THE TAX MAN

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

The front page article in Friday’s paper titled “Tisbury’s Taxes Sharply Higher” may have given the casual reader the impression that Tisbury’s taxes will be sharply higher. In fact, while our 2011 taxes will be higher, the 14.5 per cent increase cited in the article applies to the tax rate, not to our tax bills. In 2011, even if our tax bills were to stay exactly the same as in 2010, our tax rate would be seven per cent higher. How is this possible?

It’s possible because the tax rate expresses your tax bill as millage rate per thousand dollars of real estate value. If the value of real estate goes down, the millage rate has to go up to produce the same tax revenue.

Your real estate tax bill is your share of the cost of running our local government. Ignoring the complexities of the commercial versus residential rate or the residents’ discount, the overall millage rate equals the total cost of town government divided by the total real estate value.

In Tisbury, the value of appraised real estate has fallen seven per cent in aggregate, so the tax rate would have to rise seven per cent, even if there were no change in the cost of town government.

In our case, the cost of town government — schools, police, fire, public works — will rise next year just under eight per cent. As a result, the average tax bill will also rise just under eight per cent. The construction of the fire station will add to the cost of government this year and for the next several years until other town bonds are paid off. Also, falling state funding means we carry more of the cost of education, and rising health care costs have increased the costs of benefits for current and retired employees.

The increase in the millage rate of just under seven per cent plus the 7.8 per cent increase in the cost of running the town give that alarming millage rate increase of 14.5 per cent, but the average tax bill will increase 7.8 per cent. That is a significant number, driven in part by factors outside the town’s control. What we can control is what we vote on at town meeting and in the ballot box.

In Tisbury and on the Island as a whole, we have had the proverbial seven fat years, and we are now in the middle of the lean years. We can’t depend on outside sources like the state to help us cover the cost of living here.

No one likes a 7.8 per cent tax hike, and, at the same time, every proposal to reduce the cost of running the town will have vocal opposition. Looking at the budget for the fiscal year ending June 2012, every town department will have to look hard for places to control expenses and, where necessary, do without.

Jon Snyder

Vineyard Haven

THE COMCAST MONOPOLY

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

I don’t have cable from Comcast. Instead, I have the much more cumbersome apparatus of satellite TV on my roof. I had no choice: Comcast wanted $4,000 to run the cable from the nearest junction, approximately 600 feet away, to my house.

As our community moves toward renewing a long-term franchise with a company whose community service is more spin than reality, I urge those in charge of making this grant to bear the following in mind:

• Comcast has a cable monopoly here. Accordingly, it has no incentive to wire the more remote and difficult residential properties. The proper business model is razor blades. As Gillette practically gives its razors away in order to secure the continuous purchase of its highly profitable blades, so, too, must Comcast be impressed that it is its obligation to provide its infrastructure (the wiring), within a reasonable period of time, to anyone who wants to subscribe to its service. Its infrastructure is its own capital investment, not that of its subscribers.

• At this point in the development of our technological world, companies like Comcast, even though they are not regulated by the Public Service Commission, are, clearly, quasi-public utilities. TV service and Internet bandwidth are not frills; they are essentials. Imagine what it would be like if our legacy utilities refused to extend their services to difficult properties. Like a regulated public utility, Comcast is a provider of essential services; it cannot provide those services unless it has installed the infrastructure.

• Why should Comcast be granted a 10-year renewal anyway? In terms of technological change, five years is an eternity. A shorter term would, one hopes, not only concentrate Comcast’s mind on its actual responsibility to the community rather than on its public relations campaigns designed to persuade us about its corporate bona fides (such as its subvention of MVTV, which, of course, only Comcast subscribers can receive), but it would also encourage competition.

• Pricing. Subscribing to cable or satellite TV is like taking out an adjustable mortgage whose rates are increased once and even twice a year. When I told my previous satellite provider that I would not accept its second four per cent increase within a 12-month period, it shut me down. I hadn’t failed to pay. But that’s how it dealt with a consumer who noticed, and objected to, its business practices. Within a month of shutting me down, said satellite provider had the unmitigated gall to proposition me to come back with its promotional teaser rate.

As matters stand, the pricing of these services, as in any monopoly, is unrestrained. Once one has subscribed, the provider counts on customer inertia taking over and has no compunction about raising rates both automatically and frequently. If one complains, the response is “Our costs of supplying you with 200 channels of absolutely nothing have increased.” If that claim is taken seriously it means little other than the company cannot manage its own business without balancing its books on the backs of its subscribers — often.

In the absence of other regulatory means, we must insist on greater price increase oversight.

Moreover, why must we accept packages of channels that are mostly dross, while being told at the same time that we cannot have, e.g., HBO, on an á la carte basis? Does anyone think that these “packages” are divinely sorted? Or that á la carte provision of channels is not possible?

Beware of the “our system doesn’t permit us to do this” excuse. If it doesn’t, yet enables Comcast to sort its offerings into packages that few (any?) want, then it has no business vaunting its technology.

Finally, those in charge need to beware of Comcast’s legions of lawyers and spokespersons. Their mission is to secure franchise renewal for their employer. At the moment, cable subscribers are a captive audience on Martha’s Vineyard. The only way out of this improvident situation is to fashion a franchise renewal that subdues Comcast’s altogether natural tendencies and promotes the possibility of competition.

Nicholas W. Puner

West Tisbury

•

SOPHIST REASONING

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

Bettye Baker’s contention that the “not insignificant” basis for the midterm election outcome was “the issue of race” is Sophist reasoning at its finest. She further remarks “the root of opposition against the president was white working-class anger, disappointment and an inability to accept an African American president.”

I suppose her position is based on the recent discovery that Obama is 50 per cent black and 50 per cent white by those evil racist “white working-class” voters. Did he get 53 per cent of the 2008 vote by somehow hiding his biracial background??

I do not like nor do I support Obama’s policies; I’m sure Ms. Baker would consider me prejudiced. I will admit I am prejudiced against Obama but I’m just as tainted against his white Irish vice president Joe Biden. I consider myself politically color-blind. Considering her race-based article, can Ms. Baker say the same?

Mike Patrician

Clarks Summit, Pa.

•

THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

The Gazette does not fail to surprise me each week. Once again, I read a column that not only insults readers but misinterprets the facts. Bettye Foster Baker’s piece is just the latest installment of an apparent policy by the paper to publish ad hominem attacks on citizens who do not support the president.

Mrs. Baker blames the Democrats’ historic nationwide election losses on racism, mistruths and distortions by Republicans and those terrible Tea Party folks as well as Mr. Obama’s failure to communicate effectively. She writes that in this “political season, where facts don’t matter,” Democrat candidates were overwhelmed by negative attacks from mysterious sources.

The truth is, liberal groups and unions spent far more than conservative groups. She celebrates the job “this brilliant president” has done, ignoring the numbers; he has added more debt than every president from Washington to Bush — in only two years! And Mrs. Baker wants him to keep on spending. Meanwhile, millions promised jobs from the stimulus bills remain unemployed and the economy continues to be fragile. Businesses are terrified of Mr. Obama and will sit out until his agenda is moderated.

Over the past several months we, the loyal opposition, have been called racists, bigots, potential assassins, ethnocentric, shrill and disruptive by the Gazette and some op-ed writers. Polls clearly show most Americans like President Obama; we just oppose his policies. Why is this so hard for some Democrats and liberals to understand? What happened to debating major issues of the day fostered by a free and open press? I concede that the majority of Islanders are Democrats, but certainly discussing the issues is far better than hurling demeaning insults at your neighbors. I cannot be the only reader who feels this way.

I propose that the Gazette introduce a conservative columnist/op-ed writer to add balance to the paper. Even The New York Times and The Boston Globe attempt to accommodate all points of view. I am confident that your readers would welcome such a change and I offer my services.

Except for a few blue states, including Massachusetts, Americans spoke loudly and clearly on Nov. 2. Republicans won a huge victory, taking back seats in the Senate and the most seats in the House since 1938. A map of the country, published in major papers, shows a dramatic swing since 2008; it is now overwhelmingly red. Can all those people be racists? Or could they possibly comprehend Mr. Obama’s agenda and reject it?

Please, let’s agree to talk about our problems. Resorting to harassment and intimidation is not the way forward. We live in difficult times and we need to address the issues, not attack one another.

Peter B. Robb

Holliston and Oak Bluffs

•

MOMENT OF TRUTH

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

Did Nick Van Nes actually call for the execution of President George W. Bush? I know the Island is very liberal, and there are many strong viewpoints among both sides, but execution?

Mr. Van Nes may wish to tone down his rhetoric because in case he does not know it, the Secret Service visit our Island on a regular basis and they could misconstrue his insane comments as a threat to the White House. No doubt Bush had his faults, but to call for his execution speaks to the planet that Mr. Van Nes is from.

As for the Gazette giving the podium to someone like this, I question their biases as well as their common sense. Who’s next? The KKK? Promoting hatred is not good for business Mr. Publisher!

Nick Bischoff

West Tisbury