LETTER: Prevey Responds to 'Salem News' CPA Editorial
After the 'Salem News' published its view on the CPA issue on Wednesday, Ward 6 City Councillor Paul Prevey responds.
Ward 6 Councillor Paul Prevey responds to the "Salem News" CPA editorial.
Patch
Photos (1)
Photos
The following letter to the editor courtesy of Councillor Paul Prevey is in response to an editorial published by the Salem News on Aug. 29.
Myself and five of my other colleagues recently voted against putting the Community Preservation Act (CPA) on the ballot this November.
As noted in the editorial, this initiative was affirmatively voted on by the City Council in 2007, however it was ultimately rejected by the voters at the ballot box.
It’s now being put forward again by the Administration, however many of us on the Council that supported its placement on the 2007 ballot believe that this initiative had its opportunity in 2007 but the proponents are back for round two.
What the editorial alleges is that somehow the Council denied the voters the right to vote on this. Quite the contrary. The proponents of this initiative did not like the answer the voters of Salem gave in 2007 so they decided that they will put it forward again in the hopes that their coordinated efforts to turn out a more sympathetic electorate will ultimately prevail.
Interestingly, when the Council held its special meeting to take up this matter, several proponents who addressed the Council advised that they did not want this effort on the ballot via voter petition. Instead, the proponents urged the Council to "show leadership" on this issue, and so we did. The majority of the Council decided that it was not in the best interest of the taxpaying residents of Salem to have this on the ballot for a second time.
Unlike 2007, we are in a much worse financial situation in Salem, the Commonwealth and throughout the U.S. People’s homes are being foreclosed on, they continue to lose their jobs or have been unable to find a new one, and in general, are desperately struggling to maintain their financial obligations and make ends meet.
As city councilors, we constantly hear stories throughout the City of residents trying to stay afloat in a sea of financial turmoil. To suggest that the average increase in the surcharge tax would be "only $30" annually is to belittle those who are struggling to stay on top of all of the fees, taxes, fines, charges, surcharges, surfines and rate increases which have consistently ballooned over the years.
Thirty dollars a year, in and of its self, is very minimal, but when you add it to every other increase, it becomes a crushing financial burden for so many people. The cumulative effect is truly a death by a thousand paper cuts; some people have the blood to withstand it, while other are quickly being bled dry.
The editorial asserts that the Council’s stated objection to the tax increase is "not credible" given that it’s a small tax increase. If trying to stem the increase in taxes is not a credible argument to stand on its own, then I know of no other argument which is worthwhile to be made.
Taxes do not appear overnight. They grow ever so slowly over time and sprout new roots which slowly entangle the taxpayer. The steady increase in taxes and the creation of new ones has far out paced people’s income levels to the point that they cannot keep up. And to what end? So that we in government can say we accomplished a large list of items which will serve only the people who can continue to afford to live here in Salem.
It is true that there are many items and projects throughout the City that would benefit from the enactment of the CPA. On its face, the benefits offered through the adoption of the CPA seem attractive and are designed to target specific needs each individual community has with respect to historical preservation, open space/park & recreation and affordable housing.
Unfortunately, enough is never enough when it comes to the insatiable thirst of government bent on extracting more tax payer money on the backs of the already tax-strapped homeowner. At some point, we have to look at the cold economic reality that we find ourselves in and exercise restraint in wanting more at a cost which will ultimately far exceed an additional $2.50 per month, because we know it will not stop there.
Paul C Prevey
Councillor Ward 6
Salem Taxpayer
7:03 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
It's hard to know where to begin with this letter. It is so full of bad assumptions, false conclusions and hyperbole that it easily outpaced Paul Ryan's speech in that regard.
Five years ago, a similar disinformation campaign was waged, and the initiative lost by a few hundred votes. Five years later, the CPA has continued to prove its value in over 140 communities. They have adopted it and have enjoyed seeing vital capital improvements come to fruition.
We now have even more documented experience that the CPA is a brilliant piece of legislation that has achieved unprecedented success. As a lower middle class home owner, I do not mind paying this small incremental tax that will be dedicated to projects that we can be proud of. Where else can we get a minimum of 25% return on an investment in our city?
windpower
7:28 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
Taxpayer
.Where do you think the 25% return on investment comes from ?
So many people think that these grants /studies ,and reviews get money from the state or federal government is free money .HINT nothing is free .The money comes from tax, , fines and other burdens on tax payers or rate payers .It is time to expose when and who pays for this so called return on investment . It is the rate payer and tax payer ,yes ,you and me .That return comes on the backs of us .
A return on investment comes from investing money in a financial device such as a bond or stock not a tax or assessment .
Granted SOME of the CPA uses are good ,some are not . Point is the residents have had their say . Enough is enough ,it is time to send the message to the city .
AND thank you councilor Prevey for representing the voter .
Time for the rest of our councilors to see thru this as well.
Ed Wolfe
Salem Taxpayer
7:36 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
WIndpower - I know where the 25% (and that's a MINIMUM) comes from. And right now it's going to all of the other smart communities that have passed the CPA. Salem has been missing this boat for 10 years - it's about time we step up to the plate so we can get our fair share. It's a new day, and hopefully people are more informed now than they were 5 years ago. And, to state the obvious, there are many eligible voters here today who were not here 5 years ago and did not have any input. Why are you so afraid of putting the measure on the ballot and letting people decide?
windpower
7:47 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
Afraid ?
No not afraid ,This issuse has been placed on the "plate" ,it has been struck down twice . I guess we need a three strike rule in this city . But first we must let the mayor speak again on this issue
And please Salem Tax payer tell us ,where does this investment money come from ?
Salem Taxpayer
9:29 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Duh - did you not read my reply? I told you where the match comes from. Did you go to the web site and learn what the CPA is?
Salem Taxpayer
8:04 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
Evidently, you don't know how the CPA works. The CPA Trust fund revenues are derived from a surcharge placed on all real estate transactions at the state's Registries of Deeds. These are ongoing revenues already being generated throughout the state in every community, The communities that don't adopt the CPA are subsidizing all of the CPA projects in the communities that have adopted the CPA. We have been losing out for 10 years.
When enough people learn about the value of the CPA, they will support it. Perhaps you could start by informing yourself: http://www.communitypreservation.org/content/cpa-overview
While you're doing that, I'm going to work.
David Pelletier
8:41 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
I like how all the usual "poverty pimps" are leading the charge. With them involved, the Salem Common fence will be last on the list once again. No thank you.
Salem Taxpayer
10:27 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
"poverty pimps"
Nice - real nice. Did you post that from Tampa or somewhere else in redneck-ville?
gene
8:53 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
The CPA is just another way to pick the pockets of homeowners. Monies go to pet projects of the politicians with little trickle down to homeowners. Five years ago the CPA was being billed as a way to get free money from the state. Now that that spicket has almost been turned off what other lies will these tax and spenders tell
Salem Taxpayer
8:15 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Hey - here's an idea: vote no if it comes to a vote. Then you'll be happy. In the meantime, the rest of us will be trying to educate voters about the long-term value of the CPA. And why over 140 communities have adopted it, are happy with it, and aren't turning back.
PJ
9:50 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
The CPA is not the right way to address the Salem Common fence and other worthy projects. The CPA is essentially a workaround to override prop 2 1/2. What is needed is leadership in managing the revenues we do have-- and that can be tough. We still have a long way to go in reining in decades worth of largess to public employees given in lieu of salaries.With declines in the private sector, public employee salaries are more competititve-- and their benefits packages are now way out of line with what is available to the private sector. This needs to be corrected. Salem voters rejected the CPA, and if it gets on the ballot again via petition I suspect it will still be voted down again.
Salem Taxpayer
8:17 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
You may be right about the CPA being rejected again, so vote no if it comes to a vote. Then (maybe) you'll be happy. In the meantime, the rest of us will be trying to educate voters about the long-term value of the CPA. And why over 140 communities have adopted it, are happy with it, and aren't turning back.
Edward
1:27 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
If the CPA is an end-run around Proposition 2 1/2, then perhaps the law needs to have its day in court for a judge to determine the constitutionality of the law, with Proposition 2 1/2 still on the books.
Bill
9:50 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
"Thirty dollars a year, in and of its self, is very minimal, but when you add it to every other increase, it becomes a crushing financial burden for so many people."
I am not a big fan of taxes, but please...if you can't come up with $30 over the course of a year, you have no business owning a home. Salem Taxpayer is correct, it is foolish not to take advantage of this for short money. I'll be voting yes on this in Beverly this year.
gene
1:45 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
This year its 1% but it will soon be the full 3%. Remember the auto excise tax and income tax surcharges were both supposed to be "temporary" and we still have them. Once a tax is in - it stays!
Salem Taxpayer
9:31 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
It's 1%. The voters need to VOTE to increase it - or decrease it. IF it gets on the ballot. But this City Council doesn't want the voters to decide to even put the 1% on the ballot.
windpower
10:04 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
Taxpayer
,You have half of the sources ,care to tell us about the rest?
I didn't think so .It is a direct tax of 1% to 3% on our property tax ,with an off set for first $100,000 of the value of the property ect.
Worst of all it is ONLY taxpayers that pay ,not most of the voters .
I would call it taxation without representation !
Bottom line it is not much ,but add it to all the other fees, assessments ,like the 4%increase on water 6% on sewer, meals tax Shall I go on
And these will not go away or be reduced .
Please do not underestimate the public knowledge .
And thank you Patch .
OH please democrats wake up .This may be the first year ever ,that I vote republican
I to am off to work to, sailing !
Salem Taxpayer
8:30 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
I'm back from a full WORK day and am catching up with those of you who may not - or probably not - have jobs because you're living off of whatever enables you to post uninformed comments,
Windpower - you are right: only property owners should have the right to vote. No "renters" - ugh. Thanks for representing the Tea Party mantra of taking the country back. Back to the 18th century.
Of course, if property owners want to pass along the modest 1% tax increase to their tenants, there's nothing preventing them from doing so.
And please - vote Republican, windpower. You'll feel right at home with the right wing.
I hardly love Obama, but at least he's capable of making forward thinking decisions.
Dylan
3:26 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
As always, I read these anti-tax arguments with a mixture of anger and incredulity. First, taxation without representation means something different than you think. Namely, it means that the people who get taxed can't vote, not that people can vote who won't be subject to the tax. Your misunderstanding of this is silly (and I'm being generous here) and suggests that you have a general hostility toward the notion that people should invest in their communities via taxation. Second, this is the first year that you might vote Republican, huh? Tell me, was it the several decades of failed policies, the mindless obstructionism, or the snarling contempt for everyone who isn't a millionaire that made the sale for you? The irony of this is that that your taxes will increase under the Romney/Ryan plan (relative to Obama's proposal) unless you make more that $200K a year. For incomes between $200-500K, you will still pay less under Obama's proposed plan than Romney/Ryan. So, setting aside all of the other Republican insanity you'd be voting for, your vote for Romney will likely hurt you financially as well. Good thinking Chief!
Anita Armell
10:36 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
No new taxes for residents be it $1., 2. 50 Or 30 Wait for the BIG money to come rolling back in! Foot Print Power will do their share.
Salem Taxpayer
8:31 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Hi Anita - so, vote no if it comes to a vote. You're already in that side of the tent. Just let us have a chance to let the voters decide.
Michael McNeil
11:20 am on Friday, August 31, 2012
We own this city.
It feels like the mayor is at war with property owners.
Salem Taxpayer
8:32 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
You own this city??? Arghhh. Who are you?
Jason
12:12 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Own this City?
Then you are less than decent at helping keep it afloat. If the people who were responsible, actually acted responsibly, it would be charming in Salem, not a consumerism money pit. Are property owners responsible for the increase in unnecessary shops, overdevelopment, and more dumbed down population than Trojan condoms could shake a stick at? Hmm, maybe a little
Own this City.....pfft.
Do something.
Michael McNeil
12:19 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Show ID to Vote.
Vote out the Progressives that are ruining Salem.
Vote out Driscoll and cronies.
Salem Taxpayer
8:34 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Right on, Michael. The city is in much worse shape than when I moved here ten years ago. NOT!!!
How was the restaurant life back then? The quality of housing? The nightlife?
Arghhh....what caves do people like you live in?
redrhino
1:03 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Prevey,
I commned you on this letter and for taking a stand on this issue.
No new taxes!
Thanks
Salem Taxpayer
8:37 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Hey redrhino - check out the CPA web site and post again. http://www.communitypreservation.org/
It's really much better than this chorus of naysayers say.
Thank you.
Salem Taxpayer
Frank Kulik
1:42 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
Councilor Prevey's remarks will hit home with a lot of people - particularly those who are having trouble making ends meet. As he says, it's the cumulative effect of seemingly small things that eventually leave many people financially stressed. He's right. And it's unkind and unfair for one segment of our population to judge what another segment of our population can or cannot afford. Life for some these days, is a little more complicated than that and any savings is better than the smallest additional expense.
Salem Taxpayer
8:39 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
So - vote NO if it gets on the ballot. But let Salem voters decide. It's obscene that a simple majority of the City Council would prevent us from voting. The Beverly City Council voted unanimously to let their voters decide. What are our councilors afraid of? Democracy?
Edward
1:30 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Then the law should be found unconstitutional, period, based on the fact that voters who do not pay property taxes should not decide on anything that directly affects those who pay property taxes. It's an issue of fairness. Councilor Prevey is correct.
chester suchecki
4:05 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
the mayor still has some fires that are burning from before last years election and its about time she put them out.
Salem Taxpayer
9:33 pm on Friday, August 31, 2012
What, pray tell, does that mean?
windpower
8:30 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
This is one time when hiding behind a pen name is a problem .I have been called to task on this ,and responded by posting my name . Note eariler post . I still think pen names are necessery to protect some people from retrubution from employers IE the mayor .
Step to the plate taxpayer .We respect your position but you seem to be alone .Also read comments on Salem news .where real name are posted .
I endorse this statement and stand by it as a City of Salem tax payer .
Ed Wolfe
PS great day of sailing
Fran Wilson
9:23 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I am a Salem taxpayer and whole heartily agree with everything Salem Taxpayer has said! My name is always on my postings. I don't hide behind anything I am proud of my support for my community and all things made available to the PUBLIC through my tax dollars. The same "anti-tax" group that has made Grover Norquist proud has now become the "no vote" group. Nothing like controlling the vote to get the outcome you want.
You live in a COMMUNITY and enjoy police protection, fire protection,a wonderful library, beautiful parks and a National Maritime Museum which is all supported and made possible by TAXES. You enjoy all the comforts these city services provide but don't want to pay for them, or at least more then YOU think they deserve to make while risking their lives to do a job you wouldn't consider doing! What 's the matter with you people? There is no quality of life without a vibrant community willing to pay for the things they live here to enjoy everyday.
Frank Kulik
9:42 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Wiling to pay and being able to pay are two entirely different things - as is "anti-tax" as opposed to being able to pay additional tax. As the Councilor points out, these are tough times and not everyone is as financially secure as you may be. He is acting in response to the wishes of many in his ward. I think that when we elect someone to office, that is the course we hope they follow. And for those living on the edge, any relief is better than none at all.
Fran Wilson
10:29 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I am a retired , lower middle class, married woman. Not an affluent dilettante throwing monies at all things put in front of me. With consideration of your assumption that "able to pay" instead of "willing to pay", you can make that argument for any tax increase at any time. It is the perfect "anti- tax" argument. The question here is "anti-vote" vs "willing to vote" It is usually the case that the people living in the biggest homes are the most unwilling to pay for the public good, not the people that "are living on the edge". Actually the Councilor made the decision for his ward about "voting" on the issue, not the "willingness or ability" of his electorate to pay for a new tax.
windpower
11:35 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Thanks Fran .I have no problem with people DONATING aditional funds towards special projects or services . Go to it . You can even opt to pay extra on you power bill for green power .
But when you HAVE to pay aditional tax that is not an option .
It's not the $30 it't the point !
My tax is for base services not for what this tax will be for and I expect fiscial responsiblity when they are used .
By the way this issue has been voted on and lost . Our councilers also saw fit to drop it
Ed
Fran Wilson
11:50 am on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Again "anti-tax" rhetoric. Then vote against it...oh wait...you don't have that option. And I don't have the option to vote "for" it.
windpower
12:52 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
We did. and we did .Do we need a three strike rule.?
Like a young child asking a parent repeatedly for candy until they give in .
ED
And yes anti tax and proud of it .
Fran Wilson
1:09 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
That is the point Ed......"anti-tax" is your goal not a better community.
Michael McNeil
2:37 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Too much Low Income housing does not make a better community.
Salem is a small town and can't absorb anymore low income housing.
Low income housing is paid for by tax payers.
EBT cards are paid for with tax payer money.
Social Services are paid for with tax payer money.
Schools are paid for with tax payer money.
The tax payers are paying more than our fair share. Slow down on building more low income housing.
Mayor Driscoll and her minions are nothing more than a Progressive version of Bull Connor: Hosing down the property owners of Salem and then sicking the attack dogs on us.
Shameful.
Fran Wilson
4:23 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I'm thinking you are one of those fair minded people that think if something is preceded by the word PUBLIC it is inherently for those other people , not like us
Michael McNeil
5:04 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Your thinking is incorrect.
By the way...what do you mean by "other people?"
Please explain so I can get your meaning.
Fran Wilson
5:27 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
You seem to express a distance from people that need PUBLIC services , so I assumed you are not a participant in something you are so resentful in paying "more then your fair share" . I'm sure you don't use the library or ever call the police or fire department when you need them and probably your children didn't use the public school system. You "anti -tax" people always remind me of the people that only give out candy as long as their kids are "trick or treating" . Once you no longer use the generosity of your neighbors for your gain ,you turn off your light for the next generation of kids.
Michael McNeil
5:45 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
That is just plain silly.
The police, fire department, schools and libraries are what property taxes are meant to be paid for.
The other stuff you are droning on about is redistribution of wealth.
And that is Un-American and , sadly, typical of the hate America crowd that came out of the sixties.
windpower
6:24 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Thanks Michael .
Anyone hear from MR Salem taxpayer ?
It is simply amazing how they can spin .
And it's not about money when it come to voting republican ,its principal .
Dylan
6:55 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
Ah, I see Michael McNeil. Property taxes are supposed to pay for the things that you value, and only those things. I must have missed that part of the city charter. As for redistribution of wealth, that it the very definition of a functioning economy. What you don't like is how the wealth is being redistributed, which you view as not in your best interest, primarily because you are comically shortsighted. As for accusations of being "un-American", conservatives are the experts here, as your ideological pole star is the defunding of the democratic government of the United States through reduction of tax revenue, as advocated by Grover Norquist. In contrast, I am happy to support my community, city, state, and country by paying my taxes. Michael McNeil, why do you hate America?
Fran Wilson
6:50 pm on Saturday, September 1, 2012
I guess we know who the "not like us" guys are now.
windpower
8:19 am on Sunday, September 2, 2012
O K final post on this ,promise.
Please read this from the Phoenix paper
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi-page/documents/01984734.htm
Take note of the parts about housing .
Ed
KlassySalem
12:17 am on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
I'm glad to see councilor Prevey speak out publicly on this issue. Too frequently, our councilors don't publicly defend their positions like this. I like it. Kudos.
David Pelletier
1:15 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Ha ha. "poverty pimps" was a term created by ex Congressman Joseph Kennedy to describe The Reverends Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson in the mid-80's when they were actively trying to shake everyone down. A nice Democratic term. And accurate too!
Anne Sterling
3:43 pm on Tuesday, September 4, 2012
I wish I knew what percentage of the increased tax would be used to pay for which goals in Salem. I am in favor, and am willing to pay for public improvement projects needed to keep Salem competetive in the tourist trade. Subsidized housing, not so much. Do we have a guarantee how the CPA funds will be spent, if passed?