Auckland Council said it is aware of the issue and there will be increased litter patrols, but denies the removal of a bin has contributed to the problem.

What do they think bins exist for?

I wonder if they really got their 8.5m savings or are they replacing one known spot to get the rubbish with a more expensive litter patrol team?

I guess I just don't really understand why, if they think the bin is underutilised, why aren't they getting their savings by only emptying every second day or whatever. Why are they spending money to remove 30% of their public bins?

[–] GGNZ@lemmy.nz 9 points 1 month ago

I don’t get it, removing bins and assuming everyone will carry their rubbish home? It’s happening more and more, and it feels totally counter-productive if the goal is to keep litter out of the environment.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It's even, obviously, wealth based.

Fuck you poor people, take your trash home.

These fuckers keep comparing places like London, where fewer bins meant fewer IRA bombs, to here where fewer bins mean more dumping.

[–] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 month ago

Fewer bombs, but more litter.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 month ago

No bins is a colossal pain in the ass if you didn't come prepared. It's not so bad at DOC sites, where they've been doing this for years and you know what to expect