I urge the townspeople of Shelburne to defeat a proposal to adopt the Community Preservation Act which will be on the fall election ballot.

Here are my reasons: 1. Although the Recorder reported on July 23 that Greenfield had a 1% surtax for this program, Shelburne is asking us to approve a 3% surtax on our real estate bills. Why the difference?

Jackie Walsh said in an emailing to town residents that this would amount to about $93 on Shelburne’s average tax bill. Although this would be nice for some special projects in town, is that not what our taxes are for? If there are worthy projects in town, we have the means already in place to address them.

We as taxpayers continue to have our control eroded over financial matters. This is another tax on the backs of residents, some of whom cannot afford it.

2. There is an exemption for low-income folks, but in nebulous terms of a certain percentage of the mean income of the area. Who knows what that means to each of us and is that a figure that is always in flux? Hard figures would be understood by all.

There is an exemption for those folks over 60 years old. Is that hard and fast or also subject to change? Also, who approves how this money is spent and on what. The CPA has language that spells out what the money may be used for and what it may not. We will have to establish another committee to recommend what projects will be funded. Are they to be elected or appointed or can we find people to serve on them?

Although some other communities have approved establishing this in their towns and cities does that mean that it is right for Shelburne? A piece of this puzzle is the matching funds that the state is supposed to give us under this program. Is that something that we can depend on? What if the state doesn’t fund it? Don’t get hung up on the matching funds because that money is our money as well. It is not a free lunch.

Should Shelburne approve this petition we cannot use it to build a swimming pool but only to buy the land, so this is false information that has been discriminated. The use of these funds is restricted.

These are the reasons that I urge Shelburne residents to defeat this ballot question.

Jim Stacy

Shelburne