By Dan Daddieco, Westford Resident
The results of Westford’s October 26 Special Town Meeting should be a wake-up call for every taxpayer, especially seniors and residents living on fixed incomes.
Article 10, proposing to reduce the Community Preservation Act property tax surcharge from 3% to 2%, was overwhelmingly defeated. At a time when residents face rising property taxes, insurance, utilities, and everyday expenses, even modest tax relief was rejected.
For those of us who have lived here for decades, raised families, supported our schools, and helped build this community, the message is troubling: Can we still afford to remain in the town we helped make so desirable?
Westford increasingly appears to prioritize government spending, development, and environmental initiatives over fiscal restraint and affordability.
Consider the $32.5 million J.V. Fletcher Library expansion, approved in 2022. Libraries provide valuable services, but the project’s property-tax-supported borrowing carries consequences. Town projections indicated that library debt alone would add approximately $159 annually to the property tax bill of a median-valued home in fiscal 2027*.
That may seem insignificant to some, but for retirees on fixed incomes, every additional expense matters.
And the library is hardly the only concern.
Westford faces enormous residential development, including 530 apartments at Powers Road and another 300 proposed at the former Westford Regency site. That’s 830 housing units from just two developments.
What will these projects mean for traffic, schools, emergency services, utilities, infrastructure, and municipal operating expenses?
Will the additional property tax revenue cover the long-term costs of serving these developments, or will existing homeowners eventually shoulder the difference?
State infrastructure grants are welcome, but one-time funding does not necessarily cover ongoing municipal expenses.
Where is the comprehensive, publicly available financial analysis demonstrating the long-term impact on existing taxpayers?
Meanwhile, the rural character, open spaces, and quiet neighborhoods that attracted generations of families to Westford face increasing development pressure.
I recognize that state housing requirements limit some local choices. Nevertheless, our officials must insist on responsible planning, infrastructure protections, and financial accountability.
The Specialized Energy Code raises similar concerns. Environmental objectives may be worthwhile, but additional construction costs and their consequences for housing affordability deserve equally serious consideration.
At what point does Westford become a community that only the wealthy can afford?
What troubles me most is the apparent disconnect between these priorities and the financial realities facing older residents.
Many seniors have lived here for 30, 40, or 50 years. We paid for schools long after our children graduated, supported local organizations, and contributed to the town’s prosperity.
Now, during retirement, we face an accumulating financial burden with limited opportunities to increase our incomes.
Our savings are finite. Our ability to absorb higher property taxes is not unlimited.
Eventually, the choice becomes painfully simple: continue draining retirement savings or sell our homes and move somewhere more affordable.
I recognize that the Community Preservation Act supports worthwhile goals, including conservation, recreation, historic preservation, and affordable housing.
But shouldn’t preserving the ability of existing residents to remain in their homes be an equally important priority?
I am not suggesting that every expenditure is unnecessary. Essential services require funding, and responsible investments benefit our community.
However, individual projects cannot be evaluated in isolation. Library debt, capital improvements, municipal operating expenses, development-related infrastructure, and other obligations collectively determine what residents must pay.
Westford needs leadership that treats fiscal restraint as a responsibility, not an inconvenience.
We need transparent long-term financial projections, serious scrutiny of cumulative tax burdens, and greater consideration for residents whose incomes cannot keep pace with rising expenses.
Most importantly, we must stop assuming that because a project or program is desirable, taxpayers can necessarily afford it.
A town is more than its buildings, parks, conservation land, and government programs.
A town is its people.
After decades in Westford, I never imagined that remaining here would become a serious concern in our retirement planning. Yet that is precisely where we find ourselves, and I suspect we are far from alone.
Westford should be a town where seniors can afford to grow old, not a town they must leave because staying has become too expensive.
Our elected officials and fellow residents should give that reality the same attention they give to the next spending proposal, development initiative, or environmental mandate.
Because a town that preserves everything except the ability of its longtime residents to remain has lost sight of what matters most: ITS PEOPLE!
*************
*Editor’s note:
In an effort to provide the most current and accurate information, the Westford Villager reached out to Westford’s finance director for clarification on the library project calculations. Here’s his response.
We’re still using the FY26 median household value of $852,100. That will be updated once the Select Board sets the tax rate at its November 10th meeting.
For FY27, we are estimating the cost of the J.V. Fletcher Library on the median single family home ($852,100) in Westford will be $70.85. The project is not completed and this is paying for the short-term interest.
For FY28, the projection on a single-family home valued at $852,100 would be $189.60. This is assuming a principal and interest payment for the project.
