Since purchasing a home in Brookfield in 2003, our property-tax bill has increased 400%. This is not a typo: 400% in 23 years. Now clearly, this can’t be blamed solely on the village of Brookfield, but it is symptomatic of the attitude prevalent among all taxing bodies: That the solution to any problem is to soak the taxpayers.
Heck, even our well-liked governor has overseen the rise of the state budget from $40 billion in 2020 to $55.1 billion in 2026.
So now we are faced with a local referendum accompanied by the usual doom-and-gloom rhetoric of what would happen if it fails.
Here’s why I am voting No:
1. It replaces an expiring referendum, so we lose out on some meager tax relief. (Part of what makes spending referendums palatable is knowing that at some point they will expire.)
2. This referendum has no expiration date, so the added tax would be collected in perpetuity.
3. Road maintenance is a basic governmental service and should be part of any responsible budget, not reliant on frequent infusions of taxpayer cash.
4. Another referendum is forthcoming, likely in 2027, for an overpriced and unnecessary recreation center. (Brookfield is surrounded by other suburbs’ rec centers, most of which offer discounted “neighborhood network” pricing.)
5. The wording of the actual referendum includes much legal gobbledygook, but the word “roads” is mentioned nowhere. We are simply asked to trust the village.
If village government is such an effective steward of our money, why do they always need more of it?
Matthew Corradino
Brookfield