Agreed. Vote No. Makes no sense.

David, I am glad you wrote this letter. My husband and I want a Senior Tax Relief that can support all retirees in Sudbury. I am disappointed that this effort will not solve the problem. I agree, that what we don't want, is for you to move and have another young family come into Sudbury. Moreso, I don't want any seniors to have to move from their homes if they want to stay. This is your home.

agree with David. no asset test another reason to vote no.

I agree! Vote NO! To many flaws in this-

As a new family to Sudbury, with children, I also agree. Seniors with lower incomes and assets below a certain level (not including their primary Sudbury home) should have tax relief.

Beyond the obvious reasons, one reason would be to stop the passive aggressive negativity I've received from a few seniors. It's almost like they are mad at my family. Most seem to have forgotten that they too moved into Sudbury as young families. I just wonder what the seniors thought of them back then.

David,

Zillow.com shows your house as a 3,700 square foot house worth over $900,000. Surely you don't think it's reasonable that others in Sudbury should support your decision to live an outsized lifestyle that you apparently can't afford? Take out a reverse mortgage or move to a home you can afford. I'm completely supportive of senior tax support for those that need it-but not those that choose to live in a house THAT IS BIGGER AND WORTH MORE THAN HALF THE OTHERS IN TOWN.

An amorphous "law" with arbitrary thresholds and unchecked human control, cleaving the population into favored/unfavored categories, is creating social divisiveness and unintended consequences -- what a surprise.

from the nation to the local level there is a war on young people and the young people are not winning.

This tax exemption program is not a solution to the financial problems this town is experiencing. It's more of a band aid that is masking the larger problem and that is the ongoing mismanagement of tax revenue and the balance of residential property development. Creating tax exemptions, entitlements or handouts never addresses a solid resolution for the underlying root cause of the financial problem. Unfortunately, the seniors are the first to feel the brunt of irresponsible tax revenue spending. Next will be the families’ struggling to pay their mortgages and taxes. This will continue to force more residents to move out of town. We should be more focused on why the taxes are too high for everyone and work toward reducing the town’s expenses dollar by dollar. We should be focused on why we continue to allow development of residential properties that increases school enrollment for school systems that are overcrowded and underfunded (according to school officials). We should be focused on school staff compensation/contracts that appear to be excessive compared to other towns. We should be focused on why the management or the town and schools are incapable of operating within a budget. A vote in support of this ballot question sends a message the residents are willing to pay more taxes without any concerns of how tax revenue is spent in Sudbury. Follow the money and fix the cause of this financial beast.

@ Mr Gross - I do not believe selling an existing home and buying another home in Sudbury would violate the residency requirement. I could be wrong here but residency can be documented.

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

The stealthy cold hand of socialism reaches Sudbury. The town will become a magnet for 'disadvantaged' seniors... why save when Sudbury will help finance your lifestyle?

Younger folks will find the lower tax rates of neighboring towns more attractive. The laws of economics regarding incentives and disincentives will not be suspended just so a few can have a warm and fuzzy feeling in Sudbury.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

PMTW, follow the money? I have not yet seen any proof of 'mismanagement' of monies here in Sudbury. Rather as I have read and understand we have had outside audits, reported in the paper, and we still have retained a Triple A rating. If you know about finance, Triple A in these times are important in order to borrow. If Sudbury didn't have a positive rating, you may then argue we are 'mismanaged'. Absent that proof, I think you are grasping at straws. Go back and take a finance course and understand how municipal governments are regulated, then come back with actual proof, maybe then you will sound credible. Short of that, this is simply another angry comment. In large supply by a small group of commentors. If you don't have a solution, you are part of the problem. I think Groucho Marx said that.

Bond ratings measure the ability to pay obligations. Here is a primer from the S&P:
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?articleType=HTML&assetID=1245341527254

VOTES ARE IN SENIOR TAX RELIEF WINS BY 2-1 MARGIN