Three Reasons to Vote NO on the Community Preservation Act
April the people of Stoneham are going to be asked to accept the
Community Preservation Act (CPA) which is being sold as a State/ Town effort to
provide funds for conservation, historical preservation, recreation and
affordable housing. The proponents of this are spinning this as a good thing for Stoneham; they are ignoring or downplaying the following three reasons why it is bad for Stoneham
- Call it a Surcharge, but it is nothing more than a Tax Override.
If the CPA passes, the average single family’s tax bill will increase 40% more than the normal 2 ½ %. Renters can expect to see this surcharge passed on to them throughincreased rents.
The $100K exemption to class three and four businesses is insignificant and will not lesson the hardship caused by this override since their tax rate is higher. For example, the Redstone Shopping center is assessed $36,280,600 and their FY 2013 tax bill is $761,892. Even with the exemption the passage of this would increase their taxes by over $5,700. These increased costs will be passed on to you in the cost of goods and services.
Since Stoneham has repeatedly voted No on proposition 2 1/2 overrides, the proponents of this ballot question are trying to circumvent proposition 2 1/2 to raise your taxes. I think the taxpayers of Stoneham are smarter than
that. If its calculated on the value of your house and added to your tax bill it is an Override.
2. It establishes another nine (9) member non-elected bureaucracy
- Accepting the “Community Preservation” override you are establishing an independent nine member Community Preservation Committee (CPC)
that is not answerable to any other elected or appointed Committee. They will decide what the priorities of the town are with respect to acquisition, creation and preservation of open space;for the acquisition, preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources; for the preservation and creation of affordable housing. These priorities will be set without anyregard to the long term financial goals and plans developed by your elected officials. The only limitation of this Committee’s power is State law.Today the Board of Selectmen is the only Board that can make budgetary recommendations to Town Meeting. The Finance Board or individual citizens can propose amendments to the recommendations.
- What is more disturbing is that under the ballot question
this Committee can recommend “additional municipal funds” be added to the CPA account. This means that the CPC can recommend to Town Meeting that funds from the stabilization accounts or any other revenue be diverted to one of their chosen projects. This is unprecedented power over what can be recommended to Town Meeting. The proponents will respond by saying the final decision is the Town Meetings. That is correct, but we all know how Town meetings tend to get stacked by special interests.
- If this nine member committee decides to recommend the building of a hundred unit affordable housing building, all they have to do is present it to town meeting along with additional revenue from the stabilization account. They then stack the town meeting with all the people with special interests in the project, and it is a done deal.
- The impact to the Town finances of raiding stabilization can
be devastating to Town Services. The purpose of stabilization reserves is to provide the ability for the Town to stabilize the tax rate when a material change to Town revenues occurs, and to provide emergency funding for non-operating unforeseen expenses. The ability of the CPA to divert funding out of the stabilization and to a particular preservation project may sound appealing in the short run, but will have a tremendous negative impact to the long term financial stability of the Town.
3. You can’t depend upon the State to maintain promised State Aid
The argument put forth the most by the proponents is that this is free State
money and they will reimburse the town 40%. If you believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you. The fact is that from FY 2002 to FY 2008 the communities received a 100% match of funds. In FY 2009 the dollar matchdropped to 67%, In FY 2010 it dropped again to 34% and in FY 2011 it dropped to 27%.Just look at the State’s history with State aid. When they give you aid in one area, they reduce it in others. Stoneham’s total State aid has decreased drastically over the last few years. My guess is that whatever you get from the CPA will be reduced in other areas. The difference is that the State will be able to dictate how you spend it. For example, the State while allowing the preparation and restoration work for an artificial surface at the High School to be funded from the Community Preservation Fund, they will not allow the cost of the actual artificial turf to be funded by that Fund. The artificial turf will cost about $1.2 million and it would have to be
funded out of the other town budgets.
My mother told me that you could tell about a person by the friends he or she keeps. Likewise, you can tell what the real intention of the CPA by those who are behind it. The CPA was initiated and being pushed by the same individuals who push and supported, two overrides, an unbalanced budget, the implementation of a trash fee, double digit salary increases for the school employees while the other town employee’s wages were
frozen, increased user fees at the schools and the increase in the meals
tax. The CPA is just another way they want to squeeze your wallet to get funds to feed their appetite for bigger and more intrusive government. Give yourself a tax break, vote no on the CPA
Jameson Bull
8:47 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
It'd be nice if Paul could argue his point without attacking the character of those who disagree with his position on the CPA. I feel like he is watching national politics too much.
I only recently moved to Stoneham and began researching CPA and what it means to me and my family, but this article, along with some other research of my own, convinced me that it is likely a very good thing for the town and I'd be happy to vote for it.
Susan
12:32 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
I just reread the whole thing and didn't see any character attacks in there. If you are new to town, maybe you're having trouble believing that anyone would push an unbalanced budget into town meeting, and then stack the meeting so it would pass, or vote for a contract that included generous raises at a time when banks were going under, people were pulling out of the stock market, and other municipalities had pay and hiring freezes. Those things actually happened here. Some of those individuals are the proponents of the CPA override. I'm curious to know what your research uncovered because all I see is a tax increase when some of us can least afford it to provide extra support to things that are nice to have, but are not budget priorities.
Frank Pignone
3:15 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
NO...Strong..VERY Strong NO...- With Respect. The good thing many of you younger people have in this town is we Older Folks who have lived here for Decades and 'OBSERVED' the 'Tricks ' of how 'Government SNEAKILY raises money as Mr. Rotondi and I both know and many more. Please listen to us . I have something to 'Explain' to you all. Year ago , way back in the 70's when I was a SELECTMAN , the town did not have as many 'WAYS' as funding as we do now.
We had : 1.- Property Taxes
2.- 'Federal Revenue Sharing
3. - Very Little State Aid
4.- We had a few local fees such as Golf, Town and Building , very small. and We 'Ran the town.
5.- The Town Grew and more money was needed to the Town Simply Raised the PROPERTY TAXES.. to astronomical levels...and the PEOPLE had hardly NO FIGHTING CHANCE against the Town Meeting 'Government Forces,Town Department, and Embarassed and 'scared' to stand fearing retribution. So they HAD THEIR OWN WAY WITH US...
6.- In the 1970's because of these RUN AWAY PROPERTY TAXES : We had a STATE REFERENDUM ON .........'Proposition 2 1/2 ...which meant the 'whole town levy ( not you own property taxes - that is a big misconception) could only go up 2 1/2 per cent.
7.- The Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes was at that time $ 66 per thousand and this vote 'REDUCED YOUR EXCISE TAXES TO $25 PER THOUSAND.
8. - See below for my continuum:Thanks
Frank Pignone
3:28 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
Frank Pignone: Continuing :
After Proposition 2 1/2 the Town Government got 'Hungry and Frustrated......and naturally had to think of ways to get YOUR MONEY ...Please follow:
* We were paying hardly anything for WATER AND SEWER BACK THEN.....and ALL EXPENSES of working the Water and Sewer were on the PROPERTY TAX BILL.. All the workers, their benefits, pensions, and all their 'Benefits' as well as all the ADMIN. Executives.....
9.- The state built an AUTHORITY called the MWRA which you are all familiar with now and some of you are PAYING over a $ 1,000 ......Why ?......Because the TOWN GOVERNMENT, throught a LOOPHOLE was allowed to take 'ALL THE people working on Water and Sewer including the Executives.. 'ALL' who were on the town payroll anyway AND MOVE THEM.......'From' the Property Taxes 'To' the Water and Sewer Bill.............ON TOP OF !! Your Bill from the MWRA.....and ... it was at least $ 2 to $ 3 MILLION dollars ...on 'TOP OF' the MWRA bill.....
10.- As you see.. this left A CHUNK or a HOLE... of these MILLIONS in the Property Taxes.. and 'would have REDUCED your bill by this amount.. BUT, ! The Town TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THAT HOLE ! And FILLED IT with 'new' expenses or enlarged others.. So you have at least the same or LARGER property Taxes PLUS the WATER AND SEWER BILL !
11.- In later years : Again: We have a TRASH FEE , which 'GETS AWAY WITH' Expenses which were ALWAYS ON the Property Tax Bill...
12.- Sports Fees Came
Frank Pignone
4:03 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
Frank Pignone: Final: Ladies and Gentlemen: My comments above are extensive, but need to be: This new 'small percent' ... is 'the way' 'Frustrated' people who feel the 'LEASH OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY..'...raise money and cost you more little by little... We, again, who have been here... have 'lived it'...
We saw Redstone Come, and then the Apartments come one by one.. and the Arguments how good it is for 'Taxes'...The Condos,A Brand New Rink , The Enlargements of our Banks, and all the new buildings: Then we added a Three Hole Golf Course, a Huge Storage Warehouse on Montvale, including ALL the huge businesses on Montvale, the Armory becoming a Hardware Store, the Remodeling of the Square., the Huge remodeling of the old BARBOS on the corner of Montvale and Main...the Rentals of all the schools, and so much more..
The Lottery Came, Meals Taxes we now get a share of.
They are selling the old North School and East School and even 'Those' dont seem to be enough ! It was bad enough the 'Selectmen' negotiated the North School still belonging to the SCHOOL COMMITTEE and 'never' turned over to them !
With all the above, it is imperative that we DISALLOW this article which Mr. Rotondi wrote of.. IT IS JUST ANOTHER WAY... to 'SNEAKILY' obtain money and add 'another' tax to your property taxes. You can bet this began in a 'LIBERAL' place on Beacon Hill..
**'No.. This is a 'NO' VOTE. -
I have Fished in this pond a long time... I know these Fish.
Frank Pignone
4:13 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
I do not see any 'Character' Attacks in Mr. Rotondi's attacks either. I never knew a Rotondi in this town for 50 years in all my years of school here , politics, and friendships, who operated in a manner, or for that matter 'had to', resort to character remarks. And if you met Paul's absolutely beautiful parents who helped build and finance this town, and they caught you in engaging in this manner , you'd pay. I only know of one.member who broke that code ..which his mother never knew about but it wont happen again....
George Georgountzos
4:16 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I have always found Paul Rotondi to be a reasoned thinker. Many people disagree with him, but they cannot say that his positions are taken without serious consideration. When I saw this article, I dropped Paul a note to congratulate him on a very thoughtful opinion with which I wholeheartedly agree. I plan to vote "No", not because I don't like preservations or fees, but because if the town were serious about these needs, they would fund them accordingly. Proposing a tax hike at this time, with no guaranty of the amount coming back, cedes power to Boston bureaucrats and a very partisan regime.
Frank Pignone
11:04 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
And..That is all it is George. Thank you and regards. As you mentioned , Paul did place a lot of thought into this.
Angelika
6:01 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
How do you propose paying for things like playgrounds?
I don't particularly like paying for those facilities, but if the Town would like to increase my taxes (by what I've heard would be less than $50 on average per property bill), then I would gladly pay that rather than drive to another town to find a decent playground.
Otherwise, you can send your (tax-deductible) donation to help rebuild AP Rounds Playground in Stoneham to me at 12 Broadway. Checks to be made out to "Town of Stoneham" ;-)
Yes, slightly tongue-in-cheek, but really something has to give (pun intended). If Town won't have enough funds, then private citizens better step up and fund these projects directly.
Angelika (http://www.RebuildingRounds.org)
Jameson Bull
6:32 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I'm with you Angelika. I don't care if it is called a "tax override." I don't care if the committee is voted in or if the state is obligated to meet their end of the bargain.
The idea of everyone chipping in a little bit to projects earmarked for making Stoneham a better place to live sounds good to me, unless I'm missing something.
George Georgountzos
7:50 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Shame on me! I have promised Angelika a donation for over a year now, for this excellent cause, and due to no good reason, I have forgotten to do so. My check is on the way.... I wish every parent in Stoneham contributes any amount, $50 or $25 or $10 and we will have a refurbished Playground that is used by so many kids who live near there, play sports on the baseball field or on soccer fields nearby. Angelika was gracious in not saying "where have you been, George" but I will say it for her and put up as I've promised to do for quite some time.
Mark
8:05 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I applaud you Angelika and the many others who donate their time and money to make Stoneham a better place. There are many unsung hero's who go above and beyond while our towns/city and state managers are gouging the taxpayer.
There is plenty of money in this town/state for our children, seniors and veterans.
The problem arises when we have politicians, that have misplaced priorities, can't or refuse to manage our town/state employees and money properly, or are outright corrupt.
The list of fraud, waste and abuse is long and for our pols to continually take the easy way out by increasing our taxes instead of problem solving is getting old.
I will be voting no and encouraging many others in town to do the same.
Good Luck with your fundraising efforts!
Paul Rotondi
9:01 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
As George said, I am not opposed to the town providing funds for conservation, historical preservation, recreation and affordable housing, but it should be included in the normal budget process and the funds found within the normal revenues streams. We don’t need another nine (9) member non-elected bureaucracy setting town priorities and the State telling us what we can spend money on and what we can’t. Finally, making expenditures just because of promised State funding is not good fiscal policy. Since we get 57% funding from the State on new schools, does that mean We should build a new school every year?
Andrew M
12:37 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
If it weren't for a non-elected board with no oversight, it wouldn't be a bad bill. If we want more funding for parks and rec attend the meetings and push for it. I support rebuilding Rounds [Thank you for all your hard work Angelika] but not creating/ paying another board who will spend money that may or not be there every year. It will create another unfunded liability and eventually another overide in a few years to pay for what the CPA board couldn't meet
Paul
12:00 am on Thursday, March 28, 2013
I would like to thank Paul Rotondi for posting this informative article.
From all I have read on the CPA, this is just another way for bureaucrats to raise our taxes. I have been living in this town for over ten years. My property taxes have increased year over year without any visible benefits. The only people benefiting are those who earn a salary from the town and have a town pension. Before taking more of our hard earned money, our town officials need to demonstrate that they can be prudent and responsible with our current tax dollars. I plan to vote NO on Question Number 1 and have been asking my neighbors to do the same.