Federal Cuts That Will Hit Your Wallet, Your Workplace, & Your Community

By Deborah LeonczykGuest Column
Print Story | Email Story
 
Congress is considering cuts that would eliminate the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and deeply reduce the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). These proposals may look like budget decisions on paper — but here in the Berkshires, they will have immediate, tangible consequences.
 
If you think these programs don't affect you, think again. Whether you run a business, teach in a school, work in health care, pay property taxes, or simply live in a neighborhood — you will feel the impact.
 
CSBG and LIHEAP aren't just safety nets. They are economic stabilizers that protect working families, support local spending, and reduce pressure on emergency systems. When these programs disappear, so do jobs, consumer dollars, and community stability.
 
At Berkshire Community Action Council, CSBG is the core funding that allows us to meet local needs in real time. It helps keep 2,300 children warm each winter through our Children's Clothing Program. It supports our Food Depot, which supplies pantries across the county. It funds the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program, which helps low- and moderate-income residents claim refunds and tax credits — money that goes straight back into our local economy.
 
CSBG also fills the gaps no other funding can. It allows us to respond when a family faces eviction, when a senior can't afford transportation to a medical appointment, or when someone falls behind on a utility bill through no fault of their own. If this funding disappears, so does that flexibility — and so do those services.
 
LIHEAP, meanwhile, provides heating assistance to over 8,000 Berkshire households every year. That's not a statistic — it's a full quarter of our population. In a region with long, harsh winters, LIHEAP is not optional. It keeps homes warm, children safe, and older adults healthy.
 
LIHEAP also pays for emergency heating system repairs and replacements, ensuring that families don't face life-threatening cold with a broken furnace. When LIHEAP is cut, fuel assistance drops, repair services decline, and households are forced to choose between heat and other essentials.
 
You may not receive LIHEAP or CSBG support, but you will feel their loss:
  • If you're an employer, you'll see more missed shifts, transportation issues, and distracted workers juggling crises that used to be managed quietly and effectively.
  • If you're in education, you'll notice more children arriving unprepared for the weather, unfocused in class, or struggling with basic needs.
  • If you work in healthcare or public safety, you'll encounter more avoidable emergencies — illnesses from unheated homes, stress-related health problems, and increased pressure on ERs and shelters.
  • If you're a taxpayer, you'll pay more for local services that must pick up the slack — from emergency housing to crisis response.
  • If you run a small business, expect fewer customers. VITA refunds won't flow into local stores. Fewer heating oil deliveries will mean less work for contractors. Spending drops when families are in survival mode.
These aren't theoretical outcomes — they are predictable economic consequences of removing basic protections.
 
Some will argue these programs should be scaled back to "cut costs." But that ignores the cost of doing nothing. When CSBG and LIHEAP prevent a crisis, they save money downstream — on hospital stays, shelter placements, court proceedings, and lost productivity. It is far more expensive to respond after the fact than to prevent hardship in the first place.
 
And it's not just about economics. It's about who we are as a community. These programs reflect our shared values: that children should go to school warm, that no one should freeze in their home, and that help should be available when it's needed most.
 
That's why I'm urging our federal delegation — Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, and Congressman Richard Neal — to protect CSBG and LIHEAP from elimination or reduction. These are not fringe programs. They are foundational supports in rural regions like the Berkshires.
 
I'm also asking you, the reader, to take action. Call your legislators. Share your story. Donate or volunteer if you're able. These programs work because they are local, responsive, and rooted in community. Losing them would be a blow not only to the families who rely on them — but to the entire regional economy we all depend on.
 
When we lose safety nets like CSBG and LIHEAP, the most vulnerable fall first — and without intervention, we all fall further, and the cost of recovery is one we all share.
 
Deborah Leonczyk is executive director Berkshire Community Action Council.

 


Tags: BCAC,   LIHEAP,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Lanesborough Looks to the Future of Zoning Bylaws

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Planning Board is reviewing the town's zoning bylaws with an eye to amending zones to align with planning documents and projects. 

Members started at last week's meeting to at priority zoning projects that align with the Open Space and Recreation Plan and the Master Plan that was adopted last year. Earlier in the meeting, the board accepted the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission's draft of the OSRP, which the Select Board accepted late last month.

Town planner Andrew Groff informed the board of upcoming projects that will need to be looked at for zoning purposes to try and stay ahead of the bylaws that aligned in both the OSRP and Master Plan.

"Principally, would be going back and thinking about this idea of a mixed-use zoning district for the northern part of town that's responsive to the growth of outdoor recreation as it is really an industry. So you've got Shaker Ridge, you've got the folks at Donnybrook that proposes a glamping resort, Ramble Wild, and Brodie Mountain just over the town line in New Ashford with some new ownership and expanded interest in some development there, so that's one item that's called for in both."

Groff also explained they need to look into agriculture zones to help local farmers 

"Seeing if we can't do something to better support our farms because we have a couple great little farm clusters in Lanesborough. You know, zoning for agriculture is pretty expansive in Massachusetts. The exemption for agriculture is pretty wise, but we want to take a closer look and talk to some of our farmers and figure out there's some tweaks we can do that would make their lives easier."

He also brought up how they can help fix the zoning bylaws around the lake that are nonconforming and want to look into grant funding to help.

"Work that's going to be done to further protect Pontoosuc Lake, and we have a lot in our master plan regarding the zoning issues on Pontoosuc from the issue that you had mentioned to me, bringing back the citizens who were concerned about building heights down there, but you know, more fundamentally identified in the master plan is the problems with how everything is basically nonconforming. The zoning doesn't conform to what the actual built environment is. That's something we probably want to look into talking with folks in the community planning office," he said.

Groff mentioned there is a ballot question that, if it passes, would mean changing zoning regarding public water and sewer, and affect properties near the lake. 

"There is going to be on the ballot in November a question that will essentially require any community in Massachusetts that has built an environment that's on public water/sewer, you're going to have to reduce your lot sizes to 5,000 square feet. So I feel like if that passes, that has massive implications for that part of town. So, just another one to put out there, but maybe we want to wait to really tackle that with some grant funding once we know what the Legislature's done."

Chair Leanne Yinger said she lives in that area and it already seems very congested, meaning that the passage of the ballot question could have big implications.

She also mentioned another implication for the health of the lake she would like to see happen.

"I would like to see us ban pesticides and people treating their lawns," she said. "Part of the problem of the health of the lake is that when I say that out loud, and I'm saying it out loud to anybody who will listen to me, it is not a popular thing to say. But it is killing the lake."

Yinger said she would like to clarify who governs the sewer system around Pontoosuc Lake, noting the new owner of a friend's house needed to purchase access to the sewer from a private party. Groff said he couldn't remember if it is water district or town, but that there is something "funky" about the governance over there.

"I need to understand what that looks like, because the way it came down was interesting. The line comes in from Pittsfield, but there are people claiming that they have rights to it because they bought into it originally. I just want to understand what that's like and who's saying you're in charge with it, because it seems to me that that's a town-managed situation," Yinger said.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories