Here’s the video for the Newton League of Women Voters/NewTV forum featuring the five candidates running for the Ward 2 At-Large Alderman/City Council seat. The preliminary election will be held citywide on Thursday Sept. 17 to cut the number of candidates running from five to four. (And, as always, thanks very much to NewTV for making this available to Village 14)
Watch the video then share your thoughts in the comments section.
Decision 2015: Alderman at Large Ward Two Debate from NewTV on Vimeo.
Thank you for posting this. I only got to watch the opening statements so far but look forward to watching the rest of it this weekend.
Everyone was articulate. Good job. I am glad the LWV does this, but these are not debates. I wish there was more tension. There is no back and forth. It is more of a question answering session, but I will take all I can get. I love it.
This is long. I want to thank the 5 people that will read it. Thank you.
Auchincloss. Before the debate, Auchincloss had my support. After the debate, he still has it. I was impressed that he figured out that our pension liability is badly miscalculated. He performed well, with tons of command and poise, but, from talking to him, I expected it. He is young and faces the burden of proving he is serious. He did so. He wrote about the pension issue in the Tab two weeks ago. I wrote a letter highlighting his insight last week. The pension question was predictable, it is a big issue and has been asked in previous debates. I was surprised that the other candidates were not better prepared. They had to see it coming. Saying, “the administration has a plan,” does not cut it.
LaBlanc. I share her opinion on development, so I am biased, but she hit this one out the park. She articulated her opinion very well. She drew a clear line. There is no doubt where she stands, and I like it. Auchincloss and Barton seemed to me to position themselves between the incumbents and LaBlanc. At the end of the debate, LaBlanc summarized the major issue for most voters, and put herself, clearly, on one side (my side, the good side). In a race where two people win, this is the right strategy. After this, I can’t imagine not voting for her.
Barton. Albright and Johnson have been in office forever. Since 2001 they have had only one challenger in two different elections. Jess is in a 5 way race with two incumbents (who, given Newton politics, have a big edge) and two formidable challengers. She should have ran last election. I hope she runs again. We need serious candidates, but her timing is bad.
Albright. In the beginning, Albright seemed reasonable. She fell apart in the 21 minute mark. She spoke about the pension liability and said “maybe we have to talk about an override as a possibility.” Yes, you heard it on NewTV. We just had an override. Why didn’t she tell us this during the last override, and we could have allocated resources better?
Johnson. Marcia leads of the debate by announcing, “My primary motivation is to be a strong and vocal supporter of affordable housing.” Did she get any advice from anyone on this strategy? My opinion is that the long history of government involvement in “affordable housing” has been a failure. I think the evidence supports me, so I am not going to vote for her. Now, let’s forget about me and consider someone who actually thinks the government can be effective in creating affordable housing. Johnson needs the vote of this person. She has been in office for nearly two decades. Her compatriots on the board largely agree with her. She has had the perfect environment to create affordable housing. This is her “primary motivation.” After almost two decades, Newton is LESS affordable. If she was ineffective in the past, why is she going to effective in the future?
Dear Mr. Pontiff, I was asked the question – what are the possible ways to raise revenue. From my research on this topic I found that the town of Wellesley had an override for this very purpose. When one problem-solves one examines all the possible solutions before you rule anything out. I understand you are a professor of management – why don’t you provide some ideas.
I thought this was a fantastic debate. Everyone was articulate and laid out their positions and made logical arguments. Nice job to all.
In Susan’s defense, many cities and towns have used overrides to payoff their OPEB obligation. We can have a series of smaller debt exclusions overrids to help pay it off. I know this doesn’t sit well with many, but it is one possible option.
Ms. Albright,
An override will increase revenue (basically).
Don’t get me wrong. I think a lot of what you said was reasonable. But, an override is low on my list of things we should do soon. I went back and listened to the question again. You were not asked how to increase revenue. You were asked about how to address these liabilities. To your credit, you also mentioned cost savings. The big problem, as I see it, is that we just had an override. I am very scared of perpetually overriding to solve our problems.
Each time we pass an override, we make Newton more unaffordable for the low and moderate income families and individuals whom we claim we want to keep here.
To blame the lack of affordability in Newton on the Board of Aldermen simply flies in the face of facts. The entire Metro-Boston region has experienced a huge increase in housing prices in recent years. We don’t live in a bubble. In addition to the regional increase of housing prices, we happen to be in one of the best locations in the Metro-Boston area and have excellent schools. Both factors contribute to high housing prices.
If I may a few words about OPEB:
The Baby Boom generation is enormous. It’s been know for decades that we were going to age in large numbers at around the same time (sarcasm intended). When you speak about OPEB, Social Security, Medicare, etc., you’re talking about people and I’d like to interject that into the conversation because I just don’t hear it. There’s a context to the OPEB discussion and to quote a number without the context is unsettling. The context is people – your mother, your father, grandparents, etc. There’s no getting around it, the aging of the Boomer generation is going to be an enormous financial burden throughout the country for several decades.
Either the larger society takes on the responsibility for the aging Boomer generation or individual families will have to do so. If society decides to place the burden on individuals, the cost of an override will look like peanuts to families of limited means. I had aging grandparents before Medicare, and the emotional and financial burden was staggering.
Very informative, excellent direction & camera work and any debate that invokes the name of Mister PotatoHead is a good debate.
I was disappointed that there wasn’t more discussion on how they were going to raise funds or reduce expenses to pay for OPEB, infrastructure and all the open space all the candidates wanted to acquire in Newton (which both costs money to maintain and takes land off the tax rolls).
Several mentioned encouraging commercial development at Wells Ave, but not how they would handle the traffic issues it would cause or how much in taxes Newton can reasonably expect to get from additional commercial development. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the new developments on Route 9/Chestnut Hill area brings in about an additional $2 million annually, which makes barely a dent in the $600 million OPEB liability.
Where is all this new commercial development going to go? How much can it really raise? What are the areas for inefficiencies or cost reduction in the Newton government?
Instead of sharing their concerns for Newton’s budget, I’d like to hear how the candidates propose to fund the budget to maintain our quality of life in Newton.
Lucia, They only had a 1.5 minutes. If you want answers in detail you’ll have to talk to each individually. Thats a better test anyway, since people can’t hear their opponents answer and add onto it.
Candidates can’t speak individually to each voter. I’ve also had the experience of candidates telling me one thing and other voters the opposite. So I’d rather see positions publicly stated, as all the candidates have done with the Austin St project.
The challengers and incumbents rightly raise the issue of funding Newton’s OPEB, infrastructure, etc. I’d like to know their ideas on solutions.
I’m glad they are aware of the issues and would like to know what their ideas are for dealing with them and how they differ.
Tom – also the last question in the debate on buying and selling City land/property was submitted to the LWVN by me. I was very disappointed that all the candidates wanted the City to acquire more and more land and never sell off any property. The City barely maintains the property it currently owns – look at all the street trees that need to be trimmed or removed, the state of our buildings and roads, the annual struggle to remove snow from sidewalks along busy streets, etc. Plus the former City health building in Newton Centre that lost insurance coverage because it’s falling to bits.
They all share the lovely idea to keep and expand Newton’s green spaces – where is a realistic financial plan for doing this in a way that doesn’t take funding from schools, fire stations, police….
Lucia,
That last question is a tough one. What might be right today, might be wrong tomorrow for the city. Look at selling off our school. Many people wanted Mayor Mann to sell off some schools, now we’d love to have them back. Tough, tough question. But, I’m glad you asked it.
@Lucia
I thought the city self-insures all its buildings, including the Newton Centre branch library.
Newton’s OPEB is a much bigger problem than ‘passing the buck’ to future generations. Newton’s FY 2015 Annual Financial Report is available! No matter what a good job any incumbents tell us they are doing the Rainy Day Stabilization Fund (FY ending balance of $17.3 million) is a drop-in-the-bucket compared to the over $700 million OPEB liabilities (page xii). This includes a 26.6% increase of $147.2 million from FY 2014. The increase alone is eight and one-half (8.5) times higher than the rainy-day stabilization fund (and equals 40% of the 2016 budget of $362 million ). The irony in all of this which is getting no traction or opposition by our residents is MOST if the incumbent Aldermen (including 7 out of 8 on the Finance Committee members) voted 22 yea, 2 nay on the 2016 budget. (The only two nay votes were from Aldermen Cote and Norton).
Health care costs continue to rise (read pages 77 and 78 of the report) and yet Newton still pays 75% of the health care insurance premiums for employees. Susan Albright suggests a operating override in this debate to pay our OPEB obligation.
When do we recognize the emperor is wearing no clothes! :-D
#whatjanesaid
@Janet – Your probably right. The City didn’t want to assume the liability for MassChallenge moving into the old health building with “Severely deteriorated major building elements, such as exterior masonry, roof, windows, boiler, etc. are well documented to be due to decades of severe neglect including obvious but unchecked water intrusion.”
Just an FYI – The City of Newton did not sell and repurchase the Carr School as one candidate indicated. The city leased the building to the League School, then reclaimed it to use it as swing space for elementary schools being rebuilt or renovated.
Also, the city already owns Edmunds Park.
@Jane: The City of Newton did in fact sell the Carr School in the 1980s for $350,000 and then bought it back in 2000 for $2.1 million. http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/newton/2009/05/newton_sold_off_city_schools_b.html
The city sold it with a buy back clause, then didn’t have to maintain it for 20 years, and leased until it was needed. Financially, it was probably a wash and it’s open to debate as to whether it was a wise decision. I’d say the city did well with the deal.
The permanent sale of neighborhood schools was a mistake that we can’t ever undo and that’s a shame.
Janet – I’ve reviewed how many cities and towns are dealing with OPEB – brookline, wellesley, somerville, wayland, arlington, belmont etc, etc. None of the city councilors/aldermen are voting against budgets. (a ted cruzian tactic) They are all taking their responsibilities seriously. The executive has a plan to increase the budget line item by roughly 9% each year to fund pensions by 2029 and OPEB by 2040. Now we have to figure out how to fund that increase. This is not a simple matter and will require conversation among all parties – which is what i emphasized in the debate. Everyone is working on this problem all over the state. It is not a simple problem and requires many good ideas and probably multi-pronged solutions. Lets us all try to enlighten not scare.
Grabbing onto OPEB at the end of an election cycle has become standard political commentary in recent years. Voting No on a budget because the city intends to honor its responsibilities to city retirees is irresponsible.
Sometimes it appears that young folks want to put their elders on an ice floe and send them on their way. We are not an item on a spreadsheet.
“Voting No on a budget because the city intends to honor its responsibilities to city retirees is irresponsible.”
@Jane — perhaps you do not understand what this issue is about. The city has made promises to retirees of certain benefits, but has not set aside the funding to pay for those benefits. Or perhaps you do understand that and you think that is perfectly reasonable. In which case we just disagree.
Emily – I understand perfectly well that the city made promises to retirees, then took the money that it had a responsibility to set aside for benefits it had committed to, and spent it on other more politically popular line items. Trust me, I totally get it.
Doing so was neither reasonable nor ethical. We all knew it was happening and no one stopped it. In fact, as memory serves me, people were darn happy to take the funds to avoid cuts to popular programs.
If you think this was okay for the city to do this, then yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
@Jane: I actually don’t think it was ok that the City did that then, and continues to do so today. Perhaps we are agreeing to agree.
Susan wrote: “I’ve reviewed how many cities and towns are dealing with OPEB – brookline, wellesley, somerville, wayland, arlington, belmont etc, etc. None of the city councilors/aldermen are voting against budgets. (a ted cruzian tactic)”
I’ve been called worse!
We have unfunded liabilities of over one billion dollars. I find that a lot more outrageous than Jim Cote and me voting against the budget in order to stop acquiesing in this down-the-road-can-kicking.
@Emily – what do you and/or Councilor Cotes propose the City do to deal with the OPED liabilities?
OEPB!
@Lucia: OPEB :-)
This is a very difficult situation so one person is not going to have the answer. I think Ald. Ruthanne Fuller took the right approach by bringing together a group of qualified people to write a report defining the problem. Now we need to take the same approach to actually make recommendations to solve it — with a wider group — including employees and retirees.
But we won’t even get that far if the general public does not understand the magnitude of the problem. Which is why I think it is terrific that the League of Women Voters asked about it in the Ward 2 at large debate. (The issue of unfunded liabilities wasn’t even one of the questions asked in my debate two years ago, even though the problem was in the many hundreds of millions back then too.)
@Jane: I’m concerned that you are missing the point in regard to my position on our OPEB and pension liabilities. Fundamentally, my entire premise is that we as a city government must take action to fix this problem. Many of my friends growing up now work for the city as teachers, police officers, firefighters, public works employees, and so on. If we continue to elect leaders who allow this can to be kicked down the road, one of two things is likely to happen.
First, because the city is not legally obligated to pay all OPEB benefits (as it is pension benefits), there very well may come a time when city finances are so bad that a future Administration simply decides it can’t pay for the benefits it promised those who spent a lifetime working to make our city better. Given that these very beneficiaries we are talking about are my friends, this is deeply concerning to me.
Second, if we do not come together as a community to fix this growing problem now, a future Administration will likely press for yet another override to pay our retirees. This was suggested in the debate as a possible solution by Alderman Alright. Given that such overrides directly harm our lower and middle-class residents, I believe that we need to do a better job at working to address this problem before it comes to this.
@AldermanAlbright: Ted Cruz votes against budgets because he opposes Women’s health care rights. Aldermen Norton and Cote voted against Mayor Warren’s latest budget because it did nothing to guarantee future retirees all the benefits that we promised them. There is no honest comparison here.
@Lucia and Emily: Emily is correct – we need to do a lot of public outreach so folks understand the magnitude of the problem and once that is done, we should be gearing up to do as Wellesley did – and that is to go to the voters for a debt exclusion override to pay for this enormous unfunded liability.
Thanks to my friend George bringing this up in conversation, I’ve followed with concern the issue of the unfunded liabilities since 2006. My sister lives in Wellesley and I believe applying their solution for their unfunded liabilities to our’s to be a case of apples and oranges. They are a different size community, different economic make-up and frankly, one that has had their fiscal house in order for longer so that in passing the override they did, it did not have the impact of such width and breadth that it would have in this community particularly on senior citizens and those on fixed incomes.
I agree there needs to be more information and understanding of the OPEB, but I also think it needs to be considered when the City is looking at expenses (like adding open space or selling/leasing surplus property). Even if a committee is formed to look into it.
Otherwise, voting against the City’s budget because of OPEB is an empty gesture.
Mark, you think we have our fiscal house in order, now??? I guess for some, it doesn’t take much, we are far away from having our fiscal house in order.
The problem with talking about OPEB is that this problem has been around for over 60 years. Administration after administration has kicked the can down the road (Democrat and Republican administrations). For those councilors that have been here over 10 years shame on you for saying NOW we have to outreach. While now is better than 5 years from now, but where were you 5 or 10 or 20 years ago? Anyone with an ounce of commonsense would see that this issue isn’t going away and it would take the entire community to resolve this issue.
Tom, you misunderstood me, so perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. From what I’ve seen and learned Wellesley has had their fiscal house in order longer than we have. So their override to fund their issues of unfunded liabilities didn’t have the same impact that an override here at this point in time would have. Again, bottom line point being that using them as an example is apples and oranges…starting with the fact we’re a city of a certain size and economic makeup, they’re a town.
Also, Tom, your point about kicking the can down the road for many years is so true. It means we have not had our finances in order. One administration after another has claimed we’re in great financial shape and all our budgets balanced, while ignoring this issue. It’s like saying that one makes $25,000 a year in salary and only has $20,000 a year in bills, so everything is fine. But all the while ignoring $$10,000 in credit card debt. We’ve ignored our credit cards for awhile now.
Mark,
I hate to nitpick with you, but when you say
“Wellesley has had their fiscal house in order longer than we have.”
When you say “longer than we have” it implies that we (newton) have our fiscal house in order….which is clearly not true.
But you’re right in comparing Newton and wellesley is like comparing apples to oranges.
Jess – I actually think we’re on the same page, except that I need to hear from candidates where the cuts would come from to pay down the the debt. When a city cuts services, people of limited means and/or on fixed incomes bear the brunt of the cuts. My concern is that people love to talk about OPEB, but avoid any talk about specifically about how to pay it down. You say no to an override so that means cuts. I want to hear some specifics – specifically, where would do people think the cuts should come from? Keep in mind that the item you’d put on the chopping block is someone else’s essential service.
Emily – We agree to agree. I remember conversations in the 90’s that the annual budget robbed Peter to pay Paul. Paul never seemed to get his money back.
Wellesley has had 24 or 25 overrides. We’ve had 2. Wellesley and Newton aren’t comparable communities except in some financial fantasy land.
Jane, speaking of fantasy, let’s look at the facts. It is not the number of overrides, its what you pay in taxes that matter. Newton’s 2015 tax rate is HIGHER than Wellesley.
“My concern is that people love to talk about OPEB, but avoid any talk about specifically about how to pay it down.” Yes!
The discussion on expenses seems to be limited to whether or not we should build housing that may bring more children into our schools and no to overrides.
@Susan Albright
I did not intend to single you out on my “the Emperor is wearing no clothes” comment. (Only meant to indicate you suggested an override was a solution to the OPEB crisis.) The “Emperor” comment was directed towards the administration and all Aldermen who voted in favor of the 2016 budget. This budget shows no restraint in spending while are OPEB commitment rose by an amount equal to 40% our 2016 gross revenues. All Newton legislators who voted in favor of this budget are accountable to Newton’s unsustainable spending patterns. Every time a vote is cast for any one incumbent, the voter must ask themselves if the person they are electing is doing their job as your representative.
Jeffrey – What would you cut?
Asking what would I cut is an inappropriate question. I am going to respond, although I probably should not. I have already gone on the record on blogs and op-eds with cuts many times! Plus, I am not running for election.
A better question for the blog is “Are we better electing alderman who identify a problem and fail to articulate a solution, or alderman who were at the helm as the problem was exacerbated?”
Wellesley has lower taxes than Newton. Some would argue their schools are better, crime is lower, and fire protection is just as good. Plus, they just paid off a bunch of their OPEB. Is there a crucial public service that Wellesley residents are forgoing that Newton is delivering? If not, Newton does not have an under taxation problem.
Yes. Curbside trash and recycling pickup.
Thank you Tricia.
I see only a handful of aldermen who were on the board when the problem was created and remember them explicitly as being the ones to express the concern that we were robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Wellesley’s overrides are very small. Our overrides are around $11-12 million, while Wellesley’s overrides are roughly $3-400 thousand. You can add up all of Wellesleys overrides and you still wouldn’t come to the amount of one of our overrides.
Tom, I suggest you conduct a little more research. If you look on the state website you will see that Wellesley has passed seven overrides since 2000 totaling over $17 million. Most are in the $2.5m – $3.3m range per override. Given the much smaller size of the town (Newton’s budget is 2.57 times bigger and population is 3.02 times bigger) the Wellesley overrides are much larger in real magnitude that Newton’s. The size of Wellesley’s overrides would total over $45 million in Newton ($ per household, $ per size of budget etc..) compared to Newton’s $19m. As Tricia mentioned they don’t provide all the services Newton does, but they have done better dealing with OPEB, teacher salaries, and school funding. Newton is not a small town, and you shouldn’t compare it to one.
What Newtonfolk said. I don’t know how to link, but here’s the rundown of all the attempted overrides in Wellesley over the years: http://www.wellesleyma.gov/pages/FOV1-0001FDBB/OVERRIDEINDEX
What’s striking is that the town has a history DE’s to deal with all the issues we struggle with (school and fire house rebuilding and renovation, storm water drainage, OPEB) in addition to numerous operating overrides and they still can’t/don’t provide trash pickup.
As a final comment on this thread, I’d like to note that no one has offered so much as a line item to cut, so forget cutting programs and services.
Jane,
You can easily merge departments. BUT, you can ask that forever, it’s not our job. It’s the Mayors job. Thats what he gets paid for.
Tom, what departments would you merge?
Howard, this is the Mayor and the administrations job. Off the top of my head, I would consider merging Inspectional services with the police or fire departments. Iwould take the lead and look into regionalization, since almost all cities/towns are having the same issues.
Yes they are and they are all short of staff, Newton’s Inspectional Services are maxed out now, do you realize how much our Police Dept. has been cut over the past 20 years? There might be some areas where consolidation might work but not Inspectional Services. I think regionalization of Fire Departments should be explored along with Purchasing.
Health care costs continue to rise (read pages 77 and 78 of the report) and yet Newton still pays 75% of the health care insurance premiums for employees. Susan Albright suggests a operating override in this debate to pay our OPEB obligation.
When do we recognize the emperor is wearing no clothes!
Interesting. Both my husband and my company pay 50% of the health care premiums. We work for different industries. When will the City of Newton and the Unions recognize that the things we did in the past are not sustainable for the future?????
In addition, Alderman are able to get City of Newton coverage for life after ten years of service. I have had ten years of service at my previous employer, and got nothing when I left. All of these perks cost tax payers real money, which we can not continue. We need to have our employees recognize this and start the change (yes 75% of the premium is better than 90%). My employer rolls out the health insurance and I have no say (other than leave my job).
Newton Mom, I agree with your comments. In past decades municipal gov’ts believed they had to increase employee benefits and salaries. At that time tax revenues were growing with an expanding economy.
That was the past. Global growth is very slow and the US economy is not much better. Taxpayers can not afford to subsidize public employees as it has in the past. Pension and benefit contributions must be reduced. Our unfunded liability can not be sustained. Tax overrides are not the solution.
Howard, the point is its not my job to make these decisions. It’s the Mayors. He’s going through negotiations for the cityside departments who knows where oth sides are at.
Several months ago, Matt Hills was yelling at the teachers saying we had an unsustainable budget and that there was no money for the teachers payraises. Lo and Behold about 6 weeks later, the teachers and the schools have come to an agreement (I think). This crying for more money has been going on since the early Cohen days.
What’s absolutely fascinating is that several of people who are most concerned about the fiscal shape of the city and the total inability to meet our future obligations, are the same people who most strongly promote compounding the fiscal problems by increasing residential density at the fastest possible pace.
Each and every override makes the city even more unaffordable. It hurts entry level and it hurts seniors most.
I would add that each and every large scale housing complex increases class size, increases teacher stress and work levels, and decreases our ability to deliver top notch educational services for those already here…and it hurts the greater community.
@Charlie: #InconvenientTruth
Charlie,
Spot on correct. Increased density as promoted by the Hess Mahans and Density Deb is not sustainable.
@Charlie or Blueprintbill – Can you support the statement that increased density increases property taxes? According to http://www.homesellinginmass.net Brookline’s residential tax rate was $11.39 per $1K – almost identical to Newton’s, Boston’s was $12.58, Sherborn and Sharon were $20.3 and sparsely populated Longmeadow had the highest property tax rate in MA at $23.62.
Some of us agree with the Torontoist that development can reduce property taxes:
“Seven: How to keep property taxes low
There are ways to maintain and even increase service levels, while still keeping property taxes low—either by increasing the property tax base or by looking to other kinds of revenue.
“The existing property tax base in Toronto doesn’t grow when property values go up. But it can grow if the total number of properties increases—if the government approves of new construction. If Toronto added 100,000 average-size households over the course of five years, that would alleviate residential property tax pressure by 10 per cent. This kind of dramatic impact is seen more often in smaller, growing cities where one or two large developments can have a disproportionately large effect, and where less of the land is already developed. It’s part of the reason why Toronto does not experience the same kind of assessment growth we see in Halton, Peel, Durham, and York.” http://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-property-taxes/
I did not make that specific correlation… so… no.
But focusing back on Newton…………………. :)
OK – In Newton, when has property development increased our residential tax rates?
In Newton or anywhere else on the planet, when has large scale residential development not increased density?
Answer. Never. By definition.
Kick off … go Pats!!
Is density in a village center bad?
Development does not increase the property tax rate. Residential development increases the costs a municipality incurs – the costs of providing infrastructure and services to the additional people who would move into a municipality to inhabit the new residential development. These costs include infrastructure for water, sewer, road building and maintenance, new modulars or new larger schools, and added stress on or need for additional recreational space or public facilities. These costs also include municipal services and the additional expensive labor costs of providing them – especially public schools, police, fire and additional city staff added on to handle the additional work generated by additional residents.
Except for single family homes with no school age children, all residential development costs more in city services than it generates in property tax revenue. The higher the density in high density housing projects, the worse the net fiscal drain on the municipality. If enough new development is added that new school or other municipal buildings are deemed necessary, and an over ride is passed to fund them, then the tax rate does go up as well.
Preserving open space and parks improves the quality of life for existing residents and also helps the municipal budget because the open space requires far less in services and spending than a housing development in the same place would.
Appropriate scale commercial development is a net fiscal benefit to a municipality because the commercial tax rate is double the residential tax rate and because businesses require fewer services and no school services.
The reason urban areas , cities like Boston, can support high density housing is because they have a huge commercial tax base to support the costs of providing education and other services to their residents. Suburban Newton, with its tiny commercial tax base, and its overwhelmingly residential character cannot support additional residential development. Newton is out of balance and the people advocating for putting high density housing into every neighborhood, village center and square inch of surplused public land, are putting the short term profit of wealthy developers ahead of Newton residents – at all socio-economic levels.
Newtons unfunded liabilities are the result of making unsustainable promises to previous cohorts of municipal employees. We cannot get out of this mess by making the problem worse with more residential development that will generate a need to hire even more municipal employees.
@blueprintbill – Could you cite evidence to support this statement:
“Except for single family homes with no school age children, all residential development costs more in city services than it generates in property tax revenue.”
Lucia et al,
See Eben Fodor . “The Cost of Infrastructure to Serve New Residential Development in Austin TX – 2014
Blueprintbill – that report is talking about the cost of urban sprawl – new development in greenfields that requires the construction of new transportation, sewage, etc. infrastructure. Reading over Eben Fodor’s consultancy site, he seems to be very concerned about population growth overall (and is referenced by anti-immigration advocates) and urban sprawl:
“Total U.S. farmland is steadily declining as farms become subdivisions. The combination of population growth and farmland loss resulted in an alarming decline in the amount of farmland per-capita from 4 acres to 3 acres in the 20 years from 1989 to 2009. The US became a net food importer in 2005 for the first time in at least 50 years. Current agricultural productivity is highly dependent on fossil fuels, making it vulnerable to energy price and supply fluctuations.” p. 7 Myth of Smart Growth, http://www.fodorandassociates.com
and
“The SG (smart growth) program contains sensible planning and design strategies that have been in use form more than 40 years. If properly applied, they should improve the quality of new development. However, SG advocates have taken this formula too far by claiming their medicine is a cure for the growth ailment.” p. 9
Fodor’s opposition to smart growth is that it encourages population growth worldwide. “SG may be better than dumb growth, but if it doesn’t ultimately help us solve the problem of too much growth, then it just ends up becoming a diversion, and thereby part of the problem.” p. 7
Projects like Austin St. are in-fill, redeveloping developed space, which Fodor seems to support. “Fodor called for what’s called “Inclusionary Housing” which requires developers to set aside a certain percentage of any housing project for affordable units.” Smart versus not-so-smart growth, http://www.redmondnewstoday.com/archives/129504
Well said, Lucia.
It is pretty simple math. I have 3 kids and pay ~$9K/year in property taxes. It costs on average $17K/year to educate one NPS student. So the City is losing quite a bit of $ on me, and that doesn’t even take into account what my household costs the city in terms of fire, police, roads, etc. So as our school population rises, we have to pass overrides to cover the additional costs, as we did 2 years ago. Some people can afford an additional $50 a month but if you are low income or on a fixed income, as many of our seniors are, that may be all it takes to drive you out of the City.
We have no data as to why people leave Newton when their kids leave home.
@Emily Norton – So it’s all your fault? ;-)
My fault too, Jerry. My family moved into an empty nester’s house just like Emily (of course, Emily moved into her mom’s house according to that story in Globe West). Our neighbors, who lived next door for 45 years and whose 3 kids grew up and went K-12 in the Newton Public Schools, just sold to another young family with two kids under 6 who will go to public school too. In fact, that is why they moved here from Waltham.
But households with school age children still only comprise 1 in 5 or so in Newton, so we all share either the cost or the benefit, or both, at some point. And, even though my kids are all grown up and we are paying college tuition and a mortgage, I am proud to be able to help my neighbors and the many other families like them by paying taxes for their children to go to school, just like my former next door neighbors did for me and my kids. That is what is called a social compact.
Okay. Joanne and I are two of those treasured people who probably pay more in taxes than we receive in services and we have been doing so for many decades. Joanne and I were born from this house 78 and 79 years ago and we have been out of the Newton School system since the mid-50’s. I’ve been paying the taxes since 1970 even though I was away from here for more than two decades after that.
Beyond rhetoric, The City should be thinking of ways to keep both of us here and in this house as long as possible. We are both active in the community and have time for community things that a lot of other people here do not. I have a good retirement, but the combination of higher property taxes, routine and emergency repairs and upkeep, water rates, food and just about every other item takes an obvious toll for us every year as I suspect it does for many other people here. We have explored other options here in Newton and don’t see much if anything that would involve less expense and overhead than what we have now.
In my humble opinion, we and other seniors here are an asset to Newton. This is just a rejoinder to some who think that keeping us here is some kind of a burden to the City.
Bob, I would love to see more housing for seniors like your good selves. Many seniors could sell their homes in Newton but not be able to buy something else and have anything left over for retirement. I have been working on a more sensible accessory aoartment ordinance that would allow seniors to stay in their homes for years. I am proud to say that the Interim Director of Planning and Development, James Freas, has come up with a regulatory scheme that may finally make that happen. I would also like to see more affordable housing projects that are aimed at seniors, like Crescent Street in West Newton. That could be 8 to 16 affordable units for seniors in one building that would improve and expand an existing plaground and provide access to a landlocked playground that is currently accessible only over private property. You’ve held up your end of the bargain, and we owe you a great debt.