“We want to be a town that welcomes the diversity of people and allows families to live here.”
“We need to think about what the town will look like in the next 5 to 10 years if we keep building houses at this rate.”
“After World War 2 people did not have much money and they came to Shrewsbury and built small little homes where they raised their families. We want Shrewsbury to continue to be the type of town where people can live and raise a family.”
“We need to understand if we do not increase the lot sizes now we will be putting a great deal of strain on our services; our schools, water, streets, and other services. We will be putting the burden on the town residents in the future.”
“Changing the zoning laws now is stealing people’s land.”
“People who have kept their land open because the town asked them to do so will now be penalized.”
“I value the town services, like free trash pick-up, and do not want to loose it.”
Special Town meeting was called in June 1998 where the Selectmen and the Planning Board recommended that town meeting members pass an article to increase the minimum size of a building lot in order to cap the growth of the town. The Finance Committee recommended that the town meeting members defeat the article. The town meeting members defeated the zoning change.
Words spoken at the Special Town Meeting have proven to be true:
- More people came and built houses
- Land owners reaped maximum profits of their land
- Our finances are now stressed and we can no longer afford the bounty of services
- The burden of uncapped growth is now on our shoulders
The failure of the 1998 zoning change is not the only past town decision that set the table for our current fiscal problems; the following decisions added to the problem:
- Providing town water and sewer throughout the town, which maximized the available building lots. It also allowed many people to put additions on their homes which made them more appealing to larger families. It also made building in Shrewsbury very attractive, which I am sure aided land owners in selling their lots.
- Selectmen did not increase property taxes by the 2.5 % allowable under law each year. This means that we did not build up our reserves that could be used to ease our current burdens. It also means that it kept our tax base lower which has led to less new tax revenue each year to pay for town services.
Why do I point this out?
Because, Shrewsbury residents have had a GREAT deal for a long time. Some of the residents made a lot of money selling their land for building lots. Now the predicted burden on our services is at a critical point and it is time that WE make some tough operational spending decisions and invest in our town’s aging infrastructure.
Instead of investing in the town or being willing to pay for the services that we all use every day, the perpetual NO signs appear on lawns. The signs are big and made of wood, or they are small and made of plastic. They are smartly worded with a big NO. The material and the message is a good investment because it can be used to advertise that the proud owner is against any fee (that might apply to them that is) or tax.
A group called Seniors for Responsible Taxation formed to fight a proposition 2.5 override attempt by the town and are now loudly opposing a pay-as-you–throw proposal for trash removal.
I personally do not find it very responsible to demand services but refuse to pay for them. I also do not find it very responsible to ignore the environmental benefits that pay-as-you-throw creates through increased recycling. I also do not find it very responsible to turn a blind eye to the fact that Shrewsbury is in the bottom 10% of Massachusetts town and cities in spending on public education for our children, not the children next door, but the children in our town. The same children of families that the 1998 town meeting said they wanted to sell their land to.
My Mother, who was born in 1921, had a favorite saying, “Those who dance must pay the fiddler.” She would pull that saying out every time she thought I had received a favorable benefit and now was required to make my payment.
Well Shrewsbury, even if you are not one of the land owners or developers who cashed in on selling all the house lots in Shrewsbury you still got to “dance”. Maybe you have lived here a while and you have benefited from the frugalness of our selectmen who have kept our tax rate low by not increasing it the full 2.5% each year, or you were able to buy here because the smaller lots made Shrewsbury more affordable then neighboring towns, or you were able to put an addition on your home because you have town water and sewer, and we all have had the benefit of trash pick-up being covered by our low taxes for a very long time. But the dance is over folks, and we must be willingly to pay the fiddler.
We need to:
- Implement pay-as-you-throw (no free bag). We can not afford to have this expense in our tax base. We all must recycle and work to decrease what we dispose. This is good for our town and good for our planet.
- Place fees across the board – we can no longer just add fees on the schools and recreation department.
- Demand that our Finance Committee and town manger scrutinize all department operational budgets and not just cut the school budget because it is the largest percentage of the budget. In reality the percentage of total budget that Shrewbury’s spends on schools has been decreasing over the years.
- Next time that there is an override we all need to make it a priority to go to the polls and do the truly responsible thing – vote yes, because we are grateful for the dance and we know we must pay if we hope to dance again in the future.
