‘Forests don't drive; cows don't go to school'

To the editor: As most probably know by now, a proposal for a real-estate transfer tax is coming up for a vote in November; its purpose is to allow our town to continue protecting open space from runaway development. This measure is strongly supported by Town and Village elected officials and citizens of all stripes from young to old, conservative to liberal. But a small group of opponents, often using harsh language, have tried to scare Warwick voters into thinking that the real estate transfer tax is just another burdensome tax on Warwick residents. And this is simply not true, for a whole set of reasons. 1. The real estate transfer tax is NOT paid by Warwick residents; it’s paid by those buying new homes in Warwick. 2. And it is not paid again and again, like taxes usually are; it’s a one-time fee. 3. Further, instead of billing Warwick residents, the transfer tax brings them benefits - and does so every time someone buys into Warwick. The money goes into a fund to protect our remaining open space. 4. This benefit, moreover, helps right an existing wrong. Right now, without the real estate transfer tax, people buying houses in new developments add to all of our property tax burdens, year after year after year. Our money goes in other peoples’ pockets, while supporting the very development that is raising our taxes. And we get nothing back.. With the real estate transfer tax, we will at long last get something back. Newcomers will make at least some contribution to preserving the Warwick they are helping develop. 5. And the open space preserved with newcomers’ dollars helps control school taxes. Forests don’t drive, requiring new roads; cows don’t go to school. 6. Finally, throughout the life of the transfer tax, all residents remaining in their Warwick homes will continue to pay absolutely nothing as the real estate transfer tax preserves land, asks developers and newcomers to help pay the real costs of development, and helps control property taxes. The only instance opponents have raised in which Warwick residents might bear any costs is if someone should sell their property and a buyer (having agreed to the sales price) objects (not to the mortgage tax or any other fee) but just to this particular tax. Everybody else clearly benefits. But even this possibility is highly unlikely. As many have testified, real estate transfer taxes increase a community’s desirability. As surrounding communities are developed without the protection the transfer tax affords, demand for homes in a protected Warwick will go up. In the short run, people will know they’re buying into a community that won’t suddenly change on them, as many places do. In the long run, the saved open space dramatically will increase Warwick’s desirability compared to its competition. People opposing the transfer tax are trying to argue a weak case; thus the harsh language. They are trying to get us to vote directly against our interests. They are trying to get us to vote against BOTH our quality of life, AND our economic interests. Fred Buell Warwick