Joshua Norman of the newly forming group, Moving Newton Forward, which is opposed to the three override questions on the March ballot had a column in the TAB this week outlining his (or perhaps his group’s) position.
The column doesn’t seem to be on Wicked Local Newton yet but Norman has sent me what he say was the original version of his column, compete with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one — or at least there’s some charts. (I’ve posted it as a Google doc).
While the mayor’s fiscal reforms have been an acceptable first step in comparison to David Cohen’s record of fiscal folly, we believe that there is more to be done to whip Newton into fiscal fitness.
As far as I know Moving Newton Forward still does not have a website and, I’ve been told (but have not confirmed this myself) has yet to register as a political action committee. (Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken.) Norman says the group’s first public meeting is Feb. 6 at 7 p.m. at 295 California Street.
Norman tells me he attended Bentley’s Business School (MBA-Finance Class of 2012) and had a graduate assistant job there. The tag at the end of his TAB column said he lives in Auburndale.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. I love statistics and research and agree there has been overspending in areas that could have been more efficient – but – there has also been great under spending in areas like building maintenance, streets and sidewalks.
The percentage increases need to be compared to what needs to be spent to maintain city services at a level Newton residents desire – wants versus needs, quality of life, etc. like the Citizens Advisory Commission said.
For example, how does our net police spending compare to other similar communities? http://www.boston.com/yourtown/specials/snapshot/snapshot_mass_police_budget_2011/
Doesn’t seem excessive compared to our neighbors, even though it’s increased 40% in the past 8 years according to the graphs in the article.
Moving Newton Forward does have a website, presumably one that is a placeholder. If not, then it’s not going to be much of a campaign.
Actually, I think the site looks pretty good. (Maybe it was just updated?) Better certainly than
Moving Newton Forward’sBuilding Newton’s Future site looked at launch.Greg:
Thank you for your compliments.
Gail:
See Greg’s compliments:
Lucia:
we appreciate it when pro-override supporters like yourself provide us facts and figures that bolster our case. It makes my job that much easier. I thank you for providing that link about Newton’s per capita police spending.
According to your (Boston Globe) Boston.com link, it appears that Newton is in the Top 100 with regards to per capita police spending by the 351 cities.
Basically, Newton spends more money per capita than 72% of Massachusetts’s cities and towns on police services. As such, we think that the 2.5% increases that they are more than sufficient, considering that the US economy only grew by 1.5% last year.
Our group will present our reasons why we are opposed to increasing taxes beyond the 2.5% limitations for additional police spending, fire department spending, streets and sidewalks and the schools.
MNF’s opposing viewpoint is highly needed and a valuable part of the override discussion that should be encouraged more.
And to borrow from the viewpoint of one of this blog’s chief contributors, those who believe this override ‘helps’ those most financially vulnerable, I submit that NOT voting for this override could have rather positive implications for ALL taxpaying citizens, even those who could afford it if we doubled the 2.5% tax limit. The benefit coming in the form of more efficient city management that will prevent the need for future overrides. Only partially joking, we all know they can’t stop themselves from asking for more money no matter how much they are given.
Interesting, the way I read the police spending was Newton does not pay an excessive amount (we’re below the top 25%) but has a very low crime rate.
@Greg – I think you meant better than Building Newton’s Future site looked at launch.
@Tricia: Yep
@Joshua: Don’t wait too long. The election is in six weeks.
Tricia and Greg:
I think if you guys like our website now, you’ll like it even better as time goes by.
I think your website is fine (nice use of the city’s seal and website favicon, btw) but I definitely prefer Building Newton’s Future. In every sense.
One thing I really appreciate about Moving Newton Forward’s site is that it includes names of all its officers, which is something Building Newton’s Future does not do.
Greg–Glad you were able to get the NPS video up. For BNF officers, try here http://buildingnewtonsfuture.org/about/
and here http://buildingnewtonsfuture.org/announcing-building-newtons-future-ballot-question-committee/
I just looked at the anti-override group’s home page. It looks lovely, but the use of statistics is questionable. For example:
“Newton has plenty of money, according to audited financial reports. For example, city revenue increased 40 percent from 2003 to 2012, while Newton population declined 7 percent from 1960 to 2010.”
What the heck does a 50 year population trend have to do with a 9 year revenue growth?
A 40% increase over 9 years equals a 3.8% annual increase (with compounding). I don’t know what the city’s population growth has been during the last 9 years, but during that time the cost of health care, retirement benefits, and energy have increased far more than 3.8% annually. School enrollment has also been on the rise during that time period.
Here is another example:
” Mayor Warren has not cut spending. It increased under his watch by $24 million.”
Over 3 years, the mayor’s $24 million spending increase amounts to 3% annual growth. Again, during that 3 years, consider the increases in health care, retirement benefits, and energy. Retirement(an expense the mayor has no control over) has increased 5.7% during the last 3 years. Total school spending during the last 3 years (57% of the total budget) has increased 3.4% due to increasing enrollment.
From Joshua’s comment above:
“Basically, Newton spends more money per capita than 72% of Massachusetts’s cities and towns on police services.”
Newton is a semi-urban city with a dense population. Our police costs really can’t be compared with the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts towns and cities. Law enforcement costs, even per capita, are very different in a rural or far-suburban town.
Rhanna, I’ll be glad to answer your questions:
“What the heck does a 50 year population trend have to do with a 9 year revenue growth?”
1. Would you have liked us to have used a 50 year population trend with a 50 year revenue and expenditure growth rate? You know what, maybe I should have asked for CAFR statements from 1960 to 2003 that way I could have shown the explosive spending growth in Newton from 1960-2012 relative to its stagnant population levels as measured by the US Census.
Newton’s population as measured by the US Census was 83,829 in 2000 and 85,945 in 2011, and this represents a whopping cumulative population growth rate of 2.524% .
Spending as measured by the CAFR has increased by 65% from 2002-2012 (46% as measured by budgetary basis).
Revenue has increased by 71% as measured by CAFR from 2002-2012 (43% as measured by budgetary basis)
Point I’m trying to make is that Newton has had healthy revenue increases from 2002 to 2012 but spent the bulk of it on public sector employee salaries and benefits.
Rhanna, I was at a meeting with Mayor Warren and CFO Lemieux and they repeated that 80% of Newton’s budget is salaries and benefits. If the city spent 76% of its budget on salaries and benefits, it would be able to fund BNF’s laundry list of spending programs without forcing Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer to pay more money.
As for your comment about “School enrollment has also been on the rise during that time period.” Allow me to refute that point too.
Education expenses have increased by 76% according to Newton’s CAFR statements from 2002 to 2012. General Fund Budgetary Basis spending on education has increased by 51% during this time period. That is well ahead of the 8.2% enrollment growth in the Newton Public Schools during this time period.
The reality is that we do not have the classroom space to accommodate the surge in student enrollment right now. If we don’t provide more classrooms by September, then students will have to be divided up into the classrooms that do exist, resulting in a significant increase in class size.
The Mass. School Building Authority guidelines for elementary schools state that that elementary classrooms should be 950 SF. The classrooms at Angier are under 700 SF and are about 750 at Cabot. No amount of maintenance can bring these schools anywhere near the recommended MSBA guidelines. This extra space accommodates the education of special needs students as well as the technology that provides for a 21st century education.
Newton is surrounded by comparable communities that have been replaced or had comprehensive renovations of their elementary school buildings. When the best candidates for teaching positions have a choice between working in a school that’s dilapidated or one that has been updated and provides excellent educational spaces (and the best candidates do have that choice), which system do you think they will choose?
Rhanna, with regards to per capita police spending, why does Burlington have a higher crime rate than Newton even though it has higher per capita police spending?
http://www.city-data.com/city/Burlington-Massachusetts.html
Newton has 2% more per capita police funding than Wellesley yet Wellesley has a much lower crime rate?
http://www.city-data.com/city/Wellesley-Massachusetts.html
The point I’m trying to make is Newton still has a crime rate below the national average thanks in part because it is an affluent bedroom community of Boston, MA and a 2.5% annual increase for police department spending is more than sufficient. I’m also trying to make the point that spending increases do not always translate into lower crime and that a median annual increase in police department spending of 2.5% balances the law enforcement needs of the city with the ability of the taxpayers to pay for it.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Newton-Massachusetts.html
If the police department can identify ways to bring in more revenue for the city other than predatory ticketing or higher taxes, I have no problem with larger pay raises for policemen. If other departments are able to operate with spending increases below 2.5%, I have no problem with channeling a portion of the remainder into police.
http://blog.motorists.org/nma-speed-trap-spotlight-massachusetts/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nma-speed-trap-spotlight-massachusetts
I don’t want to give helpful hints to the opposition, but this is how I see it. Override opponents should forgo any sense of an informational campaign and focus their entire effort on getting out the vote. I believe there are more people in Newton who [in general] oppose overrides than support them. The trick is getting them to show up at the polls. Moving Newton Forward seems more interested in winning the debate on merit. In this case, that’s a losing strategy.
Joshua,
Your proposal to reduce Salaries and Benefits to 76% of the city’s budget amounts to a $12.5 million cut–that’s a lot of teachers, firefighters and policemen to lay off.
The problem with keeping increases in Salaries and Benefits to 2.5% per year is that health care costs have increased 7% per year over the last 10 years. With city revenues capped by Prop 2 1/2, we’ve been making up the difference by insufficient spending on our buildings and other infrastructure, which has gone on too long.
Regarding law enforcement costs for various cities…the costs will be driven by things like the economic mix of the population, traffic congestion, and commerce, so the statistics you quote make good sense to me, and they don’t argue that Newton currently overspends on law enforcement.
Mike, I’d love to respond to your post but I’m afraid I’d be giving my opposition helpful hints.
Rhanna, The city doesn’t have to lay people off in order to reduce its compensation cost proportion by 4%, they could ask folks to take a 5% pay cut. Furthermore, the city can phase it in over a period of time in the form of reducing salary growth rates. If health care costs have increased by 7%, maybe it is necessary for cash compensation costs to increase at a lower rate than 2.5%. Or maybe health care benefit plans need to be reevaluated.
As for law enforcement, I am saying that law enforcement spending in this town is sufficient as well as the 2.5% increase