You are absolutely right, Jay.

It reminds me of that random guy around town who keeps babbling about the $43 Million in overrides over the last ten years, but neglects to mention that the taxpayers approved every single dollar.

The nerve of some people to disagree with the majority!

Thank you Aaron - and if this had gone to a town vote we all know it wouldn't have got an inch off the ground. This COULD have gone to town meeting but didn't for a reason.

Did you ever notice that those who oppose the majority vote of the whole town (true democracy) often support closed door, back room votes with which the majority of the town vehemently disagree (fascism)? Cue Andy Rooney...

Aaron...fortunately for you, the disclosure of the cummulative costs of the last 10 school overrides ($43 million) was enough to break the previous override addiction in Hamilton and Wenham. Unfortunately, most residents were not aware that the overrides were not one-time events and cost the taxpayers every single year going forward. There was never a need to mention that the overrides were approved. What needed explanation was the true costs of the overrides. We all know what happened one this was understood. The majority of voters changed their previous voting habit. Lucky for you.

Dear Ron...Now that you have apparently "outed" yourself and are finally using your real name instead of "Questionable Ethics", let's take a closer
look at your last comments:

You said' "While attacking those who do not share you views may appear clever"

I did not attack anyone. On the contrary, re-read the posts before mine and you will see what constitutes an 'attack'. I simply pointed that out...even as you failed to do so.

As for the vote occurring on a weeknight "during rush hour...what were working residents supposed to do?", it should be noted that the full Board of Selectmen managed be present, as were more than the usual number of residents in attendance. Blaming the time of a meeting as resulting in a vote someone does not favor is, in your words, one of the "oldest tricks in the book" and seems a little beneath you.

Lastly, now that you are finally sharing your identity, the question arises: Why are you so bent on swaying policy for a town in which you are not a resident? Don't you live in Reading?

Well, aren't I an evil so-and-so. Questionable Whatnow? Is that some sort of musical group? I haven't heard of them.

You articulate your points well, Jay, and the fact that your first comment was not an attack but rather an observation made tongue-in-cheek is duly noted. But do you really believe that this plan is in the best interests of most residents, when the Town can accomplish its objectives of lowering tipping fees, offering economic incentives to recycle, and receiving state grant money without reducing any existing services?

It's your town, right you are. But the $25 or less per household difference is realized in its entirety by cutting trash collection service in half. At one point, this might have been about efficient spending and promoting recycling, but it has appeared to morph into a juggernaut that will hurt your Town's residents more than it will help.

Point of clarification: It is a "free" (included in taxes) barrel that will be picked up biweekly, not a bag. A typical barrel is 32-35 gallons and usually holds 1-3 bags, depending on size. One "free" barrel per household is what is allowed under the existing program.

Dear John...I'm sorry you feel the way you, but allow me to clarify something for you regarding your decision to withdraw any support you may have been considering from Enough Is Enough.

First of all, Enough Is Enough did not take a position on this issue. Many of its members did weigh in, but they did so individually (as did I) and not as spokespersons for Enough Is Enough.

Secondly, with hundreds of members from Hamilton and Wenham, I can assure you that not every member of enough Is Enough is in agreement on every issue or initiative that the group supports...but that does not prevent them from supporting certain important issues that the organization as a whole can influence. The diversity of Enough Is Enough's members is, in large part, the reason the group has gained such popularity, support, influence and success in the two towns.

If a person does not agree with you on a single issue, that should not be cause to disagree with them on all future issues, especially ones that may arise with which you are of a like mind.

Jay I am sure you are familiar with the EIE website. From the website - Our goal is to ensure that town government and schools operate for the benefit of all citizens in a fiscally responsible and cost effective manner. This trash program in my opinion does not benefit the citizens especially from the logistical side. It also may prove to be fiscally irresponsible. All we have is estimates. Not to mention any savings is just going to go back into the general fund to support all the other fiscally irresponsible programs. Prove me wrong.

Dear John...Yes, I am familiar with the EiE website. As I tried to explain in my last reply to you, EiE was not...I repeat not...involved with this issue, in any way, shape or form. It has nothing to do with EiE. I can't say it any clearer. There are differing opinions on this issue, as evidenced by the split decision of the vote by the Selectmen. Please, let's simply agree to disagree... and then let's see what savings and/or benefits are derived from the program...or not. In the meantime, let's not shout "fire" when there's not even any smoke. Give it a chance. If the program fails, I will (sadly) admit that you were right...and hope that you will do the same if it is successful.

Yes we will agree to disagree and I will admit if I end up being wrong. I also understand EIE didn't take a position. I just don't understand how someone who supports EIE can support this as it seems to go against what they are about. Thats all.

Jay - what aspect is there to "give a chance"?

I can already tell you, with 100% certainty, that I don't like the idea of my town cutting my trash service in half and the result of that forcing me to spend more money out of my pocket! What's to wait and see?

Tim, I'm on board for those elements, as my time allows, but the actual aspect of cutting the trash collection in half saves the town only $25 per household per year. I only need to buy 13 additional blue bags in a year to be spending more than that. However, seeing as I won't personally be seeing the $25 I am losing financially when I buy a single extra bag! The inconvenience is the much greater factor of course.

We put so many issues to a town vote that have much less impact of the way we live our daily lives, and involving so much more money, it's astonishing to me that we had no direct say in this. The saved amount is essentially nothing in the budget (less than 1%) and the meddling and warranted interference in our lives is huge. Another direct shot to the foot by our bungling incompetent officials.

Sorry Jack I deleted my comment by accident, which makes you look slightly crazy replying to no one. To paraphrase: I said that "giving it a try" means actively participating in the composting and increased recycling portions of this plan could potentially negate the need for the purchase of any extra bags. Although they are cutting the trash pickup in half, they are at least providing an alternative option to remove a lot of the stinky smelly rotting material on a weekly basis.

I dont know the financials of this plan, I assume that at worst, its a net even for the town, with a likely savings. Whether or not that the savings are worth the decrease in town services, is an issue that I feel should have been left to a vote.

Its just important to remember that this isnt strictly a cut to town services, there are some enhancements in weekly pickup of recycling, and the addition of composting. Whether you value the added services of recycling/compost (with potential cost savings to the town) vs the decrease in services in the half trash limits (with potential costs to the individual) , seems to be among one of the dividing lines. Something I wish would be decided by vote.

Personally, I'm on the fence. I'm willing to give it a shot, but will miss the weekly trash pickup.

On the money Keating the whole process stinks! Election time should be interesting no doubt
this will be a point brought up!!

I kind of like it. 3 barrel weekly limit, with weekly recycling. I do wonder what the minimum recycled material to trash ratio would be. Could it be exploited by putting out a single sheet of paper and calling it a day?

Tim, to answer your question yes. Do you really think the guys picking up the trash care? I didn't even read the article until you posted. I would take that program in a heartbeat over what we are going to get or what we have currently.

I can say that a program like this works, and with minimal complaint from residents. The reason why it works is that, unlike the recently passed trash collection program in Hamilton (for example), it is not punitive toward responsible people. In Danvers, or in Reading for that matter, you recycle as you go and you have your rubbish removal (as we call it) weekly. Reading even implemented a PAYT program, and our recycling rate per tonnage is something like 43 percent now. And, unlike Hamilton's recently passed trash collection plan, trash is still collected weekly, the Town still saves money, and residents are *happy*. I realize that this is a difficult concept to understand.

BTW, Danvers, like Reading, has an excellent Town Manager and is a very well-run town.

Sounds great! Although I think 3 barrels of trash is excessive. It will be a good study to see if the single stream, weekly recycling increases or if they need to reduce the barrels of trash to achieve their goal.
They certainly didn't decide not to pick-up the trash each week.

John, I think you missed the part about trash not getting collected if it contains glass or plastics in it. You should look at other towns because Hamilton is a poorly run town and it might glean ideas from towns that are not poorly run.

Correct me if I am wrong with any of this, but Michael Lombardo is quoted as saying that the Town of Hamilton would have saved $50,000 by switching to single-stream recycling anyway, even if it had kept weekly trash collection. So, when you finally compare apples to apples, the Town is indeed cutting trash collection service in half in order to save (by Lombardo's own estimates) $25,000 to $40,000. When you do the math, that works out to $15 per household or $19 per family per year. If you put the question to residents, I would be willing to bet two weeks' worth of non-recycleable waste that a sizable majority will agree that cutting trash collection service in half in order to save $19 is simply not a wise spending decision. And this does not even consider the $20 per ton in tipping fees that the Town appears to be hiding for organic waste removal. At some point, as BB points out, residents are going to have to foot this bill, too. The obvious compromise would have been to kept the weekly trash collection and assess the Town's trash collection needs after the program has been implemented (Lombardo estimates February as the time frame).

If I spend one dime on extra blue bags for trash then I am out of pocket - none of the savings come to me directly, only direct, new out of pocket costs. How is that fuzzy math? It's as clear as day.

Bottom line is that I will spend money put of pocket as I won't be able to do one black bag for trash every two weeks - nor will your neighbors.

You refusing to see something that is painfully obvious which doesn't reflect well on you Jay.

Also Jay - another point you seem to misunderstand... Yes, our services have been "cut in half". We had a one bag trash limit per week that is now one bag every two weeks - that is "in half" - we pay extra if we want to get back to where we were in volume.

You counter that by saying we have additional recycling pick ups, completely missing the point (surprise, surprise) that there were previously NO LIMITS on the amount of recycling we could have picked up. The frequency has changed, sure, but we still have the same unlimited amount of recycling pick up, and have actually gained nothing apart from more trips down the driveway should we choose. And remember, the recycling is the trash that doesn't smell if left for two weeks. It's idiotic on it's face.

Why is this so hard for you understand?

a-men. See my comment below- Am trying REALLY hard to figure out what people are throwing in their trash....

John- Hi there. See my comment below. What are you putting in those bags that can't be recycled?

Hmm, how about dirty diapers, cat litter, styrofoam, etc. I recycle all of those things that you have in your list.

Here is the joint Boards of Selectmen agenda for Tuesday night: http://patch.com/N-cBHS

You don't go over one bag a week but I bet you will go over one bag every two weeks and you will be paying for that extra bag.

Want to learn more about this program or how to reduce your waste? Come to the League of Women Voters forum on Wed. Oct. 26 at 6:30 at the library. Details here
http://patch.com/E-jgGS .

No thanks. I know all I need to.

who said anything about one bag? that's the first I heard of that. It's one barrel. and the barrel is not 37 gallons

The barrel is 34 gallons. SO if you go over 34 gallons every two weeks you have to pay for it. Easy math.

Do you have picnics and use paper plates? You cannot compost or recycle most soiled paper plates. Do you eat soup or drink coffee? You cannot compost or recycle lids or cups lined with plastic. Here are some other things that you cannot compost or recycle (source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency):

• sugar packets (these are lined with plastic coating that does not biodegrade)
• plastic ketchup or similar single-serve dressing and sauce packets
• styrofoam
• paper coffee cups (most coffee cups are lined with plastic)
• paper plates (most paper plates are lined with plastic)
• food wrappings (chips, cookies, etc.)
• certain plastic or metal that cannot be recycled
• used tissues
• used diapers
• pet litter

Add to that that residents will throw away when in doubt and even some material that could otherwise be composted might be contaminated and need to be thrown away instead, and you will certainly have some trash generated every week. The longer that you leave trash, the more it will attract wild animals, who will topple even the most securely fastened barrels. This will create litter, and this litter will wind up in your yard

Eileen, this wasn't meant to be personal, just educational. We honestly should all care what's in our trash, that's the whole point here- We're all just lazy when we throw out stuff...And we should be proud of our town for being one of the few towns doing something progressive here.

How come Wellesley residents don't complain?- and we are?. They have to schlep their stuff to the town dump every week- and have been doing that for years...

Wellesley residents do not have curbside pickup at all. In fact, there is a 100-year-old town bylaw that prevents residents from placing barrels or recycling bins at the curb. Wellesley also has a property tax rate of $11.43/$1,000.

Give me a break. Yeah, times are tight for the tax payers not the tax collectors. Why are you putting more of the burden on the taxpayers. Home prices have fallen yet taxes still go up. Salaries have been flat and people are losing their jobs yet goverment workers are not taking the hit.
The only thing I agree with here is your last paragraph. How many times have facts been posted here showing this is only going to save less than pennies on the dollar?
Are you going to be so gung ho if they want to makes cuts that would actually be significant? Maybe to the school or the police department? I doubt it.

Tyson - trash collection became our right the minute we PAID for it. If we vote as a town to reduce the service and pay less for it, then so be it - however, that's a right we have been denied.

You seem confused and appear to think that somehow you will be paying lower taxes because of the bi-weekly collection. There has never been a suggestion of returning the saving to tax payers and if they did choose to return it to you, your household would receive somewhere between $19 and $25 per YEAR!

You have your point of view, I have mine... neither of us were given a chance to vote and let democracy take it's course though, and that's the crux of the matter.

What "many others" and "rest of us" Jay - it would appear to me that you hold the minority position by far here.

If you think that elected officials have been given carte blanche by the voters to decide anything and everything on their behalf, you have a very skewed and mistaken understanding of representative democracy.

John...Perhaps I do assume a lot. I assume that you would realize that simply because you just moved here, that does not mean that any rules, regulations or bylaws previously voted upon and passed in Hamilton that you do not like will now be rescinded so as to satisfy you. I assume you must be exceedingly astute since, despite having just moved here, you have already concluded that, in your words, "Yes, Hamilton is a poorly run town". I assume that I can speak for many others, because I have spoken to many others. I assume that simply because you have written 20% of the comments in this blog that you do not speak for the majority in Hamilton. I assume that you are welcome here in Hamilton, even if your strong, and sometimes insulting rhetoric is not. Lastly, I assume none of this matters to you since, as you wrote yesterday, you "know all you need to".

Jay I think you are somewhat delusional. I am not the one who claimed to speak for others. You are. I speak for myself. All I said was I was willing to bet that if there was a vote it wouldn't pass. That is not speaking for others. Where did I say that rules should be rescinded for me? I didn't. You ASSUMED some people who you don't even know had a chance to vote on this. They may not have. Yes I have made an assumption based on this particular process that this is a poorly run town. That is my right. Who have I insulted? Yes I do know all I need to about this program. I know the numbers and they don't add up.

John...I assumed that would be your reply. ;-) Smile.

Kendra, there are two costs associated with trash removal: hauling charges (the cost of Hiltz to pick up your trash and transport it to the NESWC incinerator in North Andover) and tipping fees (usually a fixed rate per tonnage). Even if the tonnage remains the same, the Town does save money by reducing removal to biweekly. Mike Lombardo estimated these savings to be $25,000 to $40,000. Personally, and this comes from the perspective of one who has served on a Finance Committee and is somewhat familiar with the process that Selectmen and Town Managers follow in negotiating contracts with haulers, I think that Lombardo and the Town could have negotiated a weekly contract with Hiltz at a lower cost than he is stating.

The SMART committee has also stated that the tipping fees for organic waste are $40/ton, but it was later revealed that they are actually $55-$60 per ton. It's your town, but you are getting taken here.

Ron, I fear that neither common sense, nor fiscal sense, will make any difference to people who want the town to cut any budget possible, at any time - even if they will never see the savings.

There is a minority, yet vocal, attitude that all taxes are bad, most services are unnecessary and any and all budget cuts are worthwhile - if it means cutting trash collection in half for a paltry saving of $19-$25 per household, so be it (even if it will then cost the tax payers MORE money out of pocket for extra blue bags).

This knee jerk, "enough is enough" tea party-esque attitude is impossible to defend so it's no surprise it never made it to a town vote. I am all for reduced taxes, but not any price, and there isn't even a reduction on offer here!

Eileen...Yes, I do know what they say about those that "assume".

Considering all the assumptions made by most of the commenters on this blog, I think we're ALL in trouble. ;-) LOL

Thank you Eileen for making that clear - I'm glad to hear that EiE has not drunk the Kool-aid on this issue. I apologize for misrepresenting your position. I guess Jay is in an even smaller minority regarding this issue than I previously thought.

As always Jay, I agree with you 100%. Like a latter day Moses, you have led a rebellious tribe from the bondage of taxation to the Promised Land of fiscal responsibility.

Unfortunately, like Moses, you are also faced with cowards, complainers and backstabbers who stubbornly refuse to accept your divine ordination as the sole provider of the truth.

Surely, this little hamlet of Hamilton is too small a stage for a man like you.

My advice to you is to run for Congress this year. I am sure that Essex County would rise as one behind your candidacy.

Andy Rooney (might have) said....

"Have you noticed that this discussion has gone from talking about trash to Trash Talking? Don't you just hate that? Now there's a weekly disposal plan I could support because it's starting to smell like the garbage it is. So contact your Selectmen and tell them you want Trash Talk picked up every week. It's your right." ;-)

Marc...just a point of clarification...regardless of which "side" you are on, please note that the things you mentioned... kitty litter, animal by-products such as poultry and beef bones, skin and scraps... ARE items that are compostable and are being picked up as part of the organic waste recycling in both towns.

Kitty litter is N O T on the list of items suggested for composting on the Town of Wenham website http://www.wenhamma.gov/public_docs/organicwasteflyer.pdf. The EPA also recommends not putting kitty liter or domestic animal waste in your home compost due to parasites, like e-coli. The new Portland, ME curbside composting program also does not allow pet waste. http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=56544&a=368864

Before this new plan goes into effect, there needs to be a large educational component. A Town Meeting vote would have been the perfect opportunity for education...opportunity lost.

At the very least, Hamilton Green and the Town should provide an exhaustive list of what residents should and should not compost. Composting "smiles" and not composting "anger," while cute, will only frustrate residents as they are learning to adopt the new system. Most paper plates and food wrappers are not biodegradable and contain some plastic. The EPA is pretty adamant regarding the health risks associated with composting human and animal waste. Toronto is the only city that I am aware which accepts animal waste for composting, and its organic composting program serves as an object lesson of all of the things that can go wrong with such a program. For one, it grossly over-estimated the amount of waste that the program would divert from landfills. Over a two year period, most of the human and animal waste simply ended up in landfills anyway (thankfully, actually). And the "black gold" that the compost program produced was so high in saline content that it is not safe to use in lawns and gardens. Sensible cities and towns do NOT compost these products, and my guess is that if Hamilton and Wenham residents do, these will wind up getting hauled to North Andover anyway (at taxpayers' cost).

Eileen, this sounds a little like the recent outcry from vocal opponents in Ipswich of the restructuring of the Recreation Department there. Nearly every comment was against the change. Despite the apparent unanimous opposition, when the issue went before Town Meeting it was was overwhelmingly approved ( the vote was something like 149 to 48). I'm not saying that would have been the result in this case. I'm saying that just because opponents of an issue find common ground on a blog does not mean that the issue would be defeated at a Town Meeting.

Believe it or not, I too would have preferred that course of action. At least then there would have been little cause for those with the fewest votes to complain about the process...just the result.

Jay, on this point we agree. I too would have much preferred this to go to a town vote - so many things that impact our lives much less go to town vote. I also agree that in some cases an inflamed minority can be vocal enough to misrepresent the majority view.

On this issue, however, I don't believe that's the case. The impact of bi-weekly trash pick ups is huge and the ramifications of a missed trash day more so. The savings per household from the move to bi-weekly from weekly are tiny - just $19 to $25 per household per year, and the out-of-pocket costs to replace that one black bag per week are going to be over $50 per year. No fuzzy math required.

To me, at least, this seems like an amazingly simple issue - it's a no brainer to keep weekly trash collection, to keep an extra $50 in my pocket, and forget about a saving to the town that amounts to nothing more than a rounding error in the entire budget.

As an aside, I will actively campaign and vote against the three selectmen who voted for this idiotic bill... talk about a lack of commonsense and a total lack of understanding about what matters and is important to the townsfolk.

The Hamilton Board of Selectment (BOS) will be meeting on Saturday, Oct 29 at 8:30am at the COA in Wenham (10 School Street across from the Buker School). On the agenda are the BOS goals and a recap of the town meeting.
If you would like to know their goals or perhaps comment on them, that's the place to be.

Thank you, I had wondered when they changed the bylaw regarding the trash policy. I recall the last change, the 1 free barrel plan, was voted at town meeting only a few years ago.

Rich...

Seriously? You "don't even know what COMPOSTING is"?

Seriously? You don't have TIME to sort your trash...nor are you going to?

Seriously? Your work schedule prevents you from dropping your trash into one container or another?

I agree with you when you say: "I'm SO out of this conversation".

Marc - I applaud your ability to change your mind, and your commitment and ability to comply so stringently with the composting and recycling guidelines that will enable you to reduce your trash to one bag every two weeks.

However, those with limited time, who travel extensively on business, the elderly, infirm, disabled or with large busy families will not have either the time or the ability to be quite as thorough or economical with waste and these people (realistically the vast majority of Hamilton households) will be financially penalized by this plan - and have to put up with two weeks worth of smelly trash in the summer.

Margo, you make the point perfectly. If you are THAT good at recycling - six bins, composting, returning cans/bottles and you still need one barrel of trash a week, then the plan will cost you at least $50 a year as you lose that barrel a week and it will need to be replaced by at least one blue bag. That money may as well be a new tax - and it is effectively - so rather than a reduction in taxes, it's an increase to the actual residents.

That's the point. Despite all the people here who excel at recycling and composting, the vast majority of Hamilton residents are not perfect but slowly getting better and are trying to recycle more, and one bag a week is the bare minimum for most households ( this is not conjecture I see the oceans of blue bags every week). This plan will cost them more, pure and simple, the "savings" are miniscule and the shell game and agenda driven decisions over tipping fees has just begun.

I genuinely applaud those who are great at recycling - I make a concerted effort myself for all the right reasons, and also to reduce my blue bag usage - but one bag every two weeks is a step too far and for all the wrong reasons.

Precisely right, Michael. Many, if not most, families with children in Hamilton will wind up paying *more* even though their trash collection service has been cut in half. I wish you luck.