All personal thoughts about taxes and prop 2.5 aside, mechanisms LIKE prop 2.5 are problematic. What they do is pit neighbors against each other repeatedly, creating highly tense and emotional battles about spending, and the battles are won with slogans, not good analysis of need. These questions, the detail of analysis, are better decided by our elected representatives and governmental professionals, who are taking the time - tons of it- (we hope) to figure out what is best. If they don't get it right they will not be reelected or rehired.
Joel A. Feingold -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rene s Mandel Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 3:40 PM To: Paul Willitts Cc: Nicola Cataldo; Steven W. Orr; Framingham Neighbors; Town Meeting Members Subject: Re: Should Framingham plow church lots? MWN today >From Willitts: > Prop 2 1/2 was doomed from the start. How can anyone expect a 2 1/2 > increase to pay for things that are experiencing 3- 5% or more increase each > and every year? Yeah, yeah I know everything else you get to choose - like > your electric increase, your heating gas / oil, the gasoline for your car, > your phone, your groceries. Has your household budget been held to a 2 1/2 > increase? If your answer is yes - please run for office. I don't know if doomed is so much the word as misrepresented and misunderstood. Prop. 2 1/2 was intended to give voters the option to decide whether they were willing to increase their local taxes above that level in order to pay for local services. Supposedly, they wouldn't have to do so too often because the state was going to contribute a greater share to town and city budgets. Yeah, right. Broken promises from the state aside, Prop. 2 1/2 was always intended as a brake, not a brick wall. Which is why screes decrying officials for placing Prop. 2 1/2 overrides on the ballot, and voters for passing them, are so bogus. Rene Mandel Pct. 3
