Jon Chesto reported yesterday, in the Boston Globe, that members of the Our Revolution groups in Medford and Somerville are seeking higher PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) payments from Tufts University. The article can be found here.
How about it Newton? The City Council is currently reviewing our FY2019 budget. Mayor Fuller, in her budget address asked the community to “double down” on our “commitment over the next few years” …”to make Newton greater, better and more beautiful than it is today.” Isn’t it time to go to our largest non-profits for payments in lieu of taxes?
Lets ask Boston for full payment for Metco enrolled students while we are at it…
Poor Bugek. Such a frustrated little person! The rain has stopped…get out and go for a walk and maybe you’ll feel better. Or maybe break out your bicycle and take the first ride of the season! Why not?
Im sorry you cannot have an open and honest discussion about lost revenue to Newton.
Can we only talk about ideas that you strongly favor and nothing else?
I also strongly believe Newton should implement a high density tax on residents who live in 5+ unit luxury buildings
Yes, let’s discuss the inherent inequities of educational funding in the Commonwealth, the impact of Proposition 2 1/2, and the historical injustice that led to the creation of the METCO program.
Tax the golf courses!
Michael,
It is kind of ironic (and hypocritical) that the 2 most liberal states (CA, MA) have hard caps on property taxes. MA schools ‘in general’ are above national average, the issue of METCO is a problem caused the by the city of Boston having poor public schools.
Boston needs to solve its schools problem using its gigantic tax base of Financial, tech, millionaires and billionaires. In terms of compensating Newton for Metco, Boston can afford it.. no one is asking the families of those students to pay us back…
And BTW, poor schools is not always a funding issue, look to schools any Chinatown across the nation where families have high levels of poverty rates. The schools there are above average because the parents value education above everything else while working multiple low income jobs to feed their families…
I have a strong recollection from one of the debates that Ruthanne Fuller came across pretty lukewarm on PILOTs because the city gets “strong armed” . The city must have some leverage. And I agree that it make NO sense that golf courses aren’t taxed. Does anyone know the rationale on that??
http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20171024/at-weekend-forums-fuller-lennon-express-differences-on-key-issues
Payments or services (in lieu of taxes)
“At the NAC forum Sunday afternoon, moderated by Marjorie Arons-Barron, the mayoral hopefuls differed on the effectiveness of attempting to increase PILOT payments from local nonprofits and colleges, which last year totaled a relatively meager $260,000.
“Pilots can be done; let’s be clear about that. We need to get more aggressive,” Lennon said. “I would dedicate higher education PILOTs to the Newton Public Schools.”
Fuller said the city has come back empty-handed in its attempts to increase PILOT agreements “because we get stiff-armed.” She would make a push for additional PILOT agreements, but said the city should also continue Warren’s strategy of increasing services in lieu of taxes (SILOT) agreements from nonprofits and institutions such as Boston College.”
Joshua,
The problem of Boston having poor public schools is a function of the historical development of Greater Boston and the creation of “sanctuary towns” along 128 for white families that wanted to game the system by redirecting their property tax payments to secure and protected communities populated with their own ilk, while continuing to exploit Boston for work and recreation, running up the expenses incurred by Boston to provide those working and visiting suburbanites with safety, comfort, transport, and infrastructure.
I’m confident that if you’re going to apply the discrete microeconomic accounting that critics often use to calculate Newton’s allegedly unreimbursed portion of METCO spending, you’ll find that it pales in comparison to the unreimbursed costs that Boston incurs as a result of suburban, non-resident workers and leisure-seekers using the city day and night.
Of course, you might argue that there are macroeconomic benefits that workers and visitors from the suburbs bring to the City of Boston, but I’d also argue that there are macroeconomic benefits to ensuring that greater numbers of metropolitan-area students are given quality education, as they are under the METCO program.
On the other hand, I’d also argue that the METCO program is no substitute for the provision of uniform educational funding, facilities, and staffing across the entire Commonwealth and the abolition of local property taxes in favor of a progressive income- and asset-based tax structure at the state level, so that people cannot go hide in Newton and Wellesley and Weston while those in Roxbury, Mattapan, and Dorchester suffer from dysfunctional educational systems.
Whoops, meant to say “Bugek” and not “Joshua.”
Michael
Thank you for your detailed response. Sanctuary towns is certainly a new concept I’ve learnt today…
Decades ago Mayor Mann embarrassed Boston College into a $100K annual PILOT by publicizing the fact that they were paying nothing, and he had the Assessor’s office send them a property tax bill for the full value of their real estate. It was a bold move by a great mayor who recognized a systemic inequity in property taxes. Subsequent mayors have really dropped the ball on this issue, because they’ve lacked the political courage to do anything about it…
A solution [at least a partial solution] would come easier than most people realize. While institutions like BC unfortunately have the right to claim exemption from property taxes, they enjoy no such exemption from the City billing them on an ad hoc basis for services rendered, the same way they are billed for water and sewer.
Michael. Wow. I have tried to stop blogging since Bugek does such a good job, but he missed something. Your statement, “let’s discuss the inherent inequities of educational funding in the Commonwealth” ignores reality. Boston PS spend $20,302.78 per pupil. Newton PS spend $19,095.07 per pupil. Yeah, there is a funding inequity, and we are getting the short end of the stick. Putting the benefits aside, the financial implications of METCO are clear–we are sending a big fat multi-million dollar check to Boston Public Schools, despite the fact that they are better funded!
Jeffrey, are you just trying to trick people or do you really not understand what those budget amounts include?
The figures that you’re using are for the annual school department budget, which is almost entirely opex.
They exclude major capital expenditure and debt service, for example…wait for it…the $200 million spent on Newton North High School, a considerable amount of which was funded by the MSBA.
Not to mention that a big chunk of Boston Public Schools’ current expenditure on underfunded pension obligations and retirees’ healthcare ended up primarily being for the benefit of the WASPs, Irishmen, and Jews who received their educations in Boston pre-1974 and then fled Moss Hill, Dorchester, and Blue Hill Avenue to take up residence in the aforementioned sanctuary towns of Newton, Wellesley, and Weston. That spending doesn’t much benefit the kids of Egleston Square, last time I checked.
Michael, Of course, since the numbers did not go your way, your next goal is say that the accounting system is wrong. Feel free to delve into the breakdown. Any accounting system can be criticised and GASB rules more than most, but I challenge you to weave a believable story with real numbers about why BPS is drastically underfunded relative to Newton.
My numbers come from here… http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/statistics/ppx12-16.html
You have one big hurdle. Government accounting fails to acknowledge asset values, and thus the opportunity cost of assets. The price of real estate per square foot of lot size in Boston is much more expensive than Newton. So, the real per student cost of BPS (that consider the opportunity cost of space) is much higher than I originally claimed.
Jeffrey, you’re acting as though I’m nitpicking over some minor subjective details that are open to interpretation. I’m not talking about accounting practices at all. I’m saying that a school district’s annual operating expenditure per pupil is irrelevant when you exclude ginormous capital projects such as, say, the most expensive, state-of-the-art school building in the state so far – which is located in Newton and not Boston.
PS Jeffrey, I’ve never heard anyone seriously argue that we should start evaluating the costs of public school systems by considering the opportunity cost of preventing those school properties from being used for something else – is this a serious proposal in your circles? I’m intrigued that anyone would even propose such a thing – could you send a link?
Just for the heck of it, for those of you who might take such an argument seriously, I’d stress that BPS isn’t renting a heck of a lot of classroom space along Newbury Street or in Post Office Square, or in commercial districts – and if you look at where the school buildings are actually located, you come up with the following comparison:
There’s a 2,400 sq. ft. lot at 47 Woodbine Street in Roxbury, around the corner from Boston Latin Academy, going for $75,000 = $31 per sq. ft.
And there’s a 0.85 acre lot on Cypress St. in Newton, a little under a mile from Newton South, listed for $2.4 million = $65 per sq. ft.
And I amaze myself that I felt it necessary to even perform this calculation, as if not having public school buildings is an option in a civilized society.
PPS if the 2,400 sq ft. lot in Roxbury is too small for your taste, then there’s a 6.53 acre lot in Mattapan, next door to Mildred K-8, for $6 million even.
That’s $21 per sq. ft. (less than a third of Newton prices).
Village14 would be a much more useful discussion forum, IMO, if the moderators would do more to discourage posts that contain little or nothing besides personal attacks. Adults should be able to disagree with what’s been said without demeaning the person who said it.
RE: “Tax the Golf Courses”
Golf courses pay property taxes. For private clubs, it’s one of the largest (if not the largest) line item in their annual budget.
The City of Newton has 4 1/3 courses within its limits:
(1) Newton Commonwealth. Owned by the City, pays no taxes as a result. I’m not sure that there should be an expectation that a City-owned recreation facility pays property taxes. There’s also a rational debate about whether the City should provide a golf facility as one of its recreation choices; but the City does support a wide variety of sports (soccer fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, the Gath Pool, playground equipment, etc.), so why not golf?
(2) The Leo J. Martin Memorial Golf Course. By my count, 7 holes are in Newton (10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18). This course is owned by the Commonwealth and (mis)managed by the DCR. Pays no taxes as a result; but again, it’s not clear that we should expect a state-owned recreation facility to pay taxes.
(3) Woodland Golf Club (Auburndale). Sits on about 140 acres spread over 8 parcels, and pays $262,158 in FY2018 property tax.
(4) Charles River Country Club (Oak Hill). Sited on ~180 acres, pays $352,918 in FY 2018 property tax.
(5) Brae Burn Country Club (Waban). 170 acres. Pays $427,478.
In total, the three private clubs in Newton contribute $1,042,555.40 (FY 2018) in property tax to the City. And the services that the City provides? Certainly the clubs benefit from the public safety environment created by the Newton police department. They benefit from the fire department. Their prime locations give them access to members. But they send no students to the school system; they require a very light DPW load given their size. They maintain open space for wildlife and other environmental benefit (and also use a ton of water and chemicals to maintain themselves, so that might be a push…).
What should they pay (aside from “more, because they’re full of rich dudes”)? They each benefit from 61(b), which creates an assessed value that is 25% of their “otherwise” assessed value. But is it really reasonable to tax these member-owned facilities at the same rate as commercial, for-profit entities?
Boston College pays $100,000 PILOT per year. Lasell and Mount Ida pay nothing.
Newton Wellesley Hospital – a $400 MILLION business – pays nothing (except for a minor amount on the White Building which is not tax exempt).
The Mary Baker Eddy Homestead (400 Beacon Street), assessed for ~$15 million, ZERO in property tax.
In that context, a million dollars a year from three private golf clubs seems like a pretty reasonable deal.
Yes, I apologize to Bugek for my comment (#2) – given that METCO wasn’t an issue in this post, I presumed that he was simply making an anti-METCO statement along the lines of what’s often said on WEEI sports radio, when of course his argument was much more substantive – even though I don’t agree with him I certainly respect his argument. Sorry Bugek!
Pardon the interruption.
Meredith, I’m finding this thread to be one of the most enlightening, invigorating, interesting and informative discussions on V14 in a while. It’s filled with useful facts defending differing positions rather than the usual innuendo and speculation. Yes, it’s filled with passion and frustration too. Adults debate issues in many ways – sometimes feelings boil over.
One of the things keeping communities divided is that conversations about policy issues or controversial positions are judged more on how they are presented rather than the substance within them.
Comments to V14 about how it can be a “much more useful discussion forum” belong in the “contact us” section not in the middle of a discussion.
Carry on.
@Don Ross, thanks for that very detailed response and info regarding taxation of golf course. I did not realize that Newton Commonwealth is owned by the City nor have I ever heard of The Leo J. Martin Memorial Golf Course, but interesting that it is co-located on City and DCR land.
This info raise another question for me. Does all of the revenue collected from Newton Commonwealth go to the city or is it managed by a third party that receives revenue?
A few unrelated thoughts upon reading this thread:
Our Revolution asks for/demands a lot of things they don’t stand a chance of getting.
DonRoss: “more, because they’re full of rich dudes”? Sounds like a good reason to me for asking for more. Rich dudes pay 25% of the assessed value of their recreation/social club? Hmmm.
Per pupil expenditure is a poor statistic in determining funding equity. Comparing Boston and Newton schools in any way shape or form is comparing apples to oranges.
Michael – I agreed with much of what you said in your second statement (4/29, 1:38), but you lost me when you blamed the students from the ’70’s who were/are “WASPS, Irishmen, and Jews” for creating the pension healthcare problem. First off, you’re skating on very thin ice with the terms you use. While not openly derogatory, this language comes close to the edge, given the context.
Secondly, like it or not, people will have to face up to the fact that baby boomers are aging, our numbers are huge, we need social security or a pension to live on, and are more likely to need age related healthcare than younger people. While some folks would like to put us on an ice floe and send us out to sea, that’s not going to happen. The problem is far more complex than meets the eye and there are no simple solutions.
A couple of follow ups on the golf.
Newton Commonwealth is owned by the City, but leased to a third-party operator (Sterling Golf Management). I’m not sure what the terms of the lease are or if there is a revenue share component to it.
To clarify the status of Leo J. Martin; it is 100% on state-owned land, a portion of which is in Newton, and most of which is in Weston. The course/park/land has no City involvement at all.
With respect to Chapter 61(b), that’s the law. The crux of it is that private open spaces of greater than 5 acres get a 75% discount on their assessment. It’s not an entirely free ride for the clubs. If they want to sell their land (for another use), they have to pay five years of back-taxes at the fully-assessed value. The City also is granted right-of-first-refusal on any sale of the property.
It’s fair to debate what the “right” amount of tax should be for any landowner in the City – and we’re never going to all agree. But the golf clubs DO pay taxes, and it’s hard for me to say whether the amount they pay (say the $450,000 for Brae Burn) is wholly unfair to the City. I’m not sure what the “right” number should be.
I am sure that $100,000 from Boston College, or $0 from Mount Ida (soon to be UMass!), or $0 from Newton Wellesley does not reflect the costs of these institutions to the City.
@Marti – I was complaining about the 3rd comment (@Michael – I appreciate your apology), not the entire thread. Over the past months I have seen too many comments here that are purely attacks on other posters with no other content.
@Jane, you missed my point about pensions and healthcare obligations. Boston is the only city that opted out of the statewide plan and as a legacy of the pre-1974 enrollment levels they currently have a much higher proportional burden than Newton. So that’s another reason why one can’t claim Boston is overfunded and profligate.
You’re preaching to the choir on the need for functional and generous retirement plans. That’s one of the reasons why I advocate that the public school system should be uniformly administered at the state level.
As for ‘WASPs, Irishmen, and Jews’ being ‘on the edge of derogatory’ when describing the three largest ethnic groups that populated the public schools then left the city after Judge Garrity’s decision: please spare me.
Michael, you are saying a lot of things that are flat-out wrong. That being said, I don’t need off-topic sparring points. If you want to carry on, my email is [email protected]
LMAO: “You are saying a lot of things that are flat-out wrong. I can’t say what they are, and now I have to go. I don’t need this.”
@Michael – Jews started moving out of Boston way before then, back in the 50s and 60s. A large part of the reason was to escape antisemitism – pre-Vatican II, it could be dangerous to be Jewish in Catholic neighborhoods. That was also a period where they started to be more likely to be able to buy homes in the suburbs – it was not uncommon for people to not want to let Jews into their neighborhoods (my father ran into this as late as the 1980s in Connecticutt).
Michael. I am happy to correspond, but I don’t think other readers want a discourse on depreciation and commercial real estate. Unlike you, I am not an anonymous person. Being anonymous gives you cover. Don’t worry, I won’t embarrass you by revealing your full name.
@Meredith. I’m an Irish American Catholic with varying degrees of faith and everything you say about virulent Antisemitism in Catholic Boston during the 50’s is true. Garry Wills is probably America’s most prominent and formidable lay Catholic intellectuals. His latest book “The Future of the Catholic Church” with Pope Francis” includes a concise but sad and powerful description of Christian Antisemitism down through the ages. A must read. I’m on my second read of the book because there was just too much in the first read to digest it all. I was saved from the scourge of this because I found Jewish playmates early on and became particularly close to some of them at the old Newton High School through our association on the school’s debating club and international club. And we all tended to be Democrats in an era in Newton when there weren’t too many of us around. And I had a great teacher named Mr. Karpis who did many things to bring different ethnic and religious groups together.
Michael – I never knew that about Boston and pensions. A shortsighted decision, if you ask me. The Mass. Teacher Retirement Board is one of the best run around. But you mentioned students leaving Boston and that was really the part I didn’t understand. What was the connection between students leaving the city and teacher pensions?
If we should ever meet in person, you will easily note that I’m Irish American. As for who who fled the city during the 70’s, it was white people, and at the time and for many years after, the term to describe what happened was “white flight” . I’ve also never heard the term sanctuary towns and I’ve lived in MA my whole life.