BRATTLEBORO — I found BDCCs recent commentary, written in opposition to the town's consideration of a 1-percent local-option tax for property-tax relief, to be quite scattered and confusing.
In it, we are told that “another local tax is a short-term and shortsighted fix to a decades-long problem.”
But no one imagines this revenue to “fix” anything - it's meant to shift a small amount of burden away from property taxpayers, who now pay 85 percent of the entire operating needs of our town municipal budget.
This one penny devoted to Brattleboro property-tax relief will save most homeowners over $100 per year. It's far from being shortsighted, since it will lessen the unequal tax burden we face as a town when compared to surrounding communities, which will in turn encourage more people to invest in Brattleboro and help to keep rents more controlled, since high taxes are passed on to low-income renters in the form of high rents.
* * *
Another bizarre statement in the piece: “The real problem with a 1-percent tax is that we are having the wrong conversation.”
Wait. Why attack the idea of this simple, painless revenue source that substantially reduces property tax by saying we shouldn't talk about it? How about providing some evidence of harm that this one penny for Brattleboro will produce, rather than misdirecting?
I, for one, will continue to encourage any and all conversations about what will help to make Brattleboro more affordable to all residents, not just the wealthiest in our community. This simple added penny will shift a small portion of tax burden from struggling residents to visitors and those who can afford to buy non-essential items.
* * *
Bob Stevens rather insultingly implies that we are failing at providing a “focus on the commercial and industrial grand list” while possibly forgetting that this focus is exactly what the BDCC is supposed to be doing.
In the “About Us” section of the organization's website, the BDCC describes itself as “a catalyst for industrial and commercial growth throughout Southeastern Vermont,” but in my two years serving on the Selectboard, I can't recall BDCC representatives ever coming before us to suggest a policy that we were not pursuing and, in their opinion, should have been.
We would have preferred a respectful proposal over the statement that “this latest tax debate is another shortsighted punt” - as if residents, Town Meeting representatives, and Selectboard members can't intelligently decide for themselves how to more equitably pay for the essential services of our town.
Strangely, in concluding, after telling us that a penny added to our sales tax on non-essential items would be bad somehow, we are also told that “a plan to invest at least some of the short-term gains from a 1-percent tax in long-term tax-base growth would make some sense.”
So by the end of the commentary, it seems to be a good idea, as long as it is used for industrial and commercial growth and not so much to relieve the heavy burden on the real, struggling working people who pay for the bulk of our town's operations.
* * *
I value much of the work of the BDCC, and hope the town of Brattleboro can continue to partner with the organization in efforts related to workforce development, attracting startups, and retaining good industry and jobs in our area.
We all, in the end, want the same thing: a vibrant and thriving community here in southern Vermont, but along the way some disagreements on policies and priorities are bound to happen.
The entire newly configured Brattleboro Selectboard supports the 1-percent local option for property-tax relief and for the future health of our community.
The BDCC got this one wrong.