Letter: A history lesson on Barrington's senior tax exemption

Posted 11/22/17

To the editor:

This month marks the 53rd anniversary of Barrington's original senior tax exemption. I have now reviewed the full 53 years of town council minutes and dozens of contemporaneous …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Register to post events


If you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here.

Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content.

Day pass subscribers

Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.


Letter: A history lesson on Barrington's senior tax exemption

Posted

To the editor:

This month marks the 53rd anniversary of Barrington's original senior tax exemption. I have now reviewed the full 53 years of town council minutes and dozens of contemporaneous news reports published by the Barrington Times, regarding the exemption. Those materials convincingly refute the town's Johnny-come-lately "interpretation" of the flat exemption for seniors. Space limits do not allow me to share all I found, but here are some highlights.

When the first senior exemption was passed in 1964, it was a flat amount, not dependent on income and with no financial disclosure required from the taxpayer; the only information that the ordinance required was "proof of age, domicile, ownership and occupancy." 

In 1973 the exemption ordinance was amended to provide 2 categories of hardship exemption (which came to be known as "circuit-breaker" exemptions), in addition to continuing the unqualified flat exemption (in a much smaller amount) for all other seniors. The town published a legal notice that only the circuit-breaker exemptions required presentation of proof of income, and that applicants for the flat exemption would continue to receive it "the same as before" — that is, with no financial disclosure. The ordinance has been amended 9 more times since then — each time preserving side-by-side the circuit breaker and flat exemptions, and requiring financial disclosure only from circuit-breaker applicants.

When the amounts (and categories) of the circuit-breaker exemption were increased over the years, the then-tax assessors published legal notices that applicants for the circuit breakers were required to submit new applications, but that "persons who are already receiving the $1500 exemption need not re-apply. If, however, they are eligible for the extended benefits, they must make out the application." 

Why the difference between the 2 applications? Because flat exemptions were not dependent whatsoever on income and did not require financial disclosure (and never have).  

That is the Rosetta stone in this history.

In the mid-70s a senior citizens council reported to the town council that a majority of its members favored repeal of the flat exemption, and substitution of an ordinance that based all senior exemptions on income. The town council rejected that proposal, opting instead for "a $1500 across-the-board exemption, like the one they are receiving now".  

A main reason was that elimination of the unconditional flat exemption would have been "shabby treatment of senior citizens." Yet here we go again in 2017: a reminder that, as Santayana wisely stated, "those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

It is truly remarkable that neither the council minutes nor the Times news reports for 52 years and 9 months contain any mention that financial strings were ever intended to be placed on the entitlement to the flat exemption. It must have been written in invisible ink. Exactly when and where was the current council when it experienced its "revelation"? In any event, they are dead wrong.

It has always been called a "flat exemption" for a reason: it doesn't vary with anything — not the length of time in town, nor increasing age, and certainly not income. All seniors are legally entitled to that exemption, regardless of whether their income is 0 or infinity. That is a complete contrast to the circuit breaker-exemption, which is entirely income-dependent. 

Think about it: how absurd is it for the town to claim that it is entitled to financial information, when that information could have no possible bearing on granting the application? Requiring full income disclosure is no more relevant or justified than if the application asked whether the applicant attends a house of worship, if so which one, and how often.

Does it strike anyone else as presumptuous (to be charitable) that the current council pretends to have discovered the "real meaning" of the senior flat exemption that more than 50 years of prior Council members, Town Solicitors, Tax Assessors and outside auditors all "missed"?

Every single amendment to the senior exemption over the years has broadened it, in recognition of skyrocketing real estate taxes. Does the current council want the infamy of being remembered as the first ones who tried to cut it back, particularly in the face of another break-the-bank town budget?

Never at a loss for revisionist history and rationalizations, the town recently made a last-gasp pitch for complete financial disclosure on the grounds that it would be of assistance in setting future exemption amounts. That "justification" has no legal merit, and does not withstand even minimal scrutiny. 

It is long past time for the council to stop hiding behind its succession of pretenses for shrinking the flat exemption.

Matt Medeiros

Barrington

2024 by East Bay Media Group

Barrington · Bristol · East Providence · Little Compton · Portsmouth · Tiverton · Warren · Westport
Meet our staff
Jim McGaw

A lifelong Portsmouth resident, Jim graduated from Portsmouth High School in 1982 and earned a journalism degree from the University of Rhode Island in 1986. He's worked two different stints at East Bay Newspapers, for a total of 18 years with the company so far. When not running all over town bringing you the news from Portsmouth, Jim listens to lots and lots and lots of music, watches obscure silent films from the '20s and usually has three books going at once. He also loves to cook crazy New Orleans dishes for his wife of 25 years, Michelle, and their two sons, Jake and Max.