As Northampton voters face an override decision, opponents tend to express the belief that overrides are signals of a failure to live within our means, while supporters express the belief that overrides are unfortunate and rare necessities since overall costs generally rise faster than 2.5%.
Both narratives reveal the assumption that overrides should not be a normal aspect of municipal governance. This is a false assumption.
What we call Proposition 2½ is Massachusetts General Law Chapter 59, Section 21c, and the actual title of the law is “Limitations on Total Taxes Assessed; Determination by Voters.”
Apart from the “Definitions” section, that law contains 130 lines of text. Thirteen of those lines establish the first part of the title: “Limitations on Total Taxes Assessed.” One hundred and seventeen of those lines address the second part of the title: “Determination by voters.”
Yes, that’s right: 10% of the law establishes the 2.5% limits, and 90% of the law describes how voters can go outside of those limits. The thrust of the law is to define how voters can “determine” their own taxes.
As a study published in the University of New Hampshire Law Review in 2018 reported: “Proposition 2½ was less about lowering taxes and more about voter empowerment in the face of an unresponsive Beacon Hill.”
It continues, “In the short term, several favorable outcomes occurred as a result of Prop. 2½’s passage … trimming of municipal positions led to a reduction of cronyism and higher quality individuals being retained.” However, “ … the long-term effects of the law cannot be overstated.”
The report points out that “Average yearly inflation has exceeded the 2.5% cap in 24 of the past 37 years, even reaching double-digit inflation in a single year.” Certain beyond-local-control factors like health insurance have increased by significantly more than general inflation in every year — often by multiples.
At the same time, and this is a huge additional factor, “ … local aid (from the state to municipalities) is approximately half what it was three decades ago. If the Commonwealth was dedicating the same share of resources to local aid as it did 35 years ago … cities and towns would be receiving approximately $1.7 billion more each year.”
So, the combination of a cap below the rate of inflation and a 50% reduction in state aid has left towns and cities in a crunch. In the early years this forced a needed culture of fiscal discipline. But, as time went on, there was no more “fat” to cut. Instead, cutbacks in school programs, Department of Public Works efforts, libraries and other services have become the only options.
One result is that there have been over 4,000 override votes since 1983 and, according to the report, those overrides have “ … generally sought to keep operating budgets level.” Far from being a sign of poor fiscal discipline, overrides are increasingly normal and necessary just to stay “level.”
So, as we consider how we plan to vote on the override, let’s remember that this is a democratic exercise: an opportunity to vote with our wallets on what kind of community we want to be. There is no power elite in a back room deciding things. It’s just us.
Most of us want to pay less taxes, but do we want fewer teachers and school programs for today’s kids than we had when we were kids? Do we want fewer police, more potholes and less responsive city departments? MGL Chapter 59, Section 21c has given us control. Let’s use it wisely.
Kevin Lake lives in Northampton