There is a little-discussed social compact between opinion columnist and reader. The columnist agrees to identify, analyze, and solve the issue in about a thousand words, and reader agrees to accept or reject, reserving all rights to comment on the idiocy of the analysis. Forgive me, try as I might to keep my end of the bargain, Monument Mountain High School (MMHS) presents knotty challenges, stymieing any hope of solution in just three easy steps. Still, the conversation is worth having.
Since my last column, readers have commented directly and on social media concerning the decaying MMHS and tangential issues, including failing bridges, a failing private water utility, and rising property taxes, each a worrisome pocketbook issue. Let’s save for another day an assessment of how we arrived at a moment where our bridges, high school, and a water utility no longer reliably function, as recrimination will not lead to remedy. Well, one comment is due: It is projection for Great Barrington taxpayers to fault former or current Selectboards, as each board heard your loud pleas that you would gladly defer to tomorrow maintenance due today. You reap what you sow. Tomorrow has arrived in spades. That said, let’s consider solutions as there is no profit in looking back.
Worth consideration is where we stand now and where we go from here. A highly unscientific, truly dubious, but perhaps not nothing recent survey suggests that there would need to be a 30 percent voter swing to pass the bond measure necessary to renovate MMHS, which amounts to about more of the same result from prior efforts.
Current viable and nonviable options include (1) doing nothing, Great Barrington’s decades-long preferred course; (2) doing nothing, letting MMHS become uninhabitable in order that the only option is to tuition-out Great Barrington’s, Stockbridge’s, and West Stockbridge’s high school students to underutilized high schools in Sheffield, Lenox, and Lee; or (3) approving in September 2025 the then-final proposal from the Monument Mountain Regional School Building Committee for an approximately $135 million renovation/rebuild, coupled with a tax break (also known as “red meat”) for most Great Barrington voters. Let’s consider each.
Doing nothing is grand until it isn’t. Doing nothing has finally made Henny Penny look genius: MMHS’s ceilings are in fact falling; its roof is leaking; its HVAC system neither heats nor cools; and the facility is not designed for the needs of a 21st-century education. Doing nothing is not a viable option.
There will be consequences if Great Barrington continues down its do-nothing course. If the town refuses to eat its peas (fund renovation) yet again and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) determines that MMHS is inadequate to effectively teach, DESE can mandate that the Berkshire Hills Regional School District (BHRSD) adopt a renovation plan. DESE did so in Lawrence in 2012, Springfield in 2016, and Boston in 2017. Do I hear Great Barrington in 2026 anyone? Great Barrington, continued obstinance may lead the state to force-feed you an MMHS rehabilitation plan that you will find hard to stomach.
Turning to the non-viable tuitioning-out plan, word around town is that some in Stockbridge hope Great Barrington stays its refusal-to-pay-for-MMHS’s-rehabilitation course, foreseeing an opportunity to disband BHRSD and enabling Stockbridge to tuition-out its approximately 65 students to underutilized area high schools, at a reduced cost of $20,000 per student. Beware of false prophets bearing false promises. While Massachusetts matrimonial law permits no-fault divorce, DESE will not let Stockbridge sever its contractual ties to BHRSD. The Stockbridge proponents are kidding themselves if they think, after being a part of BHRSD during all the good years, that they can just walk out of its marriage to couple with some more attractive, less expensive high school. The state will not let BHRSD be ignored.
The only real option is for Great Barrington to approve the School Building Committee’s approximately $135 million renovation plan. Well, past is prologue, so we know the likelihood of approval is bleak given the town’s refusal to approve the prior $55 million and $51 million plans. Unlikely, that is, unless the majority of Great Barrington voters are offered the opportunity to renovate the school for something less than a 16 percent tax increase. Residents have said that they favor renovation of the high school and would feel sick about losing it, but the simple fact is that there is no room in their personal budget for a tax increase to pay for it. Understandably, food and shelter come first.
But there may be a path forward. Town Moderator Michael Wise laid out in a series of Federalist Paper-like Berkshire Edge columns an argument for passage of a homestead exemption. In two columns on March 31, 2015 (found here and here), and another on May 21, 2015 (found here), Mr. Wise argued that Great Barrington’s property tax should be progressive, shifting the impact from lower-valued homes toward more expensive properties, including second homes. According to Mr. Wise, a fixed amount would be deducted from assessed value—up to 35 percent—to determine a home’s taxable value. Below the set “break-even” assessed value, taxes would decrease; for homes above the “break-even” value, homeowners would pay more, making up for the discount. The tax-collection pie remains the same, while the slices for the majority would be smaller. And if you are counting votes, the tax decrease created to make school renovation affordable would go to about two-thirds of Great Barrington voters, a wise idea.
Chip Elitzer responded to Mr. Wise’s argument in a series of Anti-Federalist Paper-like Berkshire Edge columns (found here, here, and here). Mr. Elitzer is a worthy opponent. Fair to say, there are good arguments on both sides.
If you care about losing control of MMHS, Mr. Wise’s proposal deserves renewed consideration, although it is not without its detractors. While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with progressive taxation, the foundation of federal taxation, some reasonably believe it is fundamentally wrong to shift a tax burden on to second-home owners precluded from voting in Great Barrington. While Mr. Wise is surely not attempting a King George-like taxation plan, at least one war has been fought over taxation without representation. Second-home owners add to the economy and vibrancy of our community without utilizing significant town services, so taxing them further is not a great look. I agree with those who feel we should welcome second-home owners and am grateful for their contribution to the community. But I also agree with those who cannot contemplate a future without a local high school.
Another basis to oppose Mr. Wise’s plan is that the residential exemption would increase the tax burden on landlords, who would pass on their tax increase to renters. But Mr. Wise has a plan for that. Through a Home Rule petition, Provincetown was able enact special legislation to couple its progressive homestead exemption with a carve-out exemption for rental properties with full-time residents. Mr. Wise drafted a version of the Provincetown legislation to ensure that the adoption of a homestead exemption would not cause rents for permanent residents to increase. Mr. Wise would need to pull this plan out of the drawer.
It might be time for Mr. Wise and Mr. Elitzer to get back into the ring. Mr. Wise could dust off his 2015 arguments and proposed legislation, and Mr. Elitzer, assuming he continues to oppose the homestead exemption despite the high school’s desperate renovation needs, could renew his challenge to Mr. Wise’s proposal. It is unlikely they will be able to hash things out, but their debate should inform Great Barrington voters on how to proceed.
Of the three options on the table, Mr. Wise’s homestead exemption coupled with legislation protecting rents appears the most reasonable and best suited to turn Great Barrington’s knee-jerk “no” to “yes” when it comes time to vote in September 2025, but we need to hear what Mr. Elitzer thinks about that. However, we need to consider if it is fathomable to pass on increased high school renovation costs to second-home owners, a group that cannot utilize the high school nor vote to oppose renovation. And we need to consider if there is a fourth option, although none is currently apparent. It is complicated.
Survey Monkey Questions
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Would you favor renovating Monument Mountain High School if the Great Barrington Selectboard at the fall 2024 tax classification hearing voted to implement a homestead exemption and seek a Home Rule petition to protect permanent residents from a rent increase?”
Survey Monkey Results
A recent column asked the following survey question: “Do you believe today that come September 2025 you will be willing to pay approximately sixteen percent more in property taxes to fund the to-be-proposed renovation/addition or new construction of Monument Mountain High School?”
As of publication, 63.89 percent of respondents said “no.” As a point of reference, 66.67 percent of residents would need to vote “yes” to approve a bond measure to finance renovation of Monument Mountain High School, a swing of about 30 percent.
Days Great Barrington has held Community Access Fees hostage: 136.
