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rumors, personal attacks, name-calling, or anything that could be considered defamation, slander, or libel will not be published.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
The consequences of a failed override would be severe. More than 60 full-time equivalent positions could be eliminated across the Town and schools, including educators and paraprofessionals. Children would see larger class sizes, impacts on athletics and extracurriculars, and potentially the return of tuition for full-day kindergarten. Police, fire, and public works would face reductions, and the library could see reduced hours and staff cuts that put its certification at risk. Further cuts would follow in later years.
That is why Together for Reading is endorsing a Yes vote on Reading’s $6.5 million Proposition 2½ operational override, and a Yes vote on the Community Preservation Act (CPA) on November 3.
Why not wait? Some suggest waiting until April 2027 to ask for a smaller amount. But since the last override in 2018, Town and school administrators have creatively and judiciously stretched Reading’s tax dollars to maintain services, even as inflation has vastly outpaced the revenue available under Proposition 2 ½. Waiting doesn’t make the challenge disappear. Without an override for FY28, the Town and schools would have to plan significant additional reductions, and in April 2027 residents would still face the question of paying more, for substantially reduced services.
Why CPA? CPA funds can preserve open space and recreation, protect historic resources, and support affordable housing. Because the state provides matching funds, local dollars go further. The match isn’t what it once was, but even a smaller match is money that returns to Reading only if we participate.
CPA also protects residents facing hardship. The proposed 1% surcharge applies only to residential property and excludes the first $100,000 of assessed value. Businesses, low-income residents, and qualifying low- and moderate-income seniors are exempt. Funds are limited strictly to community preservation purposes, with oversight by a dedicated CPA committee, an annual public hearing, and Town Meeting approval.
Cost concerns are real. Any tax increase is difficult, especially for seniors on fixed incomes and families facing rising costs. Reading’s Assessing Department offers property-tax exemptions and a financial-hardship deferral for those unable to fully meet their obligation because of age, infirmity, or poverty. These programs aren’t automatic; residents must apply and qualify. The Town’s Elder and Human Services Department also offers education, support, and services for residents of all ages.
Supporting both questions preserves the schools and services that define our community, invests in the places that make Reading special, and helps ensure our most vulnerable neighbors can access available relief.
For details on a failed versus successful override, visit the Town’s FY28 Override Hub and Vote Yes for Reading. For CPA information, visit cpaforreading.com and communitypreservation.org.
The choice is difficult, but the cost of doing nothing is clear. Together for Reading urges residents to vote Yes on the override and Yes on CPA on November 3.
Carolyn Johnson
Chair, Together for Reading
*This endorsement has been cleared by the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF).
