In Reading, Not All Signs Point to Override Passing

It was billed as Cocktails & Conversation, a night to discuss Reading's $7.5 million Prop 2 1/2 override vote.

In between sips of white or red wine, supporters of the override talked about teacher and town layoffs, larger school class sizes, and said more than once, "The question is, what kind of town do you want to live in?"

Curiously, it appeared that few in the room, including the host, had any idea how much their own taxes would increase if the measure is passed (check readingma.gov for house-by-house increases).

Doug Neary doesn't need a website, a cocktail, or a conversation, to know how he'll vote. Neary is firmly against the override. He's frustrated, even a little angry, and not afraid to show it.

• RELATED: Prop 2 1/2 - Paying for Your Kids or My Retirement?

There are almost as many "Yes for Reading" lawn signs as there are acorns on those same lawns. The kick-off event in support of the override was Sept. 18 at the Burbank YMCA. Now there are flyers, a website, pamphlets on Reading finances, a YouTube video, and co-chairs of a Yes For Reading committee (Kate Grant and Jennifer Hillery).

And in this corner, hailing from Reading, is lifelong resident Neary.

There's only one sign urging residents to vote no and it belongs to the 55-year-old Neary. If you eat, you've probably seen the sign, located just before the entrance to Stop and Shop and Market Basket on Village Street. Actually, it's two signs. Unlike the "Yes for Reading" signs, Neary's are black and white, purchased at the Staples a few steps from his home of 19 years. The first says, "Stop the Spending," the second says "Vote No Oct. 18."

Google "No for Reading" and an astrology.com site is first to pop up, pushing Yes/No Tarot card readings. There is no organized group urging you to vote no. The Yes For Reading group recently reported its funding, roughly $7,000, which includes $1,357 for those omnipresent lawn signs.

The No "group." Hello? Anyone out there? With most elections decided by who spends the most money, clearly the "No" people didn't take Elections 101.

But Neary promises he's not alone. In an hour-long interview, Neary asked not to be quoted but made clear his beliefs. The town is spending too much. There's little accountability. He doesn't trust the people in charge of our money to make smart decisions. He asked how many new positions were added to town payrolls since the override in 2003. He hates the comparisons being made to Lexington and pointed to Stoneham voting no on a recent override but surviving despite doom and gloom predictions. And he doesn't understand why, with a daughter in college, he has to tighten his belt but the town doesn't.

And don't think for a minute Neary is some recluse who doesn't understand town government. He's involved, has attended town meetings, and knows many who get their weekly pay checks from Reading. Even his mother, who lives in town, is active at the Senior Center. The taxes on his home have doubled since he moved in. If the override passes, they'll go up another $646, although like the supporters at Thursday's meeting, Neary was unaware of that number. Calling himself a little bit of a rebel, he decided a simple "no" vote wasn't enough. Thus the signs.

There's no reason to doubt that if the override fails, there will be layoffs, there will be cuts. It's also probably true, as Finance Committee member Paula Perry suggested during Thursday's meeting, that if the override fails, it will be back. Maybe not next year but soon enough.

And that's why Neary isn't throwing away his sign on Oct. 19, at least the half that says, "Stop the Spending."

Polls open Tuesday at 7 a.m. All (orange and blue) signs point to the override passing. But for a moment, think of all the empty lawns as people opposed to the override. You can see why the Yes For Reading leaders are nervous. Doug isn't alone.

Photo by Bob Holmes