8 thoughts on “LETTER: Why Question 5 Offers Hope for Those Who Need It Most

  1. Will,
    You’re good man with good heart, and I consider you a friend. Unfortunately you are seriously misguided.

    You are right, market rents are very high in Watertown. But what you’re suggesting is that we raise virtually rents of current Watertown renters (because when taxes go up, rents go up), in order subsidize the rents of people who more than likely don’t live here now. There can be no preference for Watertown renters…. so let’s not lie to people. So we’re not talking about apartments for our firefighters, policemen, etc…. So what you are really proposing is to make it less affordable and more likely that our firefighters, policemen, and so on, will have to move from Watertown.

    So you propose purchasing a piece of taxable prime real estate across from Baptist Walk, that once developed could yield great revenue to the Town. You want to turn this into Publically Subsidized Housing… that’s what it is called Will… not Affordable Housing. It’s going to be Publically Subsidized Housing Project, on prime taxable real estate. So on top of the expenditure and the development costs, the taxpayers of Watertown will have to make up for the loss of tax revenue from that property, which means additional taxes again !!!!

    So for a select few, most of whom don’t live in Watertown now, you want to make everyone else’s housing more expensive. That is really what you’re saying my friend.

      • I stand corrected. Is this new legislation, as this was not the case before.

        That said; I stand by the fact that the CPA increases the cost of housing for far more people, many if not most can’t afford it.

        Further, the Town Employees that Mr. Twombly says could benefit from publically subsidized housing, more than likely don’t qualify in probably the vast majority of instances. They earn a respectable wage, commensurate or more so than their private sector equivalent; also enjoying generous benefits.
        I don’t begrudge them, the handsome compensation they get. But I highly doubt Mr. Twomby’s claim that these are folks that will be living in any addition publically subsidized housing projects.

  2. Yes, some will benefit from the CPA at the cost to others who can barely afford to live here now. Lets face the fact that it is a Win / Lose situation. For every winner there will be a loser. So, until there is is a Win / Win situation I say VOTE NO ON QUESTION 5!
    I also believe that if this tax is approved we will have it forever as once people get their hands into your pockets they never want to take them out.

  3. Dear Friends,

    There are many very worthwhile charitable causes in this world. We all contribute to the best of our ability to those of most concern to us. I myself, however, would never want to have legislation passed that dictates to others the charitable causes I would like them to contribute to. People have differing priorities and differing resources available for their charitable contributions and this should be respected. While I admire and respect the concern of Will and Sue for the importance of affordable housing which they write about so clearly in their message, I do not think they have the right to tell me and other residents of Watertown via the CPA that we must contribute substantial amounts of money each year to their cause. This is a violation of my right and the rights of other Watertown residents to make our charitable contributions as we see fit. If Will and Sue want to work towards increasing the availability of affordable housing in Watertown they should find means other than the CPA and not try to violate the rights that people have to make their own voluntary charitable contributions. A NO vote on Question 5 is called for.

    Bob Shore
    Marion Road

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *