Watertown News (https://www.watertownmanews.com/category/letters/page/52/)
Editor,
The CPA ballot question is a nasty trick designed to get Watertown residents to increase their taxes to pay for the pet projects of a handful of people. Don’t be taken in by the sweet-talking proponents of the CPA to vote against your real interests. VOTE NO ON 5!
Robert Shore
56 Marion Road
Question #4. If it passed it would have a negative impact on the safety and health of our community, especially our youth and future generations. This ballot question is about allowing commercial sales in cities and towns in Massachusetts. It would also allow people to grow marijuana in their homes. A NO vote will keep marijuana retailers out of our community and lessen the availability of this drug to our youth.
To the Editor,
In 2005 I worked to pass the Community Preservation Act (CPA) for Watertown—a small surcharge on real estate tax bills that releases matching CPA funds from the state. These funds can support Watertown’s affordable housing, open space, historic preservation, and recreation projects. It was defeated and we have paid a steep price. Watertown residents, like all Massachusetts residents, have indirectly paid into the CPA trust fund with fees on real estate transactions and additional general revenue contributions since its start in 2000. For 16 years we have funded these same projects in 161 other Massachusetts communities.
To the Editor,
If your wondering if the CPA money will be spent responsibly, just look at what the Town Council just approved. In a 7 to 2 vote on Tuesday October 25 they voted to spend $800,000 to take a home on Winter Street, across from the old police station. Why is the town buying this house? To extend a bicycle path!! Is this responsible use of taxpayer’s dollars?
Almost all of the money that funds the legalization of marijuana comes from out of state Washington, D.C., special interest groups. It is all about the money for them. All of the vote “no” money comes from those concerned with public health. That alone should tell you something. Joan Vennochi’s Vote No Globe article on Friday outlines how this ballot question was written by the proponents and lacks many of the safeguards which it would need if passed.
To the Editor:
I hope Watertown voters will vote yes on Question Five to join the 161 other Massachusetts Communities, including our abutting neighbors in Waltham, Belmont, Newton and Cambridge, that have adopted the CPA. Watertown residents have contributed over $2 million to this fund for more than the past 12 years and have helped lots of other communities. While I like these other towns and cities, and in fact I represented all or part of every one of the above listed communities in the legislature, I would like to see Watertown benefit like other communities have! In fact, the CPA has been so successful that NOT ONE community out of 161 has ever repealed it. There is a cost of approximately ten dollars per month for the average homeowner, with exemptions for low and moderate income folks, but the state provides matching fund of varying percentages thereby making it a good deal for communities.
Fellow Watertown residents please don’t fall for this ballot question #5. The CPA is a bad deal for all of us and will leave the town in future debt that will limit progress for the future. I do not see any great need for taking on the liability of this tax increase. Most “open space” upgrades and projects to rehabilitate or restore historic buildings should be achieved within the community and leveraging businesses to help or selling off under utilized property. The money the state potentially matches IS NOT ‘found money.’ This can change at any time under many circumstances and the town is then on it’s own to supplement that expense through bonds with interest or additional taxes or fees.
To paraphrase Sir Paul McCartney: Someone’s knocking at the door, somebody’s ringing the bell – do yourself a favor, ask them some hard questions, and don’t let the CPA in. Over the past few weeks CPA (Question #5) proponents have been knocking on our doors, dropping their expensive literature, and trying to persuade us to adopt an unwarranted 2% surcharge tax to fund yet to be determined projects. I’ve received several phone calls and emails questioning the “information” being disseminated. Sadly, the said information is deceptive, distorted, laden with half-truths, and even outright bold faced lies. So when CPA Proponents knock at your door ask them the following.