The Brookline Logic.
By Jim Conley • September 29th, 2006 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
It seems that some opponents of the 3% property tax surcharge on the local ballot in November are such because they fear it will reduce the likelihood of a Proposition 2.5 override at a later date.
Rest assured, CPA proponents have done their homework. According to yesterday’s TAB, a debate on the measure featured this nugget from leading CPA advocate Jay Gonzalez:
“Gonzalez (said) that of seven towns of similar composition to Brookline which had passed the CPA and recently attempted to pass a Proposition 2 1/2 override, six were successful, far exceeding the state average.”
There’s a saying that goes, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem tends to resemble a nail.” In Brookline we can adapt it to say, “Any time Town Government is faced with a problem, the middle class ends up getting screwed.”
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
Let’s see if I understand the comments of the opponents and the proponents of the proposed CPA. (In my professional youth my favorite bartender would comment when a patron was described as a CPA: “Yeah, Cleaning, Pressing and Alterations.” No angry accountant responses, please.) Opponents are concerned that if the CPA is adopted, then Proposition 2 1/2 overrides would be difficult to obtain. Proponents demonstrate that in fact the odds of such overrides improve significantly with CPAs. So both the opponents AND the proponents seems to be looking forward to overrides. With people like this addressing the issue, what chance do we have of, heaven forbid, reductions in property taxes. Why don’t more people focus on cutting fat from the budget, getting more productivity and efficiency by adopting a modern form of governance, and insisting upon accountability from our public officials, elected and otherwise? Town Hall insiders seem to have The Country Club complex: so long as they can get enough members to pay increased dues they (the insiders) will benefit.
There seems to be a suggestion that renters may favor CPA because they don’t pay property taxes. But why may so many homeowners who may be impacted act a lemmings and vote against their own interests for the CPA? Or can homeowners be divided into those who do not plan to sell for a long, long time and those elderly homeowners who may be forced to sell, with the former in favor of the CPA and the latter against? We have plenty of parks and open space in Brookline. Increasing open space may mean less, but more dense, construction (what with zoning changes taking place almost annually to accommodate developers), with the hope that property values will once again rise, with still no relief for affordable housing. South Brookline may get more open space with the CPA and North Brookline may get more dense development.
Is it time for residents to get mad and say they won’t take it anymore or will there be apathetic “whatever” rollover on this issue? Where is Brookline exceptionalism when you really, really need it?