Double-dipping to feed the elephant

To the Editor:
    The following responds to Dr. Fernow’s Feb. 25 letter to this paper. Apparently she felt compelled to personally attack me for caring about Dover-Foxcroft taxpayers and the increased financial burden that will be imposed on the town citizens if and when The Maine Highlands Senior Center becomes operational.

    The Central Hall Business Plan clearly shows a negative impact on Dover taxpayers, thereby revealing a questionable cost-benefit ratio for the town’s citizens.
    Perhaps the doctor needs to be reminded that the town of Dover-Foxcroft already has a bonded indebtedness exceeding $6.5 million.
    Again, citing the Central Hall Business Plan of Oct. 15, 2012, the projected budget requirements propose the town of Dover-Foxcroft taxpayers ante-up an additional $18,000 subsidy for the first year of operation. That number increases to $31,000 the second year, and $34,000 will be needed for the third year. These numbers could well place an unsustainable demand on tax revenues for which the purpose of general taxation was never intended.
    No one denies that the existence of such a center wouldn’t be “socially useful” but the economics of the enterprise simply don’t lie. Wish lists and dream projects are wonderful to entertain but financial reality simply cannot be ignored.
    Apparently Dr. Fernow has chosen to disregard the (MHSC) Business Plan and her agenda appears to outweigh the needs of the people paying the town’s bills.
    The Central Hall Business Plan does not reflect contributions derived from taxation in any of Dover’s neighboring towns or by other communities whose seniors may choose to use (MHSC) services.
    She referred to the value of Mayo Hospital to the region, and no one would deny that fact, but Dover residents are not taxed to support it. People needing those medical services pay for them. The town provides a subsidy to the hospital through its property-tax-free status, just as it will for Central Hall.
    Wouldn’t property tax relief coupled with additional taxing requirements on Dover’s citizens be considered “double dipping” into the town’s treasury?
    Further, stretching the term for, and generally accepted concept of “community” (as normally applied to an individual town) to include other, neighboring villages with their individual taxing structure, common social, economic and political interests, may satisfy various grant authorities but attempting to lump together a number of regional towns into a single community is an impossibility.
    Then, to extract tax revenues from one town in order to support the activities of residents from other non-financially supporting towns, is a totally misplaced concept.
    Certainly such an idea far exceeds the ability and charter of the Dover-Foxcroft community to be the sole contributor through taxation, to what the Maine Highlands Senior Center will be billing as a regional enterprise.
    Returning to the “elephant” analogy used several times in earlier letters, the idea of owning an elephant at the time seemed filled with all kinds of sentiment for an aging building, but one detail was omitted from the plan.
    Once owned, who would feed and care for it? Now the “elephant” is about to be “caged.” The building is soon to be completed, and “oops,” Dover taxpayers are suddenly being programmed to supply the funds for those budget elements neither recognized nor supported by any other towns. And finally, should the Maine Highlands Senior Center prove to be financially unsustainable, what will become of the “elephant,” and will Dover taxpayers ultimately end up holding the empty feedbag?

Don Benjamin
Dover-Foxcroft