The following editorial ran in the Gloucester Daily Times of Nov. 3, 2007:

If Gloucester voters say yes to the Community Preservation Act referendum question on Tuesday, they will be voting themselves a property tax increase.

Yes, it will be a fund dedicated to open space, historic preservation and affordable housing. But there is no reason not to call it what it is: It is a tax. It will add a 1 percent surcharge to property taxes.

This newspaper generally opposes tax increases, even when the goal is community preservation.

But that is not a blanket opposition. Each such proposal should be considered on its own merits. And this one, while not entirely painless, is a relatively painless way to raise money for things that are not luxuries or frills but necessities - in some cases, dire necessities.

In Gloucester's case, its merits outweigh its liabilities.

First, its backers appear to have learned not to reach too far. An earlier attempt, seeking a 3 percent surcharge, was soundly rejected. The present 1 percent proposal is much more reasonable.

Second, at least for now, the state will match what the city collects from local residents, which will double it.

There are also enough protections built into it to keep it from being an undue burden on the poor. The first $100,000 of a property's assessed value is exempt. In the case of a $400,000 house the CPA tax would amount to 1 percent of the property tax on a $300,000 home, or about $25 a year.

The money doesn't pour into the general fund. There are limits on its uses. So it cannot be "raided" to shore up the schools or public safety, as worthy as those services are. A portion of this money could be used to cover major repairs to City Hall - repairs the city cannot now afford but must do if it hopes to preserve the building.

Finally, if residents think the money is being squandered or poorly spent, this tax does not have to be forever. They can repeal it in five years.

There is a structural problem with the CPA that city officials should address if it passes. There is evidence that some who would qualify for exemptions do not do so because they have to apply for it every year and the process is cumbersome.

Officials - and the CPA's backers, who used the exemptions as a selling point - should strive to make the process for exemptions as simple, transparent and accessible as possible.

The needs of Gloucester are many, varied and expensive. The CPA offers a way to address some of them, with a boost from the state. It deserves a five-year trial run.