To the Editor:
Not everyone realizes there’s an election coming up, and even fewer realize that, in addition to a statewide proposition about a ski slope upstate, Goshen has two local propositions on the back of the ballot.
Both propositions were created to do similar things, but one is much larger than the other. Proposition 3 does just one thing, increasing the term for the Highway Superintendent from two to four years. Proposition 2 originally did just one thing, too, extending the Town Clerk’s term to four years as well, but the Town Board added two more things: eliminate the Receiver of Taxes position and merge its duties into the Town Clerk’s office.
My first question was, “Why?” I found the “answers” vague and unconvincing: something about “streamlining,” “efficiency,” and claims of “saving money,” despite the purported savings being significantly more than the Tax Receiver’s salary and budget.
My next question was “Why is Tax Receiver its own office to begin with?” I found that the position is more than just someone that sits at Town Hall collecting checks; they are the person charged with safeguarding the taxpayers’ money and ensuring that, when the town wants to spend it, it is allocated properly and not wasted or misspent. They aren’t just a collector, they’re a protector.
This brings me to my final question: Why would we as a town want to eliminate protections for our tax dollars by eliminating this position while simultaneously asking the already-overburdened Clerk’s Office to take on even more work, when this very same proposition argues the clerk needs twice as much time as they currently have to get everything done? For me, the answer is simple: we shouldn’t. I will be voting no on Proposition 2, and I invite you all to join me in voting against eliminating these protections.
Joshua Koff
Goshen