Archive
- Photo courtesy of Linda Davies.
Published: Mar 05, 2001 12:00 am
â Photo courtesy of Linda Davies.
All of the referendums deserve to be pasted. We have a history of deferring needed maintenance and then paying more years later. These are required to keep our town owned building and roads in working condition.
Every vote matters and that’s exactly why it’s important to recognize that voting No on a proposed budget is not a vote against Newtown, but rather a vote for accountability, transparency, and fiscal responsibility. Last year, when voters rejected the education budget in its first round, it wasn’t just a symbolic gesture—it resulted in a reduced spending plan that ultimately passed. That outcome showed that our voices can and do make a difference.
Voting “No” is one of the few tools residents have to encourage our town leaders to re-evaluate spending, find creative solutions, and prioritize needs over wants.
So yes, please vote on April 22—but don’t be afraid to vote “No” if you believe we can do better. Last year’s vote proved that when residents speak up, real changes can follow.
Breaking the tax increase down to a “cost per day” may make it sound more palatable, but it minimizes the real impact these increases have—especially on those already struggling with rising costs across the board. A dollar here and a dollar there adds up, and for many families, it's not just about the price of a cup of coffee—it's about stretching every dollar to cover groceries, fuel, healthcare, and housing.
A 6.72% property tax increase is significant, regardless of how it’s framed. Saying “it’s only $1.13 a day” overlooks the fact that for some residents, every expense matters. Just because costs are rising doesn’t mean the burden should automatically fall on taxpayers without exploring real efficiencies, cost savings, or long-term planning.
We need to prioritize fiscal responsibility and find smarter ways to manage our town’s needs without assuming residents can or should absorb another round of tax hikes.
Let’s have the library present a 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year OPEX/capital investment plan to determine whether this is truly a sustainable investment or just another sunk cost fallacy. Two of the items we’re voting on next week were originally framed as “donations,” yet they continue to cost this town more money over time. It’s time to say no, and force a serious reevaluation of how we approach these decisions.