Are you in favor of changing the policy at the transfer station to a "pay as you throw" system or do you like the current system?

How big are the bags? If these are 60 gallon bags, I'm in favor, without knowing the bag capacity how many $2.00 bags will I need per week. 2 bags/week is $404.00/year +$70.00 annual totals $470.00/year. This looks like an attempt at savings though forced trash reduction.

Unfortunately trash volume is most influenced by expensive anti-theft product packaging which we pay dearlly for.

I'm itching to say one more thing about his please. These polls are an excellent example of how the political process works: Decisions are referenced in terms of; "what we want." We voters need the view issue cause and effects, and officals need to describe potential solutions they visualize in detail, and so we can decide which compromise is the best for us. For decades American's have ignored resource limitation, induding the unlimited resource of cheap borrowed money. We have to manage sacrifices with resources. We need facts, cute cliches are not the substance of good government.

I'm in support of pay as you go. As a family of 4, we make about 1 13 gallon bag of trash/week, plus a typical trash can full of recyclables. So this would on the face of it seem like a pretty big savings for us.

It is amazing how much you can reduce your trash if you pay attention to separating out the recyclables. Make it fun for the family. I still remember the start of recycling back in the early 70's, especially the crying indian commercial, and how much fun my brother and I had back when we were in grade school jumping off the cellar stairs onto cans to flatten them. Even today, I make a point of picking up trash when I am walking down the road, and doing everything I can to separate out recyclables, even at work.

I have to agree that I hate the anti-theft packaging that is nearly impossible to open, and difficult to separate into paper and plastic. I suggest we all lobby for greener packaging across the board.

Why does this keep coming up? We have voted this down before. I hate to ask if someone has a vested interest in this but it does tend to make me wonder. I do not want to vote for this. Programs almost always cost more than when they are first proposed. I prefer to keep things the way they are now. I am recycling more than ever before and perhaps others will step it up too.

As per your article, using 30 Gallon trash bags is much less than the typical homeowner uses. This will clearly result in more bags required and therfore we will end up paying MORE overall for trash disposal.

This is thinly vailed as a savings. The only ones 'saving' will be the company selling the bags.

Everytime a process like this changes, it never benefits the customers. Cost for trash will clearly increase for most and reduce for a very few. I forsee people burning paper in their fireplaces or dumping illegally. So good for the environment.

Someones working on a sweatheart deal.

As for a senior citizen,this is defintely an increase in cost.One bag per week plus the $40 maintenance fee alone ,better than doubles our current disposal cost.To my mind ,the claimed results of lowering the amount of trash disposed of under this proposal,is a dubious statement at best.I would like to think that the majority of people in Littleton work hard to support recycling,so the reduction in quantity of trash and trash disposal costs to the town may be minimal.Curbside pickup is a non-starter.Unfortunately,when someone in government professes to save me money and save the environment at the same time,I immediately cover my wallet.