Trash fees raise serious concerns of equity and fairness. Charging fees for trash removal outside of the general real estate tax levy places a disproportionate burden on elderly residents, individuals with disabilities, and households least able to absorb new, recurring fees. Such regressive charges are fundamentally different from taxes assessed based on property values, which more accurately reflect a household’s ability to pay. Historically, Lexington has embraced a civic philosophy that essential municipal services are shared collectively and funded equitably through the property tax system. This approach is consistent with the Town’s spirit, culture, and long-standing commitment to fairness. A fee-based system for basic waste disposal represents a departure from those principles and shifts costs onto those with the fewest financial alternatives.
10,600 voters turned out as recently as 2002, with approximately 70% voicing their opposition to trash fees. The lack of specificity in the Select Board’s comments on this issue during its June 8 meeting are consistent with concerns that there is no practical means for a municipal board, administrative agency, or other appointed or elected body to provide fair and comprehensive relief in a fee based system. No matter what the criteria, individuals will fall between the cracks. Fees will unfairly force disabled individuals and those with limited means to undergo the indignity of displaying their personal conditions to a public administrator.
Moreover, residents have very limited discretion over the volume and nature of much of the waste they generate. Significant portions of household trash arise from medical necessity and manufacturer-imposed packaging rather than consumer choice. Items such as disposable diapers, medical device packaging, prescription containers, and even soiled mattresses are unavoidable for many families and seniors. Imposing per-unit or service-based fees under these circumstances effectively penalizes residents for conditions beyond their control.
Other municipalities may have adopted fee-based trash systems, but the acts of other municipalities do not establish that fee based programs are appropriate—or equitable—for Lexington. These are many of the reasons why I am voting No on June 16.
John F. Rossi
Let’s all remember: the first cart of trash will continue to be picked up for free. The fees will only be on EXCESS trash. Very few seniors have more than one cart of trash. The few who do (due to medical conditions listed in the letter), will be given fee waivers. The Select Board has made that crystal clear, over and over over. “Elderly residents and people with disabilities” are not the ones who will be paying excess trash fees. What is not equitable, and unfair, is that seniors and others with less trash are currently subsidizing the households who put out 2-3 barrel every week.
Yes, John Rossi, let’s talk about equity.
During Town Meeting’s debate on Article 31 Mr. Rossi lectured those of us in the “yes” line. He berated us, telling us how humiliating it would be for Lexington’s disabled or elderly residents to go before his imagined Select Board tribunal and talk about their disabilities or infirmities in order to request relief from the burdensome fees the Select Board was sure to implement. Of course, Mr. Rossi and the “no” campaign are free to weave whatever narrative they believe will move their agenda forward.
Getting back to equity, how ironic, given Mr. Rossi’s comments at Town Meeting, that in order to defend my position I have to prostrate myself before John Rossi and the “no” campaign and talk about intimate, private information about my wife.
My wife is 65. When she was 58 she was diagnosed with early onset dementia. I kept her at home as long as I could, but in the fall of 2023 I had to move her to Sunrise of Arlington. Her rent is more than $13,000 dollars per month. We were not born into wealth, but we worked hard all of our lives and we were careful savers, so the rent doesn’t place us among Mr. Rossi’s “financially disabled”.
With my wife’s situation and my daughter at college for the last four years and now embarking on her own career, I have been the only person in the house. I put out one barrel of trash per month. (Even when there were three of us in the house, we never put out more than one barrel of trash per week.)
So, please do explain, Mr. Rossi. With the monthly rent I’m paying for my wife and my one barrel of trash per month, how is it equitable for me to be subsidizing with my residential real estate taxes the minority of Lexington residents who — for whatever reason — may put out more than one barrel of trash per week?
I believe the comments at Town Meeting regarding Article 31 Mr. Bascom refers to is the report of the Commission on Disability’s on Article 31 which I was pleased to present. I hope most people will not find the Commissions report or my comments as berating or a mere attempt to navigate the truth. The Commission on Disability voted unanimously to oppose Article 31. This report can be viewed in the April 13, 2026 Lexington, MA Town Meeting recording available on You Tube at time mark 1:32:00. I am deeply sorry to hear about the serious medical issues described by Mr. Bascomb and hope that some day soon this great country will provide appropriate long term acute medical care for seniors and disabled individuals without causing such severe financial hardship.
First of all, Mr. Rossi, please at least have enough respect for me to spell my name correctly — it’s Baskin, not Bascom.
My wife is a disabled resident of Lexington. She may live at Sunrise of Arlington, but her legal address is still 43 Carville Avenue in Lexington. Or does her cognitive disability not make the cut? Blaming this on lack of long-term acute medical care provided by the federal government is avoiding the specific issue I raised. In my opinion, that’s just a red herring and an excuse for you to avoid answering the question I asked.
We have the means to pay Marjorie’s rent — that is not the issue.
Please respond to the question I’m asking. With the monthly rent I’m paying for my wife and my one barrel of trash per month, how is it equitable for me to be subsidizing with my residential real estate taxes the minority of Lexington residents who — for whatever reason — may put out more than one barrel of trash per week?
Oddly enough, Lexington’s civic philosophy does not include free water for residents, even though water is a little more essential to human life than curbside waste collection. We don’t even offer a baseline level of free water! Sometimes there’s a logical reason that a given municipal service is free for the consumer, and sometimes it’s a historical accident: https://tmmalex.groups.io/g/TMMAList/message/2296
* * *
Although it gets complicated, property taxes are often described as regressive–one might think back to the vote on the new high school just 6 months ago. So even at the baseline, it’s weird to imagine that property taxes are the fairest way to allocate trash costs. But the empirical research also suggests that there is a rough correlation between trash production and both age and income: The older and/or poorer someone is, the less trash they produce, and so because the first barrel will be free, the most vulnerable residents are the least likely to need to pay a fee in the first place.
Of course, there are cases where that correlation does not hold. Folks might review the June 8 meeting for themselves to decide whether the select board has made its commitment to accommodations clear enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxzu7x7BPd8 but here is one select board member’s stated position: “…That the fees are intended to create an incentive to reduce trash volume, but, while we know that, to accomplish it, I would recognize that several factors exist. First, that some households are limited in what they can reduce. For example, there are those acing medical conditions requiring consumables that create more trash volume, and other, non–inability by the individual to reduce. And I will require that accommodations that defray fees for these households, and for the process for obtaining those accommodations, preserve individual dignity. Second, that some households are financially limited. Today, we provide discounts or waive fees for these households already in a variety of programs–for LexPress pass costs, for recreation program fee waivers, etc. I will require accommodations for these households as well.”
* * *
It would be pretty unusual for a person living in Lexington to be severely disabled and also barely scraping by, and at the same time not to have applied for any other benefit or accommodation from any level of government. Nevertheless, contrary to the lurid fantasy that town officials will be conducting physical examinations of people with disabilities, it’s quite simple to design an accommodation process that requires no “indignity”: You submit a form that says “I have a disability that significantly increases the amount of trash my household produces.” And then you get a free second bin. The end! There’s no reason to expect the town to demand anything more unless evidence emerges that people are fraudulently claiming waivers in significant numbers. Remember, we’re talking about a free $100-200 worth of trash collection services here, not a free house.
Remember also that even if the No vote prevails, the select board will still need to figure out an accommodation procedure. (For why that is the case, please see my letter to the editor published June 10.)
When we pay for electricity, water, food, or most other things we consume on a regular basis, we pay based on that use, while also finding ways to help or subsidize those with financial hardships (for example, with the LIHEAP program for energy: https://lexingtonma.gov/2080/Energy-Resources). The argument that “residents have very limited discretion over the volume and nature of much of the waste they generate” has been shown to be false; while it is true for certain people, across a population fee-based trash programs have been shown to consistently reduce waste as people adapt their behavior through more recycling and composting.
I’m supportive of finding ways to help those with financial hardships in this case, while also moving to a common sense, simple fee-based structure that moves this in the same direction as we pay for most other consumption based services (energy, water, etc…). We are paying for trash regardless, and this is a reasonable step towards lowering our overall trash costs by allowing the town to implement variable pricing in the future.