At the Jan. 23, 2012 selectmen’s meeting two citizens proposals aimed at reducing taxes were reviewed by the selectmen and both were rejected.  One asked to reduce the CPA surcharge by two percent and the other asked the town to petition the courts to see if it would be feasible for the town to reduce the real estate tax by five percent for those residents 70 or older.  As evidenced by recent requests for tax relief, many residents, especially seniors, are fearful of the upcoming tax increases.  I understand that it’s reasonable for the selectmen to be worried about a reduction in taxes in any form because of the recent decisions to invest vast amounts of future tax revenue on infrastructure projects.  Well boys, I’m here to tell you it’s a little late in the hindsight department. In our society we base our tax structure on progressive taxation; those that have more pay more.  Simple reasoning would suggest that our seniors have less by way of fixed incomes.  Let’s face it, social security doesn’t pay much, and the investments that were thought to offset social security’s monthly insult are returning ghosts of projections.  There is no denying it; money is scarce for today’s seniors.

The truth is that the second article to reduce taxes by five percent for seniors would have no effect on taxes as it is written.  The article if read, simply asks the town to petition the courts to rule on the feasibility of reducing taxes for seniors.  This question has to go to the General Court because the town can’t arbitrarily change who or how taxes are paid.  It would then take an additional article at a future town meeting to implement any reduction in taxes for seniors.

As of Jan. 30, 2012, there were 1,768 people in town who were 70 years or older which is approximately one tenth of population.  If the “Duxbury Cares” group really cares they will dust off their cute little signs and endorse this article to explore this method to help seniors in our community cope with the future tax explosion.

At the same meeting, the selectmen endorsed an article to fork over $40,000 of CPA funds to do an engineering study for sidewalks on Depot Street.  Once again the selectmen failed to see the ramifications of their endorsement.

1)  Roadways and sidewalks are the purview of the public works department, not the Community Preservation Act or its committee.  2) What prevents the rest of the community from requesting CPA funds for sidewalks in front of their homes once the percent is set?  3)  The cost of construction for the sidewalks has been projected to be in the vicinity of $250,000.  Where does that money come from?  The community needs to send a message that we want to pay fewer taxes, not more, and we want the current tax monies spent with more forethought.

Has the Community Preservation Committee run out of worthy projects so they entertain a project of this nature.  If the committee is turning toward these types of projects, I suggest they help with the bridge repair costs instead of having the town raise beach fees, or should I say increasing the usage tax.  The bridge serves the entire community. What part of the community is served by sidewalks on Depot Street.

Richard Brennen

Myrtle Street