By now, it is widely known that the recent Plymouth Town Meeting passed, by a vote of 64 to 47, an increase in restaurant meals tax from 6.25% to 7%. Under Article's terms, the revenue from the increase would be returned to the Town and used exclusively for funding the Town's 400th Anniversary celebration and infrastructure improvements to Town Square, Burial Hill and Court Square.
Subsequently, a petition drive was successful in garnering the required number of signatures to bring the question to a popular vote. A special election is now scheduled for January 14, 2012 to allow the voters to decide the issue. Sound familiar? It should as we went down this same path two years ago, albeit lacking specific fund uses, and it was voted down by a four to one margin.
With the election a few months away, and the busy holidays upon us, it is probably too early to get into a full blown discussion of the issues. But be assured that both the Pro and Con camps are ramping up their campaigns. In the aftermath of the successful petition drive, there has been some finger-pointing and tongue clucking (hopefully not at the same time)concerning the cost of holding a special election.
In an October 18th letter from the Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce to all Town Meeting members, the Chamber, on behalf of 70% of its members requested a No vote on the tax. In addition, the Board of Selectmen had voted unanimously against the proposal. In spite of these signals, and with the definitive vote of two years ago fresh in every one's mind,the proponents apparently thought that the specific uses for the money would change voters' minds even as anti-tax activists made it clear that they intended a petition challenge should the increase be passed by Town Meeting. It was and it was and now we are looking at a special election, which according to Town Clerk Larry Pizer, will cost the Town between $32 and $34 thousand.
But just as we would defend the Articles sponsor's right to re-introduce a previously rejected tax proposal, we also defend the voters' right to have the final say. There was ample previous notice of this reaction. So somewhere right after New Years, be prepared to be inundated with arguments pro and con. But remember, the issue is not one of procedure, but rather the merits of the proposal itself. Let the games begin.
