A group of Newton citizens has formed Vote Yes for Newton, a ballot question committee calling on voters to pass three override questions that would modernize three aging school buildings; support educational excellence and student wellbeing; improve streets and sidewalks; revitalize parks, fields, courts and playgrounds; expand services for our older residents; grow our tree canopy; and reduce Newton’s carbon footprint.
Vote Yes for Newton is a grassroots organization co-chaired by Newton residents Christine Dutt and Kerry Prasad. It was created in response to Mayor Fuller’s Oct. 17 proposal to the City Council to raise $14.9 million in additional tax revenue to address critical city needs. Once the City Councilors approve the override request, Newton voters will be able to vote for the override on March 14, 2023.
“We know that the education we provide for our children and the services we offer our older residents define us as a community. The proposed override is great for Newton because it will rebuild three elementary schools and invest $9,175,000 annually into city services, including $4,500,000 to Newton Public Schools and funding to expand services for our older residents,” said Prasad. “It has become clear that the restrictions of Proposition 2 1/2 on our tax levy will not enable us to address these critical needs in the near term.”
“The override questions will fund improvements that touch the daily life of all Newton residents. Aging and obsolete schools at Countryside, Franklin, and Horace Mann will be renovated or replaced. Students at these schools will have right-sized classrooms and common learning spaces that every school needs today,” said Dutt. “Our city will move closer to environmental sustainability and climate resiliency by transitioning city and school buildings away from fossil fuels and by replanting our tree canopy. Our roads and sidewalks will be repaired so we can safely walk, bike, and drive in Newton.”
In the coming weeks and months, “Vote Yes for Newton” will reach out to individuals and groups throughout the community. If you’re interested in volunteering to help ensure that the override passes or you want more information, please contact Vote Yes for Newton at [email protected].
Please visit the Vote Yes for Newton website for updates, information and resources at www.VoteYesforNewton.org.
From the operational override:
“Support for educational excellence and students’ social/emotional needs”
How is this defined? It is a very broad statement and might mean different things to different people.
Interesting comments offered by Councilor Gentile during the lively debate this evening. He makes very compelling reasons to vote No. One of his reasons is Newton is sitting on 42 m in the bank a very hefty sum coupled with 93 m received in Covid relief funds. He further makes the argument that Newton is seeing substantial new growth and the City needs to live within budget. The taxpayers of Newton are dealing with Eversource seeking a 43% rate increase, a high rate of inflation and high interest rates. In addition, people’s retirement funds have been adversely impacted by market conditions and disposable income greatly reduced. We have a possible recession looming. Kudos to Councilor Gentile for standing up for the hard working taxpayers of the City.
Christopher Columbus died 517 years ago, but some still demonize him each October.. Columbus and the Europeans did not introduce slavery to North America; the indigenous Native Americans enslaved captives from other tribes long before Columbus and colonization.. When the Atlantic slave trade brought Africans to North America, many indigenous Native American tribes began to acquire Africans as slaves.. At the onset of the Civil War, African American slaves made up 14% of the population of Indian territory occupied by the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Çhoctaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes .. Those 5 Native American tribes and others were supporters of slavery and were allies of the Confederate Army during the Civil War .. The last Confederate general to surrender his troops to the Union Army was Cherokee Stand Watie, who commanded an all Indian brigade.. America ended slavery in 1865 with the 13th Amendment, but the Native American tribes continued to hold an estimated 8,000 Africans as slaves.. The Federal government negotiated treaties with the Native Americans to free the African slaves.. If we go by the dates on which the Tribes ratified these treaties, slavery in the continental United States came to an end as a legal institution on June 14,1866, when the Creek Indian Tribe agreed to abandon African American slavery.. Native Americans freed their African slaves 360 years after Columbus died.. the City of Newton chose it’s current John Alden seal in 1865, while Africans were still enslaved by indigenous Native Americans.. The people who want to change the city logo because they find it offensive are squandering our tax dollars for the sole purpose of virtue signaling .. Sycophants . https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2013/01/when-did-slavery-really-end-in-the-united-states/comment-page-1/#
Can the Mayor use the Covid funds for our schools? I’d prefer that to an override. Do we need to add a question on the ballot asking voters to approve unrestricted use of these Covid relief funds?
Also, we are not getting enough in return from the big developers who are profiting big time off their massive projects —- which are a huge inconvenience to every Newton resident.
She can, and many fiscally sound districts have, despite what the mayor has claimed.
COVID funds are one time only. Even if they had been completely dedicated to schools they would have been insufficient to pay the $100m over 30 years for just Franklin and Countryside. As it was, the fund paid for a lot of COVID relief like it was supposed to. Using the override to pay for bonds over time is a sensible way to use the money: targeted and with a known cost over time.
Here’s more information on how the funds for the schools (and other initiatives) will be used https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/override/academic-excellence-and-educational-equity
Here are details of how the ARPA funds are being/have been used ($63 million–NOT $93 million): https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/arpa-investments
Newton has among the highest real estate values in the state, and a decent business base (although that’s shrinking due to the City’s rampant favoritism toward Developers – but that’s different post for another day). It’s cupboards are far from bare.
Budgeting is not just about asking for more, but also prioritizing spending against what we have. I’d love to get a Tesla too (and help to, “fix the climate”), but heating our home this winter or paying for college comes first.
We spend countless dollars on consultants and committees, $15m on Webster Woods, continuing to support pensions when the rest of the free world has moved 401ks, and now considering to play real estate developers of the Dudley Road lots.
It’s not a surprise that schools and our kids are always the reason for an override (insert Sarah McLachlan’s, “Angel“ and images of children with a single tear streaming from their faces here). When schools needed a few million bucks to close this year’s budget gap last summer, getting those last dollars was like pulling teeth despite a coffee stuffed with APRA funds. Yet now schools are put on a hook as bait for override fishing .
That said, I will vote yes in favor of the debt exclusions to rebuild Countryside and Franklin. Extraordinary benefit to our kids, require extraordinary funding. That makes sense – these schools are long overdue for a rebuild. But will need a lot more convincing to vote yes on the operation override.
The last time we saw a “Yes for Newton _______”, it was a group funded primarily (if not solely?) by the developer whose project the group was created to support – a questionable alliance to say the least.
Time and time again, when the topic of development comes up, we are told these apartments will not add to class sizes; that the mayor’s demographers (more consultants $$) insists enrollments will go down not up. In 5 years, when the over 2,000 apartments recently approved by this mayor and the city council have completed construction, will the city come back for yet another override?
It was a question I submitted to the mayor’s override email address over three weeks ago, and sadly it was not give the courtesy of a response. Perhaps one of you can ask and share the response.
It’s also not surprising that Vote Yes for Newton is positioning the override as a single vote.
One of the first thing that learned about this override is that it’s 3 SEPARATE votes. As of right now, my vote is yes (Countryside), yes (Franklin) and no (operational override).
With my last child about to graduate from one of the Newton high schools, I look back on the last 20 or so years of my experience with NPS and conclude that it is a disappointing school district. Extraordinary hype with results that for my family just did not deliver. There are plenty of communities surrounding Boston that give far more bang for the buck when it comes to public education. I think of some really good friends who many years ago when their kids were approaching elementary school age looked at Newton (specifically Mason Rice) and concluded “Not worth it.” They were very happy in Needham.
Not being one looking to throw good money after bad, this will be an easy No vote for me.
Elmo – it’s an easy No vote for me also but many of those kids who started at Mason-Rice 10-12 years ago are now at places like Claremont McKenna, Cornell, Vanderbilt, MIT, Swarthmore, Williams, Rensselaer, Northwestern, UCLA, Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, Michigan, Duke and Columbia. And that’s just the ones of which I’m aware.
I’m not saying that there is a direct correlation between elementary school and those universities but Mason-Rice was an outstanding place to learn and grow under former Principal Mark Springer and its teachers. I don’t know what it’s like now.
Two facts about the budget when people ask about the public’s focus on the Mayor regarding this issue:
*The City Council cannot increase any amount recommended by the Mayor in the annual budget without the Mayor’s recommendation to do so. It may only reduce or reject any amount requested or recommended (see G.L. c. 44, § 32 and the City Charter)
*To go along with the above the Mayor determines what amount of the budget is allocated to the schools. The School Committee of which the Mayor is a member of approves the allocation of that school budget.
With the two overrides for Countryside and Franklin are Debt Exclusion overrides which means that the funds from each of those individual overrides are allocated for those specific projects only. The Operating Override is a bit less concrete. There are stated purposes some a bit vague in description but in truth it adds money to the general pot of funds.
I’ve asked this before and will ask this again – now that the “millionaire’s tax” has passed and $1-2B is supposed to appear for spending on schools and transportation – how much of that will Newton get and will that remove the need for an over-ride?
In the interest of facts, re the reference to a family choosing Needham over Newton, here’s a partial history of Needham’s override votes. https://www.needhamma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/875/OVERRIDE_ELECTION_RESULTS?bidId=.
Newton has passed overrides only twice since Prop 2-1/2 went into effect in the 1980s.
I remember Newton voting an override down in 2009. Have there been other overrides defeated since 2000? The 2009 override seemed like an overreach because in 2009 so many people were losing their jobs, retirement funds were tanking, and people were losing their homes. It does seem like asking for an override now, when Newton has the most money it has ever had, and property tax revenue is at a record high, is also difficult to understand. At some point, can Newton live within its means, rather than relying on overrides?
Here and elsewhere I’ve seen people comparing our schools to those of neighboring communities, suggesting that schools in other communities are superior to ours. Interesting that Newton has passed 2 overrides since 1980, whereas those neighboring communities have passed many more: “Since 2000 Brookline has passed 7 overrides, Lexington has passed 9, Needham has passed 16, and Wellesley has passed 16.” (https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/override).
The problem with Mayor’s and Yes for Newton’s pitch is there is absolutely no logic that links extra funding to better education. Rather, there is an assumption that money will magically help our kids learn more. If anything the Mayor’s pitch is inconsistent–according to the messaging of our elected officials, we already have excellent public schools (try not to laugh when you get these emails). If true, why do we need an override?
Laura T.’s point escapes me. Why should the number of overrides be related to education outcomes? Using her community list, let’s compare (from DESE, 2022) the per-student spending and the average 10th grade MCAS score (average of Math, ELA, and Science).
10th Grade MCAS Average
Lexington 524.0
Wellesley 516.3
Needham 515.7
Brookine 515.7
Newton 514.7
Per pupil spending
Brookline 25.7K
Wellesley 24.2K
Newton 23.4K
Lexington 21.4K
Needham 21.1K
What does this tell me? Newton spending is in line with our neighbors, but our test performance is not. We have a leadership problem, not a funding problem.
Jeffrey, we have a school leadership problem because Newton’s MCAS scores are 2% off the best district in the state?
And isn’t school override funding primarily for school buildings and facilities, with extra funds to handle long term educational and mental recovery from the pandemic?
Money may not buy excellent schools (hi Cambridge!), but mental health councilors don’t work for free.
Mike, I will pass on your first question since it assumes that I wrote something that I did not.
For your second question, let’s focus on the operating override. This override results in an increase of over $5M for NPS, which will escalate by 2.5% plus the extra growth in improvements FOREVER. Forever is a long time. Your pitch for this override (which sounds like our leadership’s pitch) is that we need, “extra funds to handle long term educational and mental recovery from the pandemic?” Swarms of families have exited NPS. Parents have not been telling me that the problem with NPS is that they need more resources for educational and mental recovery. I’ll spare you the full list of what I hear from parents. This illustrates the leadership-vision disconnect in a nutshell.
Wait. It is worse than that. Let’s pretend, contrary to reality, that we really need funds for “recovery.” 10 years after the override, there won’t be any students who the mayor and SC locked out NPS. At this point, why do we still need recovery resources? If the “recovery” narrative is bona fide, shouldn’t question 1 also be a debt exclusion override?
Jeffery, I’m not expert on Prop 2.5, but I thought that debt exclusion overrides were for things like servicing bonds on specific projects like schools. I think it would only work if you’re taking out a bond to pay for the educational items in the operating override.
I do know that we have a long list of serious school maintenance issues that need addressing, for instance the replacement of the heating system at Peirce that is in the override budget, or the expansion of Horace Mann. There are environmental and accessibility issues all across our school buildings. Few have roofs that don’t leak or full wheelchair accessibility, let alone air conditioning.
Yes, these items are all nominally one-time costs. However, we have an enormous backlog of them. And we need to address them. Accessibility is the law, and at some point someone is going to call Newton out on it and force the city’s hand. We need a plan to get this work done, and it is going to cost money.
Repeated debt exclusion overrides for all these individual items are not politically tenable. I have seen so many social media comments about why Franklin and Countryside couldn’t be handled within the normal budget. The answer is that if the money to rebuild schools is already in the budget, perhaps taxes are too high. On the other hand, if seven or eight of your schools needs urgent or chronic repairs, perhaps your budget for that work is too low.
The refrain of “people are leaving Newton in droves” is convenient but not that helpful or illuminating, especially after a pandemic when some parents who had the ability to move to an open private school did so. That’s a one-off (hopefully) occurrence. It’s also not especially actionable from a cost savings point of view. If only the families that left would have all lived in the same neighborhood, perhaps we could close a single school. But they were spread out all over. We don’t know if the effect on new families will continue. We are in a very difficult time to plan. Decisions like radically changing school boundaries are incredibly disruptive to the social fabric of Newton that often revolves around families, and neighborhood schools are a foundation of our city transportation policy.
I’m actually more concerned about the families who are staying rather than the ones that are leaving. They are the ones that need extra services. They are the ones that perhaps came here because of Newton’s inclusive classroom model. They are the ones that have to bring fans to school in May or September because the classrooms are unbearably hot. They deserve better.
Finally, the “2.5% growth on the $5M” and “revenue from new growth” make the whole thing sound quite ominous. On the other hand, inflation sounds ominous, yet it is also a reality. The average inflation rate is 2.64% over the last twenty years. Inflation for the goods, wages, and services the municipalities is going to be different, but I doubt any lower. And right now the city’s costs for contracting and wages is growing at a much higher rate. New growth broadens the tax base, but it also requires more expenditures; it’s not just a tax windfall for existing residents.
The mechanisms we use to pay for all this stuff frankly doesn’t matter to me all that much. Getting what needs fixing fixed does. We can debate what happens in our classrooms all we want, but at the end of the day we can’t teach our kids effectively in schools that don’t meet health or education standards. That’s bedrock stuff we need to commit to fix.
@ Mike – to add to @Jeff’s comments…
There is no logical way you can tell me that the new funds will be NEW funds for schools…or, an INCREASE in funds to schools. You can say they are needed to keep up with status quo, but as I have read other people write…couldnt the mayor have funded the 4MM by not funding the senior center in full? By not doing other, more important (than schools) projects for her?
Money is fungible. a decreasing school budget from prior monies supplemented with this “new” money does not mean an increase to school funding. Its a budget trick. pay for senior center…cause deficit in schools…ask for override for schools because that is more palatable and can be sold to the less in touch who take the mayor at her word.
Its a political sham. sorry, but it is. I hope you fall for it now that it should be obvious. Would she have the guts to call for an override for a senior center? No. so, I vote No.
*i hope you DONT fall for it. sorry typo. this crappy budget management by the city has me so angry, and what is worse is people are actually falling for it!
I too will vote NO on the override. Easy decision. This mayor and her team need to figure out how to manage within their existing budget. Her priorities are not the priorities of the vast majority of Newton residents.
@Lisa – I think these priorities are pretty much in line with most residents I know.
Jerry – Perhaps it’s an issue of trust. The words are nice, but I don’t trust that this mayor and her team will do the right thing.
@Jerry it’s all about trust. The Mayor has the skills required for a successful modern day politician but that doesn’t translate into a majority approval rating (according to my local polling)
@ Jerry – the only citizen who doesnt prioritize schools is the Mayor.
What if she funded schools first, because its the right thing to do, instead of funding a senior center.
200 people playing bingo vs 13K NPS students.
Wait I know why she didnt do it that way…political games because an override for a senior center would FAIL MISERABLY
A comment above provides a link that indicates that tens of millions of covid relief $ went to just these things. Horace Mann is almost complete, and the funding for it is already in place. Parks projects were promised CPA funds (though I remember they emptied the CPA tank to take “Webster Woods” from BC.) Is this a bad time to bring up Payments in Lieu of Taxes from the colleges and Newton Wellesley Hospital? Couldn’t BC make payments in lieu of taxes to Newton? Every time they buy a house in CHestnut Hill, it takes a property off the tax roles and puts it in the tax-exempt column.
Kerry Prasad is PTOC co-president. I hear she lobbies for the override in PTO meetings and now THIS?!
Seems like an inappropriate thing for non-profit organizations to lobby for political causes.
oops. You work for ALL families, Kerry, not just the rich ones who can afford this override. Remember that. Let that sink in.
Perhaps she should step down as PTOC co-pres so she can follow her dreams of leading a campaign for an override that is doomed. With so much bad decision making, bad prioritization, an excess of ARPA funds and political games (try an override for a senior center why dont you instead?!) – how in the world should we be passing this?!
VOTE NO on the general! (im happy to approve franklin and C-side)
It’s all about setting priorities and managing within budget. The taxpayers of Newton can’t be expected to pony up every time the City feels it needs more money. Everyone is feeling the financial crunch of being stretched to the max.
As Councilor Gentile so eloquently pointed out last night “we have a spending problem”. You can’t spend what you don’t have!
Newton has never had more money than it does now. Property valuations are the highest they have ever been, and will go up December 1 (per the assessor’s statement). The tax rate is the highest it’s been on 20 years. Developers have been given a green light with few restrictions to build thousands of new residential units, resulting in additional property tax revenues. Why can’t Newton live on the most money it’s every had? The 2013 override was to fund an expected sharp rise in student population. But enrollments have actually gone down steadily since then. So why does Mayor Fuller need an additional override to be paid $15,000,000.00 every year going forward?
First, property values only determine a resident’s relative fraction of the total tax levy. Actual property tax rates go down if property values uniformly increase. It’s a subtle, confusing, but important detail.
Second, our schools are in horrible condition because of decades of neglect, or simply because they are long past their useful life. The need replacement or reconstruction. Educational needs change radically over a century. 2+ parts of the override are dedicated specifically to addressing this urgent problem.
Once completed, the new schools will be far more efficient and not require constant maintenance, thereby reducing operating costs. They will also not be health risks for our kids, and will provide them with the same state-established standard of education as schools in Lynn and Revere (which we currently don’t meet).
Newton may have more revenue than ever, but its costs are also higher than ever. Labor and materials costs are higher. More people need services, often urgently. Current conditions have put us all, including the city, in reactive mode where we can’t always plan our spending to be most frugal.
Yes, costs are up for families. It can be a hardship. Yet Newton is also one of the most affluent cities in the nation. And quality public schools represent one of the greatest social equalizers possible in our society. In a world of increasing inequity, schools and playgrounds are the crossroads where we meet and bond with our neighbors, no matter who they are.
We are a generous community, and I can think of no better way to celebrating Newton’s traditional values of community than by assuring that every student, every family has access to a healthy, accessible, up to date school.
@Mike Halle – your knowledge on taxes is impressive, my knowlege pales in comparison and as such, can only speak to my own personal experiences. Our bank carries 7 years of mortgage tax statements online. I downloaded them when the topic of the override first came up. In 7 years, our property taxes have increased over 30% with no appreciable improvments that would raised our property value beyond the standard annual assessments. Would love to understand how this can be with Prop 2.5 in place. Would be happy to share the mortgage statements with you privately.
Countryside having to get an override to be funded is absolutely ridiculous. There have been students that have started at Countryside and gone on to graduate from Newton South in the time that the school has been plagued with decaying facilities and trailer classrooms due to overcapacity.
I get that Countryside is on a wetland, and that delays the process, but putting Countryside and Franklin up for an override after other (wealthier) schools got to avoid the process is a little jarring.
Zervas, Angier and Cabot were funded via the last override. And yes, Franklin and Countryside waited ankle deep (or more) in water waiting our turn.
What a slap to the north and south sides of the city if it doesn’t pass. But the truth is that communities often do overrides to provide targeted bonds for schools.
Countryside at least has about a third funded from the state (I think).
I’m very supportive of all 3 overrides and am excited for improvements at these schools and throughout the city. My children are past elementary age, but I’m glad that more children in our community will be able to take advantage of updated, modernized, and more environmentally sustainable school buildings. Thanks to Kerry and Christine for your thoughtful advocacy on this important initiative.
Voting yes for these overrides will encourage similar behavior in the future.
Spend millions on non-priorities, and use the schools as leverage for overrides.
I support the schools, I do not trust the Fuller or the current School Committee.
If they’re in office, its a simple no. If they resign, its a yes. We need to clean house. Hopefully a rejection of these overrides causes change in Newton. We’re far overdue.
I am an outsider to this discussion as I was thrilled with the purchase of Webster Woods and pleased with the decision to upgrade the Senior Center. My real estate taxes, about $12,000 a year, seem reasonable given that my home has risen in value far more than tenfold since I purchased it. The tax rate in many neighboring communities is higher.
Interesting points raised: tying overrides to school expenditures and not to projects like the Senior Center or Webster Woods. I am not knowledgeable about what can and can’t be funded by overrides, but political calculations are certainly part of the equation. That said, the targeted projects here are all worthy. Those earlier overrides all funded successful, necessary overhauls of decaying schools. I trust that these renovations will also meet with success ( Note that I worked both to pass the most recent override and to reject the Charter amendments: my approach is pragmatic, not ideological!)
Discussion of the quality of the Newton Schools should not, in my opinion, be folded into the debate over the necessity of the overrides, which focus on buildings. Good education can occur even in a decaying school as earlier commentators have pointed out. A separate blog could address such matters as methodology, curriculum, nonacademic units, homework, and so forth.
Everyone has reservations about certain academic approaches. We should bear in mind, however, that the Pandemic has made teaching and learning much, much harder for the entire school community. It doesn’t justify everything, to be sure. I loved my time teaching in Newton and pray that values like academic rigor and intellectual excitement stay at the core of what we are doing.
The fact remains we are seeing substantial new development in the City providing a very healthy increase in tax revenues.
The City should be able to live within budget factoring in this new growth. To keep coming back to the taxpayers time and time again asking for Overrides shows a lack of financial planning and setting priorities.
How much of that new development is online and paying taxes?
The most visible large developments approved recently (Northland, Riverside, Dunstan East) are all no more advanced than rubble at this moment.
And when they are built, they get the same services as everyone else. That reduces the tax windfall factor some.
Then there’s, residential upsizing, but it probably isn’t increasing tax revenue as much as you’d think. The “new growth” factor for these properties is something I don’t fully understand, though.
I read these comments and then pause, do I want to respond, how do I want to respond? And the word Trust keeps popping up, trust in the mayor. Yet not one comment on trust with the 24 members of the city council. Are the members of the city council doing everything or nothing to help solve this problem?
Because it is not the mayor who negotiates with the developers during the special permit process, it is land use and zoning and planning committees. The mayor is just an easy target. Call your elected city councilors. And then look back in the minutes and see if Lenny Gentile, aside from his comments has ever done anything to improve village centers, or improve tax revenue to relieve residential tax payers. Cuz he campaigned on that issue many times. As did other city councilors. He is not alone.
Jack, I agree. In particular, the social media discussion of this issue, of which I have actually seen very little, has been intensely personal directed at the Mayor.
In particular, I see frequent references to “all the development the Mayor has approved”, where in fact City Council has the authority (except to 40B, where the city has a whole has only limited control).
The Mayor’s role in the schools is another focus of online ire. While the Mayor certainly has power related to schools (on the school board and establishing the school budget for example), we have an elected school board to handle lots of school decisions, and a City Council with some control as well. I’m not sure I want a Mayor who asserts a lot of power regarding school operations.
The school comments are particularly strange (“the Mayor doesn’t care about the schools or our kids”) in light of the money being proposed for schools in the override. The current administration bears 0% responsibility for the fact that Franklin and Countryside need rebuilding, and 100% credit for being the adults in the room to say it needs to be done now.
Finally, in reading these NextDoor and Facebook posts, I keep hearing that this is a bad economic time to raising taxes. I agree, the timing isn’t great for people with precarious financial situations. Not just because their expenses have increased, but also because economic uncertainty has a risk all its own.
But over the last decade we’ve had some overall good economic times, and Newton is one of the most affluent cities in the United States. But we didn’t talk about raising taxes then to pay for the all the schools (not just Franklin and Countryside) that desperately need fixing. If we were worried about the impact on those with fixed incomes or other financial risks, we didn’t talk about making our tax system less burdensome on them. An override would have had no greater chance to pass when the stock market was at its peak than it does now. “Not now” or “not with this Mayor” are code for “not ever”.
I think as a community, we have a tendency to skate on our legacy of schools and services without being willing to do our part to maintain them. I think that those of us with means also hide too much behind our most vulnerable citizens, using them as an excuse for inaction rather than a reason for action. I would like to see some more political courage and true effectiveness rather than pandering.
@mike – thanks for being a part of the Fuller campaign!
My middle schooler can manage a budget better than she can. If she cared about NPS she wouldnt have let it get to a deficit, its pretty simple. There was ample ARPA money, and money she could have reallocated away from other things like the senior center. So no, she doesnt care about schools. Especially NPS. Remember she thought so highly of NPS, during its prime i might add, to send her kids to private school.
Stop with the lies and misdirection. And for the proc to push this crap is a sham. Ptoc is supposed to represent all families and teachers and remain politcally neutral. Does this seem neutral, @Kerry. I think you should resign.
Frank, as a Franklin parent I don’t need the Mayor or anyone else to tell me the school needs replacement. My youngest kid is in 5th grade, so we won’t benefit directly from the new school. That doesn’t change things.
You keep talking “excellence, excellence, excellence”, and that’s great. So let’s forget about the override for a second. How do we have excellent schools when some of our they have mold and other environmental problems? Or don’t have sinks in science classrooms? Or don’t have space for one-on-one tutoring that didn’t exist when they were built? Or hallways being used for classroom space? Or schools where kids or parents who can’t climb stairs can’t get around?
How do those things fit into excellence?
So we disagree on how to pay to correct this stuff. Can we agree they are important to fix? These aren’t marginal kind of things. They go straight to the health and wellness of our kids and our competitiveness and ability to teach compared to other communities.
Fwiw i will be voting yes for franklin and countryside and I urge everyone to do the same.
I will be voting no for the general, for the MULTITUDE of reasons listed. I urge everyone to do the same.
I agree there are lots of problems in the schools. I simply will not reward the mayor for letting things get worse while doing her own pet projects. Its disgraceful.
Please share this information with those you think may benefit: Tax assistance programs proposed by Mayor Fuller—https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/92076/638016201398170000
Laughable tax programs when compared to the residents of Brookline or Boston
According to this article, 50% of americans earning more than 100k are living paycheck to paycheck
Kinda surprising …
This override is out of touch and proves poor money management by the city (ie spending priorities)
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/nearly-half-americans-earning-more-180000203.html
Thank you Kerry and Christine for co-chairing Yes for Newton. I attend many public meetings and hear Newton residents asking for better schools, improved athletic fields, smooth streets, a more complete sidewalk network, and traffic calming, fewer crashes and slower speeds in their neighborhoods. The override offers the means to make this investment in our community. I plan to vote Yes on all three and help with the campaign.
So people don’t trust the Mayor and the School Committee who (I’m guessing) they didn’t vote for in the last election (which wasn’t rigged) and will vote no. Fair enough. So how do we improve the schools besides firing DEI consultants and hoping for a new mayor and school committee?
@Ted – hire a superintendent who cares first, second and third about ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE.
Seems simple, but not for the people currently in charge.
@Ted…4th Give teachers some input into the improvement process. They just might know a thing or two about teaching
If case you did not receive Tarik Lucas’ excellent email update, it supports my claim that there is no logic linking the override to better education.
To quote Tarik, “I was able to ask a series of questions related to the $4.5 million for the School Department (beginning at the 1:33:30 mark). We learned that the city is planning to spend those additional funds for existing programs in the schools, as opposed to creating new programs. During the budget discussions last spring, I brought up the fact that the school department was cutting 2.5 positions in the Middle School Literacy Intervention Program. The $4.5 million included in the general tax override will not bring those positions back. And when I asked the Interim School Superintendent, Dr. Kathleen Smith, how she would spend the additional $4.5 million, she couldn’t explain specifically how the additional funds would be spent. If the general override passes, I will continue to ask the School Department how they will spend the $4.5 million.”
@Jeff – you nailed it. This is not new money to improve the schools, it is an attempt to plug a hole to keep status quo (current, not pre-covid status quo). This hole was created by Fuller and her desire to fund the pensions at such a high level. I read somewhere that she intends to fully fund much earlier than needed.
I dont understand how she can intentionally create a hole in the school funding, then ask for an override and try to pass it off as if she is trying to better the schools?!
Like, how stupid does she think we are? She literally choose to create this problem and now wants to raise taxes to bail us out. I say no. force her to cut other stuff LIKE FUNDING THE PENSION. how many newton residents will actually get this benefit? Honest question! What exactly are we doing here?! This is a joke and I hope everyone wakes up before the date of the vote and gets motivated to stop this madness.
Just say a resounding NO to the Override!
Mayor Fuller gifted the School Committee $3 million in ARPA funds. Where did the funds go? Is there an itemization of the two ARPA payouts? You see, a watchdog committee of Newton residents must be assembled to oversee every penny that is dispersed from ARPA funds and the City budget. The Legislative Branch — City Council — are the true check and balance on the public purse. Yet an unbiased, non-political group of residents is necessary as millions of dollars float about City coffers. Citizens must become engaged and fully participate in our participatory government.
I have called for PROPERTY TAX RELIEF for years for Newton’s homeowners and renters. New Jersey, for example, successfully passed its own version of property tax relief beginning with its FY2023 budget. Named ANCHOR Property Tax Relief Program, it offers relief to renters and homeowners alike. It’s the right and best thing to do during these inflationary times of soaring utility rates and spikes in food and goods and services in every community across America.
Merry Christmas!
It took me less than a minute to find this itemized accounting of the ARPA expenditures, which includes high level numbers, itemized line items, rationale, and executive and public process.
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/mayor-fuller/arpa-investments
I think the concept of oversight is good, in general and in theory, it fine. However, a citizen “watchdog committee” is simply not provided for in Newton’s governance model. Specifically about ARPA, as I understand it the federal and state government gave municipal executives the authority to spend the recovery money, and for good reason: it needed to get spent in an emergency fashion. One may like that, one may not, but that’s the way it is. The money is spent and has been budgeted in a reasonable way, as designed.
The fact is that a one time allocation of federal money is insufficient to pay to bring our schools up to state standards for health, classroom space, or accessibility. That requires 30 year bonds that make up 2 out of 3 of the override items.
If we share a belief that every Newton family deserves schools that are universally accessible and sufficient to meet the learning needs of today and tomorrow, it will require money, and some new watchdog group second-guessing money already spent isn’t going to provide that money. It will just further delay and otherwise compromise Newton’s already glacial public process.
Thank you Lenny Gentle for always looking out for OUR city. No wonder why you have been on the Board for over 30 plus years.
They want to spend money on traffic calming… what?? How about the police go back to monitoring the traffic. Erratic operation and speeding seems to be the norm after Covid. Oh that’s right… they want to DEFUND the Police…
Tina, a whole lot of residents (and other people like school principals) in the city want traffic calming. They are increasingly frustrated about the safety of the streets in their neighborhoods. The city simply has insufficient resources to address the streets and intersections that require fixes. And the frustration at the city’s inability to deal with crash hotspots in a timely way is building. On my side of the city, Newtonville Ave, Watertown St, Crafts and Albemarle, Waltham St, the list goes on. And Mayor Fuller is the first mayor to provide dedicated money for traffic calming in the budget.
It is widely understood that police enforcement is insufficient in itself to improve roadway safety. Engineers will tell you that, planners will tell you, police will tell you. I have worked closely with police departments in three municipalities and they all agree. Plus police are generally not especially excited about enforcement anyway, for a number of reasons. It’s better, safer, and cheaper all around to come up with 24/7 solutions that lead to better driver behavior.
It bugs me when people praise election deniers… Lenny Gentile voted to overturn the result of a 2016 ballot initiative that he didn’t like. He had done something similar in 2012 when he voted to ban medical cannabis after voters approved it.
I have no respect for anyone who undermines the democratic process. We got rid of some of the election deniers in the last municipal elections. Hoping the rest get their walking papers in 2023.
Election Denier? Mike are you putting this in the same category as those that claimed the 2020 election was rigged? Mike that is so far off base I’m afraid you are incapable to understand the difference. Maybe you like to use that term loosely?
To have a useful dialogue, we should avoid poisonous Trumpist tropes like “They want to defund the police.” Many of us have observed automobiles, some of them originating in neighboring communities, speeding down Newton’s streets and endangering other drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Measures like bump-outs are designed to slow traffic down. Those traveling from home to the local market and back need not worry about the trip taking a minute or two longer because of such steps. I wholeheartedly approve of them.
Almost no one outside a small fringe ever advocated defunding the police or eliminating it altogether. Many of us do believe that police officers, like all public servants including teachers (I was one) should be held to high standards of behavior and evaluated for their performance. I didn’t get a free pass in the classroom, nor should any other public employee. Accountability for teachers made perfect sense to me, and it makes sense for police officers, fire fighters, office holders, and everyone in government.
In the Trumpist world, anyone with any criticism of any action by any police officer is pro-Crime and anti-law enforcement. That is a bunch of baloney, in my humble opinion.
@Jackson Joe–
A group of elected officials disagree with the results of a ballot box election cast by voters. They question the result publicly, and buoyed by support from the highest elected official, secretly meet to overturn the vote. They even solicit help from state officials, as they pursue legal loopholes that would allow them to replace the will of the voters with their own desired result.
In the process, these anti-democratic legislators undermine voter confidence, damage the fundamental principle of democracy, and don’t care that they look like fools to most people. Even after getting handed their comeuppance by the system, some retain power and can be found years later still inventing new ways to undermine the election results.
Sound familiar? Of course I’m describing the way Newton officials handled the 2016 vote that legalized cannabis. The goal of election deniers is not always insurrection. Sometimes they just want things their own way, and are willing to abuse power to achieve their goal.
@Mike Striar – let’s not forget that the voters of Newton also voted more than once to cut the size of the City Council. Yet to this day, not one Councilor has made the effort to make this happen. This also undermines the democratic process.
Peter, they did? I remember a vote of the city council that wasn’t approved by the mayor, and I remember a charter commission that didn’t pass.
I mean, part of the democratic process was the Charter Commission. And part of the process to get the size of the city council reduced without a charter commission is Mayor approval.
But you are implying that the majority of the voters of Newton voted to cut the size of the City Council. I don’t think there was ever a referendum, and certainly, the largest question, how to split the at-large vs ward councilors was never decided or voted on by the voters of Newton.
And if the voters of Newton were angered by the lack of reduction, they certainly didn’t show it at the ballot box in the elections since. Everyone stayed the same last election…
If I’m forgetting something, let me know.
@fignewtonville – I recall on two separate occasions the question of reducing the size of the City Council was placed before the voters and they overwhelmingly approved. You can get the dates from the City Clerk. This was well before the Charter Commission. The easiest way to reduce the size of the Council is to eliminate one at large Council member from each ward giving the City 16 Councilors. The Charter Commission was doomed from the beginning as they were tone-deaf on the issue of ward representation. We need one member of the City Council to docket an item calling for the elimination of eight members. Any Profiles in Courage?
I believe Peter is correct that Newton has voted twice in the past to reduce the [then] Board of Aldermen. Both passed, but were non-binding.
At this point it’s obvious that the Charter Commission overreached a few years ago. They tried to accomplish too much, and ended up stuck with a 24 member council. But the clock is ticking on the statutory waiting period, and the size of the council will almost certainly be the subject of a future ballot initiative.
I am responding to Mike Striar’s above comments about Massachusetts state law 94G: “Regulation of the use and distribution of marijuana not legally prescribed.”
This law, legalizing the sale of recreational marijuana, was passed in November 2016 as a result of a state ballot question. After passage, the Newton City Council approved two municipal ballot questions regulating Newton marijuana sales in ways that were stricter than 94G. Question one limited the number of marijuana stores and question two prohibited sales altogether. The ballot questions appeared in a special November 2018 Newton municipal election, and were defeated. I believe that Mr. Striar is referring to this sequence of event in his above comments about some City Council members trying to overturn the democratic process.
In 2018, I initially felt the same way as Mr. Striar, meaning that Newton should honor the state law and not try to undercut the will of the state voters, by opting out of the law for Newton. I changed my mind completely, however, when someone pointed out 94G, Section 3: “Local Control.” This section of law 94G specifically allows the type of local ballot questions, and voter-approved stricter local control, approved by the City Council. This is not a “loophole,” but an integral part of the law legalizing recreational marijuana use. This means that the City Council did nothing wrong and did not try to undercut the state law, and the will of the voters, because, again, state law 94G specifically allowed the 2018 Newton ballot questions.
State law 94G is a very complicated law, with 21 sections, each with numerous subsections. If someone had not told me about Section 3: “Local Control,” I would not have known it existed. It does exist, however, and residents can read it at:
Law as passed in 2016: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2016/Chapter334
Current Law: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter94G/Section3
Debra thanks for researching this. To equate these people with the election deniers of of 2020 is a form of gaslighting that doesn’t solve anything.
Regarding Debra’s comment…
Trump supporters had their own election denying legal theory too, just like Newton’s City Council. The fact that legal loopholes often exist within a law, is not a requirement that elected officials dive headlong through them.
The facts in Newton are that cannabis won a ballot box vote. The City Council’s response was a moratorium that effectively banned cannabis. The Council put forward two alternative ballot initiatives. Both would have either banned or substantially reduced legal cannabis sales. Both alternatives were rejected by voters, and the City Council was forced to implement the original 2016 vote.
This election denying nonsense that’s taking place in our country is wrong. It’s a threat to democracy at any level when public officials deny an election by failing to respect the outcome of a ballot box vote.
Again, the City Council did not ignore the law or use a loophole. They followed the letter of the law in the “Local Control” section of the 94G. You might not like the “Local Control” section of 94G, but it’s there as an integral part of the law that was approved by the voters in the 2016 ballot question. Denying that part of the law is denying the 2016 election results.
I am hoping that 2023 sees the indictment of Trump and also the ability of the public to see Trump’s tax returns. I am also hoping, however, that 2023 sees the end of people using Trump as a form of name-calling to “win” an argument. We can’t get rid of all the damage that Trump did to us, but we can get rid of that.
Debra you wish for a lot. Trump’s legacy of damage to our democracy will last for many years IMHO and I will keep on calling out those who compare legitimate legal options to Trumpism
Not sure why we are once more debating the size of the City Council, but many of us still believe that with all the tasks that city government must attend to, we need all 24 city councilors. The council has lots of committees addressing real-life issues of governance: no slackers there.
Unlike in other cities of similar size, our councilors are not full-time public servants receiving salaries commensurate to the task of full-time governance. If we were to form a professional, full-time city council, then I agree that 12 councilors would probably suffice.
Newton is a city of 88,000 residents, not a small town like Wellesley or Dover. Any changes we make to our local government should take this reality into account.
I’m gonna have to disagree with you, Bob. What we have in Newton is a City Council that lacks any real accountability. Many of the councilors have their own agenda that extends far beyond the boundaries of Newton. And there are so many council seats that many incumbents get reelected simply because they run unopposed.
Mike is correct. A smaller City Council will encourage more competition. In addition, the voters of Newton have previously been recorded in non-binding referendums as supporting a smaller Board of Aldermen now known as the City Council.
Peter, I respectfully submit that those non-binding referendums don’t mean all that much. First of all, they are quite some time ago. Second, they were non-binding. Third, the devil is in the details. Those non-binding referendums didn’t detail how you actually shrink the council, and that seems important. Do you eliminate the at-large seats, as I believe you would prefer? Do you eliminate the seats pro-rata, shrinking the ward seats to 4 and the at-large to 8?
Also, while some of the seats were not contested last election, the key fact is that no incumbent lost in the many seats that WERE contested! There was lots of discussion and some vigorous campaigns, but no one was voted out in the competitive races.
Over the years I’ve said before that being a city councilor is a thankless job (in fact I’d guess you get more insults than thanks). Your supporters take the time you devote for granted, and folks that disagree with you often make it personal, make personal accusations and attacks, and generally make your life miserable. And with our system of not using a professional staff to run many of the day to day aspects of our city, there are a lot of committees to enforce rules and review variances. I agree with Bob. Absent paying them a lot more, seems like the 24 are needed.
And that doesn’t even address the political nature of this type of change. Folks didn’t like it when the Charter Commission tried to eliminate ward councilors, and I’m sure other folks won’t like it when at-large councilors are suddenly cut in half either per your approach. Best to leave well enough alone in my view.
fig–
The reason the previous ballot initiatives were non-binding, was because there was no legal way to make them binding. As you know, there are 2 ways to reduce the City Council. Either the Council itself would have to vote for the reduction and have it approved by the state legislature, or voters have to change the City Charter.
The two non-binding efforts were a clear message to the [then] Board of Aldermen, that voters wanted a reduction. More recently, the Charter Commission also attempted to reduce the Council by eliminating Ward Councilors, which didn’t feel right to voters. It won’t be long though before the statutory waiting period expires, and a new Charter Commission will almost certainly be formed to give reduction another shot.
To bring this back to the point I was making, which Peter’s comment was supporting… As an institution, the Newton City Council has historically and at times systemically demonstrated a lack of respect for voters. They have thumbed their noses at ballot box votes both non-binding and binding by voter’s intent. While their objectives were certainly different, election denying = election denying, whether it is city councilors or Trump supporters who perpetrate the denial.
I’ll leave the charter commission alone, past and future.
But I will say this: As we all know there was an attempt to reduce the city council via the Charter Commission. It failed. Going back to point out non-binding resolutions as proof of anything that occurred before that failure doesn’t prove anything. I would hope that if the charter commission taught us nothing else, is that major change is hard. And voting for something in a non-binding manner is a lot easier than making the hard decisions as to what gets cut when materially change our city government. It’s a lot more real when ward councilors that people love are about to lose their job. Seeing the sausage get made turns a lot of folks into vegetarians.
What makes you think the same thing won’t occur when at-large councilors are forced out? What makes you think that folks will agree to increase the power of the ward councilors from 1/3 to 1/2? The devil is in the details, not in the general concept.
You keep saying that city government has failed to respect the voters, and thumbed their collective noses at the voters. But my counter to that would be that we don’t govern by non-binding resolutions, and local control means just that, even I personally disagree with the result like I did with the delay in pot shops.
Instead, we have the chance every few years to vote them out. We don’t typically. Incumbents tend to win. Even in Ward races. And the last election, every incumbent won. If the city council thumbed its noses at the voters, the voters seem to like it enough to keep voting for them.
But as this is off topic and frankly not important unless there is another effort to shrink city government, I’ll let you have the last word on this matter. Always a pleasure chatting.
The pleasure is all mine, fig.
I concede that there is an argument to be made for a 24 member council. I just don’t agree with most of that argument. And I think that if the Charter Commission had proposed eliminating 8 at-Large seats [rather than Ward seats], we’d have a smaller City Council today. We can all guess at what tomorrow might bring. I’m sure there will be even more for me to complain about in 2023.
Great post! I wouldn’t call it complaining but envisioning a future modus operandi for local government that you believe would work better. Besides, kvetching sometimes makes all of us feel a bit better.
Happy holidays to all and a healthy new year as well.
John Eliot brought cases to court to fight for Indian property rights, pleaded for clemency for convicted Indian prisoners, fought the selling of Indians into slavery, sought to secure lands and streams for Indian use, established schools for Indian children and adults, and translated the Bible and twenty other books into the Indian’s language. . Roxbury Latin, the oldest public school in America, was founded by John Eliot, as well as Harvard University’s Indian School.. Black and Native American children were invited to attend, tuition free.. A town in Maine is named after John Eliot, there are schools named after John Eliot, Natick honors John Eliot with a statue, but misguided virtue signalers in Newton want to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to hire a Graphic Designer to remove John Eliot from the city seal because they find this image of him with Chief Waban offensive. . They do this at the same time they are trying to impose a tax increase on people already struggling with record high inflation. https://www.bu.edu/missiology/missionary-biography/e-f/eliot-john-1604-1690/
Maybe the seal could be “reimagined” for the present.. Make it a Wealthy Real Estate Developer pitching a special permit project to the Land Use Committee.
Please Vote NO on the Override!!! Does anyone want to help out with a No For Newton Campaign! I could use money for No’ signs and some help getting them delivered..Thank You
No is the only way to hold the mayor accountable for pulling the wool over our eyes.
It isnt about school. It is about all the things she chose to fund instead of school, intentionally creating a deficit for NPS.
Then it becomes a sob story about needing money for nos. Boo friggin hoo. Some of us arent stupid and have caught on to you political games.
As a Franklin parent, a “No” on the debt exclusion override items for Franklin and Countryside means denying the families the north and south sides of the city the same educational resources that the kids at Angier, Zervas, and Cabot (all paid for with overrides) now benefit from.
No person with even a basic curiosity in learning about the condition of these schools, or an understanding of how far they are from the state standards that are used to build new schools in places like Lynn and Chelsea, would deny the need.
We waited. Now that Waban has its schools, now that we’ve made progress on a few other schools, it’s unfathomable that we’d be asked to wait again because “something something the Mayor something something” while more grades of kids pass through our declining buildings.
You can vote yes on the two schools and no on the other one you know.
Lumping them all together is a smart tactic to encourage a yes vote, but isnt a requirement.
I will likely support the two schools and definitely vote no on the general one.
Fuller says it is for schools, but what happens in year 2 when horace mann is done? Where does that money go? And does this guarantee she dorsnt artifically create another deficit for schools next yr and ask for another override? Nope. It doesnt.
I encourage people to vote no on the general because frankly the choices made in the budget baffle me. I cannot support the current leaders given their inability to properly budget and/or their complete disagreement with me on prioritization. How do u fund sr center but not schools? Oh, politics. What a joke.