Special override coverage posted at newtonbeacon.org
The Newton Beacon, Newton's new nonprofit, independent news site, launched today with special coverage of Newton's Prop 2 1/2 override proposal. Today's two stories introduce the coverage and provide an overview:https://t.co/lSCRA1zuJl
— The Newton Beacon (@TheNewtonBeacon) January 12, 2023
Wow. Based on what’s there now it confirms what folks on that earlier thread were saying when they worried that the stories would be biased towards….okay, actually not true at all. Really nice launch and very helpful actually.
Oh my goodness, do you mean that the sky-is-falling, worry-warts that so dominate Newton’s on-line community were, dare we even think it, wrong? How could the worst case scenario not come to pass? It is a good thing that this is a long weekend. It will take all three days for me to get over this shocking turn of events.
When will it expand beyond override coverage and cover all Newton news like FigCityNews.com?
@Lucia: I have a lot of respect for the Fig City crew and the work they’re doing (I’m a donor and we all should be).
The Beacon is looking at a different model by using only paid, professional, journalists (compared to Fig City, where the stories are written by resident volunteers).
Both models are worthy of our financial support. The Beacon is fundraising right now to be able to hire reporters for that next phase.
This is precisely how bias plays out. From the current announcement:
“We will report on Proposition 2 ½ override history in Newton, break down the reasons Mayor Fuller is seeking to raise property taxes, look at the conditions behind the requests for additional funding for Countryside and Franklin, and discuss other override-related issues.”
So they’re covering two things that are decidely pro-override: the reasons Fuller is seeking it, and the conditions of the schools for the override. The other issues they mentioned are neutral (history of prop 2 1/2) or non-specific (other issues). For those of us in the “no” camp- the issues are different– the lack of trust and poor track record of the School Committee and Mayor Fuller, and the prioritization of non-school iterms (Senior Center) and relying on “the schools” as the least controversial item to put through to an override.
If they cover those issues, that would be unbiased. The lack of mention of ANY rationale for opposing the override in their initial note is disappointing and unsurprising. But its early, we’ll see if they really give any journalistic effort to the considerations for opposing the override. As is, this is exactly how I expect the bias to play out in “non-partisan” coverage.
Maybe you should read the article…
@Fig
I read the article, its completely consistent with my point. Nothing in there about opponents concerns, its written with a pro-override bias, the only issues discussed are those from a pro-override point of view.
You’re welcome to point to ANY part of the article that you clearly implied refuted my point on bias.
We should consider ourselves blessed. Compared with the toothless Newton Tab at the end of its existence, both of these new journals provide great coverage of local events. May they both prosper.
I checked The Newton Beacon… but it seems tunnel vision focused on the Tax Override Special Election, and nothing else.
I’m a Hard No on Question 1. But there is absolutely no coverage/updates on the poor pedestrian who was hit by a vehicle at the Parker Street / Hagen Road crosswalk a few weeks ago. Or that 15 car crash on an untreated Route 9 Chestnut Street overpass near 128 when a snowstorm came on earlier/stronger than expected.
Fig City News has much better coverage TBH. As well as Mayor Fuller’s weekly newsletter, even if the topics covered there are a bit cherrypicked too.
Phil, you might want to check out the earlier article on the website. They are going to just focus on the override as they prepare to launch. This is like a special issue of a newspaper. It isn’t meant to be the whole thing. They disclosed that upfront…
The onerous property tax hidden within the tax override is reason enough to reject Mayor’s Fuller’s math scheme.
Newton homeowners and business owners deserve a property tax RELIEF! Developers have poured millions of dollars across Newton in housing projects and retail, with still more to arrive in the near future. Those projects ongoing and impending are investments. So therein lies tax revenue far into the future.
Why lie? A tax is a tax is a tax. And if passed, homeowners and owners of businesses, will be saddled with tax hikes for THREE DECADES! Retirement sets in around that time for many current homeowners who will likely downsize and retire out of Newton. Those realities cannot be escaped and must be part of the equation of the onerous tax override.
In addition, Mayor Fuller gifted the School Committee THREE MILLION DOLLARS of ARPA funds. Why? Where is an itemization as to where exactly that $3 million was spent on? What bang-for-the-buck did Newton residents receive for that $3 million gift? There are many more questions than answers that I hope the ballyhooed Newton Beacon can dig into and inform a wary citizenry about. Only then will concerned citizens be able to vote with conviction.
Better still, Newton’s citizens ought to become engaged and involved within the decision-making processes of their City government and ask the tough questions at City Council meetings as well as to Mayor Fuller.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
At the highest level, Newton gave the schools money, more than $3 million, because of enormous pandemic related expenses and related unexpected educational requirements, which are EXACTLY the kinds of things ARPA was designed to do. From ventilation to COVID tests to staff retention to extra help for students facing educational or emotional difficulties during the pandemic, the schools absolutely needed these funds. They are all budgeted and documented. No need to imply something nefarious. Hardly a gift.
I will address the two schools in the override because they are the easiest to describe in brief. They are municipal buildings serving a critical role of educating the public, open to all, that do not meet any standards for healthiness or ability to meet their educational mission. That is an unfair disparity between our new and old schools, but beyond that it is simply not a situation we should tolerate for any family in Newton.
Is it great it costs the taxpayer extra money? Of course not. Is their potential hardship we should recognize? Of course. But fixing these schools is our civic duty. And fixing our remaining schools, including inaccessible ones like Ward, is a duty for all students and family.
We should hold our government and school system accountable. But believing that Newton, with it’s decades long reputation of good schools, wouldn’t eventually invest in its school buildings is an unrealistic assumption. The Newton taxpayers thirty or so years ago are the ones that got off without making the needed investment.
@Girard Plante – Being against the upcoming tax override is a perfectly reasonable position. Accusing that there is “a tax hidden within the override” and saying “why lie?” is ridiculous.
The vote is for a “tax override”. All descriptions and discussions about it describe it as a tax increase to fund specific needs in the city. There is no deception or lies here.
Feel free to vote against it if you like but please refrain from the silly accusation that it is somehow is a secret plot.
Mike Halle –
Three decades ago, my Mom and a large wonderful extended family of Aunts/Uncles from America’s Greatest Generation, were in their 60s/70s and recently retired. Each owned their own homes. Some were born years prior to the Great Depression, yet all of them lived through that era of conserving, recycling, doing more with less and going without. Then they all lived through the ugliness of WWII. So, they and their cohorts DID INDEED make the “needed investment” to build the schools, hospitals, homes, roads and bridges and the Interstate Highways, public pools, libraries, along with churches and so much more. They PAID THEIR DUES! And they never complained about it.
Today, new ideas and fresh initiatives are necessary for meeting 21st century demands. How about reopening the City’s branch libraries that were defunded and shuttered by another Mayor? Those neighborhood libraries were wise, prudent investments made by previous generations at a then-$395,000 annual budget item (2007?).
Yes, upgrade and update the older schools! But do not saddle taxpayers for 30 years with the onerous tax override. Where are State funds to help with rebuilding the schools in the grand plan? You see, many questions are at play and on many peoples’ minds about Mayor Fuller’s folly.
The state is paying for a fraction of Countryside Elementary School, given the dire state it is in. So, yes, there is a “grand plan”, and it’s pretty well documented online.
On the other hand, Newton is one of the most affluent communities in the Commonwealth. In a time when many schools across the state are in need of replacement, it’s hard to make the case that state funds should go to more of our schools at the expense of cities like Lynn, Chelsea, and Revere.
Our elementary school rebuilding process has been pretty successful. The budgets for the new schools seems completely inline with our previous experiences and what’s happened across the state. Schools cost what they cost, and taking out bonds and paying for them with overrides is pretty much standard procedure in Massachusetts. Otherwise, they are paid for out of the general fund, which is also paid for by taxes. In Newton, that’s where most of the money (80+%) comes from.
Jerry –
Thank you for allowing me to “feel free to vote” on the onerous tax override. I awoke this morning knowing that in America I do not need “feel free” about acting on my Constitutional birthright. Just as Frederick Douglass reminded white racist slaveholders after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Lincoln on 1 January 1863: “You never gave me my freedom. I was born free.”
New article. Totally partisan.
https://www.newtonbeacon.org/streets-and-sidewalks-what-will-1-4-million-override-money-buy/
Partisan: “prejudiced in favor of a particular cause.”
Judge for yourself.
PS $1.4m compared to an overall budget of $480m does not warrant the “fear mongering” IMHO
*That* article is what counts for partisan nowadays? Really?
The article presents the facts of past overrides, information about the state of Newton’s roadways and the repair process, and what the city says it plans to do in the next few years.
While perhaps that might be “one sided”, in that the reporter mostly covers the city history on road spending, how DPW grades the state of the roads, and what DPW plans to the future, I don’t really understand what the other “side” would be. Is someone else offering to pave the roads? Are there outside experts that contest the city’s plan? Does someone somewhere believe that Newton’s roads don’t actually need reconstruction?
The article does in fact include a quote from Councilor Grossman about her “disappointment” about there not being a planned uptick in work with new funding.
On Newton social media, I see so many comments about how Newton isn’t paving its roads (while also seeing complaints during the summer that so many roads are being paved that it is inconvenient to get around).
Of all the topics that need facts presented to the public, Newton road reconstruction, made possible in no small part through previous override money, is way up there.
Huh? I read it. And then I re-read it. Thought it was fact-based, somewhat dry, but saw nothing partisan at all. Would love to know what inferences you made in your assessment…
Matt you are right. That article is pure propaganda. So much for equal coverage. Of course the pro override people can’t see anything wrong with this type of coverage
The Newton Beacon’s coverage is so one-sided that they appear to be lobbying in favor of the override ballot question. In addition, these override stories are the ONLY stories they publish. They have no other activity.
This appears to be in direct violation of IRS rules about a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. The Newton Beacon needs to reorganize themselves as a Ballot Question Committee, which is really how they are functioning.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying
Well said, Ms. Waller!
Debra, leaving aside that the Beacon disclosed that this was a special issue and not the full paper (perhaps check out the website for the earlier disclosure…) you are misinterpreting the rules on lobbying and 501c3 status. First of all, the IRS isn’t as myopic as you think it is, and it gives non-profits latitude to have start of operations. In other words, even if the IRS agrees with you the fact that the Beacon is planning on running a full paper in a few months negates the question. This is why the IRS looks at tax exempt issues over a few year period typically before revoking. Second, that article does not fit the definition of lobbying per the IRS, and certainly even an opinion only newspaper wouldn’t fit the definition of lobbying for the IRS. Generally opinion journals like National Review and the Nation to give two examples aren’t organized as 501c4. Because they aren’t lobbying. A ballot committee is also similarly specific. Third, even 501c3 organizations are allowed to lobby to some extent, those rules are clearly laid out too. In short, I don’t think you’d find an attorney or nonprofit specialist in MA that would agree with you. This type of misunderstanding actually happens a lot with tax exempts in my experience, and there are a lot of helpful articles online that help give further information on this very issue. Happy to share with this group of anyone is interested.
I’m sorry, but I believe the actual written IRS guidance (link given above in my original post) rather than an anonymous person.
Debra: Happy weekend! My apologies for a delayed response. Well first, I can understand you not wanting to listen to a cookie themed anonymous avatar. Probably a wise move on your part. I mean, that’s just science. 😉
But I did promise to provide more information upon request, and perhaps others will read and better understand the issue so that similar google based misunderstandings don’t occur again. Tax exempt law is complicated of course. But there is zero chance The Newton Beacon has an issue with their tax exempt status based on focusing on the overide or any of their actions to date. Zero. Even your link shows that, especially the sublinks embedded in it. (that’s the summary for folks who want to stop reading and complain about my long posts). Moral of the story: When dealing with the IRS, it helps to check the definitions, which are often buried in the forms. Why? Because that is what the folks who actually do this for a living and file returns and 990s read.
So let me explain.
If you google “lobbying and 501c3” your link is the helpful general public guidance that the IRS puts out to explain how to determine if a 501c3 is engaged in too much lobbying. If it does, it should reorganize as a 501c4, which has different rules for the tax deductibility of contributed amounts (in short, you can’t deduct), and generally is a different animal. There are, of course, quite a bit of other guidance on this issue, as there are hundreds of 501c3 that are partisan and take an active role in legislation. Private letter rulings, court cases, etc. Let’s ignore those and just focus on your helpful link for the non-attorney public, and the related sub-links:
Your link states:
“In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.”
So the concept you are trying to state is there, but the nuance comes later. And you need to apply the facts to the definitions of course.
Your link goes on to state:
“An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.
I assume you feel that The Newton Beacon is “advocating the adoption or rejection of legislation”. I mean, it clearly isn’t in the manner of a ballot committee and their actual acts, but that’s your argument that their 501c3 status should be revoked. But the IRS, even in this simple guidance, gives further guidance to exempt out public policy organizations, including newspapers and the like. See the NEXT paragraph:
“Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.”
The exception for The Newton Beacon is right there in your link! The IRS has made it very clear over the years that even partisan or weighted speech can qualify for 501c3 status, and not 501c4. You are allowed to “distribute educational materials or consider public policy issues in an educational manner”. In my earlier comment, I used the National Review as an example. Similar examples would be Mother Jones or Commentary. But a better example would be the Heritage Foundation, which is so clearly partisan it makes my teeth ache to read what they put out, but is also a 501c3. Heritage Foundation is loosely connected to Heritage Action, which is their connected, but separate, 501c4. The 501c3 can advocate/education for a cause, but the 501c4 can do an unlimited amount of lobbying. Heritage Foundation routinely discusses legislation before Congress in an educational but partisan manner, Heritage Action lobbies for it.
Back to your link in my next post on Village 14, including the definitions which are buried in the Form 990 Schedule C. That is where you actually find the meat of the guidance from the IRS. More to follow (for the two people still reading).
OK, part 2!
So, the definitions are important. What is “lobbying”? Happily the IRS gives us a lot more detail, it just isn’t really needed for general public google searches. But if you see in your link that you posted, the IRS includes two links for separate tests that measure lobbying. A “substantial part” test. And an “expenditure test”. Both are links at the bottom of your link. Effective the substantial part test is a test that states that if lobbying is a substantial part of the actions of the nonprofit, based on facts and circumstance, you fail the test. The IRS examines a lot of factors here, but in our case let’s assume that the activity you are objecting to is substantial. The expenditure test is basically a schedule you can review that states that if a certain percentage of the tax exempt activities are lobbying activities, you fail the expenditure test. It changes based on the size of the non-profit. Again, let’s assume they meet the expenditure test just based on the fact that all the Newton Beacon is doing is newpapering. So where do we find the definition of lobbying?
Ah. So both of the link to the Substantial Test and the link to the Expenditure Test, contain a link to the real source of the information, the 990 tax filing that all 501c3s have to make. In that Form 990 is schedule C, and in that Form C is the Instructions to Form C, which contain all of the definitions.
And so we find Exceptions to Lobbying:
“Exceptions to lobbying. In general, engaging in nonpartisan analysis, study, or research and making its results available to the general public or segment of members thereof, or to governmental bodies, officials, or employees isn’t considered either a direct lobbying communication or a grassroots lobbying communication. Nonpartisan analysis, study, or research may advocate a particular position or viewpoint as long as there is a sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts to enable the public or an individual to form an independent opinion or conclusion.”
So let’s be clear (and in summary): The Newton Beacon identified multiple times that this was a special issue, and that it will be operating a community newspaper later this year. So your argument would fail both the substantial test and the expenditure test, as the Beacon’s focus will broad widely throughout the coming year. But even assuming the IRS viewed these articles as meeting those tests, you’d have to prove that the articles met the definitions for lobbying, including failing the exceptions to lobbying, which allow for advocating for a particular viewpoint. Which is a facts and circumstances test. The IRS has given great latitude to journalistic endeavors of our all sorts to report, advocate, and influence public opinion, as evidenced by the continued existence of every non-profit opinion magazine in existence. As far as I know, and as far as I could tell from a quick search, I know of no case where the IRS has challenged the 501c3 status of a newspaper.
If you have proof that the Newton Beacon is taking direction from the Mayor, is controlled by the City, is not an independent institution, isn’t publicly funded to a large degree (grants are acceptable from governmental agencies but they can’t be all of the funding), engages in direct lobbying of pubic officials either publicly or privately, let me know.
On a side note, generally if there is a question about tax exempt status, the IRS is looking for abusive situations. It isn’t the solution for when you disagree with a newspaper or opinion piece. I mean people gaslight this stuff all the time to make it seem like a non-profit is doing something wrong, when they disagree with them, but the IRS doesn’t get involved in your complaints. Which is really the right answer I think.
If folks don’t like the Newton Beacon, no issue there. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. I say give it a chance, and don’t involve the Feds. 😉
The Beacon’s only activity so far is the biased coverage of a ballot question. You can explain that away all you want to, but it is clearly in violation of IRS guidance for nonprofit 501-3(C)’s. That’s important when the Beacon has made such a huge deal about being nonpartisan and nonprofit that it puts those words in its banner under its name.
Also, you’re anonymous.
Debra, you wrote:
“The Beacon’s only activity so far is the biased coverage of a ballot question. You can explain that away all you want to, but it is clearly in violation of IRS guidance for nonprofit 501-3(C)’s. That’s important when the Beacon has made such a huge deal about being nonpartisan and nonprofit that it puts those words in its banner under its name.
Also, you’re anonymous.”
Debra, you saying they are in violation of IRS guidance just doesn’t make it so. First of all, I disagree that this is biased coverage of a ballot question. In fact, the article about road construction was negative in my view, as I think most of us thought those funds were for NEW road construction. You might try reading the articles. Second, even if you are correct and the IRS would suddenly change decades of non-involvement in journalistic entities like this one, Form 990s are filed once a year, and Schedule C of the 990 (which describes Lobbying activity) is filed with that 990. In addition, the IRS (as evidenced by Form 1023, which is how you file to be a tax exempt) tends to take a longer view approach on public support and similar questions, really only looking into most questions after a 5 year period has passed. Again, if there was something abusive here, such as the Beacon being run out of City Hall, if the Beacon was testifying before the City Councilors, or if the Beacon was being run as a front for some group of people, perhaps the IRS would take a greater interest at an earlier date. But what you’ve got here is basically a run of the mill community paper, working to get on its feet, that hired two journalists with good reputations, putting out a special issue on the most important community issue of the day. In a few months, I’m sure they will follow up with other topics.
You saying they are violating IRS guidance is your opinion, based solely on your view that the bias is so bad that the IRS would act, because of the sole focus on the override violates the substantial part test and the economic part test. But they wouldn’t even get the information on either part for another 15 months…and your opinion would require that the Beacon fold up shop right after the override…
If you are that upset about bias, talk about the bias. Accusing a new non-profit of violating its tax exempt status isn’t fair or honest unless you have the law and facts on your side. You have neither.
As for me being anonymous, you got me there. I’ll let others judge how that impacts our discussion.
Newton is indeed lucky to have two locally sourced news organizations that are making honest, good-faith efforts to fill the gap caused by the highly lamentable decline of the traditional sources of local news. This needs to happen in many more places.
https://dankennedy.net/2023/01/04/the-local-news-renaissance-needs-to-spread-beyond-affluent-white-suburbs/
Perhaps it is another sign of the times that Fig City News and Newton Beacon are already the targets of the inevitable bubbles that we all live in now, and our need for confirmation bias that one site represents and the other doesn’t. Of course, online comments aren’t always an accurate reflection of popular opinion, but it’s hard to see how the news has a future if we’re already arguing like this.
Beacon applied for arpa funds last year. Did they get rejected? Or perhaps they need to “convince” the mayor will favorable coverage.
https://figcitynews.com/2022/08/newton-news-foundation-applies-for-arpa-funding-to-start-newton-beacon-digital-news-site/
The application for ARPA funds for the Beacon was rejected.
FWG:
Have faith and good cheer. I think you can’t take the limited loud voices on here too seriously, especially the ones judging either Fig City or the Beacon after a few months (in the case of Fig City) or a few days(!) in the case of the Beacon. Some folks just come to these reviews with axes to grind from previous battles.
I think both are going to be great resources long term. And I also think most reasonable people aren’t expecting perfection, and are willing to give these community beneficial endeavors time to mature and improve.
I’ve got no objection to anyone pointing out constructively how either paper can improve, or when they feel there has been a misstep in terms of bias or conflicts. That’s healthy. But the instant outrage? That’s not. Or, in the words of my kids, after hearing someone rant and rave about something randomly “Ma’am….this is an Arby’s.”
Give them time and keep reading both.
This is one of the sillier arguments I’ve seen on Village 14, and I’ve seen many.
I’m quite certain the first amendment protections of the media would trump and obscure or otherwise interpretations of IRS code. Thankfully, government can’t tell the media what it chooses to cover, or not.
Greg – As a media company, the government has almost no rights over what you say, because of the first amendment. As a non-profit 501-(C)(3), however, you can’t endorse candidates and you must limit your lobbying. That’s the law. If the Newton Beacon wanted complete freedom of speech, then they should have formed a for-profit company like The Globe.
Also – can you tell us if the Newton Beacon has actually joined the Institute for Non-Profit News or are they just following their standards as stated in the Beacon’s “Ethics & Policies” page?
It looks like the Beacon wants all the credibility of being a non-profit, with none of the restrictions.
Hi Greg:
My apologies for going down a rabbit hole. I just have a pet peeve I guess of folks trying to weaponize tax exempt status. One of the reasons I’m sure the IRS doesn’t try and strip 501c3 status in cases like this is of course the first amendment considerations.
What is funny is that the much closer case of 501c3 lobbying concerns would be Fig City News. (and no, I don’t think it applies, so hold your outrage everyone). But Amy is a former candidate for mayor, and maybe a future candidate for mayor. She still does most of the work on Fig City News. If Fig City starts to write news articles and opinion articles about an election Amy is participating in, or endorses Amy, that’s a potential problem. Easily solved though I think by a conflict policy and Amy stepping back from decisions during the election, if she runs.
Again, in both cases, the IRS isn’t going to be tool in a community disagreement, and isn’t going to suddenly be used as a weapon because you don’t like certain speech.
Anyway, this is my last post hopefully on this. Debra isn’t going to believe me. I’m hopeful others will read what I wrote if they are interested and see that I tried to prove my viewpoint with IRS documents and filings.
Very happy to have two separate Newton focused journalistic endeavors. It is good for our city. Full stop.
Sorry-this last article about roads was definitely pro-override. If they were reall presenting both sides, they might have asked people how Newton could take care of its roads more efficiently or cheaply so that we didn’t need an override. Or how to take care of major roads and leave lesser roads for different treatment. Those seem like a basic questions you would want to present if you’re trying to present both sides of the override issue. There is nothing in the article to suggest a counter option to taking care of our roads other than override or nothing. Biased. 🙂
I have read many articles and been in many meetings about road paving in several communities. I honestly can’t recall anyone ever asking, “How can we take care of our roads more cheaply?”, or suggesting “take care of major roads and leave lesser ones for different treatment”. Especially with roads currently and historically as bad as we have here.
In my experience, people want the roads they use paved, now.
Newton has been as data-driven and objective about pavement assessment and prioritization as I have heard from a community. With so many roads neglected for so long until the Warren administration started doing something about it, and the Fuller administration expanded it, I’m not sure exactly who in our community or the community of professionals has the expertise to be wholesale second-guessing the prioritization – especially without articles like this. I have also never heard that the DPW street prioritization has ever been a point of major debate in City Council. People mostly just want it done.
The biggest problem is that there’s just so much to do, some roads that really need the work are going to come later in the queue than they ideally would be. That, combined with the fact that the work generally happens behind the scenes, which is something that articles like this one help fix.
Pro-override? Well, I think the facts in the article suggest that the previous override did allow the city to improve our roads. That’s not biased. Sometimes facts just do that.
@Debra: The Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn’t have separate protections for for-profits vs nonprofits.
Besides the Beacon isn’t endorsing any candidates and there are no candidates on the ballot March 14. And publishing news articles about ballot questions (or for that matter candidates) isn’t lobbying and its certainly protected speech.
But knock yourself out trying to slay that windmill.
It looks like lobbying to me (100% of their activities since inception is the override and wouldn’t an override fall under referendum, ballot initiative)
Per the IRS…
In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.
Hi Fred:
I would point you to my detailed responses to Debra, where I pointed out that all of the reasons why that conclusion is incorrect.
If your issue is with Newton Beacon content, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But there is a lot of guidance regarding lobbying activities, both in the links embedded in the public guidance from the IRS, the Form 990 (especially Schedule C) and of course decades of IRS practice.
I think this discussion just distracts from the good work of the Beacon and I believe I’ve proven my point a few times over, so feel free to have the last word.
Greg: By law, for profit media can endorse candidates and do almost unlimited lobbying while nonprofit media can’t endorse candidates and can do only a little lobbying. This means they have different rules for speech, regardless of the Bill of Rights.
I asked you if the Newton Beacon was actually a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN), because the Beacon claims to follow the INN standards on its “Ethics” page. You didn’t answer and so I am interpreting that as a “no.” The Beacon should remove its reference to the INN if it is not a member, because the reference implies membership, and the Beacon is also not following INN standards.
I’m voting for the two school overrides, but against the general override. In my opinion, Mayor Fuller has blown too much money on unneeded vanity projects like the Senior Center and her 4+ years of trying to change the City into a subjectively zoned chaos of mansions for the elites to live in and apartment buildings for the elites to own, with no consideration for the middleclass problems of traffic and schools.
I have found the Newton Beacon coverage to be biased, so far, because it is pretending that the general override is about fixing longstanding inherited problems like the roads, rather than trying to fix any problems created by Mayor Fuller.
If I see anything in the Newton Beacon that is critical of Mayor Fuller, I will reconsider my opinion of bias, but so far the Newton Beacon could have been written by her newsletter team.
Debra: I’m not on the board of the Beacon and do not speak for them.
Update from the schools today. In summary, the city has mismanaged its budget so badly that even basic functions such as school staffing requires an override (after the generous teacher contract few years ago)
“We learned today that Day Middle School will have to cut staff and teacher positions and operate differently next year if the override does NOT pass.“
The Beacon just dropped another puff piece for the override-this time on Countryside. Again, no analysis of other options to pay for a new school except the override. It seems to me that the tax revenues from the huge Northland Development should be sufficient to pay off a bond for Countryside instead of raising taxes on residents. Isn’t one of the benefits of all of this massive increase in development is that the City will have increased tax revenues to upgrade our schools? The city hasn’t even identified a plan for Countryside yet, so suggesting that we need to have an override now is premature. The city can easily identify increase tax revenue from Northland to satisfy the State Building Authority that Newton will have the funds to pay for Countryside.
@Aurthur: Would be great if it were true but since Northland isn’t built yet a lot of the tax revenue (property tax and meals tax) isn’t there yet.
Folks might want to think about those things the next time they slow down a development through ballot referendums, lawsuits or other tactics because that stuff delays the day when we can enjoy the tax benefits.
BTW, Northland is contributing $1 million for Countryside up front.
Yes Greg, next time the developers say what they want we should just roll over and play dead. Great idea.
Greg you won the Northland development argument, but we won’t win this one. Countryside construction won’t start until the summer of ‘24 at the earliest so there’s no rush for money today. And the override charge is for 30 years. Northland is scheduled to come online in ‘24 so the project should provide the extra tax revenue for Countryside.
The real problem with this override proposal is why the city chose two school projects instead of the Senior Center project. That funding should be up to the voters too. With that over developed project we’ll probably set a world record for the number of indoor tracks with one mile radius, the Y, Newton North, and the Senior Center. If we’re in such a dire financial condition, they should have held off on the Senior Center.
Countryside and Franklin are both $50 million projects, though state funds offset the cost of Countryside somewhat in part because of its very poor condition. They will be paid for with 30 year bonds, which makes sense. The two overrides will pay for those bonds. They are targeted payments for needed infrastructure.
We paid for three elementary schools with a previous override. We paid for a partially complete Horace Mann, a new NECP, and an ongoing Lincoln Eliot through the regular budget. We have many more schools to go that do not meet state standards for education or federal law for accessibility.
Franklin and Countryside need reconstruction. Their respective communities waited while Waban and then Newtonville got their override funded schools. I fail to see why we should not use the targeted tool of debt exclusion, anticipated by Prop. 2½, to address this need.
I’d make the case that if you want more fiscal accountability in government, you should lock more money into debt exclusion overrides. That way the taxpayer gets a direct say in where the money goes.
Saying that the senior center should have gone to an override is not a reason to punish the communities in the north and south sides of the city. They can’t wait for future tax revenue for developments not yet built to kick in.
We have civic responsibilities to families across our city, now.
Arthur, the senior center costs, if funded via bonds, would take up no more 20% or so of the override. I get that not everyone likes the senior center project. But it isn’t a close match. And much of it was paid for with ARPA funds.
As for the indoor tracks, where is Newton North’s indoor track and how does a member of the public access it? Not being snarky, if it exists I’d like to use it. The outdoor track is limited in use.
I’ll also say that as a parent who directly benefited from the Cabot rehabilitation, I’m voting for all three. The process for school rehabilitation completely sucks. It is long and painful, and grinds down parents. Parents who volunteer to lead the effort are unlikely to see the benefit for their kids. And yet they have to fight and beg for the funding.
In March of 2013, I remember begging parents across the city to vote for the override for Cabot and Angier. And I remember the conversations with parents in schools not slated for improvement when they asked when would their schools get replaced. And how it wasn’t fair. It’s been 10 years, and those projects haven’t even started.
As a community, we pushed off school repair and maintenance for decades. It is more painful now because of our choices over the past 50 years. The city voted to approve the overrides for my school, and my youngest benefited. I’ll vote to do the same now. It is easy to say that we should fund these improvements from existing tax dollars. It just doesn’t happen. And the proof is in 50 years of delays…
@Mike, no one wants to punish the villages. I will scream from the rooftops to vote yes for Franklin and Countryside and No to the general. Easy decision, simple logic gets you there.
Claiming this is “for schools” is the biggest political garbage. Anyone who understands budgets knows that the city could very well have filled the 4.5mm operating deficit by reallocating funds away from something else. They INTENTIONALLY created this “problem” knowing that the most likely way to pay for their other pet projects was to force the issue with schools. The mayor has a proven track record in her disdain for NPS and that it limits her ability to spend more money on (IMO stupid) other things.
Its a joke. Its a political game. And she has put the future of our children in the cross hairs. Listening to the SC meeting and the roadshow of officials telling us that if the override fails that specialists, programs, etc will be cut. Seriously Mayor Fuller? You are holidng the future of our children hostage to pay for a senior center? prefund the pension? bike lanes?
This is all a big joke and I really wish and hope and pray that the people see through this sham.
To build on Fig’s comment, while everyone might not have been in favor of the current NewCAL / Senior Center design, I think anyone who knows the existing Senior Center understands it both is in disrepair and is inadequate for the current or future needs of the growing Newton senior population.
Some significant money was needed, whatever fraction of the the $20.6M current NewCAL price you choose. Call it $10M. With Franklin and Countryside coming in total at about $122M, the difference of $10.6M a drop in the capital project bucket. The Horace-Mann expansion, also needed now, just makes the fraction even smaller.
That’s like people saying that the pot shops should fund the school reconstruction. Last year they brought $600K back to the city, less than parking meters. Welcome funds, but not anywhere near the right order of magnitude for capital projects.
Yes, this is real money. But our obligation to everyone in our city through our schools and support services is real too. I wish previous generations would have invested wisely in these facilities.
@Mike Halle– Can you name one person who said “the pot shops should fund the school reconstruction”? The FACT of the matter is that Newton has lost million$ in revenue because the City Council botched implementation of legalized cannabis. I still support all three overrides. But let’s not whitewash Newton history in the process. The general override would be for a lot less money if the City Council had followed the voter approved law, rather than obstruct it.
Mike, I do think you are right that the city lost some money, but I think it is less than we all anticipated. There is a lot of issues in the pot market right now, and I’ve heard some of the fees/taxes may need to be cut to make the businesses viable.
Granted this is a side note so no issues if you don’t want to respond in this thread.
“What about the pot shop money?” came up on one of the NextDoor threads about the override within the last month. But in the larger picture, people in general aren’t attuned to how expensive capital projects can be, and now how that compares to different revenue streams. Well over 80% of our revenue comes from property taxes.
The legal adult-use cannabis industry is struggling in Massachusetts because government has blown implementation across the board. Newton is not unique in that regard. I just hoped our homegrown elected “leaders” would be a little smarter and more progressive than most. I was wrong.
According to the formula resulting from the 2016 vote that legalized recreational cannabis sales, Newton had 8 licenses to issue. Seven years later there are only 3 cannabis shops open in Newton. Mostly because the City Council has slow rolled applicants.
My understanding from industry sources, is that a well located cannabis dispensary in Newton should generate between $250K and $500K per year in taxes when the law is fully implemented. The annual tax revenue from the 3 shops that are open thus far, indicates that projection to be spot-on.
It’s been a learned experience that customers do not just gravitate to the shops that are open. Many still purchase cannabis from the most convenient source, licensed or not. Until there are more shops, there will continue to be a large underground market. The underground market is costing Newton millions of dollars per year, and it’s our own City Council that’s to blame. It should not take in excess of seven years to implement the expressed will of the voters.
The almost forgotten second half of the 2016 law also legalized “cannabis cafes,” which effectively means cannabis food and beverage products could be served in licensed restaurants. Governor Baker blocked implementation of that portion of the law. It remains to be seen how our new Governor will handle it. Implementation would be a huge economic boost to the cannabis and restaurant industries. There are significant revenue implications for Newton. Newton’s Mayor should be encouraging the governor to fully implement the 2016 law, and the City Council should lay the groundwork for implementation now.
Let’s say hypothetically the debt exclusion Overrides pass. By the time the schools are rebuilt most families in Countryside and Franklin will be in middle school, high school or out of NPS. Do the math.
Speaking of math…Newton’s home values have never been higher…ever. Which means residential tax revenues have never been higher.
Newton doesn’t have a revenue shortage problem, we have a budgeting and spending problem. The tech sector is about to shed thousands of jobs, and it’s heartbreaking when your number’s called, but we all have budgets to balance – companies; our households – and so should the City.
The $15m in bailout being asked for from residential taxpayers represents 3% of Newton’s overall 2023 budget. If the Mayor and her team cannot find 3% in savings… we’ll…don’t make me say it.
And more likely than not, our property taxes will increase 3% or more annually going forward, so we may get those added funds organically. An override only adds to that as a burden on homeowner for decades (debt exclusion) and permanently (operational).
A yes vote doesn’t “help our kids”… it enables irresponsible behavior.
“By the time the schools are rebuilt most families in Countryside and Franklin will be in middle school, high school or out of NPS. Do the math.”
I don’t understand. What math is that? The only math I see is that either our younger kids or our neighbors’ kids will need a place to go to school, and they need space to do math and all the other subjects. It should be a place that meets state and federal standards, just like Waban families got in the past override. And no flooded or moldy basements.
“Newton’s home values have never been higher…ever. Which means residential tax revenues have never been higher.” As I have repeatedly explained, home values increasing is not the reason residential tax revenues increase. They increase because the city’s tax levy increases. Your assessment determines your fraction of the levy.
“we all have budgets to balance – companies; our households – and so should the City.” The city’s budget is balanced, with a great credit rating. The question is are we going to fix the schools that need fixing now, or defer them like we have done for decades. And there will be more schools after Countryside and Franklin. We need to invest more in fixing our schools now. They are our responsibility. Just like that suspect piece of cheese in the back of the refrigerator, they aren’t going to get better if we ignore them.
“And more likely than not, our property taxes will increase 3% or more annually going forward, so we may get those added funds organically.” Whatever the increase in the levy, which by Prop 2.5 is limited to 2.5% plus a new growth factor, it has to include inflation which is growing for municipal expenses just as it grows for everyone else (though the expenses are different). Inflation will eat up that growth. Nothing is getting cheaper.
‘A yes vote doesn’t “help our kids”… it enables irresponsible behavior.’ Committing dedicated bonds to rebuilding two new schools doesn’t help kids? It locks parts of the budget into school reconstruction bonds. Can’t be used for another purpose. How is that irresponsible?
We can agree to disagree….what’s most important is whether Newton’s voters agree with you, or me (or show up to vote).
I am curious about one point you didn’t touch….why can’t the city find a 3% savings in the budget?
That would basically eliminate the need for an override.
To be clear, a 3% “savings” is a 3% cut in the current baseline of services the city provides going forward (or at least until the bonds on the schools are paid off).
It’s all fine to say it’s just 3% if you’re not the one making the cuts (or the victim of them). In general, the money is going to the public, so someone is being impacted. Or, more likely, it means putting off the needed replacement for the schools for longer. That’s not going to make them better for the students who attend them, or more attractive for the families that can choose to go to private school. But some families have their nice public schools through the past override … so it’s OK then?
I also think it’s hard to make the “it’s just 3%” argument for the city, and then argue it’s a fundamentally greater hardship for residents as a whole. The amount and compounding is the same. The potential for hardship is the same. The people who are most impacted by an increase in taxes are also the people who are most at risk when city services are cut or not maintained.
Looking at it more positively, families working two or more jobs to provide for their kids benefit most from great public schools and parks and safe streets, and older people on fixed income benefit most from services catered to them. Newton, one of the state’s most affluent communities, should be able to provide these kinds of basic civic benefits, excellently. That’s part of Newton’s image for generations.
I understand it’s more money to ask for, and that’s hard in uncertain times. Everyone understands that. We need to look after those most at risk. But that doesn’t mean deferring or cutting spending on the things that benefit them.
@ Mike – Borrow more money. Newton is AAA. This isnt a badge of honor for Fuller’s resume, it is real life. Instead of borrowing more money at tight spreads, let’s raise taxes! Stupid.
Why have the AA if you arent going to use it. And we are far far away from losing AAA. Oh and AA+ means about .1% higher interest cost, maybe .15%. So, spare me the bullsht.
Additionally, we could decide to NOT prefund the pension 10 years before legally requried. That alone would free up far more than 10MM annually. How about we prefund to 2038, still 2 years early, instead of 2030. That would free up FAR MORE than the override amount annually.
This is a joke. no one is threatening to cut services EXCEPT THE MAYOR in holding NPS students hostage. This is so horrible what is happening. People, please vote yes for Frnaklin and Countryside and vote no to the general. Time to put our foot down.
Frank, for your borrowing or pension plan to work it would have to be approved by City Council, I believe. Is there any support for either? Any support, let alone enough Councilors to make it happen? I’ve heard Chris Markiewicz talk repeatedly about the crisis he sees the pension plan and other unfunded benefits to be. I’m skeptical, but I’d love to hear other advocates chime in.
People here and on social media talk say things like “the Mayor is spending out of control, or she is financially irresponsible, or can’t handle money, etc etc”.
If the Mayor weren’t funding the pension fund as she is or was taking actions that resulted in a drop in the city’s credit rating, I doubt we’d hear anything different, just for for opposite reasons.
Fig, the fact you don’t know about Newton North’s indoor track is an example of how egregiously the City wastes the resources we have. We spent nearly $200 million on the high school and the athletic facilities are open to Newton residents one hour a week for swimming. I think there was an hour a week for basketball, but I can’t find it on Park and Rec website for this winter.
So we have this impressive athletic facility just down the street from the Senior Center and the City can’t figure out how to allow Seniors to use the facility. Talk about a gross mismanagement of a valuable resource!
In fact, I asked Park and Rec if there was any gym open on weekends during the winter where I could take my nephew to shoot baskets and they said no. Sad commentary on the management by the City.
And I’m surprised people don’t find it inconsistent to be spending $20 million on a Senior Center, but telling residents we don’t have enough money to fund our schools so we need an override. Spend within your limits like everyone else.
Finally, the pro- override folks seem to ignore all the new revenue scheduled in the pipeline from the extensive development. Use that money instead of sticking it to the taxpayers. As Matt mentioned real estate values are at an all time high. A well managed City should be awash in cash.
Lol. Actually it only means I hate exercise. Not sure that you can extrapolate that conclusion from my fat ###…,
😉
Arthur, one final point before I end my night. I appreciate the answer about the existence of the track. I really didn’t know. Sorry if I was flippant in my response, although I hope it was funny.
I do agree with you btw that the Newton North facilities should be open more to the public. For the record, many years ago when the school was being built, that was promised to the local community. I think the city has failed on this and should do better. I’d love to use the pool more, and the walking track, and I’d love for clear rules about using the outdoor track as well. Some of this might be liability related or covid related, but it seems unfortunate not to have more community use in the building.
And it was one of my concerns for the senior center to be honest. It should be much more open to public use than the school.
Besides declaring that they are nonpartisan and nonprofit in their banner, right under their name, the Newton Beacon also has an Ethics and Policies page in which they state that “We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News.”
I looked up the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN) membership standard of editorial independence and it explicitly states that “INN members do not lobby for any policies or legislation beyond freedom of the press and First Amendment rights that ensure the public has open access to the public’s information.”
I also looked up the INN membership to see if the Newton Beacon was a member. It’s not, although perhaps it’s applying for membership. Either way, since the Newton Beacon’s only activity so far is the biased coverage of a ballot question, the Newton Beacon appears to be in violation of its claim to be following the INN’s standard for editorial independence, in addition to being in violation of the IRS guidance for nonprofits.
https://www.newtonbeacon.org/about/ethics-policies/
https://inn.org/about/membership-standards/
At the risk of starting another long pointless conversation, how are the news articles written thus far lobbying? I realize you find them biased. I disagree. But can you point to anything beyond your own personal viewpoint here?
For both the INN and the IRS, there is not a “Debra Waller test”, just as there isn’t a “Figgy test”.
Which is good, since the “Figgy Test” would certainly be a test of how many Fig Newtons a person can cram in his/her mouth while talking about bias, and no one wants to see that. Except my kids. My kids would enjoy that. And maybe Nabisco, because no one eats Fig Newtons willingly anymore.
All I’m saying is give the poor Newton Beacon a chance. And if you truly hate it, maybe you can just choose not to read it. That’s always an option.
Fig I did read through the article and while I am not outraged I can understand that some would find the initial coverage biased. While the article spoke about previous successful overrides and the new added benefits to taxpayers in need ( which I think is a lousy program), I couldn’t find anything that represented the viewpoint of those in opposition..
I’m willing to give the Beacon a chance but I hope they do a better job of reporting BOTH VIEWPOINTS in the future
Jackson Joe: fair enough. I think more articles are coming out but I have no insider knowledge. But sending them an email expressing the sentiment is likely helpful too. Frankly in my view they are already adding value, knowing that the roadwork is not additional but just supporting what was already promised was a salient fact, and certainly not pro override.
i also think the reporting ON a topic doesn’t mean you are supporting that topic. It is important that folks know what an override will pay for. I don’t think that shows bias, anymore than letting us know the annual increase in taxes shows bias. Thus far the main complaint of bias seems to also be that the Beacon hasn’t questioned the need for the override, or done a deep dive in the city finances to see if mismanagement or bad choices caused the override. That would be a useful article too, but it certainly won’t come to the conclusion that the city doesn’t need the override, as that will be bias in the other direction.
I’ve enjoyed the articles this far. Baby steps!
I would love to see an article in the Beacon or Fig City on how our City’s budget has changed over the years. For example, I recall being told 20+ years ago that 50% went to the Schools and 50% went to other City Dept (Parks, Police, etc.). Is this true? I know maintenance was underfunded for years, is it still underfunded or are the Schools and City meeting their charter maintenance commitments? How much of our budget is going to pay for the underfunded pension (& health care?) liabilities?
I’d like to see articles that give a bigger picture of Newton’s finances, how we got here and where we’re going.
As an aside, my appreciation for Setti Warren and his zero-based budgeting has grown with the years
If you’re interested in the budget, check out the budgets on the Newton web page:
https://www.newtonma.gov/government/comptroller/budget
In particular, for each budget there’s a “Mayor’s Budget Analysis” (or similar) that provides a lot of information in a relatively compact form.
@Lucia I agree with you that it would be wonderful to see investigative reporting about longtime budgetary trends here in Newton. However, I would say, first and foremost, the City could do a much better job of depicting those trends on its own website.
As I wrote in an opinion piece in the Tab way back in 2020, while the City puts out copious and detailed budget/finance information on the website, most of that is in the form of enormous spreadsheets (shared as pdfs) and long-form prose. As a result, it is extremely difficult for the average person to digest all of this information.
There is almost no place on the website that one can find data visualizations, interactive data, or even data that is searchable/downloadable. There is no easy way to compare departmental budgets within a given fiscal year and budget trends year-to-year. There are no simple explainers about the different parts of the budget. There is no easy-to-find narrative explaining the budget process itself. And there is no way for citizens to easily understand the relationship between what they pay in taxes and how the city spends money.
To be clear, I’m not at all suggesting that there’s anything nefarious here. But what I am saying is that the City has not invested in software programs and platforms that would make budget information more accessible. Many other municipalities have done so.
To pick just one example: the website for the town of Arlington features two excellent tools on its “Financial Information and Budget” page: The first, the Arlington Virtual Budget (or AVB), is described as “an online tool intended to provide the public with a visual representation of the town’s financial history and outlook, as well as illustrate key trends” such as year-over-year spending by department. Using graphics, the AVB also allows residents to input the amount of their tax bills to see how their taxes are allocated among different uses. The second tool, Open Checkbook, “provides financial transparency to the public with easy access to the town’s expenditure information for the current fiscal year, as well as a historical view of previous years.” Users can “search details of government spending by category, department, fund, government area, and vendor.” Here’s a link: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/departments/finance/financial-budget-information Platforms like these are available “off the shelf” and can be customized.
To ensure that residents can understand and participate in conversations about public policy in a knowledgeable way, the City has a responsibility to present data–especially budget and finance data–in an accessible and interactive format.
Rather than blaming the Beacon for not having anti-override voices, the question should be:
Where are the anti-override voices?
Is there a registered vote no ballot committee?
If there is, I’d suggest they do a better job letting people know about their existence.
If there isn’t perhaps some of folks spending their time forming one because without it, there can’t be any vote no lawn signs, leaflets, robo calls or any of the things one can expect are coming from the yes side.
Or I suppose you can just whine about it here or blame the Beacon.
Why can’t there be lawn signs without a ballot committee? Not being snarky Greg, I don’t know the rules.
I also don’t think the No side NEEDS a ballot committee to convince folks to vote no. Self-interest is in lower taxes during difficult times. I think the Yes side needs to be as active as possible. And I hope the school committee especially gets more detailed and public about what would be cut absent the override. And the coming pain in the next set of negotiations.
Fig. according to Greg without a ballot committee there can’t be any leaflets either!
Based on the insane number of leaflets (including some really wacky ones content-wise) my door receives each election, if only that were true!
ARTHUR JACKSON For Mayor!
Peace. Love. Unity.
Thank you Girard! I couldn’t agree more. If only you didn’t have to go to so many meetings listening to so many long winded speakers! Good luck.
@Fig: I’m not an expert on campaign finance law but some registered entity has to exist to pay for and report contributions and donations.
Turns out the Beacon reported today that there is indeed a No ballot committee so that takes care of that.
Another puff piece in the Newton Beacon about the Senior Center and supporting the override. The Senior Center needs more than 500K in new funding and there was no where else in the City’s $480 million dollar budget to find that amount so instead let’s permanently increase the tax base. Biased-you bet! The more stories they publish, the clearer it becomes that the Beacon is a PR machine for the override folks.
Better make that “Independent, Nonprofit, and Nonpartisan” PR Machine.
I think they have added a lot of information to the public. And the override is a month and a half away. Why don’t we see what their coverage brings over the coming weeks?
@Arthur Jackson – I’m just not seeing the bias that you’re seeing. They ran a story about the two groups that organized both for and against the override.
They ran a story in which the administration made the case of how the override would help the schools and they had extensive opposing comments from Sumukh Tendulkar who made the case that that was “throwing good money after bad”.
They ran a story with the administration about how a portion of one of the overrides would be used to improve roads, and included a City Councilor Grossman and Chamber president Greg Reibman objections that the roads were being shortchanged.
If the goal is to provide information and news coverage about the upcoming override vote, I’m not clear where they’ve gone wrong and what you think their shortcomings are. Should they not ever present the administrations case?
Jerry-thanks for the reply. First, I want to thank the Newton Beacon staff for putting together an interesting site. There’s little news coverage of Newton so there efforts are appreciated. But, let’s look at this objectively.
The first article was about street paving. Now, I’m not paving expert and I might have mentioned these points before, but when looking at that issue, I would expect an objective story on paving to look at these potential questions.
1) whether Newton is getting a good price on its paving contracts,
2) are there options to pave main streets and let side streets go,
3) Should paving be a cost to bond?
Our streets are a long term investment-why isn’t borrowing to pave streets a possibility like the schools. Also, my parents Street in Newton-a very minor side street-was paved recently. It didn’t need it. Is the city paving plan effective? Doesn’t seem like it.
I think an objective article might have looked at these issues or even just one of them. But no options other then approving the override were discussed.
Same with the article about Countryside and the Senior financing. No hard analysis. Just about all puff.
Maybe they will have some more in-depth articles coming out, but so far they are doing a good job promoting the “company “ line. Thanks for reading.