As a journalist who covered the Newton North debacle from beginning to end, I felt I was qualified to write this column in the Newton TAB this week. The upcoming override campaign doesn’t look to be anywhere near as divisive as the last one, but there is definitely still anger in this city about North. How much it will affect override votes is anyone’s guess.
Have Newton residents gotten over Newton North?
by Nathan Phillips | Dec 20, 2012 | Newton | 37 comments
If someone’s take away from the NN situation is that they are going to be a more cautious, involved voter whose goal is to make sure we spend our tax dollars responsibly then that is a good result.
If someone is just going to continually bomb every idea invoking the NN debacle then that is bad. I see the legion of the bombers seem to be shrinking. I hope that continues.
I’ve read this column carefully and also looked back at the earlier editorial linked above and — upon reflection — have come to the following conclusion: Newton needs Gail Spector writing regularly about these issues.
The loss of Gail’s sense of history, her ability to put things in context and, of course, her passion is, well, a big loss.
Thanks Greg.
But do you think that people’s anger about Newton North is going to have an impact on the outcome of the override?
With regards to Setti Warren’s reputation as a “responsible fiscal steward” I think Former Democrat Presidential Candidate Al Smith said it best when he said “Let’s Look at the Record”.
Setti Warren’s administration has increased annual spending in Newton by $24.2M in his three years. While it may be less than the almost $119M in increased spending by David Cohen’s administration from 2003-2009, it is obvious that the city government spends too much money.
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/comptroller/audrep.asp
Newton’s population has remained relatively stable since 1980 and yet spending has increased by 50% in just nine years? What exactly is our government doing with our money again?
People in the Dreaded Private Sector have had to make due with less over the last few years, I think its time for the government to do the same.
In conclusion, the only reason why Setti Warren appears to be a “fiscal reformer” is because his spending increases are less than David Cohen’s. Warren would deserve the reputation his hagiographers have bestowed upon him if he was to have cut the amount spent, rather than merely reducing the rate of spending increases.
“Get over Newton North”? How many aldermen, school committee members and citizens whined and promised to learn from Newton North? Well, are we learning? I think not! In 2008 Lincoln-Sudbury High was built for $84 million, just $6 million over the budget. Did the aldermen and the SC learn then? No, but they went there for a field trip to learn. What makes you think they’re going to learn now?
When the cost of the new school jumped from $104.5 million to $161 million and citizens voted in a referendum, The TAB endorsed the project (hello, Gail and Greg!) despite the chorus of protestations from the public. Now you list the “mistakes” of the Newton North – thank you very much! Let me add to your list of “mistakes”, because I followed that project from inception to completion:
When the cost jumped from $161 to $197.5 million where was the promised GMP (Garanteed Maximum Price)? The GMP was invented by the state to curtail frivolous spending of taxpayers’ money on school construction. Dimeo Construction (Construction Manager At Risk) was supposed to announce that price BEFORE commencing construction – but they did not.
When contractors were ready to pour concrete into the school’s foundations people were going to STAND IN FRONT OF CONCRETE TRUCKS like those Chinese demonstrators in Tiananmin Square! The TAB printed a cartoon depicting that heroic demonstration. Too bad it didn’t happen.
“Those mistakes could not happen now”? First of all, they were not mistakes but deliberate deception of the public. Secondly, it’s already happening, Gail! The new Angier was estimated at $26 million by HMFH Architects only 1 year ago. Now it’s $37 million. Do you want to bet that cost will grow beyond the customary 10%?
“What’s done is done”? “The schools and fire stations are failing”? Of course they’re failing for the same aldermen and the SC let them fail TOGETHER WITH MR. COHEN! Your attitude is exactly what they counted on when they put the city in a debt pit for 30 years.
Newton North is a beautiful high school, and something our community should be extraordinarily proud of. Sure, mistakes were made, plenty of them. Some of Anatol’s comments in particular have a lot of merit. But I think Kim got it exactly right. Let’s learn the lessons and move on.
As to how the new North effects the override proposal, I see it playing a relatively minor role. There is some residual anger, and that will cost the override plan some support, but mostly from people who would never vote for an override anyway.
The biggest challenge facing the override plan has little to do with Newton North. It’s really all about the Warren Administration’s naive structure of the proposal. A debt exclusion override for a neighborhood school, appeals to people of that neighborhood. The further away you live, the less likely you are to vote to raise taxes for a school in someone else’s neighborhood. That’s a potentially fatal flaw for two of the three overrides. The Mayor should have recognized that problem, had some cahonas, and stood up to Steve Grossman and the MSBA. Ultimately, Mayor Warren is going to be judged on his accomplishments, not his proposals. And there’s far too much riding on this, to have gone forward with such a flawed plan.
That being said, I’m planning to vote for all three, and would encourage others to do the same.
Sure, you will vote for the override, Mike, you can afford it. But I and half of Newton populace cannot, so we, the middle class, will continue leaving Newton. That’s how this city becomes a community of the rich and the poor. The latter will be subsidised in the so-called “affordable housing” and the former will prosper and multiply in their monster houses.
Meanwhile, your “beautiful” Newton North will stand as a monument to governmental waste and corruption. Enjoy it!
I think people’s wariness about Newton North will be a factor with many individuals’ override deliberations. But I also think the override will pass.
@Anatol: I don’t buy your argument that half of the Newton populace cannot afford $343 a year and, as a result, they will leave Newton. Those who truly can’t afford it will qualify for assistance. The people I worry about the most are the renters whose rent will increase. The majority of homeowners can afford this.
Exactly where does it get you holding onto your anger about North especially when it’s directed at David Cohen and the aldermen, or me and Greg?
@Mike: While I agree with you that the state law about the structure of the override questions is unfair, I completely disagree that the mayor should have taken on Steve Grossman. Why would he want to get into a political tug of war with a guy from his own city who is running for governor? You think Steve Grossman would back down to the mayor of his hometown right now? Think about how that would look for him politically. All it would do is piss off Grossman and slow things down for Newton. I think Mayor Warren looked at the problem that was in front of him — which stunk — and came up with a very good solution.
what kim said
Gail, I don’t think it will drive a lot of people out of Newton if they have to pay $343 more a year, but I do think you are being a little bit cavalier about it. Maybe your family is doing alright, but I personally know a number of families who tell me they will have to forgo athletics or other school-related activities for their children because of the combination of a tax hike, water/sewer fee increases e and the recent activity fee increases that make for hard choices in a lot of households. And none of them will qualify for assistance.
A little empathy on the part of override supporters like yourself would go a long way in keeping this a civil discussion.
Ted, I did not mean to be cavalier at all and I apologize for sounding that way. But to say that half of Newton taxpayers can’t afford it sounds extreme to me. I wish I had an answer for the people for whom this will be a struggle.
I guess my point is that blanket statements like “But I and half of Newton populace cannot [afford it], so we, the middle class, will continue leaving Newton,” do nothing to help the cause of people who truly can’t afford it.
Ted is right. We should be careful about sweeping generalizations about who can afford what. Almost 11% of Newton’s students are on federal free/reduced lunch – that is more than 1,300 students. The income threshold for lunch subsidy is a family of four with an income of less than $40,000 per year. The number of children on free/reduced lunch has increased dramatically since 2009 – almost doubling during that time period.
There are many vulnerable families.
While there are people at risk from the override [particularly seniors on fixed incomes], the administration did take some action to help ameliorate that, by enhancing the programs aimed at means-tested seniors.
An important follow up step, which I’m confident the administration has in mind, is to more heavily inform and promote these programs to help that segment of Newton.
Margaret – 11% of Newton’s students cannot possibly mean 1300 kids – 1300 is more than 11% of Newton residents.
Dan – enhancing programs for means-tested seniors does nothing to help those of us who are struggling but aren’t seniors, and there are a lot of us.
@Gail– I think you’re exactly right. Mayor Warren did not stand up to Grossman for purely political reasons. That’s one of the things that bothers me. Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but I think our mayor should stand up for us, not back down because it suits him politically. If the Treasurer was a Republican, Mayor Warren would have done more. It’s the fact that Warren and Grossman are somewhat politically allied that kept the Mayor from even voicing any opposition to the highly questionable MSBA policy. I believe Mayor Warren should have publicly criticized the policy that requires separate ballot initiatives. He should have instructed the law department to put together a case as to why the policy discriminates against larger communities like Newton, and gone into court to seek summary judgement.
@Mike: in order to do what was best for the community, Mayor Warren had to take the most expedient route. We don’t know which override package has a better chance of passing. We can only presume Yes, it was a political decision. He thought this through strategically and politically.
@Gail, I know you well enough to know you meant no harm. But regardless which side of the issue someone is on, it is important to acknowledge that not everyone in Newton is well-heeled, and that a $343 tax hike is the equivalent of cutting a child’s sport, or ballet or piano lessons out of the family budget in many households. And, through my work supporting affordable housing in Newton, I have learned that the median income for families who live in Newton is not nearly enough to afford the median priced single family house in Newton today. There are plenty of families whose earnings have failed to keep pace with their expenses due to the downturn in the economy. As Margaret says, there are a lot of families right here in Newton who are struggling.
@Dan, with all due respect, there are a lot of younger working families with mortgage payments, college tuitions, car payments, etc., who do not have the same access to tax relief programs that seniors do. You are making the same kind of assumption that Gail is making about other people’s financial condition. I know you, too, and I assume you don’t mean any harm either. But don’t let your support for the override blind you to the very real impact it will have on some of your fellow Newton residents.
@mgwa, Newton has about 85,000 residents and about 12,000 students. So Margaret’s numbers are about right.
Please, whether you support the override and debt exclusions or not, let us not be so dismissive of the other side’s motives, intentions or good faith this time around. We have already had enough of that. There are a lot of good reasons why the override and debt exclusions will benefit our community as a whole. But please don’t trivialize the financial worries and concerns of a great number of your neighbors by giving them the back of your hand.
Ted – thank you for pointing out my error – I didn’t realize such a high proportion of residents were students (I’m good at math but not demographics, I guess). And thank you for being so aware that many of us in Newton are not well off.
Margaret – I apologize for the incorrect correction.
Everyone – I support the override because I think it’s necessary, but $300+ more per year is definitely a hardship for me. To add to Ted’s list of people who don’t qualify for tax relief but will be hit by it, add single parents and those with disabilities, plus those who had periods of unemployment in the past few years that they are still struggling to recover from. There are many of us who bought into Newton before housing prices skyrocketed, who could never afford to buy here today and have incomes commensurate with what was needed to live here 20-30 years ago, not now.
Gail: “Exactly where does it get you holding onto your anger about North especially when it’s directed at David Cohen and the aldermen, or me and Greg?”
It gets me exactly to the threshold of truth. Telling the truth is important because without it nobody is accountable for anything. Politicians often lie in order to be elected or to cover their mistakes, but Newton North was not a mistake, it was a big fat lie. I know it, you know it, most Newtonians know it – and your own column proves it one more time.
I said half of our citizens cannot AFFORD the override. I didn’t say they cannot PAY for it. Yes, most of them can pay for it, but then they’d have to sacrifice other necessities, because their government deceived them!
I wouldn’t mind paying even if the government screwed up, but the government DECEIVED me – and that I cannot forgive. I even tried to bail them out (excuse my expression), by designing a less expensive Newton North and the free fire station, but they ignored me and my team, so now we have the override.
@Anatol: I understand.
@Gail– Now I’m going to disagree with you. You said… “In order to do what was best for the community, Mayor Warren had to take the most expedient route.” I believe in order to do best for the community, he needed to pick the route most likely to be successful.
You also said… “We don’t know which override package has a better chance of passing.” I believe you’re incorrect, and that the debt exclusion overrides are particularly vulnerable to failure for the reason I previously mentioned. I think Mayor Warren would disagree with your assessment as well. If you recall, his initial plan was not for three overrides. He only switched to the three override package, after the MSBA insisted the school projects be separated.
@ Ted, with all respect back at you, the state doesn’t make provision for the category you’re referring to [with the possible exceptions of veterans and the disabled], so there’s not a lot the city can do for them. Other than to minimize the magnitude of the override request, which I think the mayor has tried to do.
As my stance on the override of 4 years ago attests, i’m not a knee-jerk supporter of overrides, and I’d not be supporting this one but for the fact that I think the new administration has done its level best to tame the so-called structural deficit and has done a good job of assessing our needs going forward, and has been bold enough to confront those realities rather than kicking the issues down the road.
I’m also not one who has been quoted as minimizing the impact of an override on segments of our populace. But I did focus my comments on seniors because for many their incomes have become static, with little ability to take action to increase that income.
Dan – the city may not be able to make provision for other categories, but that doesn’t mean that people should think that helping seniors takes care of all the problem. When you write “While there are people at risk from the override [particularly seniors on fixed incomes], the administration did take some action to help ameliorate that, by enhancing the programs aimed at means-tested seniors” without saying that you realize that doesn’t help many other people at risk, it comes across as if either you think that’s the only group having financial difficulties or else you don’t care about the other groups (I’m not saying that’s how you feel, just how it comes across). And there are other posters who seem oblivious to the financial difficulties of many Newtonites.
As I said, I will vote for the override because it’s necessary. But that doesn’t mean I’ve “gotten over” NNHS. It means that I’m not going to blame the current administration for what was done before their time, and I recognize the responsibility to provide safe school buildings for our community’s kids, even though my son never used the Newton public schools.
I can’t believe I am going to say this but: I align my comments with the Alderman from Ward 3.
Dan, you know better than most people that the biggest part of our structural deficit is the pensions and health care for the city personnell who ever worked for the city, including the aldermen. We have about $1 billion of unfunded payments in this area – and you are on the record bemoaning this fact.
Yet the new mayor didn’t even touch this bear of a problem during the past 3 years, so we have to feed the bear. Why can’t our retired bureaucrats collect Social Security like other workers? Perhaps, then we won’t need overrides.
There are worse things, Tom. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Dan, there is something else the city could do for families who are struggling to make ends meet that could ease their burden from a tax hike: reduce or eliminate some of the school fees. Or, the Mayor could have pushed for the residential exemption for a principal residence which shifts the tax burden to more expensive homes. It is a state law, MGL c 59, s 5C, and Cambridge has adopted it. I docketed it a while ago but it wasn’t included in the Mayor’s package of exemptions and assistance programs, so it is probably going nowhere.
I think we can all agree it’s important to be respectful of the hardship that a tax increase imposes on segments of the Newton population and the city should pursue any measures to help those families. But we also need to remember that every student in the elementary schools, without regard to their family’s financial circumstances, will benefit from new buildings and an increase in the number of classroom spaces. Everyone benefits from repaired roads and sidewalks and a police department that is not stretched too thin.
One of the positive legacies of NNHS is that many more residents take a closer look when public (or private) capital projects are proposed. Residents are more likely to become involved – and stay involved – until the city and/or developers address their concerns. At this point in Newton’s history, the city needs to provide accurate information about projects when it becomes available and to address the concerns of those who will absorb the greatest impact, whether that is a financial burden, traffic and safety concern, or a neighborhood/village issue. That’s great news
I believe that is happening with this oveerride. It’s time for the city to move forward to address the serious infrastructure problems that have the potential to undermine the quality of our school system in the near future (as in September when we don’t have enough classrooms to house our surging school population) and life in the city.
Ted, I like your idea for the tax exemption that is spelled in the MA General Laws. I read the article you provided and have a question: what’s criteria for a Class 1 property and who determines it?
Also, I wonder if you’d like to gather a popular support for your idea and then docket your proposal again. If you don’t succeed at first, try again…
Speaking of trying again if you don’t succeed, Anatol I can’t help but wonder if your sudden emergence on this blog — and talk of failed leadership — might suggest that you’re planning on running for alderman next fall. (especially since one of the incumbents from your ward isn’t going to seek reelection).
Could someone please translate the residential statute language into English?
@ Ted,
Eliminating fees, which no one seems to like, would of course have the effect of increasing the amount needed from taxes [or an increased override request]
As to the Cambridge approach, on the surface it seems to have great promise, inasmuch as in their case the first $200K of assessed value is ignored. Do you have any idea why virtually no other community has taken this approach? Does the fact that only 60% of their base is residential play a role? What would the process [and timeline] have been to adopt this approach here? Are you aware of any downsides?
@MGWA, no problem. And yes, people do not believe the numbers of lower income families, but the free/reduced lunch numbers are used to calculate school poverty and are collected and reported by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondar Education (DESE).
It’s also telling that 50% of the low income students in Newton are clustered in 6 schools – Franklin, Horace Mann, Day, Lincoln-Elliot, Bigelow and North.
Dan, Boston also has a tax break for owner occupied houses. I think that’s the same thing as the “residential exemption for primary residence” in Cambridge.
Ted, wouldn’t the majority of houses, or at least a very large minority of home owners qualify for that exemption. If so, where would we make up that lost tax revenue? As I understand it, that exemption applies to all owner occupied houses so I don’t see how it would “shift the tax burden to more expensive houses”. I would think it would instead shift the tax burden from people’s primary residences onto income property – i.e. rental property.
@Jerry,
If say, the first $100,000 of assessed value were “free”, then the assessed rate per thousand would be higher to make up for that lost revenue. So those on the higher end of the assessed value scale would be more affected.
First, allow me to apologize in advance, but I have some firm deadlines in my day job that do not allow me to blog much until after New Year’s Day. So this will probably be my only entry on this for a while. But do feel free to do some of your own research on the intertubes.
The website for the Town of Hingham has the most helpful explanation of how the residential exemptions works. Basically, if your house is worth less than the average assessed value, and it is your principal residence, you benefit while if your house is worth more, you pay more in property taxes. The enabling statute was intended to encourage home ownership and benefit less expensive homes, based on the idea that people with more expensive homes and non-owner occupied rental properties could better afford higher taxes. Obviously, it is not a perfect device and could be a hardship in some cases. It has been looked at before in Newton, and I docketed it as a discussion item when the override idea was first floated, since at a time when we are asking everyone to pay more we ought to be looking at ways to ease the burden on those who can afford the increases less well than others. As I said before, there are a number of tax relief enabling acts that Newton has adopted but this is not one of them. This one, in my view, would primarily benefit homeowners who do not qualify for the other exemptions based on age, disability and veteran status, among other things.
Thirteen other cities and towns have adopted the state residential exemption, and Boston, Cambridge and Somerville have special legislation which allows them to deduct up to a 30% residential exemption.