Dear Voter,
In my first letter to the editor, I introduced myself, provided an overview of my track record as city councilor, and talked a bit about my leadership style. In this final, two-part letter, I’d like to first discuss the tremendous progress Westfield has made and my approach for building on that progress. After that, I would like to take an opportunity to rebut the misinformation and flawed logic forwarded by one of my opponents in his recent letter to the Westfield News.
Part I: On Continuing Westfield’s Progress
When I first moved to Westfield in 2002, an acquaintance of mine asked, “Why would you ever want to live in Westfield?” Now, after fifteen years of living Westfield, I don’t get that kind of reaction any more. Instead, I hear all the time how outsiders are remarking on all the great progress Westfield has made over the past several years.
Despite what other candidates are trying to argue, my experience in meeting with well over one thousand voters is that a large majority Westfield residents feel the same way. Namely, that the quality of life here in Westfield is substantially better than it was a couple of decades ago. We’ve seen the completion of a second bridge over the Westfield river; the near completion of the rail trail; improvements to many major intersections, buildings and utility infrastructure, athletic fields, and recreational facilities; and our downtown is starting to come around as well. Decades of neglect are getting reversed.
But best of all, I see a huge surge in the people doing the heavy lifting of building our community. These are the people who believe in Westfield enough to devote their time, energy and resources to organize all the wonderful events and activities available to our residents. As a result, our city is booming with stuff to do and see. This is a wonderful community to raise a family in.
Westfield still has its share of flaws and we’ve had some setbacks. But if we are going to overcome our challenges, we can’t let them consume and enrage us. The politics of division, anger, and pettiness should not find a home in Westfield.
But still, some candidates have the idea that painting Westfield in the light of doom, gloom and dysfunction is the best way forward. They promulgate myths that Westfield is on the verge of financial collapse, that our water is poisoned, and that their local elected officials are neglecting the will of the people and working in secret against the best interests of its citizens and the city.
I consider their style of politics to be harmful to a constructive, solution-oriented approach to governance. Moreover, it grossly misleads the public as to our true state of affairs. I absolutely reject this kind of political demagoguery. Instead, I firmly believe that the best way to solve our common problems is to unite and work together to tackle them. In order to do that, we must continue to focus on all the opportunities before us, invent new ones, and seize them to the best of our ability just as we have done over the last couple of decades to make all the progress we have made. And so I stand squarely with the believers who are doing their best to build Westfield up, not tear it down. They know the proper way forward.
Part II: Response to Matt Emmershy’s Letter to the Editor
Throughout my first term in office and during this campaign, I have avoided public conflicts with others and I have always sought to engage in respectful and honest debate. There comes a point, though, when the disinformation becomes so egregious that something simply has to be said before very wrong and misguided ideas take firm root. After reading Matt Emmershy’s letter to the editor, which appeared in Saturday’s Westfield News, this is one of those times that I feel compelled to respond.
I want to be clear that I am not attacking Mr. Emmershy’s character. I respect Mr. Emmershy for taking the time and energy to run for city council. But that’s simply not enough to qualify him for the job. In my comments that follow, I will focus strictly on his lack of track record and his many erroneous and, frankly, irresponsible statements. I also am not accusing Mr. Emmershy of being purposefully deceitful. I’m sure Mr. Emmershy believes, and is passionate about, everything he says. But as we all know, belief and passion in an idea is often a far cry from what is true and real.
First, as to Mr. Emmershy’s track record, there’s not much to say because there is none. Mr. Emmershy has not served on a commission or board in Westfield, nor has any involvement in any organization in Westfield outside of his own narrow political and financial interests. Instead, Mr. Emmershy’s campaign fortunes rely entirely on the heavy promotion and assistance received from another candidate with considerable name recognition as a result of his running five times for elected office within a span of just four years.
I would like to suggest that Mr. Emmershy should consider taking on a smaller role in our community and accumulate at least a few minor accomplishments to demonstrate his desire and ability to help our community succeed before seeking election to the city council.
Regarding Mr. Emmershy’s recent letter to the editor, there is a lot of ground to cover, but I’ll do my best to be succinct.
AQUIFER CONTAMINATION
Mr. Emmershy attempts to paint a picture of the city being slow to respond and not doing enough to protect residents from the contamination of wells #7 and #8. He makes many misleading statements and factual errors to make the situation out to be much worse than it is.
Emmershy claim: “The bond for water filtration project was only authorized only about a month ago”
The fact is, Mayor Sullivan came to the city council in November of last year with the proposal for the bond for a filtration system. The bond was passed by the city council in its second reading on January 19, 2017, which was almost ten months ago.
Emmershy claim: “The EPA lowered the allowable levels.”
Actually, the EPA has no legal “allowable levels” for PFOA and PFOS. What the EPA issued was a lower “lifetime health advisory” for these chemicals on May 19, 2016.
These advisories are not enforceable by federal law. They are merely the EPA’s recommendations based on the best available scientific evidence and are based on extremely conservative estimates and worst case scenarios of water consumption over the course of a lifetime.
The city responded very quickly to the lower advisory contaminant concentrations. Within two weeks of the EPA’s change, the city took out a large ¾ page ad and released information to news organization to explain what it was doing to prevent the contamination from entering the public water supply.
Emmershy claim: “We simply continue to put our water in jeopardy while we wait for resolution.”
Emmershy’s scare tactic is simply not true. All wells currently supplying the city are well below the health advisory limits. We continue to monitor all public wells for contamination. Private well owners, which are not overseen by the city, are getting their water tested for free and those found exceeding advisory limits will receive a filtration system from the state at no cost to homeowners.
According to the best scientific evidence available, there is no great risk to the public. However, no risk is better than even a tiny risk and so the city is taking all necessary precautions with as much speed as possible to ensure the integrity of our public water supply.
We also need to take the time to ensure the filtration system we install works and works well. This project is a complex one. Qualified professionals have carefully studied other filtration systems for these kinds of contaminants to ensure that what we install will work effectively. The job is expected to be finished in the spring. In the meantime, I want to emphasize there is no danger to the community while we wait for it to be installed.
It’s grossly irresponsible for Mr. Emmershy to claim the city did not respond quickly and appropriately to the contamination and for him to suggest that we are putting our water “in jeopardy.” This is simply not the case.
LEVY CEILING
By law, the city of Westfield cannot raise more tax revenue than 2.5% of the total assessed value of all the properties in Westfield. This value is called the “levy ceiling.” Mr. Emmershy raises the specter of Westfield hitting the levy ceiling and attempts to argue that we must implement service cuts it in order to avoid it.
Emmershy claim: “We will be hitting the levy ceiling in a few years.”
This is completely false. During the Great Recession, the total assessed value of all the city’s properties fell. As a result, out levy ceiling fell, too. In 2011, our levy ceiling hit it’s peak of $79.3. In 2014, the levy ceiling bottomed out at $76.2 million. For the following two years, property values started rising again but not very fast and in 2016, the levy ceiling was just $76.2 million. And so the reason we drew closer to the levy ceiling was not as a result of our “tax and spend” ways as Mr. Emmershy claims, but because property values fell because of the recession.
But with the recovering economy, property values have started rising much more sharply and today the levy ceiling is now at $77.7 million. Next year, the levy ceiling will probably be over $79 million based on gains in the residential property values (about 2%) which lags the market by two years and so will actually be based on 2016 numbers. Since the assessed property values lags by two years, the total property valuations will continue to increase for at least another two years as we enjoyed a much more robust economy recently. And all signs are that housing prices are sharply increasing right now. While no one knows for sure, it’s a pretty safe bet our levy ceiling will be well above $80 million in 2020. And so there’s actually a very good chance we will actually be further away from the levy ceiling in a few years, not closer to it. There is absolutely no need to panic.
It’s also important to note that we have been close of the levy ceiling in the past. But the problem was solved with no intervention on our part simply because property values started to climb again as they inevitably do and have done since Westfield was incorporated in 1669.
And it also makes absolutely no sense to argue we must make service cuts now in order to avoid service cuts in the future. That would be like saying the best way to prevent gangrene in a healthy foot is to chop it off so you’ll never have to worry about getting gangrene.
TAXES
Promises of tax reductions and/or reduced tax increases have been the go-to argument for Emmershy and candidates like him. To be sure, it’s a smart political move as it’s an easy way to win a lot of votes from many residents who are feeling economically pinched.
Inevitably, however, their arguments are full of huge holes and never paint a complete picture about the reality of the situation: you can’t save residents massive amounts of money on their tax bill without massive cuts and degradation of quality in the services residents rely on. They also never mention the simple fact that the cost of everything goes up, year after year, as a result of inflation and other market forces completely beyond the city’s control.
I’m all for giving a tax break if I think we can afford it and I voted for the 0% tax increase last year. I will likely support the mayor’s FY 18 proposed budget reductions this year, too. But I also have a responsibility to ensure the city funds its many vital services. It’s a responsibility I take very seriously.
Unfortunately, not all candidates do. For example, there was this wild claim from Emmershy’s letter to the editor: “Westfield continues to spend far more than it takes in. On average we have been spending $3-4 million more every year than we take in.”
This statement makes absolutely no sense and is not one any serious candidate would ever make. By state law, municipalities cannot spend more than they budget each year. The city also cannot print its own money so I’m not sure where Mr. Emmershy thinks we are getting this money from. Perhaps Mr. Emmershy meant something else here, but I can’t begin to imagine what.
CLOSING STATEMENT
Though many candidates try to pretend otherwise, the challenges before Westfield are nuanced and complicated. There are no easy answers and there are no magic bullets. Finding solutions to these complex problems takes a lot of effort, thoughtfulness, and above all, the ability to cooperate and bring people together to work on them. It’s easy to pretend you’ve got all the answers and you’ll always find people to fool into thinking that you do, but it’s quite another skill to be able to work toward and implement real-world solutions.
At the end of the day, helping run a government is a serious responsibility because it affects the lives of real people. We need elected officials who are willing to do their homework, state the facts as accurately as they can, and then be able to look voters in the eye and tell them the truth, and not just what they want to hear in order to win on election day.
And so if you are looking for a candidate who takes the responsibility of governing seriously, I hope you will vote to re-elect me, Steve Dondley, on November 7th.
