Why ‘No’ is ‘Pro’
Good government is not a zero-sum game. Good decisions are not made in silos.
Voting ‘No’ on a $212,000,000 municipal project does not mean you’re ‘anti-schools, ‘anti-kids’ or ‘anti’-anything. It means you’re balancing priorities and thinking holistically.
With Question 1, ‘No’ is also ‘Pro’.
Pro Accountability: The process to revise the Pierce plan would have to begin with a budget (sadly lacking before) and include better fiscal oversight.
Pro Sustainability: Extra-large new schools contradict Town climate goals and cost too much to operate and maintain (note: fossil fuel free is not energy free). Those costs have a direct fiscal impact on educators, and on other Town / School programs and services.
Pro Affordability: More than half of Brookline residents are renters, and our rental cost burden statistics are discouraging. If Pierce passes, then landlords, seniors on fixed incomes, and all residential property owners will face a 5% tax increase for 25 years. The rising cost of living in Brookline is a barrier to economic diversity, making us more elite and less inclusive.
Are you Pro ice rink? Pro outdoor pool? Pro clean energy infrastructure? How about safe roads, sidewalks, and bike lanes? Do you want rodent control and clean parks? Are you Pro investment in public housing?
All of these needs are inter-connected. If we overspend in one place, it will have ripple effects. There may be different funding buckets in Brookline, but there’s only one well.
When taking a broad view, voters can rest assured they’re doing no harm by voting ‘No’ on Q1. Spend Smart supports improvements at Pierce, but we need a plan that’s better for Brookline.
Please vote No on Tuesday, May 2nd. Read more here.