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rumors, personal attacks, name-calling, or anything that could be considered defamation, slander, or libel will not be published.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
Dear Editor,
With Election Day just around the corner, I’d like to take a moment to introduce two committees we’ve formed here in Reading: Vote NO in NOvember – Proposition 2.5 and Vote NO in NOvember – CPA. We know how much people care about this town, and we formed these committees because we believe there’s another side to Questions 10 and 11 that deserves to be heard.
I think we can all agree that we want what’s best for Reading. We want good schools, strong police and fire departments, a library we can be proud of, and a town that continues to be a great place to live. But part of what makes Reading special is the people who call it home. And if we want Reading to remain a place where people can put down roots, raise their families, and enjoy their retirement, we need to make sure they can afford to stay here.
Question 10 asks voters to approve a $6.5 million Proposition 2½ override. We recognize the Town’s financial challenges, but residents have been presented with only one spending plan.
What if we took a closer look at a smaller override—$3 million, $4 million, or $5 million? Perhaps there’s a way to protect our police and fire departments, keep our classroom teachers, and preserve full-day kindergarten while asking a little less of our neighbors. Wouldn’t that be worth exploring? I think the people of Reading deserve to know what’s possible before being asked to commit to the full $6.5 million.
Question 11 is the Community Preservation Act (CPA). It would mean an additional 1% surcharge on property taxes. That money would go into a separate fund for open space, recreation, historic preservation, and community housing.
There’s a lot to like about preserving open space, protecting our historic places, and improving our community. And the state matching funds are certainly appealing. But I think it’s fair to ask whether now is the right time for another tax. We also need to consider that CPA money can only be spent on certain projects, and those projects would go through a separate process that might not reflect the priorities we’ve already established in our capital plan.
And here’s where the numbers really hit home. Based on the Town’s published figures, property taxes on the average single-family home could rise by approximately 23% between FY2026 and FY2028 if both questions pass. That includes the usual annual increases and the debt exclusions voters previously approved for Killam School and ReCAL. Nearly a quarter more in just two years. That’s a lot to ask of our neighbors.
Some residents can manage that increase. Others can’t. We think especially about seniors who have spent decades working, raising families, and paying taxes in Reading. After all those years of contributing to this town, they deserve the chance to enjoy retirement without worrying about being priced out of their homes.
Before asking our neighbors to pay more, shouldn’t we at least show them what the other options look like? For some households, every dollar matters. They deserve to know what choices are available.
Voting NO in NOvember gives us the opportunity to do just that. Then let’s examine the options, weigh the tradeoffs, and work together to get to YES on the right plan for Reading.
Our neighbors matter. Affordability matters.
Sincerely,
Ron Powell
Chair, Vote NO in NOvember – Proposition 2.5
Chair, Vote NO in NOvember – CPA
Reading, Massachusetts
Learn more: https://noinnovember.org
