Odd as it is to see voters cheering en masse an increase in their tax bills, I was hardly surprised that the supporters of a $2 million Proposition 2 1/2 tax override in Northampton were celebrating last week.
The Vote Yes! Northampton campaign came away from a June 16 special election with an 1,800-vote margin of victory, with a respectable 48.6 percent of registered voters casting ballots. Whether or not the override issue was as divisive and nasty as it was sometimes described—formal opposition to the override never really came together—supporters were well organized, staying on message and refusing to treat victory as guaranteed. From the Daily Hampshire Gazette's post-election interviews with supporters, it's clear that the pro-override organizers worked hard to avoid a repeat of 2004, when a $1.7 million override went down to defeat by a mere eight votes.
As understandable as it is for campaigners to celebrate their victory, the override should not be viewed as a solution to the serious problems Northampton and other Massachusetts communities are facing. Indeed, if its passage leads Northampton voters to accept even briefly the idea that, as Vote Yes! Northampton co-chair Pam Schwartz put it, "[the] people recognized what is necessary to keep the city what it is," they may well find themselves facing another override next year.
Schwartz, to her credit, has promised to broaden the scope of her organization to continue pressing for the resources she and others believe Northampton needs. As she told the Gazette last week, "We want to take all of the energy and momentum and resources and put it toward getting revenue we need from state and federal sources."
In moving forward, however, pro-override activists would be wise to re-examine their commitment to keeping the city "what it is" and consider the possibility that the status quo is inherently unsustainable.
I have written in this space before about the failure of Gov. Deval Patrick to make good on his campaign pledge to lead the state's cities and towns away from their dependence on property taxes. Unfortunately, Patrick didn't follow his own wise reading of the issue when he campaigned—he reminded voters that as previous governors won cheap points by lowering state income taxes, taxpayers saw no relief as other taxes and fees increased—with even a half-hearted effort to raise income taxes. Particularly for progressive voters, Patrick's preference for more regressive forms of taxation—gas taxes, meals taxes, so-called "sin taxes"—should come as a great disappointment.
As Northampton voters showed last week, municipalities can't wait indefinitely for the state to restore local aid to the levels on which they have historically depended. The current fiscal crisis in Northampton has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the collapse of the national economy. The size of this year's budget problem may have been unexpected.
But Northampton's mayor has long been aware of the city's precarious financial situation. Mayor Clare Higgins, long before the override efforts of 2004 and 2009, repeatedly noted that Northampton, despite its vibrant downtown, was not a wealthy city, that it was dependent on local aid and handicapped by the limits of Prop. 2 1/2. The City Council, largely supportive of Higgins in recent years, presumably saw the same looming vulnerabilities. That includes City Councilor Michael Bardsley, who is challenging Higgins for mayor this year.
But there is a difference between seeing a problem and addressing it. Higgins and the Council may deserve credit for keeping the city's budget growing, for preserving jobs and services in the face of growing shortages. It is questionable, however, that they have made any serious effort to prepare the city to make do with less, or to build a political movement to promote more equitable, sustainable state tax policies.
"There was no ambiguity," said pro-override supporter and former city councilor Alex Ghiselin last week, referring to the override's margin of victory. While Ghiselin's comment might not sit well with the 3,762 people who voted against the override, there is no doubt that there was strong support for this measure. There is ambiguity, however, about what happens next—about whether the city elects people who will seek real solutions to its problems or will merely look for another override to preserve the status quo.
