21st century tea party
Massachusetts' Prop 21/2 is a rule whereby any local property tax increase greater than 2.5% automatically goes to referendum. It's a way of handing the power back to the people. And for years now, most of those referendums have passed. But the tax increases of yesteryear may now be coming home to roost (Boston Globe, by Matt Viser). As written in the Globe article:
I'm not sure if this MA taxpayer discontent translates to CT, but I still think it would be great if CT enacted similar legislation. The number doesn't have to be 2.5%. It could be 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% or whatever number makes the most sense. Nonetheless, I think doing something of this nature... guaranteeing voter involvement... would be good.Voters in Massachusetts cities and towns have rejected two-thirds of proposed property tax overrides this year, reflecting widespread distaste for higher property taxes, according to a Globe review of state property tax records.
The rejections marked the first time this decade that more proposed Proposition 2 1/2 overrides failed than passed. In previous years, the votes had been far more successful, with residents agreeing to increase their property taxes in order to avoid cutting positions for teachers, police officers, and firefighters or to pay for renovating municipal-owned buildings.
This year, one-third of the Proposition 2 1/2 overrides passed. Approximately 59 override votes have been rejected, while 30 have been approved, the lowest rate since at least 1999. In 2005, 94 proposals passed, and 79 failed. In 2001, two-thirds of the proposed overrides were approved. Some muncipalities put more than one question before voters.
And if you're curious to know more about Prop 21/2, here is the MA Dept of Revenue's own explanation of it. They describe it as having "revolutionized property tax administration" and it "is a fundamental feature of the Massachusetts municipal fiscal landscape."
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
3 comments:
The state dems would pass more unfunded mandates like school safety which would, negate any impact the 2.5 % would have. The town would be forced to spend on school safety and they be forced to cut a more essential project the town actually wants. I doubt the referendum question would
detail what the fixed costs for the town are. They is why the idea is flawed, do town residents know where their property tax money goes, but of course half the residents aren't even registered to vote.
I have a novel idea, have people vote out their local or state officials how vote for outrageous spending increase instead of blindly re-electing them year after year.
One of your really innovative ideas during the campaign was to introduce a Mass-style Prop 2 1/2 law for Connecticut.
I have friends who live in Mass. who say the annual town tax and spending increases were totally out of control, but Prop 2 1/2 brought predictability for taxpayers and greater accountability by local selectmen and council members.
I'm wondering, Tim, if it might be possible to have a Prop 2 1/2 law for Cheshire on the town level, either by ordinance, amendment to the charter, or a home-rule petition approved by the legislature?
Sorry you won't be able to propose it as state rep next year for statewide implementation, but might it be implemented by the town? I'll bet town voters would approve it!
Mixville... I'd like to see it happen. I looked into it as soon as I got elected in 2003, but didn't get anywhere.
I think it'd be worth looking into again though... either thru ordinance or charter revision or however... I'll ask.
Post a Comment