Will San Francisco's New Cigarette Fee Lead to Cleaner Streets or Disgruntled Smokers Littering With Impunity? Litter Expert Leans Toward the Latter.

G.B. Trudeau

​ As those of you who actually need those 15 minute breaks during the working day know, today is Day One of San Francisco's new, 20-cent fee on cigarettes to ostensibly fund butt-cleaning street-sweepers.

We've already written plenty about how the methodology behind this fee was ridiculous, leaves the door open to fees on virtually any product imaginable, and is basically just a new way to generate revenue from a class of city dweller -- smokers -- without any pull.

But will it lead to disgruntled smokers figuring they're funding the disposal of butts anyway -- so why not litter? One of the nation's foremost experts on littering says it just might.

Dan Syrek of Sacramento's Institute for Applied Research has conducted litter surveys at the behest of 20 states and five Canadian provinces. And if he had a nickel for every time someone saw him picking up trash on the job and then tossed a bit more his way -- well, he'd have enough to purchase plenty of cigarettes.

"There are a lot of people out there, when they see me picking up litter out there, they'll throw more right in front of me," says Syrek. "And then they say, 'Hey, you're gonna pick it up anyway.' They have this feeling like it's already paid for and picking it up is other people's job."

When leading teams picking up litter for scientific surveys, Syrek's crews are often approached by people querying "What are they in for?" In many people's minds, the obligation of litter removal only falls upon paid city workers "or miscreants of some kind." Syrek feels that a program like San Francisco's cigarette fee won't change this perception -- and could even reinforce it.

On the other hand, this program will generate revenue for the city -- even though both Syrek and Professor Bill Rathje, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on garbage, told SF Weekly it wouldn't change litterbugs' ways.

"Picking up litter is self-defeating," says Syrek. "Litter control is what you do to change people's littering behavior." In Texas, for example, a concerted advertising campaign reduced the littering rate by 70 percent in six years (this is where the phrase "Don't Mess With Texas" originated).

What's more, Syrek says that a proactive approach would, in the end, be more cost-effective than the route San Francisco has taken. Juxtaposing costs and litter-reduction, he says that advertising campaigns end up costing around 2 cents per item removed from the streets, while pick-up crews run 31 cents per item.

Of course, that assumes San Francisco's real interest is in cleaning the streets -- and not generating revenue to ostensibly clean the streets. The city's approach "saves you money," admits Syrek. "But it doesn't abate the problem."

Still, as Rathje points out, smokers -- and he is one -- can't really complain too vociferously.

"If San Francisco wants to raise some more revenue by taxing people for cigarette butts on the ground, so be it," says the Stanford professor. "They shouldn't be thrown there and I believe, truly, most smokers would agree. I don't think 20 cents a pack is going to break anybody's back."