Town meeting report 6/2010
Town meeting went smoothly finishing up at 10:45 PM. All charter change articles passed. The question to increase the local meals tax was defeated. The big article for me was the one to put CPA on the fall ballot. It passed with a very solid margin of victory. There was the usual cast of characters saying that the $23 surcharge with low/moderate income exemptions would put people out of their homes. Conservation Commissioner Trish Cassidy gave a good presentation though I think overall some proponents focused too much on the housing portion of it. I could see someone who was not familiar with CPA thinking that it was some sort of a way to grease the skids for affordable housing. Sure – if you wanted to use it for that you could – pending approval by the CPA committee AND town meeting. Most communities like Middleboro use the money for open space, recreation, historic preservation, and occasionally elderly housing.
Themocracy
I think CPA is a win for this town. Thank you to all involved with this cause.
Ditto to that Mick. So glad it will be on the ballot.
CIPA will be a big win for the tow IF it passes. I was surprised that it made through town meeting, especailly after what happened to the meals tax. I think that some mentioned thath the meals tax would bring in 250K a year. That loss was very unfortunate for the town – I’m guessing that 250K would pay for staffing at the North Fire station or maybe save a few teachers …
CPA needs volunteers to help get this passed at the on the ballot. If you support it, contact someone involved in the effort. I’m a supporter but not involved. I am advocating for CPA as I have for a couple of years now – but not part of the group that is making this effort.
My first worry (and by all means make me feel better) is the town already owns 6,000 acres out of 79,000 acres of Middleboro (that’s already 7%) not to mention the wetlands and all the other property that cannot be built upon – so that is land that no taxes will be collected on. Then there are all the “historical properties” that the CPA will save and refurbish – historical properties don’t pay taxes either and if you argue and say they do then I will say they do not pay full taxes. That makes even less taxes being collected putting more hardship to pay taxes on everyone else in Middleboro. My second worry, who is going to pay this $23 – $40 dollar tax? Not low income, Not low or moderate income senior housing, Not mobile homes. That only leaves a smaller percentage of homeowners to pick up this CPA tax bill. I think to be fair only the homeowners should be allowed to vote on such a tax as they are the one directly impacted by this vote.
Imagine a 200 acre piece of rural property that is paying $14K in taxes. If it goes up for sale and the town buys it we lose 14K per year. If a developer buys and builds 200 houses or 40B units we have to pay $5K per child in that development not too mention road, sewer, water, etc maint.
CPA won’t be used to “create” historical properties. It will be used to maintain ones we already have. We are already maintaining them (or should be). The bonus to all of this is we get a match from the state of 31 cents on the dollar. Pending legislation would make that 70 or 75 cents on the dollar.
CPA is a good deal – financially and otherwise.
Bellicose
You are right on the nose about the reasoning behind getting more land to save from 40B. Another, point is that developers over the years have made their money from developing on land that is lower in price. By this I mean that they come to Middleborough before other places because the land is cheaper. We pay almost $10,530.00 per child according to 2008
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ppx.aspx.
Another way to look at is, if all the land is taken in the next few years for developing, than there will be a very limited amount to leave for the future generations, ie. less space for good playing fields, and for sustainability.
Like it or not ,we need to think about growing our own food and sustaining agriculture, now.
Another, key point about CPA is that it allows us to prepare for the future. It allows us to rejuvenate buildings that are probably built much better than those now. It allows us to plan for a tourism package utilizing history and land. It allows us to go for grants that other communities can go for and we can not because we do not have the CPA in place.
Bridgewater is redoing their historic town hall. Do you realize how much we would have to borrow if we needed to do it again? We do not have a maintenace account established for future maintenace repairs. Al Rullo tried to convince our BOS a few weeks ago on the importance of this. It did not go over too big.
For 44 cents a week from the tax payers, we can get so much done with less head aches and big savings. There is a saying “penny wise but pound foolish”, I hope that we can by pass that saying when it comes to the vote.
If everyone stops and thinks of the community and it’s gain from the CPA, it would be a no brainer to vote it in.
Just key in to the CPA projects of the 143 towns that already have it and you will be convinced it is a winner.
Just wondering, since i’ve heard no one mention it – will comercial property be subject to the CPA contribution ? My guess is “no” since none of the usual supects made an issue of it at TM.
commercial properties in other towns are taxed for CPA.I do not know what the guidelines are for the tax, however,I, personally,know someone that has commercial property in another town and is taxed on it.Your question is a perfect one to ask and trust me, I will.if anyone else has questions please ask. How else can we get educated on this important issue.