To the editor:
Language is often used to manipulate. In politics, one who can manipulate language and be successful at achieving a desired effect is highly sought after and outrageously compensated. So, I have been thinking about the latest proposal aimed at addressing the housing problem in Great Barrington—emphatically termed a “transfer fee”—by looking at the semantics involved.
Merriam-Webster defines a fee as, “a fixed charge.” It defines a tax this way: “a charge usually of money imposed by an authority on persons or property for public purposes.” I suppose I will let the reader decide the best description of what is being proposed.
Lets try to make this short and skip the polemic. The fact is that adding yet another tax (yes I’m calling it a tax) to what Great Barrington citizens already endure is a brave proposal, despite its intentions. As for taxing for housing, it has already been pointed out that a tax already exists. Every year, a three percent surcharge of Great Barrington home owners’ taxes, with the exception of the first $100,000 assessed, is set aside for the Community Preservation Fund. To be clear, the entire three percent surcharge is not dedicated to housing but to three separate categories to which it can be applied. A minimum amount of 10 percent must be allocated to open space, historic resources, and community housing (M.G.L. 44B §6), respectively. An additional amount not to exceed five percent is reserved to administer the fund. A quick look will show that up to 75 percent of the funds are eligible for housing purposes.
So, how much money are we talking about? From 2015 to 2023, the CPC has appropriated a total of $7.2 million, of which $2.85 million has been reserved for housing. Quite a good sum of money by any stretch, but consider that just a 60 percent allocation would have resulted in a total appropriation of $4.32 million for housing, nearly double the amount. A 75 percent allocation: $5.4 million. The amount stated that could have been raised by instituting the transfer tax in Fiscal 2022 is $209,000. If that amount was generated over the same nine years, the town could have an extra $1.9 million for housing. Again, not an insignificant amount. Adding the CPC allocation, the town would have had $4.75 million for housing using both programs. Consider, though, if CPC were to allocate 65 percent of the annual fund to housing, it would have resulted in $4.7 million for housing … without asking for citizens to carry an extra cost.
Now, I realize that a one percent “fee” on properties sold for over $1 million is a paltry $10,000, and the polemic is that if you have just racked in $1 million, you could certainly afford it (I just couldn’t help getting into it one way or another). That argument is too shortsighted. For example, how many property owners are debt-free after selling or are free of family obligations to an aging parent or college-age children? There are just too many scenarios that could potentially hurt town property owners, especially generational residents, to justify a one percent tax on top of sales (Stamp) tax, real estate commissions, attorney’s fees, Title V (if applicable), deed fees, and closing costs. These fees alone can total $10,000.
To their credit, the CPC has been judicious with the way they administer the act and, in fact, have been generous with their appropriations towards housing. However, it is in the powers of the Selectboard, the Housing Subcommittee, Planning Board, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and any other interested town administrators to work with the CPC to established programs that would satisfy the commission for a 75 percent allocation towards housing that can be presented at the annual town meeting. I am confident that, with a solid plan, the CPC would step up for housing.
Pedro Pachano
Great Barrington
