The Community Preservation Act is falling to defeat in
community after community, preserving taxpayers' hard-earned money. The newest local scheme that's sweeping the state to pry
more from our wallets just isn't flying.
While bigger government advocates keep pushing for more,
more, more, voters don't seem to be in the mood these days for paying the ever-increasing price. Maybe, unlike the More Is
Never Enough (MINE) crowd, they're watching the tenuous economy with an eye to their limited resources.
In Rehoboth, the CPA ballot question was narrowly defeated,
but in Plainville and Framingham [see news report below] it was crushed in 70-30 landslide decisions.
In Seekonk a Proposition 2½ override also was shot down,
while in North Attleboro voters defeated a Prop 2½ override for teachers' raises by a 2-1 margin.
The MetroWest Daily News
April 04, 2001
Framingham voters defeat preservation act
By Rob Haneisen
News Staff Writer
FRAMINGHAM -- With a battle cry of "No new taxes!" voters yesterday trounced efforts
to enact a property tax surcharge for community preservation 70 to 30 percent.
Residents turned out in higher numbers than expected, with 17.4 percent, or 6,517, of the
town's 37,462 registered voters casting ballots.
In the selectmen's race, incumbents Charlie Sisitsky and Ginger Esty fended off challengers
Beth Bannon and Phil Dinsky.
For School Committee, incumbents Anne Mazzola and Richard Weader kept their seats,
with challenger Hugh Dykens a close third.
But the Community Preservation Act was the issue of the day. In the waning days of the
campaign, many were convinced it would fail -- the act uses taxes and state matching funds
to buy unprotected land, fix historic buildings and improve community housing.
But the landslide left the "No on CPA" supporters giddy during their victory party at the
Union House restaurant.
"The taxes were the number one reason," said No on CPA committee member Chuck
Gerstein. "The whole thing was more candy than it was reality."
Fellow committee member Mal Schulze was beaming.
"The voters have to be thanked for what they've done," Schulze said before heaping praise
on his committee's anti-campaign.
"If there wasn't an anti-group, then it has a chance to pass and voters wouldn't have heard
the whole story."
Supporters of the 3 percent property tax surcharge -- which would have cost the average
homeowner $55 a year -- said they will try and regroup.
"I think people still need to sit down and learn about the CPA," said state Rep. Debby
Blumer, D-Framingham.
Although she supports the CPA, Blumer said voters were justified in being cautious. She said
the CPA didn't have the feel-good quality of last year's successful high school
override, and compared the CPA to buying merchandise on the Internet.
"You can't touch it, and you can't feel it," she said. "The CPA is more of a concept, and it's a
tax increase."
Many residents believed the idea of raising money without a definite list of projects was
unwise and untrustworthy.
CPA money raised locally could be matched with state funds to create a $3.3 million cash
pot each year, supporters said. But CPA projects would have to be picked by a special
committee and then approved by Town Meeting.
Expanding Tercentennial Park, fixing up the Memorial Building and building mini-parks were
talked about as potential projects. Supporting these projects through the CPA would be
preferable to turning to the town's bare-bones budget for money, proponents said.
"I was for the CPA when they talked about buying open space, but not when they started
talking about using taxpayers' money to fix crumbling, historic buildings," said Earl Stoppel in
Precinct 4.
Town Meeting member Diane Pabst, also Precinct 4, voted for the CPA.
"Who wants to live in a town with rundown, historical buildings and no open space?" she
said. "It will cost one dinner out."
But more people shook their heads at the CPA, and let their pocketbooks and wallets speak
for them.
"It seems to me to be a Band-Aid approach to problems that need a more comprehensive
approach," said James Friel in Precinct 10.
"We've just been taxed on the high school, and now this right on top of that," said Roland
Bauer in Precinct 11. "And, with this, we don't know where the money's going."
Although voter breakdowns weren't immediately available, the CPA question likely failed by
an even larger margin on the Southside.
Some residents believed the proposal would benefit only those on the Northside because
many of the CPA Yes committee members supported the town buying Eastleigh Farms.
"We've got young families, and we don't want to saddle them with more taxes," said Bob
Chalmers in Precinct 17.
"And it wouldn't benefit this part of town anyway," said Chalmers' wife, Jennifer.
Town Meeting member Tom O'Neil, a vocal opponent of the CPA from the get-go, said
voters didn't need much help shooting down the proposal.
"Our 'No' campaign didn't win it, just sound thinking by the voters," O'Neil said. "This is a
vote for the taxpayers in this town."
But, ultimately, the taxpayers may be left with a town that falls apart or falls into the hands of
developers, CPA supporters said.
"Most discouraging is that Framingham takes it on the chin for state aid," said Selectman
Chris Petrini, co-chairman of the Yes on CPA committee.
"This was one opportunity where we could make the state ante up and allow this community
to improve itself."
