Taxes and Assessments
A taxpayer revolt is brewing over the tax bills that went out recently. They reflect the town-wide reassessments that were finished recently, and that always produces howls.
Before you become one of the howlers, look at the total tax line on your bill and compare that number to last year. It's not the assessment that's important, it's how much tax you pay. If your taxes stayed the same, or went down, or went up by no more than the increase in town expenses (say about 5%), you're new assessment didn't hurt you and you should probably keep quiet.
When people started complaining to me (and more loudly to the assessors and town hall staff), at first I thought the complaints reflected the usual factors: for example, if someone's property hadn't been assessed in a long time, that property's assessment would go up by more than the average increase, resulting in an increase in tax. But not all the complaints can be explained by the usual factors, and I'm hearing about some real anomalies. E.g., I know of two very comparable houses, one of which saw its tax burden doubled and the other no increase. So I'm starting to think two other factors MIGHT be involved: Mistakes, too many of them; and flaws in the methodology, perhaps caused by the fact that the town-wide reassessments were done by one outfit at the beginning and a different outfit when the first one more or less disappeared.
In any event, remember that you have only until May 1 to file for an abatement, and you have to use the prescribed form. I'm told abatement filings are legion already.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Town Meeting
More on the town meeting: Article 13 seeks $15,000 to hire an engineering consultant to study the Annex (that's the white building between town hall and the north firehouse). After last August's rejection by town voters of the Annex renovation proposal, the Selectboard appointed a committee to study and report back on what to do with the Annex. The committee did so, and the Selectboard (one member in particular) was so unhappy with the report (primarily because it focused too much on new space for the police department) that the Selectboard decided not to put any proposal on the warrant for this meeting. But rather than accepting defeat, the Selectboard voted to seek money for yet another study. If that study's conclusions don't fit with the Selectboard's views of what the Annex should become, I bet they'll reject it again.
I'm pretty confident that town voters (in a representative vote, i.e., with more voters than the 60 to 80 who seem always to vote for bigger government) will never, ever approve spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Annex, regardless of the purpose. Never, ever. So spending $15,000 on another study is just a waste of money. And approving this money is just holding out false hope to the Annex proponents that they can eventually slip through their plans for it.
For years, the Selectboard has ignored my suggestion for what to do with it: Sell it or rent it to someone. It's been sitting there producing no benefit to the town for decades. Stop studying and dreaming, and do something meaningful.
P.S.: This issue is another reason why we should amend the bylaws to increase the quorum requirement. Otherwise the day may come when the meeting is stacked with proponents and they slip through something the vast majority are opposed to.
More on the town meeting: Article 13 seeks $15,000 to hire an engineering consultant to study the Annex (that's the white building between town hall and the north firehouse). After last August's rejection by town voters of the Annex renovation proposal, the Selectboard appointed a committee to study and report back on what to do with the Annex. The committee did so, and the Selectboard (one member in particular) was so unhappy with the report (primarily because it focused too much on new space for the police department) that the Selectboard decided not to put any proposal on the warrant for this meeting. But rather than accepting defeat, the Selectboard voted to seek money for yet another study. If that study's conclusions don't fit with the Selectboard's views of what the Annex should become, I bet they'll reject it again.
I'm pretty confident that town voters (in a representative vote, i.e., with more voters than the 60 to 80 who seem always to vote for bigger government) will never, ever approve spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Annex, regardless of the purpose. Never, ever. So spending $15,000 on another study is just a waste of money. And approving this money is just holding out false hope to the Annex proponents that they can eventually slip through their plans for it.
For years, the Selectboard has ignored my suggestion for what to do with it: Sell it or rent it to someone. It's been sitting there producing no benefit to the town for decades. Stop studying and dreaming, and do something meaningful.
P.S.: This issue is another reason why we should amend the bylaws to increase the quorum requirement. Otherwise the day may come when the meeting is stacked with proponents and they slip through something the vast majority are opposed to.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Annual Town Meeting
The warrant is out for the May meeting. You can get a copy at town hall or at either of the post offices. Lots of interesting stuff on the warrant, including 3 citizens' petitions, one of which seeks to permit nonresidents to speak at town meetings. (See several prior postings for background on this.) On the financial front, requested appropriations are up more than 10% over last year. Some of that is increases caused by higher utility costs, etc., but a lot of it is new expenditures sought by the selectmen. At a time when we're all facing increased costs, beats me why the selectmen think we need to spend more. COME TO THE MEETING IF YOU WANT TO HAVE INPUT ON THESE THINGS!
The warrant is out for the May meeting. You can get a copy at town hall or at either of the post offices. Lots of interesting stuff on the warrant, including 3 citizens' petitions, one of which seeks to permit nonresidents to speak at town meetings. (See several prior postings for background on this.) On the financial front, requested appropriations are up more than 10% over last year. Some of that is increases caused by higher utility costs, etc., but a lot of it is new expenditures sought by the selectmen. At a time when we're all facing increased costs, beats me why the selectmen think we need to spend more. COME TO THE MEETING IF YOU WANT TO HAVE INPUT ON THESE THINGS!
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Town Election Caucus Results
I don't have the specific results of the Democratic caucus, but do of the Republican caucus. For selectman, it was Cumsky 11, Brazie 4 and Schoenfeld 2. For Moderator, Gage and Lamme each got 7 votes. For library trustee, Sheldon beat Kane by 8 to 7. For planning board, Vining edged out Martin, 9 to 7. All the other offices were uncontested.
I plan to send a list of questions to the candidates for contested positions and will publish the results.
I don't have the specific results of the Democratic caucus, but do of the Republican caucus. For selectman, it was Cumsky 11, Brazie 4 and Schoenfeld 2. For Moderator, Gage and Lamme each got 7 votes. For library trustee, Sheldon beat Kane by 8 to 7. For planning board, Vining edged out Martin, 9 to 7. All the other offices were uncontested.
I plan to send a list of questions to the candidates for contested positions and will publish the results.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Quorum Requirement for Town Meetings
One item on the agenda for the upcoming town meeting is a proposal to change the quorum requirement from 60 to 150. I'm the author of that proposal. I've seen too many instances of meetings being "stacked" by a small group of people - often people who otherwise don't attend town meetings regularly - who have a particular interest in some matter and who pass (or defeat) that matter even though a more representative group of voters would have voted the other way. Would you want the US Senate to have a quorum requirement of 7 (out of 100) so that 4 senators could pass legislation even if the other 96 senators would have voted the other way? That's essentially the situation in Egremont.
On a number of occasions in recent years, I (with the help of others) have had to rally voters to come to a town meeting because otherwise a small group of dedicated people would have pushed through some action that would have helped them but hurt the rest of us. That just isn't democratic and it just isn't right. And it should be changed.
The problem is even worse when it comes to special town meetings. They're often far more unrepresentative than annual town meetings, because the voters who are affected by the issue under consideration come out in droves but the voters who aren't directly affected by it tend to stay home. That has happened twice in recent memory at special meetings deciding whether to buy another fire truck. What if there were a special meeting to decide whether the town should take over the water company? You know what would happen - the water company users would descend on the meeting en masse to vote in favor of a takeover, and they might prevail, even though a representative vote would likely have been overwhelmingly the other way.
And the problem is made worse by the tendency of our current selectmen to call special town meetings to decide important issues, a practice that I strongly oppose. Most recent example: The selectmen were moving toward putting the annex/library issue on the agenda for the upcoming meeting, but now are talking about a special meeting later this year for that decision. Why? I have my suspicions. What are yours?
One item on the agenda for the upcoming town meeting is a proposal to change the quorum requirement from 60 to 150. I'm the author of that proposal. I've seen too many instances of meetings being "stacked" by a small group of people - often people who otherwise don't attend town meetings regularly - who have a particular interest in some matter and who pass (or defeat) that matter even though a more representative group of voters would have voted the other way. Would you want the US Senate to have a quorum requirement of 7 (out of 100) so that 4 senators could pass legislation even if the other 96 senators would have voted the other way? That's essentially the situation in Egremont.
On a number of occasions in recent years, I (with the help of others) have had to rally voters to come to a town meeting because otherwise a small group of dedicated people would have pushed through some action that would have helped them but hurt the rest of us. That just isn't democratic and it just isn't right. And it should be changed.
The problem is even worse when it comes to special town meetings. They're often far more unrepresentative than annual town meetings, because the voters who are affected by the issue under consideration come out in droves but the voters who aren't directly affected by it tend to stay home. That has happened twice in recent memory at special meetings deciding whether to buy another fire truck. What if there were a special meeting to decide whether the town should take over the water company? You know what would happen - the water company users would descend on the meeting en masse to vote in favor of a takeover, and they might prevail, even though a representative vote would likely have been overwhelmingly the other way.
And the problem is made worse by the tendency of our current selectmen to call special town meetings to decide important issues, a practice that I strongly oppose. Most recent example: The selectmen were moving toward putting the annex/library issue on the agenda for the upcoming meeting, but now are talking about a special meeting later this year for that decision. Why? I have my suspicions. What are yours?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Curnins Speaking at Town Meeting
As I predicted, the Court of Appeals turned down the Curnins motion for an en banc rehearing of the denial of their lawsuit trying to force the town to let them speak at town meetings. Now, according to the local paper, they've filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. My money says the Supreme Court will turn down that appeal. But the town will have to pay more legal fees to defend against the appeal.
I've noted before that I like the Curnins. I even have some sympathy for the proposition that nonvoters should be able to speak at town meetings. But when I asked Tom Curnin some time ago to drop the lawsuit in exchange for my helping to get the town to agree to let nonvoters speak, he turned me down. Therefore, my sympathy has disappeared. Maybe the town should let nonvoters speak only if the town is first reimbursed for all the costs of defending this silly and hopeless lawsuit.
As I predicted, the Court of Appeals turned down the Curnins motion for an en banc rehearing of the denial of their lawsuit trying to force the town to let them speak at town meetings. Now, according to the local paper, they've filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. My money says the Supreme Court will turn down that appeal. But the town will have to pay more legal fees to defend against the appeal.
I've noted before that I like the Curnins. I even have some sympathy for the proposition that nonvoters should be able to speak at town meetings. But when I asked Tom Curnin some time ago to drop the lawsuit in exchange for my helping to get the town to agree to let nonvoters speak, he turned me down. Therefore, my sympathy has disappeared. Maybe the town should let nonvoters speak only if the town is first reimbursed for all the costs of defending this silly and hopeless lawsuit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
