A spirited campaign over the Article 31 referendum is healthy for Lexington. Spreading inaccurate information is not. The “No Trash Fees Committee” website (notrashfees.com) makes several claims that are contradicted by the plain text of the ballot question and by the Town’s published facts. Whichever way you plan to vote, you deserve to know what the question actually says.
Here is the full ballot question, from the Town Clerk’s sample ballot:
“Shall the Town vote to approve the action of the representative town meeting whereby it was voted to amend section 90-9 of the General Bylaws to (1) provide for free residential trash disposal up to a threshold level to be set by the Select Board and (2) permit the Select Board to charge reasonable fees for trash disposal in excess of that baseline?”
Now compare that to what the No campaign’s website tells voters.
**Claim: If it passes, the Select Board “will charge residents a ‘tax’ for trash collection.”**
**Fact:** The first clause of the ballot question guarantees free residential trash disposal up to a baseline. Any household whose trash fits in its Town-provided cart gets weekly pickup at no charge — and per the Town’s 2025 audit of more than 1,400 households, that’s most of us: 81% of households put out 48 gallons of trash or less. The second clause *permits* — does not require — reasonable fees, and only for trash *beyond* that free baseline.
**Claim: “Everyone in Lexington will have their trash collection service fundamentally changed, and fees will be imposed.”**
**Fact:** The Town’s own FAQ answers the question “Will I have to pay a trash fee?” with: “The answer is NO for the majority of households.” A fee would apply only to overflow, likely $2–5 for a program bag on an unusually heavy week (Arlington charges $3.00, Woburn $2.00) or roughly $100–200 a year for an optional second cart. By law, such fees can only cover the cost of delivering the service. Recycling, yard waste, and compost pickup remain free and at the Select Board’s June 8 meeting, members stated there would be no limits on recycling volume. “Everyone will pay” is the opposite of what the ballot question and the Town’s published facts say.
**Claim: “Town Meeting voted to impose additional fees on everyday residents for trash collection.”**
**Fact:** Town Meeting imposed no fee on anyone. Town Meeting voted 117–49 to authorize a free-baseline structure and give the Select Board the ability to set reasonable fees for excess trash only.
**Claim: Fees “will hurt seniors, the disabled community, and our low-income neighbors disproportionately.”**
**Fact:** The website presents this harm as certain while omitting what the Town has publicly committed to. The Town’s FAQ describes a financial hardship program and case-by-case medical accommodations, and at the June 8 Select Board meeting, members went further on the record: free overflow bags for residents facing hardship, dignity-preserving accommodations for households with medical waste they cannot reduce, no extra-bin fees for residents with medical or financial need, and outreach through the Aging Commission and Commission on Disability before any plan is drawn.
**Finally, about “no clear plan”:** the No campaign implies the missing details are suspicious. The sequence was deliberate, and it was explained in public session on June 8. The Board spent more than a year gathering community feedback and sought Town Meeting’s authorization *before* committing staff time and resources to a detailed design. The timing is driven by contracts, not conspiracy: the Town’s hauling contract and its disposal contract with the North Andover waste-to-energy facility are both coming up for renewal with costs rising sharply, and the Town must know whether fees are on the table before it negotiates. The details follow the vote precisely so that resident input — surveys, commissions, public meetings — can shape them. Voters can still reasonably disagree about granting authority before the final details exist. That is a fair debate, and it is the actual question on June 16.
But “should the Select Board be allowed to charge for excess trash beyond a free baseline” is a very different question from “will every resident be charged for trash pickup.” The first is what’s on the ballot. The second is what the No campaign’s website claims. Read the sample ballot, the Town’s Article 31 FAQ at lexingtonma.gov, and the Select Board’s June 8 discussion, and vote on what the question actually says.
Jeremy Levitan
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 6
Thanks, Jeremy. I agree, misinformation has no place in any campaign.
However, I’m still a ‘No’.
While the intent may not have been to appear suspicious, the lack of detail invites suspicion.
Sure, there can be a sequence of events, but estimated costs could have been provided. I’m sure there are numbers; how else could you claim that the new plan will save Lexington money in the long run?
Further, additional details should have been determined before the Town Meeting vote. Ex. How does it make sense that a family of 5 with young children in diapers has the same allotment as a retired couple? I’m all for reducing waste, but unless you’re going to wash cloth diapers, I’m using disposable ones.
The people calling out “misinformation” are the ones peddling it. They mis-frame the argument, they cherry pick data, and they literally took a vote with ZERO planning. It smells of “tax people first and then figure out the details later.”
Everything this post claims can easily be refuted by just observing the framing and sneaky nature by which this resolution was passed.
By leaving everything open-ended *BY DESIGN* it allows for a slippery slope of years of revenue collection outside of already SKY HIGH property taxes. Here’s the kicker: they’re not even going to be able to raise enough revenue through fees. The math just doesn’t work out. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to all the wasteful expenditure on CPA projects like re-doing perfectly good athletic and recreation facilities. Do I have to remind everyone who pays taxes, that you can’t even use the town’s tennis courts without buying a membership? Seriously? We just paid for the renovation with taxes, and now you’re charging for them? That’s what they’re doing with your trash collection now. It’s like the airline industry charging you for a seat selection and check-in baggage. That’s the mentality of these YES folks.
When the hard data shows that the revenue won’t be sufficient, the sneaky YES folks will resort to their true colors with a MORAL argument that “why should some people get to throw away more trash in their huge mansions?” The answer is that their huge house has ALREADY contributed a disproportionate amount of property tax in the first place, and those taxes just keep going up.
What’s next? Are you going to start charging fees for the number of kids that you send to school because they consume more resources at school? How about police personnel when you have an emergency?
If you talk to the YES folks long enough, their suspiciously framed “survey data” argument falls flat, and they’ll eventually ADMIT that this is a moral argument to create less trash (in a town that ALREADY produces some of the least amount of trash).
It’s simple, these people are responsible for consistently raising taxes, spending on pet projects that don’t affect the marjority of residents, and then look for additional funding through sneaky tactics like this, because they’re unable to think creatively about how to achieve their goals otherwise.
Stay out of people’s pocketbooks please, and stop thrusting your moral arguments on people who ALREADY are stewards of the environment and are doing their best.
Vote NO, because as well all know, once a tax/fee is added it is NEVER removed.
The YES folks are just lying to your face and making you feel guilty.
The YES folks tried this insanity 25 years ago, and they’re trying to scramble for more money to lavishly spend while inconveniencing everyone with a poorly thought out plan that eventually will NOT reduce the trash consumption.
Please use this opportunity to demand fiscal responsibility with our existing tax revenue. Here’s an example, did you know that if you wanted to audit the school system’s finances, which you have a legal right to, you have to pay around $2000 just to request the data? It actively discourages people from asking questions.
These are the SAME people with the SAME mentality about spending money they don’t have.
Please vote NO. We’re one step away from allowing more blank cheques to be written by irresponsible people who will tax you for something else, make up fake data, and when that fails, they’ll guilt trip you with a dubious moral argument, because that’s all that matters to them: being morally superior to you even though you’re already doing the best you can.
Oh how did I miss this? The author speaks highly of “dignity-preserving” options to get an exception. You don’t preserve dignity but forcing residents with financial or medical hardships to raise their hand and make them feel ashamed.
This alone should tell you where the YES folks’ have their heads – held high looking down on everyone. Use come common-sense Jeremy. People don’t want to share private information in the first place.
What’s next? Are you going to propose the town start rummaging through people’s trash to see how much milk they consume because you think everyone should be vegan and the milk consumers consume more trash with those gallon jugs?
Please save us from your own misinformation. If people vote for YES, then eventually every person WILL end up paying, just like the you do with the tennis courts, which were fully free a number of years ago, until you normalized the idea of having people pay for them. You’re just not honest enough to tell people this upfront because nobody will vote for it. It was pretty much what one of your YES folks yelled at someone this past weekend in the town center.
True colors shine when you strip your arguments of all your so-called “nuance.”
Vote NO folks. This is a dishonest effort to tax you.