The Globe reports that Mayor Setti Warren’s plans to seek one general property tax override for schools, a fire station, more police, street improvements and other needs became a lot more complicated last week
… the Massachusetts School Building Authority notified Newton officials last week that funding for each school project must be voted on individually by city residents, throwing a wrench into Warren’s initial plan to go to voters just once and avoid splintering different constituencies.
While the MSBA ruling is unfortunate, presumably there can be one “campaign” with multiple ballot initiative questions. Not ideal, but doable.
It would be good to have Swiston explain why the these shouldn’t be on one ballot, as she was quote saying in the article.
I read the article twice, but can’t find the State’s rationale for what appears to be a completely asinine policy. Can anyone explain why they have this policy and how it came into being?
It’s interesting the Mayor is asking for more police spending at this point. I’d like to see a legitimate hiring process for a chief, then a comprehensive policing plan before accepting that we need more police spending. For all we know, we might have too many police in cars (watching out for swimmers!) and not enough detectives looking for child predators in our school system. What are our policing priorities and who is the nationally best name to achieve them? Then comes how much is the right amount of tax spending
Mike Striar: This didn’t help my understanding, put the different flavors of overrides are defined here: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIX/Chapter59/Section21c
We cut police officers a few years ago and have been understaffed since. Yes, we need to hold the mayor accountable for the chief and for patrol priorities. But, it’s nuts to say no hiring desperately needed cops until things are perfect in the department.
Yes, you’re bleeding, but we’re not going to stop the bleeding until you get your weight under control.
The same sort of thinking is why, three years after we elected a new mayor, Angier is still a decrepit wreck.
The state’s requirement complicates things, but shouldn’t be fatal. We need to fix the schools.
Why do we need more police? Are response times too slow? Is there a crime spree? This is a good reason not to bundle. If people really want an override for more police, then we should not risk having it fail because we bundled it with an override for schools. We don’t have an equestrian unit. Now is the time to get one.
Thanks for the link, Hoss. Anyone looking to understand the State law pertaining to overrides and debt exclusions should check it out. My question remains the same though. Can anyone explain the State’s rationale for disallowing this bundled approach? I just don’t get it.
I applaud Mayor Warren for finally trying to address the crumbling infrastructure of our school buildings citywide. Strategically though, I think he’s making a mistake bundling the police and fire needs in with the schools. There is tremendous support in Newton to fix our school buildings, and adding other things to an override package is likely to fuel more opposition.
I understand not bundling school and non-school needs, but don’t understand why there should have to be a separate vote for each school project. Why should the MA School Building Authority be allowed to tell us how to vote for funding?
mgwa,
I’d assume that if they give money for a certain project, and expect a specific amount of additional money from the city, that it’s clear when we vote that we voted for that amount of money for that project, without the possibility of misunderstandings later shifting money from one project to another. Seems reasonable, although a bit of a nuisance.
I also assume they don’t want a repeat of NNHS where their money was allocated for a less expensive project, and had they known the final price tag, they may have not given us money at all.
I assume that he bundled fire stations, etc in the package so that everyone can feel they benefit from the tax override. If we just have an override for the schools some people will feel it only benefits kids and parents. Good enough for most people to vote for, but throw in safe firestations and streets so everyone can slightly benefit that might be the difference of passing the override.
He’s making everyone feel we’re all included.
As history points out, a general operational override such as Cohen’s last successful one ~2001 proved to be an allocation of promise but as time passed was moved to fund items ‘on the fly’. If anything was learned by Craven and the treasurer was that tax monies gained by electorate province was not necessarily appropriated as originally earmarked, government like the world is in constant change and with that demands of the changing economy bring with it adjustments to fudiciary obligations.
Hoss: are your real world initials DK?
Housekeeping note: (Or hosskeeping) Please refrain from using this blog as a platform for sharing notes to each other. I’ve removed a few comments.
Also, if someone out there wants other folks to be able to reach him or her, may I suggest using your own name?
sorry Greg, but you should feel honored to enable city matters to function behind the curtain of your blog. Someday perhaps, I could explain to you the imperative of pseudoname protection. and thank you for assisting in this.
@Schlock: Not necessary. I understand and respect why some people need to be anonymous (while others are just cowards).
Obviously all of the real name coalition understands what on earth the “Newton Economic Development Commission” is such that they can share notes w one another in private.
@Hoss: As my grandmother used to say: What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?