Voting ‘no’ matters on April 14
A contrarian view is hereby required to support some sense of sound fiscal responsibility in South Hadley. Unless quite well-off, residents should vote “no” on both an expensive tax override and an expensive SHELD facility (non-binding ballot measure). While the need to alleviate town budget deficits and building a new home for SHELD are recognized, the timing of such requests is highly questionable. Further, no one is challenging the importance of education and other worthwhile venues. However, virtually all financial matters in town (nationwide too) are currently in flux and deserve careful review, it’s like chasing a moving target that cannot be easily resolved.
Is there any wisdom in tethering South Hadley’s residents to a large tax override of $9 million or $11 million and a $37 million building — both would be accompanied by increased rate structures that many residents cannot afford? No one managing town budget decisions appears interested in: demanding a review of the approximately $63 billion revenue stream available to the governor and Legislature that could equitably distribute funds west of Worcester; seeking reasonable payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) from tax-exempt property owners; finding more economical municipal aggregations for town employee’s health care; tightening various budgets; etc.
With big budget asks, the Selectboard and SHELD board have put themselves in the place of the whole body of town residents — basically, putting themselves in the place of all those who reside here. Do those boards statistically represent all of the town’s population? The U.S. Census says South Hadley has 18,500 residents — some 25% are 60 years or older, and many of our seniors (and others) are less affluent than those in the aforementioned bodies.
Perhaps some of us feel for the senior portion of town with a degree of understanding and compassion that has not yet found its way into the boards’ capability of understanding. Consider the current rising costs in: property taxes, food, health care, gas and oil, facility upkeep, etc. That senior portion of town — some of whom have lived here for many years, raised children, even buried a spouse — now have their very homes at risk. Don’t forget the staggering costs of the illegal, immoral war in the Middle East at $1 billion per day, plus its human death toll and resultant shortages inflating our fuel and food budgets.
Does it not matter to the boards that some South Hadley residents could lose their homes around which they have intertwined their lives? How might people losing their homes and moving away affect the tax base, the schools, and town quality as a whole? Can they really justify such an insensitive attitude in this time of unpredictable fiscal precariousness for one quarter of town residents?
Over 2.3 million commonwealth voters (71%) approved the state auditor’s request to audit the Legislature in 2024. Curiously, that audit is being resisted by the Beacon Hill power structure — their lack of transparency is unacceptable. Knowing the potential consequences of SHELD’s request, would it be approved by the State Public Utilities Department? Regarding your added override taxes, calculate at: https://www.southhadley.org/1528/Proposition-25-Override-Information; a “no” vote could save your home!
With fiscal responsibility must come long-term fiscal discipline and accountability (by both state and town) not policies that placate the more affluent while driving others away. Even as we face a misshapen future, doesn’t South Hadley exist for the well-being of all who live within its borders?
Dr. Stephen Frantz
South Hadley