The Reading Post accepts Letters to the Editor. The Reading Post reserves the right to edit or refuse letters. Letters containing hearsay, rumors, personal attacks, name-calling, or anything that could be considered defamation, slander, or libel will not be published. The Reading Post reserves the right to end debate on a topic after both sides have had ample chance to express their views. All letters are posted as received, unless otherwise noted. All letters are subject to editing for style, mechanics, and grammar. editor@thereadingpost.com
A permanent tax increase should follow a permanent solution. Reading’s override does the opposite.
Voters approved a $4.15 million override in 2018. The town now seeks $6.5 million more while still relying on roughly $3 million in free cash and planning job cuts even if it passes. Voting ‘Yes’ leaves the stated $9.8 million FY28 gap unclosed, offers no sunset or defined reform plan, and gives no assurance taxpayers will not be asked again.
The town frames the cost as $61 a month. On the town’s own calculator, the average single-family home pays $733 in the first year. Because the higher levy becomes the new tax base and can grow 2.5 percent annually, the same house pays roughly $8,200 over ten years. Residents are not weighing one modest charge. They are being asked to stack another permanent layer onto bills that are already rising.
A property-tax bill is part of the household math in Reading. Boston-area wages rose 2.3 percent in the year through June, about $2,500 after major taxes for a household at Reading’s median income. The override alone consumes almost 30% of that annual raise; about 33% with the added Community Preservation Act. That is before heating, food, and other costs that have risen faster than many paychecks. Calling the increase “$61 a month” does not create room in a budget where little exists.
The burden falls squarely on young people and recent buyers. Given Reading’s roughly $950,000 median home sale price and financing at about 6.6 percent, a recent buyer may already pay about $4,850 a month in principal and interest before an existing property-tax bill near $10,300. A long-time owner of a similar house may have little or no mortgage. The same assessment-based increase can be an inconvenience to one household and the expense that prices another out.
Great schools are a reason many families choose Reading, but only if a young family can still afford to buy in. Baby boomers are the largest group of owners; owners under 35 are about 6 percent. A yes vote preserves the services long-time residents appreciate, but a town cannot protect its future by steadily raising the cost of entry and of staying.
Taxpayers deserve a process that allows real scrutiny and debate. A list of the most visible consequences of a no vote—Sunday library hours, kindergarten fees, athletics, crossing guards, ambulance staffing, senior meals—is not the same as a ranked budget showing that less essential spending was examined first. Before approving a permanent levy increase, residents should see a transparent accounting of alternatives rather than a false choice between higher taxes and civic decline.
Voting no is not a vote against schools, public safety, seniors, or town employees. It is a demand that recurring expenses be matched with recurring revenue through a durable plan—with reforms, measurable targets, and a clear path to structural balance—before residents accept another permanent increase. Until the town provides that plan, the responsible vote on November 3 is No.
Tim Mathieu
