Albuquerque evening citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1905-1907, 1905-11-06
THE CITY GARBAGE

That the garbage of a city of this size should be
disposed of goes without saying; though, really here
is neither the danger nor the necessity which pertains
to garbage in the rain belt sections. Any one who has
resided in New Mexico for any length Of time knows
that even animal remains, such as dead horses, COWS,
dogs and cats, in an ordinary season, will dry up and
disintegrate with scarcely any offensive odor; while
vegetable refuse becomes thoroughly desiccated by a
day or two's exposure to New Mexico sunshine.
Another fact is that t|hree-ffths of the garbage of
an ordinary family can be readily destroyed day by day
as it is produced, by burning in the family cookstove
or range, without danger or offensive odor. But unfor-
tunately many families instead of thus disposing of their
refuse, throw it all, with the emptied cans, into the back
yard or even into the alleys, in either Of which places
1t is unsightly If not dangerous.
A third fact is that the removal of garbage is a
profitable business. In Ell Paso, a few years ago, the
position of garbage master or city scavenger was con.
sidered one of the very best which could be given as a
political perquisite. The larger the town the more val
liable does such a concession become, New York city,
by the burning of its garbage, is enabled to generate
enough electricity to light its municipal buildings. The
town of Freiburg, Germany, itself disposes of its garb-
age. For the year 1904, the receipts Of that depart
ment of the F%reiburg government, the town having a
population of about 10000, amounted to $l2,744, while
the expenses of management were $1,000.
1t is proposed to purchase a piece of ground, near
Albuquerque, and make of it a dumping ground for the
city, ali within the city limits to be prevented by ordi
nance from leaving their garbage on their own prem
Uses, throwing it onto the premises of others, placing
it in alley ways, or dumping it upon vacant lots.
II seems to The Citizen that there may be doubt
whether this is the preferable plan to pursue. Would
not the accumulation of the garbage in one place be
more detrimental to public health than its wider distri
button through the city as now? On a dumping ground
would not load after load of garbage be piled upon pre-
vious loads, thus preventing the penetration of air and
sun light to the lower strata of the refuse, and thus
preventing its rapid destruction by the climate as now
takes place in the small accumulations in the yards?
Would not such prevention cause the mass to slowly
purify and exhale dangerous and disgusting effuvia?
And would not the nearness to the city of this offensive
accumulation, rendered both more offensive and more
dangerous by the long continued processes of p%utrihca-
tion, be a greater menace to the citys health? In fact,
would the dumping ground accomplish any good other
than removing from view what, it must be confessed,
is altogether ~unsightly? And finally would not the ad-
ditional expense, if any such there should be, find com
pensation in the greater healthfulness of having a kiln
instead of a dumping ground, and thus burning the
garbage as collected instead of allowing it to accum-
ulate and become a menace to health and an ofense to
sight and smell?
These questions present themselves to the mind OF
this writer, and he offers them to the consideration of the
city fathers.