An Open Letter to AllMelrose

With respect to the proposed override, I am becoming increasingly concerned with the growing divide between the proponents and opponents and the possible permanent damage being done to the community.

We can probably all agree that strong public services (schools, police and fire departments, public works, library) and the city's sound financial health benefit all residents in one way or another. We can probably all agree that the added tax will be an insignificant added cost for some and a burden for others.

What disturbs me and perhaps others is the lack of transparency and misleading assertions on the part of some of the proponents. A few examples follow.

· The information made available to the public is tightly controlled by the override proponents and very narrowly focused. As demonstrated at the recent “Real Talk” gathering at the high school, tough questions and dialogue about the issues are not welcome.

· OneMelrose characterizes the override as a “one-time infusion of money to our base.” This is very misleading. The override is a permanent increase in taxes. It will likely cost taxpayers at least an additional $58 million over the next ten years and $132 million over the next 20 years.

· Teacher retention is often described as a problem in Melrose stemming from a poor salary structure. First, is an 87% retention rate really bad? Second, using a simple average to compare salaries is simplistic. Third, the salary structure for most lanes and steps is fine. Those that aren’t can be addressed in the upcoming contract negotiations. Finally, there are many reasons why people leave jobs, including relocations, promotions, poor management, retirement, illness, having children, caring for ailing family members, and sometimes better job opportunities.

· The revenue crisis is sometimes blamed on decreasing tax rates. More important to taxpayers is the amount of taxes paid rather than the tax rate. My taxes have increased 29% since 2012 and will increase 40% since 2012 with the override.

· OneMelrose dismisses water/sewer rates as an issue because they are not part of the city’s operating budget. Water/sewer costs are certainly a budget issue for residents and shouldn’t be dismissed so lightly.

· Tax deferrals are sometimes touted as a solution for senior citizens who might be challenged by higher taxes. Many of us have worked for years to pay off mortgages and save for retirement. “Ringing up” a $50,000 lien to the city, as one of our elected officials recently suggested, is not a sound financial plan for most homeowners.

· A OneMelrose talking point says, “With or without the override our taxes will increase. Good news, as taxes increase, so do home values.” I think we can all agree with the first part of that. As for the second part, a more likely causal relationship is that higher home values lead to higher taxes. Since taxes are still a consideration when people look for a place to buy a home, higher taxes could discourage potential buyers thus decreasing home values.

· The only spending plan offered by override proponents relates to the $5.18 million to be raised in the first year. Is that all there is for a plan?

· There seems to be a lack of long-term planning in Melrose. The city stands to collect property tax revenues of around $660 million over the next 10 years and $1.5 billion over the next 20 years. Is there a plan for all of this money? Shouldn’t there be?

· I suspect the city will be needing to replace and/or upgrade a number of buildings, such as the police station, fire station(s), school(s), and library. Are there any plans to deal with these projects (cost projections, schedules, and funding sources)? Shouldn’t there be?

· Proponents routinely refer to the $5.18 million as an “investment” but fail to demonstrate how these additional funds will improve outcomes for the students. Sometimes spending more money on a poorly managed enterprise does not yield better results.

In a recent email to its supporters, OneMelrose said, “We vote YES to solve the problem. We vote NO to force cuts”. No wonder the community is fracturing. This sort of “you’re either with us or against us” rhetoric does little to foster “One Community Open to All.”

I am trying to remain optimistic about the future of Melrose, but fear that the strategies and tactics being employed by the override proponents have and will continue to marginalize many of the city’s residents.

Fred Babin

Grandview Avenue

Melrose