Newton voters will go to the polls on March 12 to consider three tax override ballot questions totaling $11.4 million.
Use this thread (and the extra time you may have this weekend sitting out the storm) to tell Village 14 readers why you are in favor or why you oppose the overrides. Or, if you plan to split your vote on the three questions, explain that as well.
I support the overides.
There is NOTHING in the current budget that can be cut. Mayor Warren has negotiated all he can. He can’t fix what the past administration has done. I don’t know how he could find the money to pay for NEW schools inside the budget.
Frankly as a parent with kids in the school system, I have found it horrific to find out what the school does not cover. We bring in Kleenex boxes at least twice a year. We give gift certificates to the teachers so that they can purchase books for the classroom. We, the parents supply the markers, the pencils, the glue sticks, etc.
The budget of the school department seems to cover salaries and benefits.
I have a SPED student, and trying to find ONE day of the week that EVERYONE works is impossible. The only person that works full time IN the school is the classroom teacher. The SPED teacher is part time, the OT is part time, the assistive technology person is part time, the behavioralist works part time. The SPED department is so part time that I find it hard to meet with the whole team at once.
Angier and Cabot need to be knocked down and replaced. Yes, we SHOULD have kept up with the maintenance but we did not.
Frankly, if I was going to buy a house, I am not sure Newton would be on the list. Brookline and Lexington and Wellesley are doing a better job at maintenance.
If we don’t pass these overrides, people who want to sell their homes will find out that it is NOT a sellers market. No one is going to pay BIG prices for a home if the schools stink.
SUPPORT THE OVERRIDE. We can’t fix the past. . . . .
@Newton Mom. Amen.
While fully supportive of NewtonMom’s sentiments, i actually disagree with one component: “He [Setti] cant’t fix what past administrations[s] ha[ve] done.”
Prior mayors, and school committees and boards of aldermen consistently approved contracts that were unsustainable. By 2008, there was plenty of talk about a “structural deficit”[expenses exceeding revenues each and every year] that was intractable. Nothing could be done about it. The stance seemed to be one of “this is a naturally occurring that we had nothing to do with and no control over.”
Setti’s mindset was so completely different. He recognized we created the mess, and we could undo it. And the powerful Exhibit A that this could be reversed was his working so cooperatively with all our unions to limit overall growth in compensation to 2 /12% per year. That was HUGE. The savings over 5 years going forward; $178 million!
I told Setti, as he was assuming office 3 years ago, that he’d never get an override passed unless he demonstrated to the citizens that he could get our finances in order. As an opponent of the ’08 override, that was to be my litmus test, and in those intervening 3 years Setti has met my litmus test.
Can more be done in the expense arena; you bet. But Setti knows that and has his administration is continuing to work that problem.
The infrastructure problems he inherited didn’t lend themselves to a simple solution. We starved the system for years, and there’s no way around providing additional funds now to begin to rectify that. But even there, Setti has been bold enough to meet that head on, and push us to do the right thing for the city going forward. He’s not kicking the proverbial can down the road, as prior administrations were prone to do.
We must not kick that can down the road either.
I support all of them because they address desperate needs.
I support them because I’m against Prop 2.5 which is partially responsible for the position we are in.
I support them because I trust the current administration to get the ball rolling in the right direction.
Dan, I have a question I would like you to answer:
You and Jeff Seideman were the most notable opponents of David Cohen’s 2008 override yet you are the most notable supporters of Setti Warren’s 2013 override. I would think that shows that you two are bigger flip-floppers than Mitt Romney.
In 2008, Newton’s General Fund incurred $265M in expenditures when you and Jeff were opposed to David Cohen’s override.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/37254
In 2012, Newton’s General Fund incurred $298M worth of expenditures and is expected to reach $312M in 2013 and yet you and Jeff are (Honorary) Co-Chairman of the campaign to raise people’s taxes?
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/46185
As for “starving infrastructure funding”, according to Newton’s Audited Annual Reports, Newton spent $338.4M on capital assets from 2004 to 2012. How is it that Newton has problems with its infrastructure resources even after $338.4M in spending on capital assets from the beginning of FY 2004 to the end of FY 2012?
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/comptroller/audrep.asp
I support the override package because the only way to deal with the city’s serious infrastructure problems is to provide revenue to complete capital projects – rebuilding dilapidated schools, adding classroom space to overcrowded schools, renovating Fire House #3, and repairing roads and sidewalks.
If the override package does not pass, then NPS will have to make some tough decisions about how to reallocate limited resources to deal with extremely large elementary class sizes at the overcrowded schools. Not to mention, we’ll continue to throw good money after bad to repair buildings that have outlived their usefulness. Meanwhile, the renovations of other schools in poor condition (Lincoln-Eliot and Franklin) will have to be pushed back well into the future. We need to get these top priority school projects completed so that we can address the needs at Lincoln Eliot and Franklin sooner rather than later.
@Jane – can you elaborate as to what are the poor conditions at Franklin?
Not supporting them. Taxes are the opiate of government.