I find it interesting reading several recent letters that claim we can’t live within the restrictions of that 1983 Proposition 2½ legislation, even with new development and new revenue streams like the Community Preservation Act and the meals and marijuana taxes. That legislation was passed because local governments were pillaging taxpayers who had little recourse.
We had local governments paying for retirees medical coverage instead of mandating they used Medicare. That’s a poor use of someone else’s money and, in my opinion, is still evident today. Is using thousands of dollars to study narrowing Main Street really a god use, regardless of where the money comes from?
An op-ed piece in a recent Gazette edition claimed that in 22 years since the 1983 Proposition 2½ legislation, the Consumer Price Index was used in excess of 2.5%, which is true. This in part, I guess, explained the need for overrides for him. It is interesting that the writer didn’t point out that for the last 10 years, since the 2009 override, the average CPI was 1.77% with only one year over 2.5%/ Yet we’ve had two overrides during this period.
The federal folks, Bureau of Labor Statistics, using the 2019 CPI, determined that the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security in 2020 would by 1.6%. The city government is like a person, albeit a large one, but is should be required to live like one. Why isn’t 2.5% enough? If you have to fund large wage increases, then yes it’s a problem. I don’t believe the only solution is more taxpayer money.
Eric Stahlberg III
Florence