Going green?

Recently, Baltimore decided to vamp up its trash collection city by-laws in a conscious and sustained effort to go green.

Congratulations, Baltimore. Brian (the environmental engineer) and I both appreciate your conscientious decision, not to mention the noisy weekly trips you make down our alley every Tuesday morning.

I'm a little confused, though. Did you think that by cutting the number of public waste-baskets there are in the city, you'd reduce either the amount of trash produced by its people, or their tendency to litter?

Seems untenable.

I sometimes, on my walks with puppy, go for miles holding a bag of (by the time I dispose of it no longer) steaming hot poopies before I get the opportunity to toss it. This municipal oversight - that is, the shortage of garbage bins around - might be exclusive to the "highbrow" neighbourhoods I walk through (nothing but the best for my baby girl) and/or might be part of a larger project of aestheticisation/ beauty preservation of said areas. Still, less respectful citizens, I'm sure (in fact, I KNOW from seeing it done, repeatedly) would not be as patient as I: if there is no trash bin in immediate sight, many either toss their garbage to the ground or, in the case of dog feces, never even bother to scoop it up.

I guess there's no law here compelling clean up after dogs in any place other than clearly designated areas (mostly parks). And I suppose it would be silly for me to expect dog-ownership to factor into urban planning. But would it kill you to have a couple more bins available in Guilford or Roland Park? Would residents along Wendover, Underwood, Overhill, Linkwood, or Millbrook really mind all that much?

Do their votes really count so much that you even care?

Eska doesn't seem to mind, except when holding a bag of shit interferes with my dexterity in getting cookies out of my pants-pocket.