Letter to the Editor: Say No to Community Preservation Act

The following letter to the editor was submitted by resident Charlie Krueger. If you have a letter you would like to see run on Dedham Patch, you can email it to Editor Dan Libon at Dan.Libon@Patch.com

On April, residents will be voting on the CPA (Community Preservation Act). I am opposing the CPA for different reasons. For the past two weeks, I have seen letters of support for the CPA from the proponents of the question, while I understand why some may support the ballot question – the issue I have is their numbers are flawed in an effort to influence the voters. My thought is to sway a yes vote.

For example: One proponent has stated that we will be able to get 30 percent, That number is not accurate. The current match is 20.6 percent and that will decrease with more communities opting in. In another article, another proponent has stated that Needham was funded 18 million dollars from the CPA to change a historic building into their town hall, He is correct in saying that, the misleading part of it is that he neglected to mention that the project was done in 2009 when the CPA was matching 80 percent. The return rate has dropped from 80 percent in 2009 down to 20.6 percent in 2016 and Needham also had to do the max buy in of a 3 percent tax increase surcharge.

It was also mentioned that the CPA will fund schools that is also not accurate. The CPA will fund four categories - historic preservation, affordable housing, open space, and parks and recreation projects. School buildings are not covered. The CPA will only fund projects that are pet projects of the proponents not the well needed projects in our town for example - police, fire and safety complex, new schools, roads or sewers or any infrastructure projects.

Dedham has a history of funding projects that are desperately needed. The Proponents of the CPA estimate each homeowner will be assessed approximately $50 per year, that is simply not accurate as each home is assessed differently if your property is valued at a higher price you will pay more, an increase is an increase homeowners already pay their fair share, Well the estimate in my opinion is going to be more than $50, you can do the math on your own real estate tax bill just look at it and figure out what that amount will come to, you may be surprised what you come up with for an estimate and keep in mind the town has already stated they are going to need to raise your real estate tax again this year by another 1.73 percent.

Our town is economically diverse, with a mix of blue and white collar residents not to mention all the residents that are planning to retire in the next few years, all trying to live within their means and trying to balance their household budgets, any new tax is an unnecessary burden on all of us. Last week another proponent stated that we are trying to create fear by telling the voters the truth or correcting the falsehoods that are being sent out to voters. Really!

The opponents of the CPA are not creating fear or using fear tactics, we are simply stating the truth. The CPA is not stable and the state’s financial interest has waned as evidence in the reduction of matching funds from 100 percent down to 20 percent and it is due to drop again this year. I have asked proponents of the CPA to correct their records without any response of corrections so that a fare conception can be made by the voters. Another misleading statement being circulated is the statement of we are part of a handful of towns that have not yet adopted the CPA, here is another fact - there are 351 towns and cities in the commonwealth, only 172 have adopted the CPA that means that there are currently 179 that have chosen not to, Maybe the handful are the ones that chose to adopt the CPA. The CPA is a failing unsustainable program, just by going by the numbers of the decreasing percentage over the years, the funding mechanism is flawed and unsustainable.

Mr. Reynolds is correct in one of his statements “We should have joined years ago,”. In my opinion that’s when the CPA has seen it’s better days., is has since decreased significantly and on the CPA website it stated that there were no state budget funds available in 2016 and they are looking for other means of funding through legislation, meaning raising all your registry fees.

We have taken the brunt of the tax increases in this town because of past neglect, and we get that, but to ask the homeowners of this town to put an additional 1% tax increase surcharge on them every year in my opinion is just wrong, enough is enough, the homeowners of this town deserve a breather or to see a little compassion from the town. Please join me and many others in saying vote no more taxes, vote no on CPA April 8.

Charlie Krueger, Homeowner/taxpayer