To the editor:
Michael Wise’s September 4, 2024, column proposing that each of the three Berkshire Hills Regional School District (BHRSD) towns implement the residential exemption deserves response.
Mr. Wise argues each town should drastically reduce taxes on most homeowners – nearly all full-time homeowners – to shield them from having to bear any Monument Mountain High School renovation costs. Mr. Wise knows that somebody must pay back the bonds that will be issued to renovate the school, now estimated to cost between $154 million to $183 million. He just wants to make sure that it isn’t local voters, because only voters can approve bond sales.
Mr. Wise is open about who should be left holding the bag – he proposes shifting nearly all costs onto the backs of second homeowners, the one group that (1) cannot use the high school, and (2) cannot vote to oppose the residential exemption. Mr. Wise obviously cares about the high school but not fairness.
One would be hard pressed to come up with a plan more discriminatory than the one Mr. Wise has devised. Mr. Wise wants to pit them (second homeowners) vs. us (resident homeowners) and is asking us to stick it to them. I am asking you to consider the consequences of Mr. Wise’s proposal. And asking you to consider that Mr. Wise sees fit to suggest that our revolutionary towns adopt something completely anathema to our founders – taxing a group without any voice in governance. Think “taxation without representation”!
Mr. Wise is right about the politics of the situation. Renovation was voted down when it was $55 million and voted down again at $51 million. Knowing that there is zero chance that two-thirds of each town’s voters would approve bonds to pay for renovation costs now estimated to be more than three times higher, Mr. Wise had to come up with a workaround to get votes. Throw second homeowners under the bus, he is telling you, for the good of the school. But what will it mean for our communities?
Mr. Wise’s plan is for second homeowners, the group that uses few services while paying additional taxes on personal property, to bear all of the costs. A good plan, if you want to renovate a high school on someone else’s back. A terrible idea for our community. If the BHRSD towns wanted to hang a sign that says, “second homeowners keep out,” this is precisely the way to do it.
Everyone accepts that something needs to be done to educate BHRSD high school students. Other options need to be presented. Burning down our community to renovate the school cannot be the only option considered.
Steven Picheny
Great Barrington
Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.
