Good intentions can’t justify Palesky tax cap

I have often found truth in the old saw “Good intentions make for bad law.” What has become known as the Palesky Initiative certainly falls into the good intentions category. It would be a fruitless pursuit to find any property owner who feels that they do not pay more than enough in taxes.

Who wouldn’t want to support an initiative that not only cuts back the amount a property owner pays in taxes, but also limits future increases in the tax burden? On an emotional level; sounds great!

But, once the jubilation of having an additional couple hundred bucks in your pocket subsides, what have you really lost? Much has been said (and written) about the devastating financial effect this initiative will have on local governments, which will intensify, as November looms nearer. I would like to draw attention to what I believe to be an equally chilling ramification of the initiative: the loss of local control.

As funding for services dissipates, nonessential services (recreation, libraries, contributions to provider agencies, etc.) will be the first to be pruned followed by the core services we expect such as police, fire, and road maintenance. As towns and cities become too cash strapped to continue providing these core services, some other governmental entity will need to step in. This might be the county, state or some sort of regional entity (something the governor has been touting all along).

How well the first two entities perform in currently providing services is certainly cause for concern and even more so when you reflect upon expanding their role dramatically. No one knows what form a regional service/government entity might take. Would it be based on population?, a set number of towns?, or perhaps geographic location? However it manifests, rest assured that it would be much more insulated from an individual taxpayer than what we have become used to.

The thing that I cherish most about local government and what drew me first into local politics and then into the profession, is its responsiveness to the folks paying the bills. If an individual feels that their road is not being maintained adequately, they have several options available to express this concern. They can stop by or call the town office, call the public works director, or speak with a selectperson or councilor.

Another avenue available is to buttonhole any of the aforementioned individuals at the grocery store or hardware store. They can also attend a board or council meeting or the annual town meeting. The bottom line is that local government provides both the opportunity and convenience for the individual to be heard and to affect a change. This is what I fear will be lost should the Palesky Initiative pass.

What will be the lengths to which a taxpayer must go to in order to express concerns in the future? Will you need to call or visit the county seat, Augusta, or the regional center (who knows were that location might be)? How will you exercise your right to control or influence how your tax dollars are spent? Now you are able to attend your town meeting or council meeting and vote with your fellow taxpayers for how your dollars are spent. Will your vote carry the same weight at the regional, county, or state level? I think not!

A look at California presages what may happen in Maine under this initiative. Local government exists in name only and the individual’s opportunity to influence they way the government operates is severely diminished while the role of special interests is enhanced.

While I believe the intentions of the initiative are meant to be good for taxpayers, the results are anything but.

Robert A. Peabody Jr. is the town manager of Rockport.