On June 16, Lexington voters decide the fate of Article 31. The ballot is confusing and voters need to know the following: 

YES = Approve the April bylaw change and allow trash fees.
NO = Reject the bylaw change and no new trash fees.

We are voting No.

Let us be clear about what this is not. It is not a vote against recycling, composting, or reducing waste — we want all of that. Disposal costs are real and rising, and no one thinks trash is free.

Our objection is to sequence. Article 31 gives the Select Board authority to charge fees for trash above a “baseline” — before there is a program to judge. No final cart size. No fee schedule. No overflow price. No definition of where the free baseline ends and the charge begins. The town’s own materials describe the design as still under development.

That is backwards.

You approve a plan, then turn on the fee.

You don’t flip the switch and wait to find out what you flipped on.

June 16 is the last say voters get. Once the bylaw changes, the fees and the baseline volume are set by Select Board regulation — not by Town Meeting, not by another vote. This vote is the checkpoint. After this, residents react to decisions instead of approving them. We will be stuck with whatever the new program and fees become.

It also carries an equity problem the town never answered. Lexington’s own Commission on Disability voted unanimously against it. Residents who cannot reduce waste — for medical needs, caregiving, or large households — would pay for trash they cannot avoid. Article 31offers no specific exemptions and no hardship relief beyond a statement saying this issued is being “explored”. From the town website:

Q: What if I cannot afford the new trash fees?
A: The Town is exploring a financial hardship program for those who qualify for other financial assistance programs.

What about residents who are not enrolled in assistance programs but are still struggling financially? That remains an open question. Many households face significant expenses—such as medical costs, caregiving responsibilities, or fixed retirement incomes—that may not qualify them for existing assistance programs but can still make additional fees difficult to absorb.

We would gladly support a fair, well-designed program with real protections built in. This is not that one. It is charge first, details later.

Vote NO on Article 31. Send it back. Ask the town to bring us an actual plan.

Keith D. Patch

Linda R. Patch

Leave a comment

Commenters must be registered and logged in with a verified email address and REAL FIRST AND LAST NAME. To register for an account visit the registration page for our site. If you already have an account, you can login here or by clicking "My Account" on the upper right hand corner of any page on the site, right above the search icon.

Commenters must use their real first and last name and a real email address.
We do not allow profanity, racism, or misinformation.
We expect civility and good-faith engagement.

We cannot always fact check every comment, verify every name, or debate the finer points of what constitutes civility. We reserve the right to remove any comment we deem inappropriate, and we ask for your patience and understanding if something slips through that may violate our terms.

We are open to a wide range of opinions and perspectives. Criticism and debate are fundamental to community – but so is respect and honesty. Thank you.