This pertains only to Sturbridge.
Tom Creamer’s blog post is actually titled just, Revoking the Community Preservation Act. His blog post demonstrates that revoking the CPA cannot lower the local tax burden, but it could raise it.
I’ll just quote part of his third paragraph.
…it is not a CPA spending crisis that is facing the Town of Sturbridge, but rather a town-wide borrowing crisis brought on by all too many projects being approved at Town Meeting by the Legislative Branch of government – those residents (approximately 4.5%) who vote Town Meeting – of which I am one.
In a later paragraph, he states the effect of revoking the CPA:
…but the fact remains that the tax burden will not lessen, as the current debt does not simply disappear, nor does it prevent any further spending or borrowing by revoking it. Again, it merely eliminates a source of potential funding from the state.
Can it be any more blunt? Revoking the CPA will make matters worse as far as tax burden goes if we keep adding projects at Town Meeting. There is nothing we can do to reduce the tax burden already agreed to by previous Town Meetings. We can lessen the future increases in tax burden only by what the town decides to do in future Town Meetings.
I have taken these paragraphs from Tom’s post to highlight because I believe these paragraphs cut to the heart of what he is saying. Tom has a style that I enjoy when he writes. However, that style might lead you to the wrong conclusion as to the point he is making if you read only the first few paragraphs. If you read the whole thing, I think you will see that I have fairly represented the point his post makes.