Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
The uproar continues as the date for the public hearing on the proposed real estate transfer fee draws nearer.
Advocates and naysayers alike have been actively pressing their cases in the public domain, and there seems to be little change of opinions on either side. Like so many other issues these days, whether local or national, this one seems to be a classic example of everybody knows best.
In the meantime, many are wondering whether the public input is or will be having any effect. The cynical among us tend to believe that in the end whatever the city wants the city will get. That public hearings and the like are just for show, and that the proposal is a done deal, in spite of public demands either way.
One thing we have learned in the past week, the current draft of the proposed legislation does not include an exemption for owner occupied 1-2-3 families, as was advocated by some on the Board of Aldermen. Instead, a motion was put forward to exempt home owners who have received the city’s residential exemption for a minimum of 20 years.
Apparently, the whole thing is still a work in progress, suggesting that there may be some hope that citizen input can make a difference. We’d like to think so, anyway.
For those who want to hear and be heard, be sure to attend the public hearing on April 4, 6:00 p.m., at City Hall.
A little more uproar can do no harm.
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
Let’s face it: the City will always find a way to justify any fees it claims from residents.
Perhaps, like those seeking gun-control law changes, the only way we will see any progress is by voting those out of office that are not working for the benefit of their constituents.
I feel like the tone of this “view” is hypocritical given the Times’ months-long haranguing over the tax, and you should more explicitly include yourself in the group of “everybody [who] knows best.” I mean, this week’s Newstalk says all the Board does is raise taxes, and this paper has spent weeks underhandedly mocking the city government and “wondering about the Constitutionality of” the tax. Really? Please let me know your constitutional analysis that prohibits new property taxes.
All I’m saying is that if you’re going to be so explicitly partisan on one issue for months, don’t then also sit back and try to claim the moral high ground, looking down upon those who think they “know best”. You are part of the political problem you diagnose.
It strikes me that the author of previous comment seems to assume that the Times speaks with only one voice, which is rather absurd. Most newspapers run editorial pieces by many contributors, and to flatly assert that the whole of the paper is taking only one side is clearly incorrect. I pick up the print edition of the paper and in the latest issue there were no less than three opinion pieces in addition to the View and the Newstalk features. And each of those contributors clearly hold there own distinct views, left, right or center. In fact, this article seems to fall smack dab in the middle, simply asking us to involve ourselves in the shaping of public policy. Is there a problem with that? The Times is providing the community with a great source of information and opinions from many informed sources for all of us to consider and honestly debate. I congratulate them on a job well done. So much for the “hypocrisy”.
Jim, I disagree. If you look at the unsigned pieces run by the Times, mainly the ‘Our View of the Times’ and ‘Newstalk’ features, I think you will see a very consistent, very partisan tone on this issue. Of course the paper runs pieces by outside contributors, but I take these unsigned pieces to be the editorial voice of the Times itself. I agree that many contributors have been part of a healthy debate, but I can’t count the unsigned Times blabber in the same category.
Well one man’s opinion is another’s blabber. Thanks for sharing your blabber.