Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Bait & Switch?
Clearly petitioner Vince O'Connor told Amherst Town Meeting that Article #38 was not a vote to increase the Community Preservation Act tax -- I mean "surcharge" -- from 1.5% to 3%.
It was instead that most cherished of Democratic principals to simply allow the voters of Amherst the God given right to double the tax, err, "surcharge."
But if you read the state "summary" for Question 5 on the November 3 state ballot it clearly gives the impression that Amherst Town Meeting supported the tax increase itself.
Kind of like the confusion that takes place every year at Town Meeting when the Finance Committee unanimously supports CPA spending articles. What they are really supporting is the fact that the appropriation is "an appropriate use of CPA money." In other words it's not illegal.
But isn't that why we spend $100,000 per year on a Town Attorney? The Town Attorney does vet Community Preservation Act articles for anything that could be challenged so why do we need the Finance Committee's opinion when they are not legal experts?
Such is the charmed life of all things CPA.