The Newton Beacon just published this piece about who’s lining up for and against the upcoming override votes
Who’s for and against the overrides
by Jerry Reilly | Feb 21, 2023 | Newton | 126 comments
Categories
[youtube-feed feed=1]
Archives
Tags
40B (20)
alien abductions (61)
Alison Leary (19)
Amy Sangiolo (21)
april fools (40)
Austin Street (48)
Barney Frank (76)
Bob Kraft (36)
Brooke Lipsitt (102)
Charter Commission (27)
Chestnut Hill (25)
Chestnut Hill Square (76)
David Fleishman (30)
Donald Trump (25)
Emily Norton (28)
Frank Santo (20)
Gail Spector (18)
history (2269)
jacobson (20)
Jake Auchincloss (38)
Joe Kennedy III (30)
MBTA (25)
NewCAL (23)
Newton (45)
Newton Centre (36)
Newton Highlands (74)
Newton Nomadic Theater (28)
Newton people (19)
Newton Public Schools (19)
Newtonville (60)
NewTV (48)
Northland (34)
politics (83)
recreational marijuana (35)
Ruthanne Fuller (77)
Scott Lennon (44)
Senate (65)
Setti Warren (38)
Susan Albright (26)
trees (39)
Upper Falls (81)
video (23)
Village 14 blog (144)
Washington Place (22)
Webster Woods (21)
I found that the article was lacking. It would seem that an article that intends to cover who’s endorsed the override would at least cover who’s endorsed the override…
A quick internet search shows that the following groups have endorsed all three ballot questions:
League of Women Voters
https://lwvnewton.org/2023/02/lwvn-members-vote-to-support-newtons-override-proposal/
PTO Council
https://newtonptocouncil.org/
Green Newton
https://greennewton.org/green-newton-supports-the-sustainability-features-in-newtons-override-proposal/
Although not officially endorsed, it certainly appears that the teams at the Lion’s Roar (https://nshslionsroar.com/2023/02/15/vote-yes-override-ensures-quality-education/) and the Denebola (https://nshsdenebola.com/newton-needs-to-pass-the-overrides/), are supporting the override ballot questions as well. The Newton Teacher’s Association also appears to be fully endorsing the ballot questions (https://www.newteach.org/).
I took a look through the No campaign page and found no endorsements, nor could I find anything readily available online with any other groups.
I also think it’s interesting that the Newton/Needham Chamber of Commerce has taken a position on Newton overrides, but as far as I can tell they’ve never taken a position on Needham overrides. (Please do correct me if I’m wrong.) I find this even more interesting when you consider that Needham has had 30 override ballot questions, 18 of which have passed, compared to Newton which has had 4 override ballot questions, with 2 that passed. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Needham has seen tremendous new revenue growth over the past ~5 years supported by strong new growth from development.
In fact, according to the Division of Local Services, Needham saw 69% more revenue growth over the past ~5 years compared to Newton. I read what Greg wrote about the Chamber’s decision to not support the operating override, but I wonder if some of their lack of support stems from seeing Needham allow for exponentially more new development than Newton?
The Chamber did support the 2013 operating override, and maybe the reasoning really is solely that businesses are still recovering from the pandemic. However, Newton supported businesses small and large throughout the pandemic. Shopping/buying local was never more in focus than during the pandemic. I understand that their costs are up just like everyone. I had hoped that when we invest in the local economy by buying and shopping locally, that our investment in our businesses would garnish some level of reciprocation when our students need their support. I find it a difficult pill to swallow when the businesses say that they won’t support the operating override because their costs are high, and that there’s too much uncertainty right now. Why is that position ok for them, but when Newton Public Schools shows that their costs have risen outside of their control, (busing, utilities, etc), and they need the support of the community to overcome these issues, the answer is a hard no.
If the cost of steak goes up, the restaurant owner raises the price a bit to cover their costs. They don’t simply start serving smaller portions for the same price. Newton Public Schools can’t serve smaller steaks, and they can’t raise the price of the steak without the support of the voters. I would love to see the Chamber of Commerce reconsider their position on this matter. I don’t believe their position on the operating override will have any impact at all on the outcome of the vote. I don’t think many people know who they are. However, I don’t want to see a community turn against local businesses simply because the Chamber decided to let post-pandemic financial uncertainty and increases costs, covered up what could be a political agenda of some members of the Chamber.
Randy you totally misrepresent Needham’s override history. Here is the truth like it or not. Needham has passed only ONE override in the last 15 years, period. What does that have to do with the Chamber? IMHO nothing
Randy is right about Needham having 30 override votes and is in fact accurately representing Needham’s override history. It is crystal clear from looking at the MA DOR spreadsheet of operational overides. If you want to parse years and say that Needham has only had one override in the past fifteen years, Newton has only had one override pass since 2003.
Bruce if you call the last 15 years “parsing statistics” I plead guilty.
I didn’t even mention how he represented the debt exclusions from 20 and 30 years ago as belonging in the same basket as operating overrides. But since you pursued this may I suggest that we stop using the term “debt exclusion” if you feel that it’s all the same thing?
It is misleading to focus on numbers of overrides. The total amount is what matters. Since 2002, Newton has voted to increase taxes by $29.5M. Needham, only $7.6M. Sure Newton has more residents, but even on a per capital basis, the dollar value of the override is 38% higher in Newton!
Needham FY03 budget: $89.285M
Needham FY22 budget: $209.396M (134.5% increase)
Newton FY03 budget: $226.377M
Newton FY22 budget: $462.7M (104.39% increase)
I find the Chamber’s position puzzling. I would like to see some math as to what this property tax increase would actually do to businesses’ bottom lines. We are talking a few hundred dollars a year in property tax hikes, which would, on a lagging basis, be reflected in higher rents. Note that retail leases are often multiple years long, with pre-set escalator clauses, so most tenants would not be immediately hit by these increases; it would take multiple years. These increases are unlikely to be an issue for large corporate tenants – is Starbucks or Tatte going to close their Newton Centre location as a result? Probably not. Smaller mom and pop businesses – well these folks will do what they have been doing for the past few years, which is incrementally raise prices to cover their costs.
I would suggest that if this proposition fails, and NPS becomes a less desirable school district as a result, less people will want to live in Newton and that in turn will hurt these businesses far more than this property tax increase.
Again, if the Chamber folks disagree – sounds good, please show me the math on a store-level basis.
Tim you don’t understand how tax escalator clauses work on commercial tenants.
@JJ – please explain more. I understand there are gross leases (landlord pays the tax) and net leases (tenant pays). So yes, if it’s a net lease, the property tax increase is felt more immediately versus a gross lease.
But my point stands – what is the dollar impact on the business? I’d like to see some illustrative math. Highly doubt this is a cost that (a) the business cannot pass onto consumers, and (b) is so high that it will force the business to close.
Tim your previous posting inferred that tax increases would impact tenants in the future. The overwhelming amount of commercial leases are net leases where the increase would be passed along right away. It’s easy for you to say that the members of the chamber who would be affected should just suck it up and pretend that they wouldn’t be affected for a long time but that’s your viewpoint as a total outsider. How about reforming the Regressive Property Tax so the wealthy homeowners who can easily afford an increase can pony up an increase?
Needham successfully lured away Trip Advisor from Needham Street. And what’s Newton’s response?? To take two parcels on same street and allow Northland to rezone more lucrative business-zoned lots into 1,200 apartments.
From Northland and Korff, to Webster Woods, Re-zoning and Dudley Street, history will remember this Mayor as the Developers’ Mayor. This the basket she’s pet her eggs into. This is her source for new growth (this and allowing smaller developers to turn existing lots into McDuplexes), not growing the business base (and hence the Chamber’s contesting of the operational override). I have yet to hear a single speech or word from the Mayor when residents express concerns about the recent, rapid pace of development – no empathy, no plan to deal with the added density – just build, baby build. And this is why you are seeing more and more residents coming out to maybe support the debt exclusion overrides, but NOT the operational override.
Of all the things the Mayor could have pinned the override on, she deliberately chose schools (it’s also interesting that March 14th is the week most local private schools are on spring break). If approved, the law around overrides allows her to spend the added levy on anything – even if it’s not schools. Maybe more consultants on how to fatten the pockets of developers? And the (operational) override is permanent – even after the new growth for Northland et al kicks in. Will we see an underride? I doubt it. Will we seen an underride if and when inflation returns to normal levels? Doubt that too.
In all likelihood, the two debt exclusion overrides will pass. Countryside and Franklin need a re-do, and these are issues based questions that be people can wrap their heads around – regardless of how they feel about the Mayor or local politics. The operational override on the other hand… is a completely different beast.
For most, the added tax will not break the bank – and if the cirumstances were different, it would be more widely support. No, the operational override will utlimately come down to if someone agree’s with the Mayor’s priorities (build, baby build!) or not… and if they will take the time to vote (despite the shady timing).
What would you have wanted in the override? Senior Center is done, and would have been debt exclusion anyway. Road paving? That was part of the last override, and forcing the voters to vote for it again would be rightly criticized. The road paving in the override is construction inflation only,
Schools is where the major budget growth is. That’s where the operating override should be.
Matt,
There is no “shady timing” of the override election date. The timeline is necessary to work with the city and school budget process that begins in late March. The budget will either include or not include additional override money. Significant decisions will need to be made.
Then why not the week before? If it walks like a duck… and quacks like a duck…. #quackquack #shady
I’m voting NO. The City is seeing substantial new growth which will result in increased tax revenues. This coupled with an estimated 14m settlement from Eversource should supply ample funds. The Chamber got it right. This is not the time to ask residents for an Override. The Operational Override should be defeated.
There’s no new growth from any of the big three developments approved: Northland, Riverside, Dunstan East.
If the Eversource settlement comes in, it should be used for one time expenses like it is planned for: Engine #7, police cruisers, NSHS track and turf, and funding toward Horace Mann if it can be leveraged with override money. A one time infusion can’t pay for ongoing budgeted items. Is it not clear that the operating override is *per year*, not one time?
@ Mike – what do you mean no new growth from the developments?
Do you mean that revenue to the city will not grow as a result of these developments? How does that make sense? And if this is true, why are we allowing such development. The city is a business. The city has assets (fixed land) with which to generate revenue to benefit residents. This cannot be correct. Right?
@Matt Lai – I’m curious how preserving Webster Woods in perpetuity as open land is part of your bill of particulars against the “Developers Mayor”? I would have thought you’d be applauding an effort to insure that one of the city’s largest parcels was never going to be developed
@Jerry, appreciate the question. Simply put… the Mayor is ok with (if not a propoent) extreme density in our neck of the wood in Upper Falls… but prevents it in her side of the city (Chestnut Hill). To flip your question around….why not let BC build the crap out of that lot?
Webster Woods is I believe the largest contiguous undeveloped green space in the city. If we’re going to pick where to put new development that would be my last choice.
All the areas with big projects in the pipeline – Northland, Riverside, Washington St are areas that have long since been developed so we’re not paving over green space.
Independent of the fact that Webster Woods is adjacent to Newton Conservation land that would would be adversely impacted by a build out, a BC buildout would have no benefit for the city because it would be tax exempt.
So why would that be a good idea? Seems like the worst of all worlds.
And while Chestnut Hill may or may not be on the list for more development (I haven’t really looked), saying there is no density at Chestnut Hill with three malls and the Towers at Chestnut Hill, plus Brookline’s development, is stretching things.
Can’t have it both ways. Development and density does not equate to preserving green space. Gotta give up one for the other, otherwise it’s NIMBY. It’s an oxymoron, like concern for the environment, while disfavoring the overnight parking ban (a disincentive for car ownership and reliance) or electric cars…powered by coal burning plants.
@Matt Lai – Huh? Under nobody’s definition are Northland or Riverside green space. Northland has been an industrial site for 100’s of years, and Riverside for at least 150 years and probably more. You may not like those proposed developments but neither one of them are destroying green space. They are replacing seas of pavement and buildings with bigger buildings.
Webster Woods are woods. So no, we don’t have to give up green space to have development.
Webster Wood is Adjacent to the Green Line – Fed and State Govt’s are both promoting high density housing near mass transit and would likely help fund an add’l Green Line Station…Newton claims to want dense housing w/mass transit yet most of the new development occurs distant from the Rapid Rail. The Northland Site will need a shuttle bus service to the green line (down busy Needham St) The Washington St sites only have limited Bus service and Commuter Rail flag stops, The Toll Bros rt9 site and the project behind Newton South are both car dependent locations and will feed more cars onto an already overtaxed Parker Street. It’s just odd to me that Golf courses(also on Green line) Webster Woods and the residential area surrounding the Chestnut Hill T stop are off limits for development.
Fred Allen, no, the state or federal government are not “likely” to fund a new Green Line station if Newton developed Webster Woods. I don’t believe there is a single example of such a thing, and the T is in no shape to be taking on such a project for a single development.
Some people are promoting rail-with-trail using a green line spur to support transit on Needham St and Northland, with many more possible riders, but even that is a heavy lift.
Mike, The feds and the state were both involved in the Green line Extension into Somerville Cambridge and Medford.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/about-the-green-line-extension-project#fta-participation-
On January 5, 2015 a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), between the MBTA and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was signed that establishes the scope of federal participation in the GLX project. Under the FFGA, federal dollars will fund approximately $996 million of the newly revised budget of $2.28 billion.
So, will everyone who had a “Save Webster Woods” sign now have a “Save Dudley Road” sign? I assume yes, otherwise that would be NIMBY. the SECOND largest contiguous green space in the city should be saved and NOT developed, right?
Instead of partnering with the owner, why wouldn’t the city use eminent domain to prevent development here too? Same pool of funds used for webster woods.
Oh wait – nimby. yea, that’s what I thought. Dudley is a terrible place to densify. Access only from one side of rt 9 (cannot get there from westbound), no T access, existing woods. Please explain how developing this is OK?!
Frank, I’m on record as not liking the end result of that project. I’d make an argument that Webster Woods is the more important parcel, the larger parcel I think, the more contiguous parcel to other green space. If they redo the road that runs through it and put in some walking and biking lanes, it could be a very nice feature of the city.
It is also much more accessible to more of the city.
But I’d have preferred green space or more affordable housing on that site for sure.
The CPA funds do have limits, and Webster Woods was first in time as well.
As a parent of a current student, I can see the cuts first hand. I have a junior who has two classes with 30 students (math and honors Spanish 4). Her Honors Bio has 28 students and I am convinced they could not squeeze in another two chairs or that class would have 30 kids. My other kid is four years older, and never did he have 30 students in any academic class in high school. (I will tell you the cuts to the band program were severe).
I don’t see NPS on a good trajectory. I don’t have a good understanding of why the mayor isn’t funding the schools as they should be. I don’t understand why the city, the parents, the school committee, etc basically had to BEG for the literacy and math coaches to be funded. After so many students have had demonstrated NEED for these items, the mayor isn’t funding the schools. NPS is why many people MOVED to Newton. While you might not have a child in the schools right now, I am hoping your children received a great education.
I understand, I don’t want to pay more taxes either, however, I want the students of the public schools to have more than an average education. As a parent, I feel like I have to vote yes on the general over-ride, so my kid doesn’t have 40 kids in her Spanish 5 Honors class next year!
But teachers are not robots. An English teacher should not have 30 kids per class. That isn’t good education. And everything costs more. If eggs cost more, so does the gas in the school bus as does the health insurance for each teacher as does the heat for the schools.
My older child attended the old Angier. It was a dump. There was a sub pump hose running through his fourth grade classroom on rainy days. For a city that has multiple multimillion dollar homes, our elementary schools are dumps. Not only do the students spend 180 days in each dump for six years, but the teachers teach in that dump.
The old Angier also had a first grade classroom with ONE set of working electrical plugs. The teacher could plug in TWO things at once. I imagine this is common in the older schools. You try teaching 25 students in a hot classroom in June with two plus. One fan and you pick the other item that will be plugged in. Our schools rely on laptops, computers, smart boards, etc. You try calling yourself a professional while you sweat in June in an 80 degree room, while that same room is at the end of the heat run so in February it is 56 degrees. Most of our teachers have Master’s Degrees and teach in a room for 180 days each year that are not great physical classrooms.
Some of the older schools, don’t have functioning kitchens, since when the school was built, kids went home for lunch. How do you deliver hot, affordable and edible lunches with no kitchen?
This new development isn’t online yet (Riverside, Northland, etc), and we have to pay for items. I don’t agree with the mayor, but I really don’t see myself voting NO on the first item. I need the public schools to be great and excellent. I need it for my own kid. I need it for each kid in NPS.
Yes, many people do send their kids to private school. But I want to be a proud citizen of Newton who supports NPS. I am a public school graduate both high school and college.
While I agree, the mayor has set her sights on lots of development, it doesn’t help right now.
I don’t have the answers, but I feel like I don’t have a choice.
Newton Mom, I appreciate your thoughtfulness on schools and the override. I wish there was a fast way to get to the point that all our schools met state standards. Until then, we have a real, inherent disparity between neighborhoods and villages. It should never have happened, and it’s really hard to fix.
On the mayor’s funding of schools. I thought the same as you (“mayor should fund schools”) until I did more reading and I have a different view now. According to her statement, the mayor funded the schools at a 3.5% increase, which is more than other departments. She sees the problem as an ongoing one that needs an ongoing budget solution, hence the override, rather than a one-off one that could be patched one time money like COVID relief.
I see this point. I might split the difference and say that one time money should be used to bridge to am sustainable solution. However, so many people have the mistaken idea that COVID funding and “free cash” extra year end money can obviate the need for the override (even in this thread). Funding NPS for an extra year would have just kicked the can down the road a year if no action happened on the override.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have adverse impacts. It does. But we will have that in spades if the “send a message to the mayor” or the “vote no now and then vote yes for a larger school override” “no” factions get their way.
@Mike – the 2 debt exclusions make sense. Pay more, to get more (2 rebuilt schools).
The operational override asks for $9m against an overall city budget of nearly half a billion. What is that, less than 2% of the overall budget? That’s just bad leadership and bad management.
Per the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis funded by Northland back in Aug 2018, once the project is online it’s forecasted to add $4.5m in new growth tax revenues followed by the annual (Prop) 2.5% annual increase. This doesn’t even include another $500k in expected CPA surcharges, excise taxes (cars owned by tenants), meal tax and other property related taxes. And then there’s the additional $1.5m one time contributing Northland is supposed to make to Countryside. The Riverside project – similar in size and scale should bring in the same tax revenues.
So what we have here is a situation where the City needs to stretch its resources in the form of short term funding (free cash), a little budget trimming and perhaps maybe even a little borrowing (what good is gloating about a AAA bond rating if you don’t use it) to account for a momentary increase in inflation to cover an overall budget gap of less than 2%.
Frankly I’d be more inclined to vote yes if the operational override was designed more like the debt exclusions – pay more to get more. Maybe rebuild Horace Mann and another school or free bussing, no athletic fees and more Metco funding. Now that’s an override I can get behind!
Matt, you might be willing to go for a “pay more, get more override”, be it for fully funding schools, fewer fees, better school transportation, or other things like accelerated road pavement.
But this is where the politics and leadership come into play. Many of your fellow “no” voters aren’t like you. They are no, no, no. No more revenue, no more money to schools, no more money to the city. Bigger override will only grow their numbers. At the same time, the fiscal impact on lower or fixed income residents would be greater, and the mayor and the city is very aware of that burden.
The amount of the operational override was clearly chosen as a compromise between fiscal needs and political realities.
Finally, here is my counter-proposal to you. Operational override now because the school’s need is immediate, the schedule for major development is uncertain, and any discussion about delaying pension contributions will be politically protected.
When extra revenue comes online, the city accelerates its school rebuilding plan. There’s a limit how fast it can go because of swing space availability, but doubtless it can go faster. The city also increases the pace of road rebuilding and repaving, with sidewalks and neighborhood traffic safety (and safe routes to schools) a priority. At the same time, Newton works on modernizing its traffic signal infrastructure so that drivers and pedestrians alike don’t have to wait forever at lights for no reason.
Bread and butter issues, very popular.
Mike there is nothing being offered to seniors and lower and middle income property taxpayers except if you can’t afford higher taxes move out of our city so we can tear down your house and build a McMansion at the same location and collect higher taxes. That way we can avoid having wealthy taxpayers from paying anymore. Sadly the schools are being held for ransom as this scam is being played out.
News just in:
State and Newton developers want to use Hotel indigo as a temporary emergency shelter for families (migrants, emergency usage). The school in Waban can now finally welcome the large influx of children and everyone can crowd into the new fancy schools.
200 rooms available so assuming its for families only, at LEAST 200 new children into NPS in a single location overnight
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/22/metro/state-eyes-vacant-newton-hotel-temporary-emergency-shelter-use/
@Mike – if you can get that in writing, I’m in.
In addition to accelerating school reconstruction, paving, and traffic safety, reducing the increase in the levy increase by at least a token amount (2 or 2¼ percent rather than the allowed 2½) and shifting a small amount of the tax burden off of commercial property (tax at 160% of residential rather than 175%) would be popular.
None of this would happen in the current mayoral term anyway, so these become election items. Passing the override now is really a political gift to the next administration, who can benefit from not having to make painful choices immediately and can look to make popular choices in the longer term.
Jackson Joe, there is plenty of value for seniors and lower- and middle income homeowners. Schools and services and increasing property values. Yes, it is unfortunate that some people, particularly fixed income people, may not be able to afford a tax increase. However, your presentation makes it sound like the city gets their homes. Anyone leaving the city, while unfortunate, gets to cash out. That’s not perfect, but it is certainly not nothing, and better than the alternative of losing value.
And this “ransom” and “scam” rhetoric about the schools. Disagree if you will, but there’s no scam and no random. The cost of NPS is rising faster than the costs of the other departments, creating an unsustainable path that can’t be reliably patched by one-term money. The override provides a path to a budget increase that doesn’t require raising other services. Agree, don’t agree, propose another serious solution. It is imperfect for a variety of reasons. But it isn’t a scam.
@Mike it’s very gracious of you to say to seniors and lower and middle income homeowners that you’ve made a lot of money on your home investment so shut up and move out of town if you can’t afford the tax increases. We can get more taxes for our schools if we can raze your house and replace it with a McMansion at a higher tax rate.
Do I do have that right?
I’m curious about one other thing. Are costs of running schools increasing in other communities too or just Newton?
Is there any other community in the state pushing for an override this year besides Sudbury?
Here’s the first one I found when I searched. https://www.hingham-ma.gov/1025/Town-of-Hingham-FY24-Override
Westport needs one:
https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/politics/government/2023/02/10/3m-override-needed-to-keep-level-services-in-westport-report-says/69884134007/
Arlington is saying that they may need one:
https://www.yourarlington.com/?view=article&id=21185:budget-021323&catid=31
Marblehead had one less than a year ago:
https://marbleheadbeacon.com/exactly-what-proposition-2-12
Amherst is seeking one:
https://www.yesforamherstschools.org/
Winchester just passed one a few months ago:
http://homenewshere.com/daily_times_chronicle/news/winchester/article_28aacf16-9036-11ed-9d67-af4faa77614b.html
I don’t have links for all the rest, but the Division of Local Services track all these and the following communities also had overrides over the past year. (Please note that they don’t track currently proposed overrides, but if somebody wants to keep searching I’m sure you’ll find many more communities either currently seeking overrides, or who are seriously considering it for the same reasons we’re hearing here in Newton.)
Orleans
Wellfleet
Huntington
Charlemont
Tisbury
Washington
Eastham
Ipswitch
Aquinnah
Truro
I forgot to include Brookline! They are seeking an override for almost exactly the same needs and reasons. Fascinating when you consider that Brookline has had ~77% more new revenue over the past ~5 years compared to Newton.
https://meetings.brooklinema.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/OVERRIDE%20PRESENTATION%20FINAL.PDF.pdf?meetingId=1532&documentType=Agenda&itemId=40202&publishId=26719&isSection=false
https://meetings.brooklinema.gov/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/2.14.23_TOWN%20AND%20SCHOOL%20OVERRIDE%20MEETING_SCHOOL%20PRESENTATION%20FINAL%20VERSION.PDF.pdf?meetingId=1532&documentType=Agenda&itemId=40202&publishId=26721&isSection=false
Randy It’s only a proposal in Brookline. It’s not on the ballot. That means 3 communities have it on the ballot. How can the other 348 communities in Massachusetts make do without it?
To inject some facts into the discussion, Newton’s residential real estate tax rate, 10.18, is lower than comparable communities in Boston’s western suburbs:
Wellesley 11.68
Weston 12.81
Needham 13.37
Natick 13.34
Lexington 13.80
Bear in mind that much of the school budget, and the general budget as well, involves fixed expenses that climb yearly according to state and federal mandates as well as contractual obligations with city employees. The fact remains that there isn’t very much fat in the city budget; tax revenues are falling short of what we need to meet our current needs as well as to improve decaying infrastructure.
I wish it were otherwise, believe me. I also don’t agree that Newton residents in aggregate are overtaxed. To be sure, the city should allow abatements for those in need, especially seniors on fixed incomes. But Newton’s residents on average are growing more affluent, as I have pointed out in the past…not that I like that fact. I mourn the passing of an economically diverse Garden City.
Brookline’s mill rate is less than Newton at 9.97% – Most likely Newton’s mill rate % will be increased as Selling Price Comps / Assessments adjust to 7% 30yr mortgage rates.
Quick back of the envelope calculation – $5k month mortgage @ 3.5% 30yr = $1.1 million = $11k prop tax @ 10.18
at 7% 30yr $5k only buys $800k so the same $11k prop tax on $800k home = 13.75 mill rate.
Residents who feel undertaxed are welcome to write extra checks to city hall… instead of expecting everyone else to pay for bloat ( very generous pension and healthcare)
The loss of the middle class is due to all offshoring of manufacturing. Although I’d argue plumbers, electricians and contractors have been doing extremely well the past 5 years
Excellent new article from the Newton Beacon-they finally asked the tough questions and demonstrated how much extra cash the city has and how inflexible it’s leaders are.
https://www.newtonbeacon.org/city-cfo-using-one-time-money-for-ongoing-needs-not-fiscally-responsible/
Governor Healey’s budget request includes an 8.2 percent increase in local aid and a 9.8 percent increase in Chapter 70 school funding. In addition, we are seeing so much development that will offer new tax revenues coupled with a potential 14 m settlement with Eversource. All good reasons to vote NO on the operational Override. It’s a matter of setting fiscal priorities and managing within budgets.
I’ll be voting in favor of the three overrides. Others should vote what’s best for themselves or their family. I really mean that.
I didn’t vote for Mayor Fuller, but I’ve come to appreciate her vision for the city. I believe she has a good case for the overrides. Some others on V-14 obviously disagree. That’s okay.
Personally, I like the acquisition of Webster Woods. I like the new Senior Center plan. And I really like what the Mayor is doing with the Armory. Mayor Fuller has earned my trust, and I’m happy to support those types of policies with a few more tax dollars.
Ditto, Mike. My views, like yours, have evolved over time. Like you, of course, I expect that many other participants in discussions on Village 14 will feel otherwise. I can live with that.
@Bob and @Mike – why dont you think Dudley road is worth preserving as city green space? Other than NIMBY, what reason is there to develop the site? Again – no T, bad access to highways and roads, etc etc.
Wellesley has had a total of 27 overrides (DE and operating) and Needham has had 14 (DE and operating).
Did the Chamber vote to make a recommendation on either of the three DE’s that Wellesley proposed in 2020 and 2021? If not, why not? The economic climate was very rough in both of those years.
Why has the Chamber chosen to make a recommendation on just Newton’s override proposals?
Hi Jane. Great question
Unlike Newton, Wellesley has a flat tax rate. So instead of businesses paying 175% per accessed dollar over the residential rate, it’s the same.
That’s makes more palatable for businesses to absorb a tax increase in a community with a flat rate than a place that employs the largest allowable shift.
Hi Greg,
I actually asked a different question. Did the Chamber take a vote on a recommendation for the Wellesley overrides? If not, why not? The tax rate is immaterial – we’re all paying different amounts, depending on the value of our homes and businesses.
Also, how do you advise them to represent their business or do the board members represent just themselves? One business I contacted was unaware that the CoC had made this recommendation and was unhappy about having its name brand associated with it.
Jane
Jane he did answer your question. He told you that Wellesley businesses are taxed at a rate equal to homeowners and in Newton they pay a 75% premium. That makes a huge difference, The rate is not the same, but maybe you didn’t understand that.
Apparently that wasn’t the answer that you wanted. I feel bad for the poor business owner that you badgered about the way the organization voted. That was in really poor taste.
@Jane. I’m surprised you want to play a game of “whatabout?” (You know, “sure Trump did such and such but whatabout Hillary’s emails”….or “whatabout Hunter Biden?” etc.)
But no the chamber did not weigh in on Wellesley’s 2022 overrides.
Thank you to the Newton Beacon for publishing this story. It’s important to know where our elected officials stand on the most important issue facing Newton.
I thought that one of the most surprising, and frankly shocking, aspects of the story was that ten councilors did not respond to the Beacon when asked for their positions on the override questions. This is a dereliction of duty by our elected officials.
To these ten silent councilors (including all three from my ward), I pose this question:
Where do you stand on all three override questions (and why)?
Mail-in voting for the override has already started; early voting starts this week.
Do ten of our city councilors really have no opinion about the override questions this late in the game?
Councilors Baker, Kelley, Laredo, Leary, Lucas, Malakie, Markiewicz, Norton, Oliver, Wright:
You are our elected officials. Voting on the budget every year and approving appropriations is a core part of your job. Your constituents expect you to be knowledgeable about City finances and to be good stewards of our tax dollars. Please share your views about the override questions. Feel free to respond right here on Village 14.
I agree. I’d like to see the Beacon publish a list of councilors who have not gone on the record.
I would suspect that the 10 City Councilors who didn’t respond are NO votes on the Operational Override.
They are more fiscally conservative and take a moderate approach. Definitely healthy to have different points of view in this debate. Personally, I always vote for the more moderate candidates.
Even if they are a “no” it’s likely they will come out to say it on the record. They will risk getting skewered by the “yes” mob and probably risk losing votes in the next cycle.
“will not”
Whatever their positions, you shouldn’t have to guess.
Looking forward to hearing directly from the 10 themselves.
@Meryl– I don’t disagree with you on City Councilors stating a position on the override. It would be helpful. But I got a chuckle out of your comment. Because when you were a candidate for City Council, I asked you a specific question about whether you supported Newton’s implementation of the state’s cannabis law. It was the same question I asked every Council candidate. You were the only one who wouldn’t give me a straight answer. Now you’re demanding to know where every Councilor stands on this particular issue. That feels a little disingenuous to me.
@Greg– How about some of the Chamber members going on record? I’m curious how many of them are restaurants whose outdoor space is paid for by Newton’s taxpayers?
Last I checked, businesses, including restaurants, paid property taxes at a rate that is 89.6% higher than that paid by residents. Businesses don’t send kids to our public schools. If you tax something more, you get less of it. I want more restaurants not fewer restaurants.
We should say “thank you” to our local businesses. Let me start, Thank you Newton businesses!
@Mike Striar: I’m surprised by your comment. Newton restaurants are Newton taxpayers. More importantly, how you can equate elected officials’ responsibility for transparency with private citizens? Oh and quite a few business have gone on the record as to how any tax increase will be challenging in light of current economic headwinds.
https://www.newtonbeacon.org/businesses-to-mayor-not-a-good-time-for-an-override/
@Jeffrey–
One of the more disturbing things that I’ve read in recent months on Village 14 was the fact that your family exited the Newton public school system for private school. I mean it when I tell you, I’m deeply disturbed by that. A school system that loses a family like yours is clearly doing something wrong. Because you and your wife were thoroughly engaged and always working toward making our public schools stronger. You personally were a major contributor toward one of the most significant changes in years, as an advocate for later high school start times. A position that literally improved the quality of life for thousands of Newton students.
I understand why you don’t support the override. You obviously feel let down by Newton schools. I hope the people running the school system will take note, because your family’s exit represents a failure on their part. And I genuinely hope that someday soon the right person comes along who has the vision and leadership to put Newton schools back on top.
In the meantime, I’m truly concerned that a lack of funding will exacerbate the long-term downhill trajectory of Newton’s schools. That’s one of the reasons I’m supporting the override[s].
Mike, thanks for the kind words.
Regarding my family situation, you did not hear it from me. I don’t think you heard it on V14. If I saw it, I would have corrected it. My guess is you heard it from someone who was trying to put spin on my wife’s run for SC to favor the legacy school committee. I will send you a personal email that explains my family’s current situation.
Both of us advocated for a later start time because there was incredible evidence that it was the best things for the health and education of our students. In my mind, the most important thing that our society can do is to educate the next generation well. I continue to be willing to spend my own money and time to promote this. The SC fails in two ways. First, they disregard parents. Second, they disregard evidence of how we can educate better. I am against the override because I have done the math (and I am happy to get a drink with you and go through it), and I don’t think the override resources will have one iota of impact on education. If the override fails, the mayor and the SC will have an opportunity to re-align their priorities with our students and parents.
I’m going to echo something that Meryl posted above:
What is the position of our remaining city councilors. We’ve got 13 votes in support of the override. 1 clear no (Lenny Gentile). I give Mr. Gentile credit for having the courage of his convictions, even if I disagree with him.
So where do the remaining 10 city councilors stand?
Councilors Baker, Kelley, Laredo, Leary, Lucas, Malakie, Markiewicz, Norton, Oliver, Wright.
What say you? This is the biggest issue facing Newton right now. Do you support the override and debt exclusions or not?
You don’t get to abstain from this particular vote (don’t get me started on people abstaining from important votes…ahem…Paul Levy). It is a simply question. Yes or no. Take a stand. Have some courage.
If any of this coalition of the (non)-courageous work up the nerve to join the public debate, please post it here.
Interestingly enough, Ward 4 (home to Councilors Gentile and Markiewicz) includes a portion of the Franklin district: if you include the buffer zone with Burr, about 18% of the addresses.
So, Councilor Gentile, independent of the override, do you support the urgent renovation of Franklin, and the prompt addressing of fixing the schools that follow it including Williams and Burr? How would you pay for it?
And Councilor Markiewicz, you have been a strong proponent of paying off the pension liability that was left unfunded by the Warren administration and addressed by the Fuller admin. Now “no” proponents are suggesting to reduce payments to the pension fund to pay for other city priorities. Is that wise, and could it pass the Council?
In case she is not a Village 14 reader, Councilor Kelley said on the West Newton mailing list that she supports all three override items, including Ward 3’s Franklin.
However, she is not listed as an endorser because she believes it is the voter’s choice.
She has done information sessions for voters in Ward 3.
Thank you @fignewtonville for posing my question again and keeping it front and center. And thanks, Mike Halle, for adding the information about Councilor Kelley, who indeed shared her position on the override questions after I posted my query here and on our West Newton Google Group. I appreciate Councilor Kelley’s responsiveness. (And her response illustrates why it’s important to keep asking direct questions of our elected officials!)
It’s very unfortunate that we have to read tea leaves to try to guess the positions of the remaining nine councilors. Since Mike has posed a direct question about the override to Councilor Markiewicz based on the councilor’s previously stated position about our unfunded pension liability, I too would like to pose a direct question…
Councilor Norton: In your constituent email last week, you mentioned the override, but gave no indication of your position; you merely provided polling information and linked to the City’s Elections page. However, during the same week, on the West Newton Google Group, you posted the following (reprinted in its entirety):
“A lot of Newtons problems now are related to not properly investing over the past decades in infrastructure like our roads and our municipal and school buildings, which we are still catching up on. Having employees drive old cars that break down is a similar mindset that I am glad we have gotten away from. [A previous poster had asked about why the City maintains a fleet of cars.] I appreciate Commissioner Morse taking the time to answer these questions and explain all of these things because our residents have a right to know how we are spending their money. I believe we are being much more responsible now.”
Does this mean that you think an override is needed now and that you support all three questions? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Meryl We all want to know why you never answered Mr Striar’s question? I see a double standard here.
One more point: Councilor Norton, as well as Councilors Oliver and Malakie (two other silent councilors), actually sit on the Council’s Finance Committee.
The description of the Finance Committee on the City website says this: “The Finance Committee reviews requests related to Budget review and transfers, policy oversight and review, capital improvements, and matters relating to the Assessing Department, Parking Fine Administration, City Treasurer and Collector, City Comptroller and Accounting Department, Purchasing Department, Executive Office, Personnel Department, and Data Processing Department.”
Given the specialized and expert knowledge that Councilors Norton, Malakie, and Oliver surely have about City finances by virtue of their committee positions, I am especially interested in knowing how they are planning to vote on each of the three questions and WHY. (The “why” is especially important, as that is part of the process of justifying your position and helping to educate the electorate.)
As an aside, at some point it would be great for the Beacon or Fig City to run a news article about the various ways city councilors and the Mayor keep in touch with constituents. I think my spouse is on some of the google sites, but I’ve never really gotten a full sense how a lot of the city councilors communicate. Email lists? Google sites? Listservs? Bat signal against the moon?
I mean the Mayor is famous for her emails, but it would be a service to post each councilor and how they best communicate. And how to join that method. Maybe a separate post here would help. Jerry, can we make that happen at some point?
I’m not interested in the commentary on the method (I mean I can do without the pros and cons of the Mayors approach and the love/hate of her pppps method). But new residents especially have no idea how to get updates.
I have to agree with commenters here about the lack of courageousness and conviction at the city councilors who have not taken a public stance on the override. I consider it imperative that we know where our elected officials vote regarding it.
This is an issue that affects every single voter in Newton and there shouldn’t even be a discussion about why we don’t know their stance on this issue. Whether you are for or against the Override, voters should be outraged about the lack of transparency shown by these elected officials. This attitude is emblematic what is wrong with the state of US politics. Elected officials just want to hang on to power and will either not take a stand that they think may alienate their constituents or say whatever they think their constituents want to hear.
The spinelessness and lack of conviction as exemplified by these councilors to not tell us how they will vote is, honestly, shameful. We deserve and should demand more from them.
Bruce I guess in your world nobody has the right to abstain. It’s like George Bush said “You are either with us or against us”.
I guess you could then call The US a “spineless country” because the right to abstain has always been a fundamental part of our country.
I am a Franklin parent, albeit one that won’t benefit from a renovated or new Franklin.
Every child, every family deserves access to a healthy school that meets state standards for education and federal accessibility law.
Our Councilors (Wards 3 and 4) should be advocating to fix our neighborhood elementary school (Franklin), as well as Horace Mann that is also in Wards 2 and 3, and Countryside as well.
The override provides a mechanism to do so, one that has been used to fund Waban and Newtonville schools.
If a Councilor does not support the override, they should explain specifically how to prioritize and pay to fix these schools, and how to keep the entire school modernization plan on track.
Our families, and families all across Newton, are depending on the voices of our leaders to speed these school projects along.
There is zero political risk in advocating for your neighborhood elementary school.
Mike if there is “zero political risk” does that mean that those that seek an alternative plan are displaying a Profile in Courage?
JacksonJoe,-I don’t recall any of these councilors abstaining, and, if they are, I would appreciate their reasons for doing so. I also have zero clue what you mean by George Bush’s quote. I can’t be with them or against them because I have no idea what their stance is. I do not need to know how you or Meryl or any other un-elected person on this forum choose to vote. I do, however, want to know how my elected officials vote. If I don’t know where they stand on critical issues, why bother voting for a candidate who is a blank slate.
I will also add that many of these councilors weren’t afraid to endorse a a mayoral candidate in the last election. Why suddenly this timidity on this issue?
Bruce they have a right to abstain like every other public official or private citizen does or should be able to. I think you are just looking to force someone to make a public stance when they don’t feel strongly one way or the other. Why should they be forced to endorse one candidate or another? I would much prefer each councilor doing what they want to do without being pressured to make a choice under duress. You can judge their abstention however you want but to force them into one position or another is wrong.
It kind of reminds me of the way our Congress operates nowadays. If they dare vote their conscience or abstain they will pay the price later.
I agree that an explanation of abstention would be wise and some of them have done that.
“They don’t feel strongly one way or the other” Huh? Explain to me how anyone elected or not for that matter would not feel strongly one way or the other about this override. And yes, if they vote their conscience they will pay a price later which may or may not be positive for them. We vote based upon the views of candidates. An electorate cannot make informed decisions about voting if we do not know the political perspectives of candidates.
Can you say which councilors have stated their reasons for abstaining? I have not seen it and would be interested in reading about their reasons.
Bruce believe it or not there are people who may support the override strongly, somewhat strongly, view it somewhat unfavorably or are strongly opposed. There are many different viewpoints out there besides yours. There are also those that see the merits of both sides and have mixed feelings some who don’t feel the urge to champion either position.
I am in the latter camp and the only reason that I will vote against the “operating override” is because the Property Tax as currently instituted in Newton is a Regressive Tax that furthers the Systemic Racism that Newton perpetuates when it overtaxes (IMHO) lower income homeowners encouraging them to move out and have their moderately priced homes razed and replaced by McMansions that lessen opportunities for minorities to become homeowners in Newton.
When Newton imposes a Resident tax exemption that will benefit the lower 40% of assessed homeowners, I will vote yes.
Bruce, the only response I’ve been told is the wish to “leave it to the will of the voters”. That certainly wasn’t the case with Charter Reform. Or the Mayor’s race. Or endorsing other candidates. Or campaigning for other candidates.
But now that we have something that actually matters, silence. If they at least come out for the debt overrides that might make a difference for those schools! Or maybe they know the city’s finances so well that they have a solution to the coming cash crunch.
You aren’t moderators as city councilors. You don’t get elected to moderate. You don’t get to float above us, not impacted by this. You’ve taken stands on EVERY other issue that impacts us as a community. Why not now?
No other reason except courage. Or lack thereof. Voting starts on March 3.
Jackson Joe:
You aren’t a city councilor. Perfectly fine for you to say nothing. Me too. No one elected my sorry ass to anything.
I’m usually ok with some abstaining on day to day votes too. People miss votes, people have conflicts.
This seems like just avoiding the issue because you are afraid of taking a stand. Or upsetting some of your coalition of voters.
So the Coalition of the (non)-Courageous is down to 9:
Councilors Baker, Laredo, Leary, Lucas, Malakie, Markiewicz, Norton, Oliver, Wright.
I removed Councilor Kelley because she said in a public form she was voting for all three. Even if not an official “endorsement”, I think that is sufficient. She let people know where she stands.
Please don’t hide behind the convenient “I’m just going to give people the information but not take a stand”. Voting starts at the end of the week.
After voting starts, I’m changing the name of this group to the Cowardly Coalition. If you can’t take a stand when it actually matters (either way), then please don’t run for office again.
I mean, we can get our city councilors to take random votes on national events, take stands on things as small as plastic bags and as large as foreign wars, and we can’t get a simple roll call on a once in 10 year override? (for the record I’m fine with that activity, it just is shocking in comparison to an actual local vote that matters) I’m fine with no votes. Just be honest. You surely have opinions.
It is infuriating to watch politicians refuse to take a stand on a simple yes or no question. Hat tip again to Lenny. At least he has courage.
@ Fig “Cowardly Coalition?” I’m a little surprised that you would get involved with that type of name calling. I understand that you are a bit emotional about this issue
Jackson Joe:
I won’t start in earnest with that moniker until they refuse to speak up prior to voting. If they don’t, I call it like I see it.
And I’m “emotional” about my govt actually giving a crap either way.
Again, I’m fine with a no vote, or a split vote, or a yes vote. These aren’t people like me or you. These are people who are supposed to lead us. And they certainly have opinions about every other issue. Fight like children about elections. Some of them were happy to sling mud at other candidates too. But come to a vote that actually makes a difference? Nah. We are just observers. The voters must decide without us.
If that isn’t a cowards approach, I’m not sure what else to call it.
If you view it as name calling, suggest another name to describe it. “politics over people?” “Unable to take a view-itus?”
I’ve noticed a pattern among the opponents to the override. They comprise people who the schools badly served in the past and enemies of the mayor. I hate the mayor, but I am not letting those feelings get in the way of doing what’s best for the children of Newton. We have a new superintendent coming. Let’s get her the resources to turn the schools around. And let’s get rid of the mayor in the next election. I am looking to the future and voting Yes on all three measures.
Bruce, we probably don’t agree on that much, but we do agree this really shouldn’t be about this mayor. And happy to have a discussion about Mayor Fuller when the next election rolls around. I promise to listen.
100%. I want to set up our new superintendent for success. She seems pretty great. A “no” vote on all 3 simply to stick it to Fuller is foolhardy. Let’s pass all 3 and move forward.
@Fig. I agree that it is a responsibility of the silent city councilors to make their views on the overrides known. I think I have met or interacted with them all over years about senior center/ healthy aging issues. I have always felt lucky to have such smart, capable, and caring public servants working to make Newton better. I hope they find the forum and courage to announce support for the overrides.
Beth, several of the folks who haven’t chimed in have proven to be excellent councilors. I don’t know most of them at all.
And I’ve said many times you have to be a true public servant to want to be on the Newton City Council. It is a hard job and the pay in my view is low for the hours and time spent, especially at night.
I know they all care too. Sometimes I disagree with them strongly. This is one of those times.
But in my view one of the purposes of public forums, the current soapbox of the day, is to bring up these types of issues. And there is a lot of people on the fence about this upcoming vote.
Maybe some guidance from the folks who know the city finances the best would help. Currently the roster is 14 yes (either endorse or personally endorse) one no, and 9 “we won’t tell you”.
If they would vote no, they have the knowledge to tell us how we move on from here. If they vote yes, it might help carry the day.
The school committee was overwhelmingly yes, with one abstention. The City Council is majority yes on all three.
Fig, Rather than focusing on the pluses of your viewpoint you are using a tactic similar to one used by the NRA when they say Vote for our agenda or we will punish you in the next election.
When I hear that I want to say a vote yes for the operating override is a vote that further perpetuates systemic racism in our community.
That is a legitimate issue that nobody wants to touch.
Jackson Joe:
I’m not doing that at all. The City Councilors were elected. I view this as part of their job.
I’m not trying to punish them at all. Honesty is not punishment. They are all incumbents. I doubt any is in danger of losing their job.
The idea that we need to “protect” our elected officials from making tough choices or taking a stand is not my idea of being an elected representative. They are supposed to know our finances. They are supposed to tell us what they think. I may disagree with them 100% in the end. But at least the city voters will understand what they think will happen next.
There are a ton of reasons for the folks who vote for any of these 9 to continue to support them. But there is environmental funding in this override. Trees. Roads. It isn’t all schools. Isn’t it possible that one or more of these city councilors might want to weigh in on the issues that in the past have been important to them. How can you say you support trees and not weigh in on the override? Or support the environment and not weigh in. Or roads? I haven’t named names on these issues, but surely a number of us know how important these issues are to some of the 9. How can they not speak up when it actually matters?
And if the answer is “no” votes across the board, how do they square that with their passion projects? with the schools in some of their districts? Let’s have that conversation, no?
Lenny Gentile laid out a coherent position. I don’t agree, but I’m not roasting him. Instead I called him brave and just said I disagreed. I might ask him about funding for the schools partially in his district. It is a conversation hopefully.
The idea that asking for viewpoints on the major issue of the day is like the NRA is just insulting. And 100% inaccurate. The politicians don’t need to be coddled. They aren’t children. And from the past, they had a ton of opinions on every single issue, including referendums.
But now that it actually matters, we’ve got 9 who are sitting on the fence.
My name for them isn’t insulting. It’s accurate. Their decision to play both sides and not take a stand is an actual insult to all of the voters who voted for them.
To find out where your CC’s stand on the various overrides, all you have to do is read their newsletters.
No need to harass, threaten, demand or name call.
You might be shocked to find out that most Newtonians don’t reads V14 or The Newton Beacon and many CC’s don’t wish to comment here.
@Lisa, You might be surprised to find out that the vast majority of councilors do not have regular newsletters or any newsletter at all. Most don’t maintain an active website (except when they’re campaigning). As a result, it is very difficult to ascertain their positions on many issues, including the override. As for those who do have newsletters…I’ve already noted above that Councilor Norton did not state her position in her latest newsletter, Same for Councilor Lucas. If any of the other silent nine have shared their views on the override, please let us know; I’d be delighted to hear that. Also, with the possible exception of Councilor Baker, I believe that everyone of the nine silent councilors had posted on V14 in the past.
Could you post their views then Lisa? Or could someone ask them on Facebook and post here?
I’m fine if they don’t want to post here. But if their constituents know how they feel, could they share it with us? Happy to take them off the list if they do!
I took off Councilor Kelley for instance.
Seems to me that the 9 haven’t actually publicized their views. If I’m wrong, lets get that info out!
Also, I’m not harassing or threatening. I guess you could say I’m demanding and to some degree, name-calling. But I’m certainly not harassing. And my only “threat” is to call them a coward. Surely our elected officials are able to handle that.
Saying that I’m harassing or threatening for asking for their vote on the biggest issue of the past 10 years seems like a way to gaslight a way out of asking your elected officials to answer the tough questions. That doesn’t seem fair either.
How about we focus on the elected officials. Why won’t they weigh in? Is there a reason beside politics?
If a sitting City Councilor doesn’t want to tell you their position on an upcoming mayor’s race, that’s fine with me. Its not their job to have a position.
The override is a wholly different situation. A primary responsibility of a City Councilor is to oversee the budget and finances of the city and its spending. The nuts and bolts of the city budget and finances is a complicated topic that most voters only have the most superficial knowledge of. For that reason I think its absolutely essential that each City Councilor publicly weigh in on the overrides based on their knowledge of the city budget and programs.
If you’re for the overrides, explain to us why. If you’re against the overrides, tell us why. If you can’t or won’t then you don’t deserve any of our votes.
@Jerry what if you support school funding but don’t support the Regressive property tax as currently structured, which in effect contributes to increased structural racism in our community?
Is there any doubt that higher taxes will increase the rate that lower income and seniors move out, have their moderately priced homes razed and replaced with McMansions, thus lowering the inventory available for entry into Newton for lower income families to become homeowners?
At least other towns have programs for lower income home ownership.
If you vote yes, even for the best of reasons you are supporting future inequity in homeownership in Newton. I’m sure that doesn’t bother a lot of people here.
@Jackson Joe – If that’s their position then they should tell us that.
Jerry in Newton people only whisper the R word. Everyone here is open minded to an extent.
One less Silent Councilor: Here is a link, w Councilor Lucas explaining his positions: Yes – Countryside, Yes – Franklin, Operating override – undecided.
https://newtv.org/common-ground-archive-list/7894-common-ground-with-ken-parker-tax-override-2023-special-with-kathleen-shields-and-tarik-lucas
Councilor Malakie, Ward Councilor in Ward 3 where Franklin is located, sent the following statement to the West Newton mailing list:
‘I see there has been a lot of back and forth on multiple threads about the override and debt exclusions. I am purposefully not telling people how they should vote. Overrides and debt exclusions are rare opportunities for voters to have their say on a specific question and we the elected officials have to not only “listen” but actually follow the voters’ wishes. It’s rather refreshing.’
This makes zero sense. Wouldn’t the same thing have prevented her from advocating for a mayor candidate? Or Northland? For the future zoning referendum if it happens?
Is Councilor Malakie telling us she will not weigh in on any referendum in the future? That WOULD be refreshing. And very unlikely.
Considering how much additional funds are going to issues that Councilor Malakie cares about, I’m really surprised and disappointed this is her response.
A principled stand this is not. Courage this is not.
I’m fine with a “no” answer. Standing on the sidelines is just the move of a politician more concerned about her next reelection than taking a stand. That’s a damn shame.
She isn’t even take a position on Franklin? How can that be? I thought that was the entire purpose of Ward councilors!
I certainly don’t recall Ward 2 councilors not taking a position on Cabot. Did I just miss that? Does anyone remember?
Councilor Malakie is not just declining to take a position on the debt exclusion override.
To my knowledge, she has taken no position on Franklin’s need for renovation or replacement, despite being on the Franklin building committee and attending the meetings.
The Ward Councilor is perhaps the person best equipped to testify to the condition of the schools in their ward and to advocate for the families that attend them, independent of how that work is funded.
I hope Newton hears from Councilor Malakie soon on the need to fix Franklin, even though precious time to inform voters has passed.
Franklin families have waited their turn. They, Countryside families, and the families in all the older schools in the city deserve the same great learning environment as Waban and Newtonville families.
I don’t think Julia can muster up an interest in any civic issue unless they’re related to trees. I once voted for her but have been consistently disappointed in her.
MMQC: But this has the most money in the budget for trees that I can remember! I really thought that would encourage some back and forth, or at least a conversation.
I just don’t get it. In her case, the politics are also wrong. How do you not speak up for your local school as a ward city councilor. That’s the biggest thing there is in your ward!
That is disappointing that she hides behind the canard of not wanting to influence voters. None of the councilors are telling people how to vote. Those that are stating their positions are educating voters about why or why not the override should be approved. Big difference.
And this just in from Councilor Markiewicz…
After 10 paragraphs presenting a laundry list of considerations related to the operational override, Councilor Markiewicz says this: “Consider the following points as you decide your vote on the override.. I encourage people to do their own research to determine how they may vote.” He then goes on to note that “[t]he question of yes or no on the operational override is not one with a simple answer. This is because of the facts noted above and more.” Further on he adds that he believes that the City will have a shortfall this year and in coming years, but then suggests that tapping free cash may be a part of the solution solution, although he hasn’t done enough research to be sure: “I acknowledge that I don’t have insight nor have I spent the time to delve into all of the facts and considerations that could be relevant here. I think the analysis that could be performed is fairly extensive.”
Huh?
Councilor Markiewicz: Please correct me if I’ve misrepresented your position here, and certainly feel free to share your whole newsletter in its entirety (I couldn’t find a URL to share…I think because Councilor Markiewicz, like most of our councilors (as I mentioned above), doesn’t maintain a website).
But please explain to me how voters are supposed to come to their own conclusions if the facts are as complicated as you suggest and even you, our elected official, lacks the insight and time to delve into the matter. Isn’t the essence of your job as our representative in City government to immerse yourself in the issues, do the research, know the facts, reach conclusions based on those facts, and share your conclusions with the electorate? What is your vision?
With regard to the operational override, I acknowledge that there are a lot of considerations (and thank you, councilor, for listing many of them). But at the end of the day, as your constituent, I want to know where you land and why. Taking the middle road is not an option here…to paraphrase Barack Obama, there’s only fish or chicken on the menu and you have to pick one. Which one do you pick and why?
Oh, and btw, Councilor Markiewicz supports the two debt exclusion questions.
I will note we’ve made some progress. Councilor Markiewicz and Lucas are both supporting the debt exclusions.
That means the debt exclusions have the support of 16 our of 24 councilors. I’d love to find out the position of the other 6 (with one already stating she doesn’t take a position)
I’m comfortable with Councilors letting people decide. They, like many of us, may have mixed feelings about an override when the economy is so uncertain.
Was it possible to have the override vote during a regular election? What is the cost of a special election?
@Lucia I think they need to do it in March (or prior) as March into April is when the budgeting process occurs so they need to understand if the funds are avail for that budget cycle. I believe the FY starts July 1. I guess they wouldn’t have much success proposing an override for a Nov cycle because it is a bit further away from when they are determining the need for these funds. Realistically the planning should be forecasting far enough out that they could determine an override is needed…hey Amy was campaigning saying there would be a likely need for one but might be hard to get the everyday voter to see the need in advance without some specific source of urgency. It would likely lead to many more thoughts of couldn’t the City just manage it funds better in this budget cycle etc,
Here is the link to Councilor Markiewicz’s newsletter. As one of his constituents I appreciated the context he provided for the operational override. Chris has clearly given this issue a lot of thought and wants to make sure his constituents are armed with information to help them make up their minds on how to vote: https://mailchi.mp/9b4bd9e002b0/2022-winter-update-13761810?e=23b851f3b0
Thank you, Lauren, for sharing. And, as I mentioned above, thank you to Councilor Markiewicz for laying out many of the considerations.
But I still contend that a core responsibility of our elected officials is to share with us which considerations they think are most critical in the decision making process. Most residents do not follow municipal finance issues closely and, as the councilor mentions in his email, the budget documents posted on the City website are exceedingly complicated; most people don’t have the time or the expertise to analyze them.
So, it is precisely at a moment like this, when voters are being asked to weigh in on a complex, arcane, and vitally important issue, that I would like our elected officials to tell us what they believe and why.
To Lucia: I do not see this as “telling voters how to vote.” I see this as educating and leading. In the voting booth, we are all free to make our own decisions.
@Meryl I would say that it’s most important for the City Councilors to provide information. Letting the Voters know what the tradeoffs are so they can make decisions based on what matters to them. Great if they provide some additional insight from being closer to the detail of the City budget than your average citizens will. It would be helpful for the CC members of the Finance Committee to speak to but Councilor Markiewicz mentions he is not sure of other options so maybe it is better for him to provide info rather than his particular opinion?
@ Newton Highlands Mom: I truly appreciate all of the information that Councilor Markiewicz provided in his newsletter, as I said above. He has been far more helpful than many of his colleagues. But I assume that he will be voting on the general override question Himself, and I assume he will ultimately weigh all of the various considerations he lists and decide which are paramount in deciding his vote. It would be hugely helpful to voters if he transparently shared that thought process, as well as his ultimate conclusion–again, not to TELL voters how to vote, but to show how he parses through a complex question.
Also, I just want to note that we now have another previously silent councilor on the record: this afternoon, Councilor Wright (Ward 3) posted on the West Newton Google Group saying “At this point, I’m not voting for the operational override…The debt exclusions for Countryside and Franklin I believe are clearer and I support them both.” Councilor Wright wrote quite a long email explaining the reasoning behind her positions, which I greatly appreciate, even though I disagree about her decision about the operating override. I won’t repost the whole email here, but if Councilor Wright wants to, I hope she will.
LOL Sorry for the typo above…I certainly didn’t mean to capitalize Himself in discussing Councilor Markiewicz!
Another update: Councilor Wright posted her thoughts in an email to the West Newton email list today:
“I believe it’s too soon for an operational override….We may need an operational override in a few years, but maybe not. I would like to see our pension payments slowed down which may help some. At this point, I’m not voting for the operational override….When having an operational override, I would like to see a residential exemption like Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Waltham, Watertown, and many other communities, to help reduce the tax burden…. I believe it could be structured properly so that the override would pass but some relief would be given to residents, especially in lower assessed homes.”
…
“The debt exclusions for Countryside and Franklin I believe are clearer and I support them both.”
I may not agree with Councilor Wright, but I applaud her for informing us of her full views (and for supporting the debt overrides).
I believe the position of Councilor Wright is a solid one and she truly represents the citizens of the City concerned about spending priorities.
Jerry, I think this is worthy of a post, considering it came out late and is front page on Fig City News.
https://figcitynews.com/2023/03/no-override-newton-campaign-files-pre-election-report/
I’ll note that two people, No Override Newton committee chair and treasurer Traute Marshall and Newton real estate developer Steve Snider each contributed $10,000 to the campaign. That represented 80% of total donations.
I understand the yes side also had donations from major donors. And the yes side raised more. But those donors, especially the fact that the mayor donated, were disclosed prior to the vote, and discussed on many online sites.
The no side having two major donors, both of which remained undisclosed prior to the vote, didn’t allow the same opportunity.
I just think everyone deserves the chance to know who is influencing speech and voting in our community, and I think disclosure would have changed the narrative a bit too, as many “no” supporters viewed themselves as grassroots people without access to major funding sources, at the same time they were accepting two extremely large donations.
As part of the reason for not disclosing these donations in my view was to prevent public disclosure (especially before the election), I applaud Fig City News for putting it on its front page, and I hope others will publicize it at this point on Nextdoor and Facebook.
I’ve heard many people of this forum ask for transparency from the city and the school committee, and rightfully so. It must also include elections and political donations.
Strategies to hide or delay disclosure do all of us a disservice. If we don’t call this out, both sides of the debate will hide political donations next time.
My pleasure fig – https://village14.com/2023/03/27/override-election-campaign-spending/