was sworn in while failing to note that JFK was shot.

Proper journalism means getting past the press releases and investigating the whole truth. Which means being a skeptic, not simply announcing what the pols spin, but getting to the bottom of things.

If we have a bunch of CITY EMPLOYEES (plus TRUCKS and FACILITIES) who collect the trash now, we pay their salaries, benefits, pensions and so on. And we pay for all the infrastructure. What is happening to THEM? If they're not all being laid off and sold off, we STILL have to pay all those costs ON TOP OF the new trash contract with the private company. THAT'S NOT A DROP IN COSTS. IT'S a tax increase shell game.

Journalism means showing the true, big picture. Clearly and comprehensively.

All due respect Anna, but Josh Cohen himself couldn't have written this headline better to suit his own ends.

Anna, on the subject of the blog post invitation. Thanks for the offer, perhaps I will.

But regardless of whether I do, my point about this piece (and others) still stands. I have OPINIONS about whether the cost and service changes are justified.

But the facts are facts, and they are not matters of opinion. The pure journalism side of this means getting the facts out CLEARLY and COMPREHENSIVELY. As a journalist, that's what you're supposed to be providing.

Many elements are undeniably part of the big picture:

-The trash pickup are being cut in half.
-Leaf removal is being cut.
-Bulk trash removal is being cut.
-The ALLEGED savings is only claimed to be 11%, and the council itself doesn't even agree that it's going to be realized.
-The trash collection is being contracted out to a private company.
-The city employees who collected the trash are going...WHERE? Are they being let go, so we actually get the "savings"?
-If not, there is no cost savings. So, to assess this, one must find out what happens to those employees, and to their pay and benefits.
-And one must figure out what happens to the trucks, buildings, and other infrastructure owned or leased by the city.
-And so on.

WEIGHING these costs/benefits is a matter of opinion. But knowing ALL the potentially relevant facts is required to do so.

Reporting on only a few pieces in separate stories (and skipping the rest of the facts) is NOT COMPREHENSIVE and NOT CLEAR.

Can someone clarify how the Refuse fees are calculated? by house ? by Sqf?