Gail Spector from the Newton Beacon forwarded this request to the Village14 readership
Greetings to Village 14!
As you know — and have commented on frequently — the Newton Beacon is
reporting on override-related issues. We’re trying to cover the stories
from as many angles as possible. I’ve read some of your concerns about
coverage tilting pro-override and I’m writing to ask for your help.
We’re struggling to identify people opposed to any or all of the
override questions who are willing to talk to and be quoted by a
reporter. We’d like to represent the points of view of people opposed to
any combination of the questions. I know they’re out there but I need
help finding them.
If you or anyone you know will speak to a reporter on the record, please
email us at [email protected].
Thank you.
– Gail
Gail is respectfully missing the point.
This isn’t about balancing “he said, she said” journalism. Being quoted isn’t the issue. The issue is that override opponents have grave concerns about *issues* that aren’t being covered by the Beacon.
Specifically:
1) The schools are on the decline and academic excellence is not a priority
2) NPS had an UNPRECENDENTED drop in enrollment– 1000 students left the system– and there were no budget implications.
3) The budget process of NPS is opaque, there is insufficient detail on expenditures and associated rationale (peer communities are meaningfully better).
4) Due to 2 and 3, there is a belief that prioritization can be on the budget without impacting excellence of schools and mitigate the need for one or more overrides.
There is broad dissatisfaction with the leadership from the School Committee and Mayor Fuller, and a desire to not throw more good money after bad.
Please cover these issues, Gail. There are tough questions to be asked of the Fuller administration and School Committee.
If people feel strongly, they will need to let themselves be quoted. That’s how responsible journalism works. It sounds like the Beacon is trying to avoid quoting anonymous sources, which I think in this case is the right call.
What you are asking for is “coverage” with a particular slant; every item you cited, with the possible exception of #2, is an opinion not backed up by facts.
Unfortunately we’ve all gotten used to “news”—on both sides—that dips far too much into opinion under cover of “reporting.” Our own tools of analysis have weakened as more and more of our media diet is designed, by us and by algorithms, to simply tell us what we want to hear. The Beacon cannot report on these issues you raised simply by saying that “some people feel yada yada” without direct quotes, as, again, none of them, besides #2, involve reportable facts.
Alec:
I’d be interested in reading about number 2. I think lower enrollments don’t produce as much savings as you think due to: (1) sunk costs like building management and school administration don’t shrink due to roughly 8% reduction in students spread across 2 high schools, 4 middle schools and 15(!) elementary schools, (2) special education costs are higher, both because more kids need help post-pandemic and because rising across all of MA, and we are obligated to educate per federal law, (3) pandemic costs across the board/inflation, and (4) for every student we lose, we also lose some amount of Federal/State funding. I’m sure we’d save more if we closed an elementary school, or a middle school. And the reduction is not the same everywhere. There is also some degree of flex in the system, namely we had an overcrowding problem as early as the 2018, and now we’ve got some reduction but not in every class year (high schools still overcrowded) nor every school (Day and Cabot are very crowded).
I do think it would make an interesting article though.
I think the Beacon can do everyone a favor and do some research with concrete facts about #2 and how the number of newton kids leaving the system affects the school system overall. Anything other than real worlds #s are opinions and conjecture, now that’s real reporting.
Totally agree Alex. Looks like some of us might have expected too much from the Beacon. They parrot the city info with no question or independent analysis. Their latest story includes “comments” from both sides, but doesn’t contain any real analysis of the data.
@Holly
I agree #1 and #3, as written, are opinions. But there are facts on both points to be explored. Are academics on the decline in Newton? Is there clarity on where all of our dollars go and how our budget process compares to other towns? Answering those questions is journalism. Good journalism seeks out facts. We don’t need simple quotes from random people who simply oppose the override. We need the issues explored, with quotes from experts.
@Fig
I’m interested too.
I’m fully aware of everything you wrote– but I’m not aware of ANY savings– not one cent– that’s been noted by NPS. That’s hard to believe. And they haven’t been made accountable– on budget or performance– for this unprecedented drop in enrollment.
@Holly
To be clear– the Beacon didn’t simply quote people around town saying we need to rebuild schools. They decided to cover the *issue* and are writing pieces ABOUT the conditions of the schools in question. That’s exploring facts on one side of the issue. I’m suggesting they explore similar facts– our budget process, etc- on the other side of the issue. That’s what good, unbiased journalism looks like. The facts, not quotes, on all sides of a question.
Very much agree that coverage needs to be 360 degrees!
For once, I completely agree with Greg Riebman. The override should be delayed a year.
Added cost to business owners will be end up getting passed on to consumers (yet another gut punch), and enough is enough.
There is plenty in free cash to delay this another year. Inflationary pressures are temporary and this override is forever (and increases by 2 1/2 percent each year apparently). And if inflation is such a budget buster, why is Newton the ONLY community in the region considering an override?
This is a crisis of the Mayor’s personal priorities – her beloved AAA bond rating, rush to fund OPEB, electrification goals – over those whom she professes are her priorities. If it were NPS, their financial needs would have been taken care first, not last. And there would have been a plan in place to help small business.
https://www.newtonbeacon.org/businesses-to-mayor-not-a-good-time-for-an-override/
This is a compliment by the way:
Greg is extremely good at his job, whether it’s lobbying to allow developers pillage Newton or helping struggling businesses. He gets the job done
Bugek: This is a compliment as well:
I enjoy your dedication to troll posting everything on Village14. You are terrific at it!
Just to quantify it the “gut punch”, the override is the only tax item to take immediate impact. The debt exclusions won’t be added to taxes for 3 to 5 years. By my calculations, each commercial property owner will pay an additional $400 per million of assessed value. Many of the smaller businesses site will assess for far less than that. I don’t think that is a gut punch to most of our local businesses, and it certainly isn’t a gut punch to consumers based on costs passed on.
I understand the hesitation to increase taxes in a difficult economic time, but I honestly don’t think our business side will ever express interest in the prospect of an override. Especially the folks quoted in the article, who don’t live in Newton and won’t see most of the benefit (and also don’t get to vote on it, which I’m sure is frustrating). In other words, I doubt the business community will suddenly support an override next year either.
As for why aren’t other communities raising taxes this year, perhaps you should look at the history of override and debt exclusions of our neighboring communities. And our comparison tax rate. Most of our peer communities have higher tax rates than us. They already raised their taxes to fund community benefits years ago. Which is why they don’t need to do it now.
But I will say I don’t see as much chirping from the “Beacon is biased” folks on the articles that highlight negative aspects of the override. Funny how that works.
For a start-up operation posting its first articles, I’ve been really impressed. Looking forward to the full product later this year. Don’t let the haters get you down, Beacon folks. Nattering Nabobs of Negativity all (the critics, not the journalists).
I like Bugek because he gets to the point and makes it efficiently. Unlike certain people who write like they are paid by the word.
Bruce, I was making fun of his insult-compliment to Greg by doing the same thing to him. Bugek has been posting in his own style for years so I’m sure he will continue to do so.
Love that you read my stuff Bruce. I’ll continue to be wordy just for your enjoyment! ;)
Right now, we’re in the midst of an override campaign, no matter what Greg’s opinion of that might be. If history is any indication, we realistically won’t have an opportunity to put another one on the ballot for many years to come. After the 1991 loss, the very idea of suggesting an override was the equivalent of touching the third rail – for 10 years – despite the significant need. It was during that period of time that “deferred maintenance” became the de facto budgetary policy. After the override in 2001, we didn’t have another successful override for 12 years. It’s now been another 10 years since that override. It’s simply magical thinking to believe the city would consider putting an override on the ballot in another year or two years.
If what you want is a school system equivalent to comparable communities – and that’s what I’m hearing – letting school buildings go to seed is not the way to get there. It will only slow down the timeline for rebuilding other schools in horrible condition (Ward, Underwood, M-R, Pierce, Williams).
Just yesterday I attended an event at one of my grandson’s four year old magnificent school facility. My other grandson’s school was built in 1995, funded through a debt exclusion that was passed during the period of time that Newton wouldn’t even consider putting any override on the ballot.
We have a well known history in Newton that’s very different from nearby comparable communities, and city spaces, buildings, and services have suffered for it.
Jane:
Exactly this. The idea that another override is coming next year, or a larger one is coming in a few years to really improve the schools, or that this is all the fault of Webster Woods/Senior Center is just gaslighting.
Is it possible to have a smaller or bigger or later override? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? Nope. Not at all. And the folks pushing this type of argument are being disingenuous. Ask them if they are going to help push for that mythical future override if it gets delayed. Ask them if the Mayor and the City Council will have the stomach for it in an election year. Ask them why this time it is different than the past history of overrides being the 3rd rail of Newton politics for a decade between each attempt.
If folks don’t want to vote for the override due to their own personal financial situation, or because they feel Newton needs to cut costs internally first, I get it. I respectfully think it is worth the sacrifice and that Newton still has a budget gap either way and will vote differently.
But if you putting forth the argument that a vote “no” is a vote to delay the override a year, or that it will lead to an even better override to fix the schools later, I feel you are either not being honest with the Newton Community or yourself. A vote “no” has no higher meaning than eliminating the override. There is no future plan to vote again next year. And no guaranty a future override will be submitted or pass.
Vote yes.
Fig I am going to vote yes on the debt exclusions and NO on the override and it’s not for the reason that you stated. In good conscience I can’t vote to increase a REGRESSIVE Property Tax that perpetuates systemic racism in our community. It also hits hardest on seniors and middle and lower income households. Inadvertently the higher tax will help line the pockets of the well off developers and speculators at the same time. Despite Jane’s misleading representations actual taxes paid are comparable or less in neighboring communities. I have provided the research before and Jane’s main response was that debt exclusions should be counted the same as overrides in neighboring communities. If that’s the case why even call it a debt exclusion?
That’s why I am a NO vote.
I haven’t seen a good explanation for why the school budget is so underwater. Enrollment is down, but every year the school budget goes up more than inflation. Inflation didn’t cause an 8 million deficit this year.
The school infrastructure problem is clearly a long time in the making but the city has been raising the amount it’s contributing to the pension deficit every year-another problem inherited by this administration, instead of devoting extra money to replace the schools. Do people really think we can afford paying $100 million plus for all of the schools we need to replace?
Maybe they should hold off on putting money away for future needs when we really need it now. Plus, the City’s 5 year capital plan has real estate revenues decreasing when they’ve gone up every year. How unrealistic is that?
Thanks
Some of the significant cost increases for the schools next year: 14% increase in out-of-district tuition (set by the state, typically 1-3% increase annually), 7-10% increase in van transportation, 22% increase in gas and electric utilities.
The city and NPS cry “the sky is falling…and up to 50 teachers will be let go…” In 2018, we had 12.7 students per teacher. In 2019, it was 12.5. If 50 teachers were let go today, we would STILL have fewer students per teacher than in 2018 and 2019. Was anyone complaining that classrooms were overstuffed back then? This is the worst-case scenario. If the override fails, more teachers can be retained if the school committee does its job and pares back the administrative bloat that it has overseen the past few years.
A “teacher per student” metric is misleading and minimizes the success in areas that Newton does best.
I learned from Franklin that about 16 teachers and staff members regularly interact with a typical student.
Is a math coach necessary? No, but math education for my kids got much better when our Franklin math coach became available to challenge the kids that excel, help the kids that are struggling, and provide guidance for all the math teachers.
Are the new social and emotional learning coaches necessary? No, but with the range of challenges that students and staff face coming out of the pandemic, I am really glad that there’s a professional to help everyone — students, teachers, staff, and families — deal with a new array of school challenges.
Coaches take a great deal of weight off of classroom teachers. I fear those kinds of positions are the first on the chopping block specifically because parents don’t always even know they exist. That will impact our very formative but staff intensive elementary schools that I feel do a great job building social bonds and a love of learning.
Why have we been kept in the dark
about a pending 12m settlement from Eversource plus interest?
Do we really need an operational override?
Hi Peter – Can you please elaborate on this? I am also unaware of any pending Eversource settlement, but would like to hear the details.
Any one time settlement would go into “free cash” and be used with City Council approval for one-time costs and emergencies. For instance, last year’s free cash included money from a utility settlement and is being budgeted for things like the turf replacement at NSHS, a replacement fire engine, and new cruisers for the police.
If you want to know more about these kinds of purchases, please ask your Councilors or the city. I did and got these answers promptly.
But these are one time costs that match well with one time funding (provided the money is there). We can’t count on the money year to year. The operating override is designed to fund ongoing budgeted items, like providing post-pandemic school support, maintain our ability to fix our still-awful roads, or maintaining our parks on an ongoing basis. All those things require dependable money to do well. You can’t pay salaries out of one-off money for instance.
The same argument holds for one time federal money. It kept us out of the hole and got some good capital projects done. But it doesn’t provide money and accountability for budgeted long term expenses.
@Debra Waller – I heard about it for the first time yesterday when Greg Reibman reported it in his electronic Chamber newsletter. Very surprised this settlement has not be shared with the citizens of Newton. In short, this settlement IMHO coupled with all the new growth and tax revenues make the operating Override unnecessary. I talk with people throughout the City and I believe the operational Override will be defeated. I think the debt exclusion for the schools has a better chance to be approved but not Question 1.
Not sure you can say the (pending) settlement is being hidden if the mayor talked about it with the Chamber of Commerce and it is reported by Fig City News:
https://figcitynews.com/2023/02/chamber-hosts-online-forum-on-override-with-mayor-and-interim-superintendent/
But, at any rate, unless the settlement is a long term reliable revenue stream, and right now it is still pending and not fully settled, it does *not* make the operating override unnecessary.
“Free cash” serves one time unbudgeted item that come up. As the Mayor said, it is already being planned to use as one time funds for the Horace Mann addition if the override happens, leveraging the HM money in the override.
I suspect if the OO doesn’t pass, any free cash will be used to patch holes in various line items, but with no easy answer for next year.
I think maybe folks should read the excerpt from Fig City News about this very issue. Already in the budget folks.
“What about using the cash settlement from Eversource? The Mayor noted that the Eversource settlement was about $14 million, of which $8 million is held in reserve because it is not yet completely settled. These funds have been incorporated in the City’s planning, and $7.5 million has been allocated to the Horace Mann project.“
At the very least, the city isn’t hiding anything, has already allocated the funds to a worthy use, and it is a one time settlement.
And here are some of the other expenses out of the “free cash” budget that the utility settlement will fuel (and again, it’s a pending settlement because the lawsuit is still underway):
https://www.newtonma.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/96232/638100791416730000
To plan a long term budget with clear gaps (schools) around a short term, one time, unfinalized settlement would be incredibly reckless.
@Matt Halle – In all fairness most Newton residents do not know of the impending Eversource settlement. Nothing was mentioned in the Mayor’s regular weekly updates. I would argue that citizens should be made aware that we will see an infusion of funds from this settlement coupled with new tax revenues made possible with the ongoing developments in play. Most people live within a budget and set priorities the City should be no different. I don’t think the sky will fall if voters reject the operational override. I think we have a spending problem and I will be voting NO.
The lawsuit is still pending. Settlement not guaranteed. Third time saying that. Can’t take that to a bank (yet).
“New development”: you mean those holes in the ground on Needham and Washington Streets? They aren’t revenue producing. We don’t know when they will be, but not for several years at best. Highly reckless to count on their completion date when our schools have a significant budget shortfall now. Once you lay off teachers that know the schools and our kids, you can’t just hire them back. And we need them now to help our kids recover emotionally and compete academically.
“Live within budget and set priorities.” I think we should set priorities and set the budget. Sometimes priorities like schools and road paving become much more expensive because of, say, a pandemic. They remain priorities. Residents may demand them. They should be given a choice to pay for them. I think the operating override covers a bunch of priorities that should be regularly funded, not funded only if we have some end of year cash.
Somehow, we have all gotten used to the idea, however flawed, that inaction has no consequence. I don’t believe that to be true here. We may cheap out and think we will somehow will get a bargain, but instead we will likely get the level of schools, roads, parks, and services we deserve, rather than what we expect. From our potholed roads to our shabby parks and playing fields to our shameful school buildings, we cheaped out a long time ago.
Funny thing: I hear “we have a spending problem” a lot, but so far from people who have neither consensus on what to cut nor the responsibility to do the cutting. Platitudes, sadly, don’t balance a budget. Yes, we need healthy skepticism of the budget, but not just wishful thinking.
Imagine Mike’s fantasy world. The override passes. The lawsuit is adjudicated in our favor. The new development is completed and all the new tax revenue gushes into city hall. At this point City Hall can 1) Have a tax underride (yes, they exist in MA). 2) Increase taxes by rate under the 2.5% max (has never happened). 3) Keep chugging as many tax dollars as possible with a use it or lose it mentality.
HMMM. Is it door number 1, door number 2, or door number 3?
Jeffrey, first note that that fantasy world (in that it doesn’t exist) is that the settlement happens and the developments are revenue producing. A fair amount of “No” is counting on those things.
For your items it could be 1,2, or 3. I could see 2 pretty easily, because it can be done by Council and done by however much is prudent.
But let’s say it is 3. A savvy mayor could put the whole surplus into a token increase for the schools (enough to keep the “not enough” and “too much” camps both not unhappy), accelerate the school rebuilding program as much as the school swing space capacity allowed, and put the rest into an accelerated road paving and reconstruction program. Add an extra $500k for traffic safety projects, because that’s an enormous complaint in the city. Make is all part of a clear and optimistic strategic plan that shows a great endpoint.
Nothing gold plated, all very popular infrastructure projects that people complain about. Leverage it to modestly build out the commercial base, perhaps with a token shift of the tax burden away from the 175% commercial weighting. Symbolic measures are still important.
If executed well, would such a mayor be reelected? I would bet on it. Would Council approve it? Very likely, possibly while dropping the levy increase to 2-2.3% assuming municipal inflation has stabilized.
Ultimately, there is an enormous amount of stuff to fix in Newton. While there are plenty of people in Newton who will feel pain from a tax increase, there are even more, with more money, who want a city that is 1 not broken, and 2 at least a little awesome. A gifted leader could pull it off, if the money is there.
@ Mike
you wrote “While there are plenty of people in Newton who will feel pain from a tax increase, there are even more, with more money, who want a city that is 1 not broken, and 2 at least a little awesome. A gifted leader could pull it off, if the money is there.
My question is why don’t the people with “more money” ease the burden on those that will feel the pain. Make this tax at least a little bit progressive instead of making it more and more Regressive as the rates continue to climb. That type of strategy would garner much more wider support but the ugly truth is that the wealthy don’t want to spend a penny more than they are forced to and would prefer to see the elderly and lower income folks be forced out of town if they can’t pay up
JJ, as you know, I support the idea of at least investigating a residential exemption. I am just open eyed and realistic about it.
But change won’t happen overnight. It would take years if not a decade to research, debate, and implement. The property tax as it exists today is the mechanism that Newton has to adjust how much local revenue it raises.
Right now, 2023, not raising revenue will impact people who most depend on municipal services: families with kids (schools), seniors (no expanded services for an expanding demographic), and people who use public parks and recreational facilities. The will lose out, people with money can use private services and get by.
Finally, you keep dinging the property tax as regressive. I agree that is impacts less wealthy property owners more than we might like. However, the property tax is still the closest tax we have to a wealth tax. It prevents the very wealthy from sheltering that wealth in their homes. That’s not nothing, and certainly better than a straight sales tax or income tax. State law limits the city’s options.
@ Mike H….Ask Google if Property taxes are progressive or Regressive. The fact is that they are just as regressive as a sales tax where the rate of taxation is equal if your house is worth $10 or 10 million. Frankly I’m a little surprised that you didn’t realize that. If it was anything close to resembling a wealth tax it would affect the poor less or not at all.
I don’t know how long the process took to implement the residential exemption in the 9 nearby communities that have it but I strongly doubt that it would take 10 years if politicians and some of the wealthy voices in town spoke up in favor of it.
Why is there a need for research and delay? That will only facilitate the continued flight of lower income and senior citizens out of town and the razing of their houses for replacement by McMansions.
Mike you are a strong voice and at least you sound interested. What is holding you back from endorsing this?
JJ, you are right that our property tax is either flat with respect to land value or regressive with respect to income.
But that was not my point.
It gets a little tricky when we start talking about taxation outside the context of income, and instead talk about taxing wealth which has become more common lately. It isn’t clear, for instance, that regressive with respect to income in and of itself makes the property tax a bad thing. Hear me out.
For example, people living on trust funds and owning inherited property certainly isn’t unknown in Newton. Trusts typically avoid the progressive estate tax.Their income isn’t proportional to their wealth. Property tax captures that where nothing else does. Unlike a true wealth tax, it doesn’t capture other assets, but those assets are harder to assess. Plus there is no precedent.
I am not a tax layer, nor do I have a trust, so I am assuming that my interpretation is correct here. The utility of the property tax is also not limited to trusts.
It seems that if you believe that generational wealth is one source of inequity in our society, then the property tax is one (imperfect) mechanism to tap generational wealth, at least as it is manifested as real estate.
I would not support a residential exemption without “research, debate and implementation” because I am not an expert and I accept that other people have alternative views and more expertise in this area than I do. No one would implement such a change in tax law without studying it and getting buy in. Maybe it even has to go to a vote (or could be forced to one). You need consensus, and that always takes time, and it isn’t guaranteed. Especially when there are implementation details like the amount of the exemption, phase in if any, and mitigations for specific types of property owners that get hurt. Can’t do it by fiat.
But if you promise to vote for the override now, I promise to push my councilors to get council to research a residential exemption :)
@ Mike H. I’m interpreting that you are saying those that escape inheritance taxes pay some of that escaped tax via regressive property taxes if they live in a moderately valued or lower valued home?
Because of course if they lived in a higher valued home and there was a residential exemption they would pay an even higher rate in a progressive tax plan.
Mike I have to say you do have a point but to me it seems like a very small one when you consider all of the seniors and lower and middle income families that are punished by the increases in a regressive ( or as you prefer to call it “flat”) tax rate.
Thanks Peter – I was mainly interested in what Eversource did that might require them to pay a settlement. The existence of the Eversource settlement does not affect my vote on the override. I am still voting for the 2 school overrides and against the general override.
Please note that I have lived here almost 30 years and have voted “yes” for every other past override. My “no” vote for the current general override is a “no confidence” vote for Mayor Fuller. She is a rich person trying to make Newton profitable for her rich friends at the expense of the middleclass. That is the opposite of progressive.
“My “no” vote for the current general override is a “no confidence” vote for Mayor Fuller. She is a rich person trying to make Newton profitable for her rich friends at the expense of the middleclass. That is the opposite of progressive.”
Insert Like button here.
I agree 100%
Big News this morning. The Chamber of Commerce is recommending a NO vote on Question 1 and asking the City to hold the line on spending. This is the right decision I agree 100%!
I’m surprised to hear that the Chamber of Commerce votes on these issues, or votes on political matters at all. I couldn’t tell you anyone who’s on the Chamber, and I’m going to guess that I’m not in the minority in Newton.
Has the Chamber of Commerce supported over-rides in the past? At least on a national level, these organizations tend to be reflexively opposed to tax increases. There is never a “right time” to increase taxes for business.
@Tim- The Chamber supported the Override in 2013. It is not the time during these high inflationary times to expect Newton taxpayers to cough up more. The City needs to prioritize and manage within a budget. No amount of taxpayer funds will ever be enough.
Great question Tim. A lot of organizations reflexively line up for, or against overrides. Examples of lining up include teachers unions and school organizations. The Chamber’s decision to come out against the override is not reflexive. In 2013, the last overrride election, they supported all three override questions. They are concerned about fragile local businesses that are vital for Newton’s economy.
People should recognize that in Newton commercial properties are taxed at a rate that is 90% higher than residential properties.