Hi. I too worked on the CPA override, and I understand some of the frustration Joel feels. Often, I find myself having to bite my tongue when people complain about development on land they think should be preserved, or about affordable housing plans or the loss of historic structures: where were they when the CPA went down with only 30% of the vote?
It's not a Framingham only issue. Our national economy is in a dangerous situation, with massive deficits on the one hand, and a baby boom population reaching retirement age on the other, and Republicans dare Democrats to offer to raise taxes, knowing that when President Clinton and Congress did so in the early 90s, it paved the way to balance the national budget, but also caused the '94 congressional losses. Repeated national surveys show that voters want services but don't want higher taxes to pay for them. And politicians pander to this, ordering new services and tax cuts while running up a major deficit to burden another generation. They figure they won't be in office to pick up the pieces when it all hits the fan. And the most awful part is that voters seem to lap this all up. If our federal government is telling them that they can spend another genation's money to pay for everything they want today, how could we make local voters believe that they have to make the sacrifice of a CPA tax to pay for affordable housing, historic preservation, and open space for future generations? Rene Mandel Pct. 3 To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with body "unsubscribe frambors" (the subject is ignored).
