The Reading Post of Reading, Massachusetts, 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rumors, personal attacks, name-calling, or anything that could be considered defamation, slander, or libel will not be published.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
To the Editor:
As Reading considers adopting the Community Preservation Act (CPA), residents deserve accurate information about its benefits, cost, and safeguards. Several recent claims warrant clarification.
First, the suggestion that the state matching fund is collapsing is misleading. Although the matching percentage has declined from earlier years, Massachusetts distributed more than $47 million to participating communities in 2025, providing a base match of nearly 17%. The match fluctuates annually, but it continues to provide additional funding that would otherwise be unavailable to our town. Additionally, the Community Preservation Coalition has been working on exploring other options to increase the CPA Trust Fund match portion.
Second, the assertion that every CPA project may cost more to maintain than the original project itself is an unsupported generalization. Maintenance costs depend on the type of project. Preserving open space, restoring an existing historic building, and developing recreational facilities have very different financial implications. Each project should be evaluated individually, including any long-term maintenance obligations, before approval.
Third, characterizing CPA projects as “fluff” ignores both the law and the local approval process. CPA funds are restricted to historic preservation, open space, outdoor recreation, and community housing. Reading would, by law, establish a Community Preservation Committee that would review proposals and make recommendations, but spending decisions ultimately require approval by Town Meeting. Projects should reflect community needs and, where appropriate, be coordinated with the town’s Capital Improvement Plan.
It is also important to understand that CPA affordable housing funds are not limited to building new housing. They can help support eligible rental assistance programs that allow residents to remain in their homes as well as offer first-time homebuyer assistance.
Since its inception, 201 Massachusetts cities and towns have adopted the CPA, and none has voted to repeal it. Again, not one has repealed it in 24 years.
That record proves proof of concept. Reading stood by and watched for 24 years – now is the time to join.
The CPA is not a blank check. It is a locally controlled funding mechanism with defined purposes and public oversight. Residents should evaluate its costs and opportunities based on facts, not sweeping claims that misrepresent how it works.
Our town deserves an informed discussion and a thoughtful decision about its future. Read more at www.CPAforReading.com
CPA for Reading Ballot Committee
Sarah Brukilacchio
