September 8th override ballot
August 31, 2007
It is not raising taxes by 2.5%. Rather, cities & towns are limited pursuant to MGL ch 59 S 21c [http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/59-21c.htm] to increasing their revenue from taxation to no more than 2.5% in total. So, on average, homeowners tax bills would increase by no more than that 2.5% -- unless they improved their homes.
What is coming forward is a proposal to exceed that cap, instituted about 1980. This Article allows Bridgewater to raise additional revenues to sustain its services. Over the past years, some costs have greatly exceeded the 2.5% rate, and thus have diminished the services that could be provided.
Bridgewater needs to figure out what kind of community it wants to be. Towns that have grown their business and commercial tax base have been able to continue to offer the residents the requested services without these tax increases. Towns that create problems for every possible business become overly reliant on home-owner property taxes. For me, I would have liked to see a more business-friendly approach in this Town. However, every time some resident or group of residents creates problems for a business, it sends a message that businesses are not welcome in this Town. Think back, people fought the original Walgreens over a couple of decrepit houses. Walgreens gave up, CVS tried only to have issues over the number of columns, how much brick, whether to save a couple of historic trees. Now Walgreens is trying for a different proposal, and I heard concerns about the historic post & beam construction in a long boarded up house on Broad Street. Even all of the opposition to Mining Organics! A Town cannot be against every potential business, and then wonder why we do not have a business tax base. This is the inevitable result of everyone yelling NIMBY -- not in my back yard.
Compared to the Override of June 16th, this is different for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, there is greater support for the proposal from the Selectmen. The Selectmen brought forth the prior proposal, but then some - especially Chair Herb Lemon - campaigned against it. How can people trust or vote for a proposal brought forth by our elected leaders when the Chair of the Board works against it? Also, Mark Oliari campaigned against the proposal. In addition, the prior Override question seemed to key on the Schools only, even though it was a fairly even split of funding - half to schools, half to general government. All the discussion last time was on how the Schools were managing their funds. This time, town departments are explaining their position and rationale for the funding.
As far as the 'blame the schools' questions... the School Committee did what it was legally entitled and required to do in resolving a budget dispute. The School Committee did not create the issue. In fact, the voters of Bridgewater set the budget values by their actions at Town Meetings. In Bridgewater, the School Committee had four votes; their were more than a thousand who voted on July 31st to provide B-R with its submitted budget. I believe that the School Committee over the past few years has made great strides in convincing many that we are truly transparent and open. Think of what people know about B-R employee contracts, budget details and especially the willingness to listen to the community at scheduled Public Forums and public comment/forum periods during all School Board Meetings.
People can always find a reason to say NO, or vote NO. It takes courage and confidence in elected leaders and department heads to trust that what they are saying and doing is correct and for the good of the community.
Bridgewater
Raynham
Easton
East Bridgewater
West Bridgewater
Massachusetts
Legislation & Politics
USA
Legislation & Politics
World
Education
Bridgewater-Raynham Schools
Massachusetts
USA
Archives (past stories)
Opinion/Analysis
Joseph Gillis Jr.
You can do something!
