Mechanisms like prop 2.5 are problematic only if the town relies too heavily on property taxes for their revenue stream. Other revenue streams such as user fees that are proportional to the services rendered need to be established.
Or services provided to other towns - how long did Ashland pay a dime on the dollar for Framingham sewer costs? How long would this relationship been maintained if prop 2.5 did not force government officials to scrutinize the operation? Mr. Wolfe's email did introduce a revenue-generating idea that should be considered. If you ignore the commentary, the ideas of people making gifts to the town seem plausible. Many communities already do this. For instance, when a boardwalk was built in Sandwich, people could buy a plank and have their name engraved in it. Falmouth has placques on town benches honoring the people who donated the money. At Tufts you can buy a brick for honoring a deceased pet. > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel A Feingold [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 4:12 PM > To: Rene s Mandel; Paul Willitts > Cc: Nicola Cataldo; Steven W. Orr; Framingham Neighbors; Town Meeting > Members > Subject: RE: Should Framingham plow church lots? MWN today > > 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
