Twenty-five percent of the Commonwealth’s annual budget comes from the federal government. There is a possibility that Massachusetts will lose part or all of that 25% under this federal government. Federal money pays for essential programs – education and medical services – not fat or fluff. If Massachusetts loses 25%, the loss will be felt from Boston to the Berkshires. It will have to be made up somehow. Sounds like a time to make our local government smarter; to earn or spend less.
Earn More
On these pages, in past issues, it has been suggested that we have an extra dollar attached to the tickets at our cultural venues. Visitors, not tax-paying residents, add to the local exchequer.
Is there a possibility for municipal parking? New York state recently instituted that at Saratoga Performing Arts Center (SPAC).
How about paying close attention to the interest earned on municipal money sitting in reserve accounts or set asides? Interest is back and interest is income. (See From the Desk of the Town Administrator below). None of these ideas increase taxes.
Many believe we can develop our way to more income. Seems reasonable – more houses more real estate taxpayers. What if, hypothetically, our entire budget were $10 and we had a population of 10 houses – each would pay $1 real estate tax. If we built 10 more houses, then each household’s tax bill would be reduced 50%. Logical — if only it were true.
Fact is, the cost of serving those additional houses – providing sewer, water, roads, police, fire, EMTs — would raise the Town budget and cause each household to pay more in taxes. I don’t know about you, but in my whole life, no matter how a town grew, I never saw my property taxes go down. Here is the good news, there is a sweet spot. Build a little bit, increase income and don’t increase taxes; build too much and development causes taxes to go up. How’s that? A few new houses and the cost of town services does not increase but the tax base does. Build too much and costs outstrip or equal income. Find the sweet spot and support or reject development accordingly.
Spend less
Do we want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to generate income? Don’t we want every municipal worker to live in Stockbridge? Don’t we want to build community and reduce commuting?
The loss of 25% of our budget may mean that we cannot afford to do what we wish. Then what?
The projected cost of the new regional high school without money from the Commonwealth is $180,000,000 for 400 students. That is enough to send all 400 to Paris, pay tuition at the Sorbonne, pay air fare and living expenses in Paris – one of the ten most expensive cities in the world. Moreover, how exactly do the 3 towns pay $180,000,000?
Spend less. Recognize we have enough classrooms in South County without a new school.
Just as we have enough classrooms in South County, we have enough housing in Berkshire County. Rather than trying to build affordable housing in each of 32 towns, rather than having an Affordable Housing Trusts (AHT) in each town, why not one regional AHT with a regional perspective? There are vacant houses all over Berkshire County. There are vacant buildings all over the county. Use what is extant. One regional AHT could look more broadly and find more options.
Ask a neighboring town. Our neighbors who have tried found it costs a fortune. They are facing the need to request overrides of Prop 2 ½ this year and maybe in years to come. That is downright dangerous. We cannot build our way out of the housing crisis without creating a tax crisis, but that doesn’t mean we cannot solve it.
The obvious impediment to a regional approach to sufficient housing is transportation. Americans have been commuting to work since WWII and for far longer distances than Great Barrington to Pittsfield or Lenox to Adams. We need N-S transportation and E-W transportation within the county. Define the problem, widen the area for solutions, and we may find smarter solutions.
If the worst happens, we may not be able to do what we wish. To address our problems and make solutions feasible, we may have to get smarter.
Carole Owens
Executive Editor
