34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
Opinion

LETTERS: Trust CLT to protect seniors from tax hikes; Senator earns praisefor child protection




Trust CLT to protect seniors from tax hikes

To the editor:

As a longtime member of Citizens for Limited Taxation, I was puzzled by a recent letter encouraging the passage of House Bill 2840. The letter (and the bill's supporters) claimed low-income seniors would receive some sort of property tax relief if their incomes were below $60,000 and paid a certain percentage of that income for property tax. The letter went on to question the intelligence and motivation of Rep. Jay Barrows regarding his vote on this matter.

I don't know the author's motives, but I do know the motives of both CLT and Jay Barrows. The one group that has protected all taxpayers, and especially seniors, from much higher property taxes has been CLT and those people like Jay Barrows who back them up. CLT definitely opposes this bill and would encourage you to contact senators Brown and Timilty and tell them not to support it!

This "Trojan Horse" bill is an attempt to drive down the number of concerned seniors who would naturally vote against Prop 2 ½ overrides. There is no guarantee for these seniors that the town or city would honor this promised "reduced" rate once seniors voted for an override. Once the property taxes have been increased, it will be impossible for anyone to get them reduced and get some much deserved relief. The chief sponsor of this bill does not hide the fact that she is simply trying to pass H2840 in order to approve a nearly $200 million override in Newton. The logical thing for Rep. Barrows to do was vote against this bill and prevent future increases in property taxes for all homeowners. His motivation as a state rep is the same as it was before he was elected - to help the local communities however he can.

Keith Ninesling
Mansfield




Senator earns praisefor child protection

To the editor:

Sincerest congratulations to Sen. Scott Brown for introducing a bill that will not allow parents who have been convicted of assault or neglect to care for foster children.

This is a bill that uses common sense, genuine logic and shows a caring heart.

I know we all agree that in the Haleigh Poutre case, where she was beaten with a baseball bat and left in a coma, this bill would have protected her. God forbid it should happen to another young person.

Thank you, Sen. Brown! Keep up the humane spirit. Continuing on with this type of leadership, our children will be protected.

Maureen, Tom
and the Howard Family
Norfolk


WE WELCOME your letters to the editor. Be sure to include your name, address and phone number. E-MAIL to
opinion@thesunchronicle.com; MAIL to Voice of the Public, The Sun Chronicle, P.O. Box 600, Attleboro, MA 02703, or FAX to 508-236-0462.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » No comments posted. « Hide Comments

KHAttleboro wrote on Mar 6, 2008 4:58 PM:

" Lets not kid ourselves. The only ones CLT has protected are their corporate sponsors. When Proposition 2.5 was passed, the big winners were large corporations who owned lots of land across the state(at the time, NE Telephone, Mass Electric, etc). It made the cities and towns into state aid junkies and has ended up pitting seniors against parents, police and fire departments against against schools, etc. Property taxes do place an unfair burden on low income and senior land ownwers. We need to do away with regressive property taxes all together and find a better way to fund local government, whether it is a piggy back sales or income tax. "

Spamalot01 wrote on Mar 6, 2008 12:11 PM:

" One further note: Trusting a special interest group like the CLT to know what's best for everyone is just about as intelligent as trusting the government to never waste money. They are both equally bad because they are both so equally sure they are right and everyone else is wrong. "

Spamalot01 wrote on Mar 6, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Keith Ninesling writes: "The logical thing for Rep. Barrows to do was vote against this bill and prevent future increases in property taxes for all homeowners. His motivation as a state rep is the same as it was before he was elected - to help the local communities however he can." Mr. Ninesling conveniently skates past the other "obvious" part of this bill's intent: Attempting to lessen the tax impact on fixed-income citizens in the face of need to fully fund education, fire & police protection, road maintenance, snow plowing and all of those other services that the voting taxpayer expects the government to provide. His denunciation of this bill is the typical, tired CLT argument about limiting taxation without explaining, specifically, what services members of the CLT want to have eliminated from each and every town. Want 35 - 40 students in each classroom? Strike down this bill. Feel safer with fewer police and fire personnel patrolling the streets and answering fire calls? Strike down this bill. Want to remain in your homes for days after modest ice & snow storms because of lack of funding for plowing crews? Strike down this bill. Want your towns to eliminate public health nurses for the poor? Stike down this bill. If CLT is SO concerned about tax rates and "waste' in government, then have the honesty to lay out what town services you want to see reduced or eliminated. "

kevin h. wrote on Mar 6, 2008 8:35 AM:

" Right on! Keith Ninesling "


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
 or