The Massachusetts House has approved a significant overhaul of the state’s Community Preservation Act (CPA) that would give Newton and other cities and towns more flexibility in the law and presumably more matching funds. Here’s an except from the State House News story …
The amendment adopted Monday would potentially double the amount of state funding available to provide matches to cities and towns by allocating up to $25 million in surplus revenue from the fiscal 2012 budget to the community preservation trust fund. Currently, funding comes from fees collected on deeds and totals close to $26 million a year.
The proposal would also allow cities and towns to use CPA funding to rehabilitate existing parks, playgrounds and athletic fields, rather than only build new ones, and gives communities flexibility to use revenue sources aside from a property tax surcharge to fund their community preservation accounts.
Good idea?
I’m of two minds on this one:
1) I’m a big supporter of some of the current uses of CPA. And historic rehab and affordable housing have been good uses.
2) I’m a big supporter of rehabbing our existing playgrounds/fields/parks.
My problem is that #2 will completely use up the funds, leaving little for #1.
Logically a mature fund will have a different purpose than at start-up since projects are now in a maintenance phase. It’s all good. The low-income housing in Newton is particularly well done.
[I’m pretty sure Ald Hess Mahan is a leader in the low-income housing area…not sure about involvement of others…kudos Ted.]
This is my problem with this bill. The point of the CPA is to put money/purchase property that the city otherwise can’t afford. While they are increasing property we can’t afford, they are ignoring property (infrastructure) that we already have. Give us more money (not just Newton) to fix up schools,roads, etc. My opinion, this shows bad priorities. the more we spend on the CPA, the more we’ll need it in the future for upkeep (since the city can’t afford it in the first place).