I disagree with Jon Spinner’s view that the Legislature should have kept the original property tax freeze (“Letter to the editor: Legislators should have kept senior tax program,” July 23, Page D3). Here are some of the reasons it needs to go:

• It came out of committee with an “ought not to pass” recommendation.

• The bill could cost up to $14 million by 2025.

• There is no guarantee that the state will be able to reimburse the costs to the municipalities.

• If municipalities aren’t reimbursed for the total taxes lost, how do they make up the difference: higher taxes, slashed services?

• With no income requirement, the wealthy benefit the most.


• Tax bills, once capped, can’t be adjusted for improvements, additions or totally new buildings.

• Processing an application can take around 10 minutes – a great financial and administrative burden on municipalities.

• Applications are required annually, an administrative burden on both the homeowner and the municipality.

• Software used by municipalities doesn’t allow for this type of manipulation, thereby requiring separate, manual tracking, which is prone to errors.

• If left in place, the burden to younger taxpayers will increase substantially.

I do agree with Jon Spinner that much more thought should have gone into this process. I also feel that what they have passed is a far more equitable, less costly to the municipalities and gives the greatest benefit to those who need it most.

Gail Eaton

Related Headlines

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: