Letter to Editor: Let’s Not Gaslight on Paper Bag Fee

While I was not present at the town council meeting on Sept 3rd, I did watch it live on the link provided.

The discussion of the proposed repeal of the 10 cent fee for paper bags retailers who provide such bags must begin with Council President Gunsallis’s suggestion that the ten cent fee was a difficulty for « those among us who are struggling » financially and continued with Councilman Montgomery’s disjointed and rambling, not to mention spurious, comments about a long since discredited « study » in New Jersey about the supposed failure of plastic bag bans, as well as his purported empathy for people seen purchasing clothes for the new school year who had forgotten to bring their own bags at Kohls. He claimed to have been told by numerous constituents in Ward 3 that the ten-cent fee was a burden.

Council members Curry, Abbatiello, and Davis, as well as many members of the community, all pointed out that civic responsibility and the use of one’s own bags at every opportunity is not a hardship given the importance of environmental consciousness as we go forward.

One woman asked why retailers could not just give away the paper bags, a question I asked myself, as I was listening. The answer to this came from the most salient comments of the evening, the remarks made by the representative of the Maryland Retailers Association. She explained that retailers who offer them have to pay for the paper bags one way or another, either by charging (at cost) for them, by raising the prices of their merchandise, or by letting at least one member of staff go. The cost to consumers who pay for the use of a paper bag (when they have forgotten their own cloth bag) is far less than the increased cost of goods and services, not to mention the possible lost job of an employee. The importance of the paper bag fee to the entire plastic bag ban was addressed by numerous members of the Plastic Bag Ban group.

It occurs to me that Council members Gunsallis and Montgomery would better serve the community and their constituents by explaining this basic lesson in economics to anyone who objects in their hearing about the ten cent paper bag fee.

Meanwhile, at the Sept 16th town council meeting, where the discussion will be open for public comment, perhaps the managers of various local retailers could present these economic details to the council. I am also sure there is more than one retired economist in the area who could help make this point.

Respecting everyone’s intelligence and ability to understand the nuances of the ordinance as it is written and enacted will go a lot farther in ingratiating the council members who have chosen to resurrect this issue with their constituents than patronizing them with affected sympathy for their plight as « struggling » members of the community or attempting to gaslight the community with distraction and misinformation.

Margot Miller

Easton