To the editor:
Many of you may recall my 25 years as an elected official serving as chairman of the Board of Health and
as a Selectman. Throughout that time and in other volunteer work for the town, I tried to enhance services
but always mindful of the taxpayers. I have supported some tax increases and opposed others based upon
careful analysis.
The proposed three-year override sought by the Select Board was not caused by a revenue shortfall. It was
caused by a spending problem.
Over the past 12 years, Marblehead taxpayers have provided substantial new revenue, well beyond
inflation. Total real estate tax revenue grew from $56.6 million in FY 2014 to $84.9 million in FY 2026, a
50% increase. During that same period, the CPI for Greater Boston rose only 37.6%. More recently, real estate tax bills have increased dramatically. From 2020 to 2026, the median single family tax bill rose by about 46%, significantly outpacing cumulative inflation. These are not small increases; many homeowners are paying thousands of dollars more annually. And if these override pass, homeowners will be shocked when these see their tax bills increase sharply over the next three years.
In the past year, the town has added new positions, even as population growth has been modest (roughly
500 residents since 2012) and public school enrollment has declined sharply from 3,170 students in 2012 to
2,389 today, a nearly 25% drop. Notably, the school department is not seeking tax override funds in the
first year, but is seeking an override for future years based on projections despite the declining enrollment
and a $1.5 million surplus this fiscal year.
A three-year override would lock in major spending increases and create a permanently higher tax base. Under Proposition 21⁄2, this new base would then automatically grow by 2.5% each year without further
voter approval. While the Select Board and Finance Committee have offered a non-binding commitment
not to seek another override during this period, they have been silent about future years.
A multi-year override also removes the incentive for difficult but necessary spending decisions. A one-year
override would have allowed voters to assess results and hold officials accountable.
Questions 1, 2, and 3 should be answered NO.
Question 4 is different. It seeks nearly $2.3 million for trash and solid waste services, even though the only
real increased need is approximately $800,000 for the new trash disposal contract. If approved, the excess
$1.5 million could be used in the future to restore services facing cuts. In the meantime, we can repurpose
untapped funds and other budget amendments.
As there is a short time between the election and the start of the fiscal year on July 1, signatures are being
gathered to call a special Town Meeting which will give the people an opportunity to revisit the budget to
attempt to restore the cuts that now serve as leverage for the massive multi-year proposed override. The
town leaders are banking on approval. I prefer to be ready for all contingencies. This effort is intended to
restore many critical services such as COA, library, Rec & Parks, public works, public safety and others.
Vote NO on Questions 1, 2, and 3. And vote YES on Question 4.
Signs around town say “Love Our Town.” Our town is its people — many on fixed incomes, retirees and
working families who cannot easily absorb large tax increases. We can support essential services while
showing fiscal responsibility.
Carl D. Goodman
Amherst Road
