To the editor:
Since budget season is upon us, it is time for the mayor to start addressing the key concern of the taxpayer, which is disposable income being depleted by higher taxes.
It seems surreal when the mayor writes from her perspective how different Gloucester is from the federal government (”The Mayor’s Desk” column, the Times, Saturday, March 9). Many of the issues she mentioned are mandated or contractual rather than detailing a plan to reduce taxes.
When comparing the two governments, the similarities are endless. But their main bond is the continual disregard for the taxpayer and some idea that “we” are to pay for every new idea or expansion of government. Her administration may be sincere, but at least five areas are misguided: taxes for the Community Preservation Act, the I-4, C-2 site, the operating budget, unfunded liabilities, and schools.
The problem sitting on the other side of the mayor’s desk (as well as the federal government’s) is that “we” the taxpayer are overburdened by an agenda that is unaffordable and holds questionable value for the greater and common good.
The CPA, which the mayor had opposed and then supported, was voted down two times by the “citizens of Gloucester.” It passed on a third try, and was supposed to cost each property owner 1 percent per year. The vote was based on information that “we” would receive 100 percent on the dollar from the state. We do not. We are only getting about 28 cents on the dollar.
In addition, the CPA commission, which is unelected, has borrowed $2 million from the general fund against future CPA revenue. How many votes would have changed if we knew this was part of the plan and how many more ideas does CPA have that they can’t afford, and the administration must fund from general fund debt?