How are people 'informed' about these contracts, terms, their services and obligations, etc? It looks like it is only after the fact, through the service providers, when they pursue payment or services. If the town can mail taxes to all they can mail other information with them, or instead, in another mailing using the same list. The Internet is 'nice' but many don't have access to it, the time for it (unless it is emailed to them), and besides the town web site while a good start, is often well behind and lacks useful/relevant details.
I spoke to a neighbor who did not know terms of, require, nor use garbage services. WHY this is so, should be of no interest to the town as long as they comply with littering, environmental, and such laws. (Garbageman states there is an 'exemption' list of some sort, where some bureaucrat or board (who is this?) ca review the residents garbage handling and lifestyle to decide if they approve of it?) . In fact the neighbor is one of us who regularly help keep the road sides clean as he walks PICKING UP THE GARBAGE AND LITTER left by others including the collectors. Perhaps this will help them in their pursuit of an exemption.

This neighbor is now being dunned by Garbageman for back, non payment of, services not used. This stinks (pun intended).
Garbageman states that there are terms committing/requiring residents (or is it property owners?) to pay for garbage collection services whether or not they use them. If this is the case, why aren't they just included in the taxes? The current method of garbage billing/administration just adds to resident's complexity, annoyance, and overhead in dealing one on one with the contractor of the year.
It also stinks that Newton wants to force residents to pay an outside company for services they don't use. What is next, forcing everyone to pay for cable or telephone? OH, but wait let's examine this a bit further.
Compare this garbage contract/provider, WHERE THEY ATTEMPT TO REQUIRE RESIDENTS TO PAY FOR UNNEEDED UNUSED SERVICES to the CABLE CONTRACT WHERE MANY CAN'T GET SERVICES BECAUSE THE TOWN DID NOT REQUIRE THE CABLE PROVIDER TO SUPPLY ALL RESIDENTS who want it. Here, the town and provider here could care less. (This contract should require coverage of all but the MOST isolated residents for the privilege of a monopoly. It uses density criteria not typical of our town to exclude many residents.)
Where is the consistency? Who does this stuff and to whose best interest?? How are providers selected, is it ONLY based on price without examining alternate terms (like per bag or bi weekly collection) or services (like cable access to MORE people who request it).
This all stinks (pun intended again).
