Submitted by Brian Raabe
In their letter published on Greenwich Free Press Monday morning (BET Republicans Protected Taxpayers From a 6% Tax Hike) BET Republicans crowed about “protecting” Greenwich Residents from a burdensome tax increase.
They state, “Given that Connecticut already ranks among the top ten states with the highest tax and energy cost burdens, such an increase would have further strained our community members.”
We all want to manage the town’s tax burden to residents conservatively, but why would the BET Republican’s cite the state in total in referring to Greenwich “straining” under a tax burden – instead of our specific mill rate – other than to confuse?
The only town in the State of Connecticut with a lower mill rate than Greenwich is Salisbury.
How many people live in Salisbury?
4,000.
How many people live in Greenwich?
More than 60,000.
One could reasonably argue that the demand for services, including for education and the elderly, is higher in Greenwich than that of a rural town in Litchfield.
Yet our mill rates are nearly equal, and far below that of neighboring towns.
Saying we are “straining” under a “burden” is incorrect in context. Do we want to maintain a low tax rate, yes.
“Straining” when our mill rate is similar to a town 1/15 our size?”
Again, move to a Mayor and Council governance structure for Greenwich.
Abolish a BET that won’t correctly frame an issue, and won’t fully fund education.