Former tax override opponent Jeff Seideman is supporting Mayor Setti Warren’s three proposed property tax overrides but would like voters to have the opportunity to repeal the surcharge Newton homeowners pay for the Community Preservation Act.
Jeff brought the idea before aldermen last week. He sent this to me in an email:
When we’re asking the public to vote for $11.4 million in debt exclusions and an override, isn’t it about time to do the right thing regarding the CPA, which this year will collect about $3 million in tax surcharges. It was passed 10 years ago with the promise, or strong suggestion, that the public would have the opportunity to reconsider it in five years. Didn’t happen, though the BOA was well aware that I and others were pushing for it.
In the last 10 years the CPA has raised approximately $40 million in taxes and matches and another $10 million in bonding. It’s basically gone into the hands of aew special interests (housing, open space, recreation and historic preservation). All their important projects have been funded and we’re now down to inviting people to suggest projects for the money. Also worth noting is that the match is now down to about 20% and trending further downward.
If we’re asking for approval of the $11.4 million, how about giving the public the opportunity to say whether it wants to continue the CPA and the $3 million it will collect this year, or end it and think of the $3 million as a partial offset for the $11.4 million. It effectively reduces the cost of the override to the public to $8.4 million, yet gives the city everything it’s asking for.
Yes, the affected special interests will complain, but hey, after 10 years and $50 million of funding, that would take a lot of cojones. Furthermore, if you think of the $3 million as being transferred to the override to pay for new schools, its MSBA match will be close to twice the current — and decreasing — CPA match. It’s a better deal.
Jeff, the born-again advocate for over-rides, still hasn’t commented on the question of why the schools are so expensive. From the article on Angier.
“The school is expected to cost between $35 million and $37 million, with the state projected to cover more than $10 million of the cost. Funding for the school will be tied to a potential debt exclusion override. That vote may be put to voters in March, if the Board of Alderman agrees to schedule a special election.
The building is being planned to accommodate 465 students.”
This is $77,419 per student. I’m sure Jeff read the other blogs on this issue. Why is this so out of line with the schools in Burlington and Hingham? Also high on a per square foot basis. Angier is 75,000 sq. ft. for $480 per sq. ft.
Hingham East Elementary School, Hingham, MA ($42,000 per student)
Total Area: 91,000 square feet
Total Cost: $25,656,000
$281 per sq. ft.
Since this blog is about CPA, I’ll post this data somewhere else also. Maybe someone can justify these costs. At the moment, I’m planning to vote against these over-rides. I want new schools. I don’t want repeats of NNHS.
I agree with Jeff that the question should be placed on the ballot. While I’m not anti-CPA (I voted for it), we’ve reached a point where it’s worth asking if it’s done most of what it was created for, especially at a time where we’re raising taxes for urgent needs.
Now that the national election is over and there is renewed speculation about Mayor Warren’s political future, I think there are a few people positioning themselves to run for his office if he leaves before the end of his term, [or even before the override votes take place]. In my opinion, no one has a chance in Hell of becoming Mayor of Newton if they oppose the proposed package of overrides. Keeping in mind that Jeff, flirted with a run in 2009, I’m viewing his recent comments about the overrides and CPA, through the lens of political posturing.
I like Jeff. He’s obviously a very intelligent guy, and I believe he truly has Newton’s best interest at heart. However, there is no re-writing history to escape the fact that he opposed building Newton North, and supported a terribly flawed [and debunked] plan to renovate the old building. If memory serves me correctly, he was also a party to a lawsuit, restricting the City of Newton’s ability to use CPA funds and receive matching funds from the State. I think people need to keep those things in mind, when weighing the value of Jeff’s opinions and the purpose of his positions.
I agree with everything Mike said. I too, found it strange to have 2 very prominent posts about Jeff’s opinion on these issues. When this strand had no comments I was going to comment sarcastically (I know, that’s not like me) about as much.
I actually was hoping that this would start a conversation about the CPA, not about Jeff.
Given the tax increases we’re potentially facing (and the real burden it will place on some) this seems like a fitting time to at least ask this question:
Some of us tried to have a conversation on the proposal. It’s a shame when posters hijack threads to attack people rather than discuss the merits of issues.
mgwa,
It’s a shame that you don’t see how two posts with a picture of Jeff and links are somehow just a post about an issue. Especially about a guy who has eyes on office. Like Mike, I like Jeff. This isn’t an attack. I agree with him on the override. Village 14 has given him a pulpit, so to speak, on these two issues and we are responding.
@mgwa– No “attack” intended. Just lending some context to Jeff’s recent comments. I actually like Jeff very much, and did mention that I think he genuinely has Newton’s best interest at heart. But Jeff recently offered up advice to Newton residents about the
override proposals, and it appears he’s also lobbying the Board of Alderman for a property tax cut. When someone takes positions on public policy issues in the newspaper and on local blogs, I think their point of view is fair game for debate. That being said, I happen to agree with Jeff’s support for the override package, and his point about putting CPA on the ballot. But when he raises those issues almost simultaneously, I sense there may be more going on than meets the eye.
@Jeff, I guess I must have real cojones.
The CPA has been an invaluable source of funding that has created affordable housing, acquired open space and recreational resources, and helped preserve the city’s historic resources. These “special interests” often get overlooked in the city’s capital plan, because they cannot compete with things like run-down schools and fire stations that need renovation or replacement. Nor should they. That is the reason for the CPA. I know you don’t have much use for any of these priorities, but a lot of other people do, not just “special interests.” For more info on what the CPA does and has accomplished, please visit the CPC webpage.
I’ll take Jeff at his word regarding his support for the override. The transparency and trust that Mayor Warren has brought to city hall has not escaped him.
I don’t see any harm in allowing the voters a chance to vote on the CPA, given that we were supposed to weigh-in on it years ago and that the conditions of the CPA have changed – less matching funds. The efficacy of the tax will only be revealed during the election process; through a healthy debate. Ted HM can tell us why we need to keep it and Jeff can counter. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I believe a discussion about the CPA is long overdue, and I say that as someone who feels it has provided value to the city these past few years. And there is some logic, as we look to asking citizens for override money, to possibly explore options that might have the effect of reducing the size of the override. And that leave citizens feeling that all available options are on the table.
However, as a practical matter, I see this CPA pursuit as carrying with it just too much possibility for voter confusion, at a time when we have such major needs to be funded.
@ Mike, on your point about whether Jeff is taking his positions based on future political objectives, I can say that even in the summer we had had discussions about these matters [override and CPA], at a point where it looked pretty likely he was moving out of state. I’m confident his intentions here are what he believes. He’s quite capable of speaking for himself, but I thought I’d share my dealings with him around this.
Mike:
I ran twice for Alderman and got slaughtered. Now that elective office is the furthest thing from my mind, Mike suggests I might be running for Mayor! Go figure. 🙂
Here is a Seidemanesque statement you can take to the bank: If nominated for the Mayoralty I will not run, if elected I will not serve. And to make it even more certain, I pledge that my campaign slogan (for a campaign I won’t be running) will be “Rid Newton Of Coyotes!” If that doesn’t doom it for me, nothing will.
Ted:
I understand you and others support the work of the CPA. But its major projects have been completed and you guys have had $50 million to play with. It’s time to give the public the opportunity to say whether it wants to continue the CPA or put the money where it will get a far better match.
@Jeff– Touche! I sincerely appreciate your frankness, respect your activism, and value your opinion even more now that you’ve clarified your intentions.
Jeff,
I happened to see part of a prior meeting of the BOA, on NewTV, and saw you present the CPA and METCO. I felt you were on the money on both of them. CPA has out-lived its need. And METCO has way outlived its need and exists now only so that old liberals can assuage their guilt from the days prior to the civil rights movement.
@ Barry, CPA Newton has some serious control over, but METCO as a practical matter we don’t.
The state needs to be the one to initiate a full review of this program, and that is WAY overdue, because there are vested interests keeping it in place even if it outlived much of its usefulness [given the advent of charter schools].
Newton’s influence on METCO numbers is a marginal one short-to-inteermediate term, in that we can stop taking in NEW children to the program, but I’d not advocate for a wholesale pull-out from the program, because that’s just not fair to those kids already ensconced in classes with classmates that are their friends. I do think we should deal NOW with new METCO students by not accepting any, if for no other reason as to demonstrate we’re doing all we can to minimize the overcrowding effects. Sometimes the optics around what we do is just as important as the impact.