From The Student Life, "Pomona Food Committee Recommends Changes: Cuts to save upwards of $100K," (not online) here are the essential bits, with my bolding:
According to Pomona's Dean of Campus Life Ric Townes, these three changes will save the college approximately $133,000. The college will save approximately $36,000 by forgoing trays, $25,000 by cutting one night of snack, and about $72,000 by charging for take-out containers.
. . .
Both Dining Services General Manager Dave Janosky and Food Committee Co-Chai Stephanie Aleimda PO '11 felt it was unnecessary, so the elimination of trays will likely not be implemented until the fall. Many students seemed willing to give up trays as part of the changes to dining services.
...
Although there is still room for negotiation on the price, it is likely that students will be asked to pay 50 cents for a take-out container, flatware, and a cup. These materials cost about 51 cents, so by asking students to pay for materials the colleges will be essentially reimbursing themselves. This will also eliminate food waste for the colleges, since students will be unable to take more than one take-out container per meal and will be forced to choose whether they swipe in.
On the first paragraph, I'd love to know how they got their figures. Given that we know environmentalists have been deceptive before in their efforts to get us to use less of what we pay for, you'll have to forgive me for being just a little bit skeptical.
If it's costs that the colleges want to cut, maybe the colleges could reconsider building all the very expensive green buildings that they continue to build.
On the second and final paragraphs, I'm glad to see that the elimination of trays won't be considered until at least the fall, but I see little evidence that eliminating trays would reduce waste. More likely, it would just increase students' time in the cafeteria as they had to wait through numerous lines, meaning you'd have less turnover at the tables in the cafeteria, meaning you'd have more crowding.
The "Food Committee" also wants to place a 50 cents per container "surcharge." What happens when you tax something? You get less of it, so at the margins, fewer people will be getting those containers, meaning you'll have more people crowding the cafeteria. And while we're at it, why can't we pay to use a tray? Or bring our own containers and trays?
I've long written that the way to reduce waste is to have people pay for every item they purchase. As someone who is on the 8-meal plan, it currently costs me about $20 a meal at Collins. I don't usually eat $20 of food or even use all eight meals, but I certainly try to so that I can get my money back. You can bet that I'll be getting off the meal plan soon as I (often) get sick from the food!
12 comments:
Where do you eat your meals?
I sometimes just flat out forget to eat. I've been buying stuff at Trader Joe's more frequently, though.
We eliminated trays at the college where I work and reduced wasted food by a staggering 35%. The tray ban did not increase the lines at the food stations. Another added benefit was the water/energy savings from no longer having to wash the trays. I ate at several of the CC's dining halls years ago when I worked there and was floored by the amount of food I saw piled on trays in the tray return area.
Maybe they should take the money saved on food (assuming a reduction in waste to be true) and not charge people who are not able to eat at the dining hall. Thats the part that is really offensive. We are all very busy, and we don't all have time to enjoy a leisurely dinner at the dining hall. I shouldn't be punished for eating on the go.
How come "free thought" by conservatives is almost always about ridiculing others' ideas and thoughts?
"What happens when you tax something? You get less of it"
Charles charles charles!
This is economics 102! The price elasticity of demand is the key issue to focus on here. For optimal efficiency, governments should tax inelastically demanded goods more than elastically demanded goods. While I sincerely doubt the university cares about this and is just trying to cover costs, the point you make here is in principle incorrect. If the demand for takeout food is highly inelastic then this increase in price might have a negligible effect on amount of takeout consumed.
Agreed, of course. But it's economics 101!
I don't think you'll find that the demand curve is as inelastic for take out trays as is hoped.
To Anonymous and Charles,
How do you know what the demand for trays and take-out boxes? Since we sign up for a meal plan and don't have detailed knowledge of the services that will be provided, it's impossible to estimate student demand for any specific service. Of course, it seems inappropriate to charge us a semester long plan and charge us per item. It should be one or the other. This is double charging since we don't know what services we pay for in the first place!
Charles,
Pomona might not be the only one without trays next year. Hopefully you aren't too attached to Collins and don't mind getting up to get seconds.
On the issue of LEED building: Typical CI/Claremont Conservative quality reporting. Find one questionable source discussing one isolated event (blog report on Oberlin building) and cite it as proof that anything perceived as remotely liberal is bad. What fine investigative journalism! In reality, the average premium for constructing a LEED Silver or Gold certified building compared to a conventional one is only about 2% (as of 2003). Also, this premium has been consistently falling since most of the added cost occurs in the design and planning phase. Since the average reduced energy use is 30% for LEED Silver and 48% for Gold certified buildings the payback period is relatively short compared to the life of the building. Based on energy and water savings alone the payback period for LEED Silver and Gold buildings is generally in the 10-20 year range (compared to a lifespan of 50+years). Once reduced operations and maintenance costs are factored in the payback period can become even shorter (as little as 5 years). And, this savings completely excludes the added benefits to public health and reduced GHG emissions.
response?
Post a Comment