Don’t Starve A

Frugal Government

To the Editor:

I was saddened by the effort of one of the letter writers in The Bee last week to squeeze the upcoming budget vote into a stereotype: that the ordinary people of Newtown are being asked to “support the super wealthy people moving into their million dollar mansions.” I’m sure the letter writer realizes that the vast majority of families with children in the Newtown schools are middle-class people trying to offer their children a decent future. Stereotypes won’t help us here. It would be fairer to characterize the two sides in the budget vote in this way: both want to preserve Newtown’s heritage of fine public education and both want to keep property taxes as low as they can responsibly be kept. The difference between the two sides is that one puts a somewhat higher priority on the first goal and the other puts a somewhat higher priority on the second.

I believe that it is urgent that we pass the budget without further reduction. This is as low a budget as we can responsibly have. The school portion of the budget contains no avoidable expenditures. It has to cover the 26 percent increase in energy costs, the 40 percent increase in out-of-district special education tuition, and the 20 percent increase in property liability insurance. It has to cover the operational costs of the Reed Intermediate School for a full year. It has to cover the cost of a few new teachers for a growing town, so that our average class sizes, already higher than state averages, do not exceed state guidelines. It also has to cover the extremely modest contracted salary increase for our teachers, who are paid less than the teachers of any town in the southwest quadrant of the state. This budget conforms to Newtown’s long-established tradition of frugality. We need to pass it, to hold the line, to prevent the town from endangering its tradition of educational excellence by increasing class sizes.

Like virtually all supporters of the budget, I am sympathetic to the complaints of those who worry that increases in property taxes could drive some longtime residents out of town. This is a matter that the Legislative Council needs to take up. Perhaps there are ways that we can expand abatement policies so that this does not happen. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that the town budget should not be held hostage to this concern. The town will suffer significantly if the budget cannot go above a level that would be desirable for every taxpayer. If, as a member of the Board of Education pointed out, a devastating cut of $1 million to the budget would only yield an average tax cut of $100 per taxpayer, my feeling is that the misery produced by the tax cuts would be greater for the people of the town than the relief produced by the tax savings. I also think that if the town continues to squeeze the budget year after year, there is a potential for a decline in property values that would dwarf any amount saved. If there are people in town who really need more in the way of tax abatements to stay in town, then by all means let’s get those abatements to them. But let’s not starve a frugal town government that works so well for all of us just so that we can have a little extra money to spend on something else.

Dana Brand

5 Bradley Lane, Sandy Hook      April 15, 2003