CLT UPDATE
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Taxpayers demand a Section 8 discharge for stealth tax
An early CLT bumper sticker
for enlargement
CLICK HERE
| |
For most of the 30 years since the passage of
Proposition 2½, the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts
Legislature has been looking for ways to subvert it.
The latest scheme comes from Rep. Charles Murphy, chairman of
the House Ways and Means Committee. A section of a bill before
Murphy's committee has been amended to, in effect, allow
communities to pull one municipal account out from under the
limits imposed by Proposition 2½ and raise property taxes to
fill it.
The taxpayer advocacy group Citizens for Limited Taxation
says the move could potentially result in a collective $550
million property tax hike on Bay State residents....
The amount placed in the overlay account currently is included
under the levy limit. But the legislation before Ways and Means,
the Municipal Relief Bill, would allow communities to set up
their overlay accounts outside of the restrictions imposed by
the levy limit.
This means, according to CLT, that communities could impose tax
increases, regardless of the limits of Proposition 2½, to fill
their overlay accounts to the maximum allowed by law. It means,
says CLT, big property tax increases without the need for town
officials to win override votes....
Anderson notes, rightly, that once legislators have the overlay
accounts out from under the restrictions of Proposition 2½, they
are free to change the law governing their allowed uses.
Given legislators' weasely record in defying the voters' will on
taxation, we're inclined to put our trust in Anderson's
analysis.
Legislators have been picking at Proposition 2½ for years. It
remains Massachusetts residents' only defense against runaway
taxation.
Murphy's stated goal is to make these tough economic times
easier on cities and towns, which are facing sharp reductions in
state aid. But helping municipalities find new ways to raise
taxes on their residents is no help at all.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Legislators launch another end run around Proposition 2½
A municipal “relief” bill slated to be taken
up by the Massachusetts House on Monday contains a proposed
change in how cities and towns handle tax abatement accounts
that would amount to a multimillion-dollar tax increase.
Approved by the House Ways and Means Committee this week on a
voice vote, the measure might indeed make juggling local budgets
a tad easier for municipal officials. But it clearly violates
both the spirit and letter of Proposition 2½, the 1980
tax-limiting measure that requires cities and towns to seek
explicit permission from voters in order to increases taxes by
more than 2.5 percent annually....
This provision — which has already been criticized and condemned
by state Republicans and every major gubernatorial candidate —
is nothing short of a money grab. It would create municipal
slush funds whose uses, while initially limited by law, could
later be amended by the Legislature, or conveniently ignored by
local officials. If legislators or municipal officials believe
Proposition 2½ needs to be changed, they should make their case
openly and honestly.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Snake oil for sale
‘Relief’ measure little more than a money grab
The hacks’ latest kamikaze assault on
Proposition 2½ begins this week, but right now, it’s all quiet
on the payroll-patriot front.
The solons are laying low this weekend. They’re counting down
the hours until Tuesday at 5 p.m. - that’s the deadline for
challengers to submit signatures for getting onto the ballot to
run against these tax-crazed hyenas in the fall....
But once the Tuesday filing deadline passes, the sheeple in the
House can get back to the only game they really understand -
rubber-stamping huge tax increases to keep their hack friends
and relatives on the payroll. This time, as you know, the hacks
want to sock it to homeowners, allowing the taxaholic towns to
raise property taxes beyond the 2.5 percent limit imposed by
Proposition 2½.
The harebrained scheme is being pushed by a genius named Charlie
Murphy, who is the chairman of Ways and Means. First he said
this “adjustment” in Prop 2½, involving something called an
overlay fund, was not a tax increase. But the Lowell Sun reports
he then “conceded the fact that most communities would likely
raise property taxes more than 2.5 percent.” Without putting it
to a vote.
But of course they’ll rescind the tax hikes once they have all
the money they “need,” right?
The Boston Herald
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Murphy’s law: Your taxes are going up
By Howie Carr
Local legislators are promising to fight a
move to give cities and towns financial relief by easing
property tax limits.
The lawmakers said a measure in a Municipal Relief Act is an
end-run around the tax limit law known as Proposition 2½.
The measure would exempt money communities put aside for tax
abatements from spending limits, resulting in tax increases in
most cities and towns.
Citizens for Limited Taxation estimates the measure would
cost $500 million, but the chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee said the true cost is closer to $164 million....
Democrat Stanley Nacewicz, a potential candidate for state
representative in the Plainville-Wrentham-Norfolk district, was
critical of both parties on the issue.
He said Democratic leaders should not have proposed the measure
because it will allow for higher property taxes, while
Republicans leaders should have been more aware of what was
going on.
Nacewicz, an assessor for 20 years in Plainville and Attleboro,
said he has been calling legislators expressing his opposition
to the change since last week, trying to ring the alarm.
"They should have been out front on this," he said.
Both the Republican and Democratic leaders sound like they do
not understand the issue, he said.
"They should take 'Assessing 101,'" he said....
The exemption has long been a goal of the Massachusetts
Municipal Association.
It has argued that exempting the overlay account from spending
limits would ease the financial constraints cities and towns are
laboring under.
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle
Sunday April 25, 2010
Tax move faces fight
It has been a week full of more threats to
take your tax dollars. On Bacon Hill the House Ways and Means
Chairman, Charlie Murphy, proposed a backdoor property tax
increase by gutting Prop 2½, but according to him it is not one.
Here’s what he said to Hillary Chabot– “It’s absolutely not a
backdoor way to increase taxes,” said Murphy, who nevertheless
admitted property tax bills could be higher if the legislation
is passed.” Am I missing something? I don’t think so. The only
thing I will be missing is more money out of my wallet.
I just have to say it while we are on the subject of property
taxes – Deval, where’s my property tax cut?
The Boston Herald
April 23, 2010
Buy a lock for your wallets!
By Holly Robichaud
Stevie Wonder’s “Sir Duke’’ was booming, the
crowd was cheering, and Governor Deval Patrick was still in full
campaign mode, urging his supporters to help make one of his
promises a reality.
“You want property tax relief? Come and get it! Come and get
it,’’ he declared during the March 2007 rally at Boston Latin
School. “You want it? Come and get it!’’
But they never got it.
Instead, property taxes have continued to rise in the 3½ years
since Patrick took office, just as they have every year since at
least 1990, tracking increased property values. Last year, the
average property tax bill on a single-family home in
Massachusetts was $4,250, up more than 7 percent from $3,962 in
2007, state figures show....
Patrick calls his failure to deliver property tax relief one of
the biggest disappointments of his term. He points to measures
he has enacted to reduce pressure on homeowners, and vows that
this will remain a top priority if he is reelected....
“It’s coming. It’s coming. It’s coming,’’ he said of property
tax relief during an interview this month with Howie Carr on
WRKO....
“We have done so much of what we said we would do in the first
term, but we haven’t accomplished everything, and that’s what a
second term is about,’’ Patrick said. “This is one of the things
I want to finish.’’
The Boston Globe
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Bold tax vow comes back to sting Patrick
Relief for homeowners stalled amid recession
House leaders were busy defending their
unannounced plan to grant municipal governments authority to
skirt, essentially, the 1980 voter law restricting property tax
hikes.
In a purportedly reassuring memo addressed to the
Citizens
for Limited Taxation, the group that publicized the issue,
House budget chief Charles Murphy wrote, “There is no incentive
to raise more than what is needed as the money can only be used
for a tightly defined purpose. Moreover, any proposed increase
must be approved as ‘reasonable’ by the Commissioner of the
Department of Revenue to meet the specific exposures covered by
an overlay account … This proposal is not a permanent increase.”
...
The gubernatorial candidates dived on it like kids scooping up
piñata emissions, blasting the permission slip for tax hikes as
tone-deaf, back-door, and bad news.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Quiet permission sought quietly for a polite
property tax increase.
State House News Service
Friday, April 23, 2010
Weekly Roundup
You make fun of the Boston City Council for
years, mock their desire for more power, and then one day you wake
up and, thanks to an arbitrator, they have actually stumbled into
real power.
I don’t know about you, but I find this deeply unnerving.
The jaw-dropping $74 million in pay raises awarded to the city’s
firefighters last weekend is so far removed from reality that even
firefighters were shocked. Only one group of people can derail this,
the council, and they show no signs of having the nerve to do so.
Forget all the talk about whether the true price tag is $74 million
over four years or something far less. If anything, the cost is
really more than advertised, because the inflated salaries will
drive up pensions, as well.
And the price tag is also greater because it will drive up the
contracts of the city’s other employees, especially police officers
and teachers. Think they’ll settle for 15 percent raises now?
Please. Their union presidents would be drawn and quartered....
Finally there is something to like about Proposition 2½, the law
that overhauled municipal finance in 1980. It effectively ended
“binding’’ arbitration by giving legislative bodies the right to
refuse to fund excessive awards. That power has seldom been invoked.
But this is just the situation it was intended for. If the council
refuses to write the check, the two sides must go back to
negotiating.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 24, 2010
You have the power
By Adrian Walker
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Section 8 of the House
Ways and Means Committee's "Municipal Relief" bill attempts to
assault Proposition 2½ by stealth. Section 8 is a blatant end-run
around the law put on the ballot by CLT in 1980 and adopted by
voters. Though Prop 2½ is only a law that can be amended or
repealed, for thirty years come November CLT has protected it
against the special interest groups who want to see it weakened or
dead. Section 8, which was added without a public hearing, is a
sneak attack that the Ways and Means Committee hoped to slip through
without anyone noticing it increased property taxes.
When a serviceman or woman leaves the military it's usually with an
honorable discharge. If they're booted out involuntarily over some
disciplinary action or worse infraction, they receive a dishonorable
discharge.
When a serviceman or woman was too crazy to keep on-duty, too looney
to have around, too insane and dangerous to allow among the ranks,
the military had a specific designation for terminating this
enlistment. It was called a "Section 8 discharge."
That's what we taxpayers are demanding of Section 8 of the Way's and
Means Committee's "Municipal Relief" bill when it comes up for a
vote in the House tomorrow. We expect a Section 8 discharge
on the grounds that it's too crazy, loony, insane and dangerous to
even consider. "Murphy's Law," as Howie Carr called it in honor of
its sponsor, must be drummed out, stripped from the bill tomorrow
when the House takes it up.
Barbara and I will be at the State House tomorrow to participate in
a news conference with Charlie Baker, Republican candidate for
governor. The House Republicans have filed an amendment to remove
Section 8, before its new property taxes become law.
Our thanks to Stanley Nacewicz, a tax assessor for 20 years in
Plainville and Attleboro, for initially bringing this stealth
assault to CLT's attention last week.
Just as it was about to
be mugged in a dark alley, Boston Globe liberal columnist Adrian
Walker has finally found "something to like about Proposition 2½."
Beyond the commonly recognized provision of Proposition 2½ that sets
a limit on property tax increases of not more than 2.5 percent per
year, it contains a number of less well known taxpayer benefits and
controls.
Prop 2½ also reduced the auto excise from $66/per $1,000 assessed
value to $25/per $1,000 -- a 62% tax savings on every vehicle you
own or have owned, every year since 1980. It provides a 50% rental
deduction on the state income tax to every taxpaying renter. It
repealed local school board fiscal autonomy, then forbade future
unfunded state mandates on municipalities.
Walker just recognized another of these benefits: Since Prop 2½
became law, "binding arbitration" with public employee unions is
neither binding nor automatic. Such decrees from on high can be
vetoed; they now require approval of the city council or board of
selectman in order to be funded. Lack of such approval sends the
contract dispute back to negotiations.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
|
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, April 25, 2010
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Legislators launch another end run around Proposition 2½
For most of the 30 years since the passage of Proposition 2½, the
Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts Legislature has been
looking for ways to subvert it.
The latest scheme comes from Rep. Charles Murphy, chairman of the
House Ways and Means Committee. A section of a bill before Murphy's
committee has been amended to, in effect, allow communities to pull
one municipal account out from under the limits imposed by
Proposition 2½ and raise property taxes to fill it.
The taxpayer advocacy group Citizens for Limited Taxation
says the move could potentially result in a collective $550 million
property tax hike on Bay State residents.
Proposition 2½ limits the growth rate of the maximum amount of
property taxes a community can collect in a given year — the "levy
limit" — to the previous year's limit plus 2.5 percent plus the
value of any new growth.
Among the many accounts maintained by cities and towns are so-called
"overlay" accounts. The overlay account is used to fund tax
abatements to property owners, certain exemptions which may be
granted and to cover any uncollected taxes.
The amount placed in the overlay account currently is included under
the levy limit. But the legislation before Ways and Means, the
Municipal Relief Bill, would allow communities to set up their
overlay accounts outside of the restrictions imposed by the levy
limit.
This means, according to CLT, that communities could impose tax
increases, regardless of the limits of Proposition 2½, to fill their
overlay accounts to the maximum allowed by law. It means, says CLT,
big property tax increases without the need for town officials to
win override votes.
Murphy counters that his bill would do no such thing. Funds in
overlay accounts as they are currently constituted can be used,
after abatements are paid, for general government purposes. But the
bill changes that to require that they be used only for abatements,
exemptions or uncollected taxes.
Therefore, Murphy says, there is no incentive for a city or town to
increase the funds in the account beyond what is needed for those
purposes.
The response from CLT Executive Director Barbara Anderson, one of
the leading advocates for Proposition 2½, is classic:
"I was born at night, but not last night," she wrote to Murphy.
Anderson notes, rightly, that once legislators have the overlay
accounts out from under the restrictions of Proposition 2½, they are
free to change the law governing their allowed uses.
Given legislators' weasely record in defying the voters' will on
taxation, we're inclined to put our trust in Anderson's analysis.
Legislators have been picking at Proposition 2½ for years. It
remains Massachusetts residents' only defense against runaway
taxation.
Murphy's stated goal is to make these tough economic times easier on
cities and towns, which are facing sharp reductions in state aid.
But helping municipalities find new ways to raise taxes on their
residents is no help at all.
The Telegram & Gazette
Saturday, April 24, 2010
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Snake oil for sale
‘Relief’ measure little more than a money grab
A municipal “relief” bill slated to be taken up by the Massachusetts
House on Monday contains a proposed change in how cities and towns
handle tax abatement accounts that would amount to a
multimillion-dollar tax increase.
Approved by the House Ways and Means Committee this week on a voice
vote, the measure might indeed make juggling local budgets a tad
easier for municipal officials. But it clearly violates both the
spirit and letter of Proposition 2½, the 1980 tax-limiting measure
that requires cities and towns to seek explicit permission from
voters in order to increases taxes by more than 2.5 percent
annually.
Currently, municipalities must set aside a small percentage of their
tax revenues — an average of 1.42 percent this fiscal year — for an
overlay account that is used to pay abatements and exemptions.
That’s a routine part of municipal business. Money that may be left
in a municipality’s overlay account at the end of the year cannot be
carried over to fund abatements in any following years, but can be
put back into the general fund.
The proposed change would permit cities and towns to estimate their
overlay account needs and then raise whatever money they think they
will need above and beyond the limits of Proposition 2½. The money
would still be used exclusively for paying abatements, but could be
carried over into subsequent years.
Accountants might like that approach, but it fails the logic test.
Sound fiscal practice demands that cities and towns assess taxes as
accurately as possible, collect them fairly, and grant exemptions if
and when justified. Because that process can never be perfect, we
acknowledge the need for an annual overlay account. But repayments
to taxpayers should be made out of the same tax money collected. It
makes no sense to assess yet another round of taxes beyond current
legal limits in order to pay back taxpayers who were overtaxed in
the first place.
This provision — which has already been criticized and condemned by
state Republicans and every major gubernatorial candidate — is
nothing short of a money grab. It would create municipal slush funds
whose uses, while initially limited by law, could later be amended
by the Legislature, or conveniently ignored by local officials. If
legislators or municipal officials believe Proposition 2½ needs to
be changed, they should make their case openly and honestly.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Murphy’s law: Your taxes are going up
By Howie Carr
The hacks’ latest kamikaze assault on Proposition 2½ begins this
week, but right now, it’s all quiet on the payroll-patriot front.
The solons are laying low this weekend. They’re counting down the
hours until Tuesday at 5 p.m. - that’s the deadline for challengers
to submit signatures for getting onto the ballot to run against
these tax-crazed hyenas in the fall.
You only need 150 certified signatures, so a pol’s last-minute OUI
or domestic disturbance might be just the spur some concerned
citizen needs to get down to the local supermarket parking lot to
gather the last few John Hancocks he needs for a place on the
ballot.
I heard even Rep. Carlo Basile of East Boston was planning a health
night last evening, relaxing at home with his new favorite
coffee-table tome of photographs - “Death’s Head Tattoos of the
Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs.”
But once the Tuesday filing deadline passes, the sheeple in the
House can get back to the only game they really understand -
rubber-stamping huge tax increases to keep their hack friends and
relatives on the payroll. This time, as you know, the hacks want to
sock it to homeowners, allowing the taxaholic towns to raise
property taxes beyond the 2.5 percent limit imposed by Proposition
2½.
The harebrained scheme is being pushed by a genius named Charlie
Murphy, who is the chairman of Ways and Means. First he said this
“adjustment” in Prop 2½, involving something called an overlay fund,
was not a tax increase. But the Lowell Sun reports he then “conceded
the fact that most communities would likely raise property taxes
more than 2.5 percent.” Without putting it to a vote.
But of course they’ll rescind the tax hikes once they have all the
money they “need,” right?
Gov. Deval Patrick has promised to veto the legislation. Wink, wink,
nudge, nudge.
By the way, this is the same Murphy who just last week agreed to
have the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance put his own
campaign account on a “special watch.” The reason is that this
Murphy, who now runs the $32 billion state budget, couldn’t even
manage a checking account for his own five-figure campaign fund.
Over six years, according to news stories last week, Murphy was
failing “to disclose all campaign expenditures, overstating his
political committee’s cash balance by tens of thousands of dollars,
and allegedly breaching campaign finance laws.”
In the fall of 2008, for example, this financial genius listed his
campaign balance as $47,869. He actually had $4,201.
The errors were “inadvertent,” according to OCPF.
Murphy can’t even manage what is in essence his own money, yet now
he writes the state budget, and assures us that a tax increase is
not a tax increase?
I’ll say it again: Nov. 2 can’t get here fast enough.
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle
Sunday April 25, 2010
Tax move faces fight
By Jim Hand
Local legislators are promising to fight a move to give cities and
towns financial relief by easing property tax limits.
The lawmakers said a measure in a Municipal Relief Act is an end-run
around the tax limit law known as Proposition 2½.
The measure would exempt money communities put aside for tax
abatements from spending limits, resulting in tax increases in most
cities and towns.
Citizens for Limited Taxation estimates the measure would
cost $500 million, but the chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee said the true cost is closer to $164 million.
State Rep. Bill Bowles, D-Attleboro, is bucking his party leadership
and offering an amendment to remove the measure from the relief bill
when it comes to the floor next week.
"It's a bypass of Proposition 2½," he said of the measure.
He said the exemption could cost the average homeowner in Attleboro
about $70 a year.
State Rep. Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, and Richard Ross,
R-Wrentham, also said they oppose the change.
The Republican leadership in the House has its own amendment to
strike the measure.
"Homeowners are strained enough these days and won't stand for a
potential $550 million property tax hike," Ross said. "Massachusetts
simply cannot tax its way out of this fiscal crisis."
Democrat Stanley Nacewicz, a potential candidate for state
representative in the Plainville-Wrentham-Norfolk district, was
critical of both parties on the issue.
He said Democratic leaders should not have proposed the measure
because it will allow for higher property taxes, while Republicans
leaders should have been more aware of what was going on.
Nacewicz, an assessor for 20 years in Plainville and Attleboro, said
he has been calling legislators expressing his opposition to the
change since last week, trying to ring the alarm.
"They should have been out front on this," he said.
Both the Republican and Democratic leaders sound like they do not
understand the issue, he said.
"They should take 'Assessing 101,'" he said.
Republican Dan Winslow of Norfolk, who has already announced he is
running for the state representative seat Nacewicz is eyeing,
expressed strong opposition to any changes to Proposition 2½.
"I am a fierce opponent of property taxes, which is the most
regressive tax in Massachusetts. The property tax is the only tax
that can go up if you lose your job," he said.
The exemption has long been a goal of the Massachusetts Municipal
Association.
It has argued that exempting the overlay account from spending
limits would ease the financial constraints cities and towns are
laboring under.
The MMA also points out that the overlay accounts are used to issue
property tax abatements, and are not for spending.
But, Poirier said the move would raise taxes and does not belong in
the bill.
"This isn't relief for the taxpayers. It's relief for the
municipalities," she said.
The overarching bill has a number of measures legislative leaders
hope will help cities and towns with their budget problems.
One provision would allow cities and towns to offer delinquent
taxpayers amnesty for penalties and interest if they pay their
overdue taxes.
The Boston Herald
April 23, 2010
Buy a lock for your wallets!
By Holly Robichaud
The Lone Republican blog
So did you work hard this week? When you get your paycheck today,
just sign it over to your nearest elected official. Maybe they will
give you a few bucks back.
It has been a week full of more threats to take your tax dollars. On
Bacon Hill the House Ways and Means Chairman, Charlie Murphy,
proposed a backdoor property tax increase by gutting Prop 2½, but
according to him it is not one. Here’s what he said to Hillary
Chabot– “It’s absolutely not a backdoor way to increase taxes,” said
Murphy, who nevertheless admitted property tax bills could be higher
if the legislation is passed.” Am I missing something? I don’t think
so. The only thing I will be missing is more money out of my wallet.
I just have to say it while we are on the subject of property taxes
– Deval, where’s my property tax cut?
This week the Obama administration has been sending signals that
they will push for a Value Added Tax. So much for the promise not to
tax people earning under $250,000. Oops I forgot he already broke
that promise.
Today we learn that the Senate is going forward with Cap & Tax. That
will be another $3300 out of your wallet.
My suggestion is keep working hard. Obama is depending on your
paycheck.
Update: For those posters who don’t understand Prop 2½, property
taxes are capped at increasing above 2½% plus new growth. Property
taxes have not been flat for the past 30 years. They have increased
with 2½ just not as much as liberals want.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Bold tax vow comes back to sting Patrick
Relief for homeowners stalled amid recession
By Michael Levenson
Stevie Wonder’s “Sir Duke’’ was booming, the crowd was cheering, and
Governor Deval Patrick was still in full campaign mode, urging his
supporters to help make one of his promises a reality.
“You want property tax relief? Come and get it! Come and get it,’’
he declared during the March 2007 rally at Boston Latin School. “You
want it? Come and get it!’’
But they never got it.
Instead, property taxes have continued to rise in the 3½ years since
Patrick took office, just as they have every year since at least
1990, tracking increased property values. Last year, the average
property tax bill on a single-family home in Massachusetts was
$4,250, up more than 7 percent from $3,962 in 2007, state figures
show.
Budget specialists say the recession made it nearly impossible for
the governor to cut taxes without severely compromising his goal of
preserving core services. But they say Patrick’s initial promise to
reduce property taxes might have been impossible even in a strong
economy, because it would have required the state to deliver a
massive influx of hundreds of millions of dollars in additional aid
to cities and towns.
“It hasn’t come about in large part because of the economic
downturn, and he can be absolved of a large part of the blame for
this not coming about because of that,’’ said David G. Tuerck,
executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, a fiscally
conservative think tank. “On the other hand, it’s not clear he
thought about a plan to make this come true, even in the best of
times.’’
These days, Patrick’s failure to lower property taxes has become a
major issue in the governor’s race. Angry voters sometimes question
him about their bills going up, and his opponents often criticize
him for failing to make good on one of his key pledges from the 2006
race.
“Did he cut property taxes? No,’’ Republican gubernatorial candidate
Charles D. Baker said in a recent interview on WRKO. “In fact, he
cut local aid because he couldn’t fix his own budget by $600
million, and that forces a lot of cities and towns into override
votes.’’
State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, an independent, blasted the
governor in a statement last week, saying, “Governor Patrick told
voters that their property taxes would go down, but all they have
received in return is an administration that never met a tax
increase it did not like.’’
Patrick calls his failure to deliver property tax relief one of the
biggest disappointments of his term. He points to measures he has
enacted to reduce pressure on homeowners, and vows that this will
remain a top priority if he is reelected.
“It’s another reminder that you’re governor, not king, and you don’t
get to just wave a scepter and make it happen,’’ Patrick said in an
interview. “Still, I think it’s the right course to be on.’’
Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, was among those warning in 2006 that Patrick would be
able to provide only limited relief unless he came up with a way to
funnel millions of dollars in new funding to cities and towns.
Widmer said property taxes generate about $11.5 billion every year,
providing local communities with more than half of their revenue for
such basic services as schools, and police and fire departments. To
keep the tax from rising, the state would have to deliver about $500
million in additional aid per year to cities and towns, he said.
“It was unrealistic from the outset,’’ Widmer said. “Even in an
economic recovery, it would be virtually impossible to do without
raising another broad-based tax.’’
Patrick moderated his comments about property tax relief as the
economy worsened. During his 2006 campaign, he pledged to “cut the
property tax by reinvesting in cities and towns.’’ Five days after
he took office, faced with a surprisingly tight budget, his tone
shifted.
“What we can do is stabilize property taxes, to be sure,’’ he said
in January 2007. “We’ve got to start there.’’
In 2008, as the state confronted dwindling revenues and deep cuts,
Patrick’s spokesman, Kyle Sullivan, said the governor “remains
committed to working with the Legislature and cities and towns to
bring relief to Massachusetts property owners.’’
Patrick mentioned property tax relief again in his State of the
Commonwealth address in January, declaring that while he had taken
steps to ease the financial strain on cities and towns, “I will not
be satisfied until we find a way to bring property taxes down.’’
“It’s coming. It’s coming. It’s coming,’’ he said of property tax
relief during an interview this month with Howie Carr on WRKO.
Patrick has, throughout his tenure, taken steps to relieve pressure
on property taxes by offering cities and towns other ways to
generate revenue and cut costs.
He has increased education funding, closed a tax loophole for
telecommunications companies that raised $26 million in local
revenue, and given cities and towns the power to raise taxes on
restaurant meals and hotel rooms.
The governor has also made it easier for municipalities to join the
state’s health insurance program, saving them millions of dollars,
Patrick aides said. But expectations for that initiative have fallen
short, and Patrick has insisted that unions, which have largely
resisted the move to the state program, retain the option to approve
or block the change.
His proposal to license three casinos was also designed to provide
relief to an estimated 1 million property owners, by dedicating a
portion of state proceeds to a property tax credit.
The House, however, killed the casino proposal in March 2008.
Patrick and the Legislature have also put pressure on the property
tax by cutting local aid. Since fiscal year 2007, direct aid to
cities towns has been reduced by 28 percent, or $363 million,
including an emergency cut of $128 million that Patrick made to
close a deficit in January 2009, according to the Massachusetts
Municipal Association.
Patrick has said those reductions were necessary to close state
budget gaps, and his proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year
maintains level funding for local aid.
Some legislators said Patrick’s property-tax pledge four years ago
was ultimately swamped by a recession that plunged Massachusetts,
like other states, into historic levels of red ink.
“When you lose $3 billion in tax revenue, there’s no way you’re
going to be able to provide any relief,’’ said Senator Steven C.
Panagiotakos, a Lowell Democrat and the Senate’s chief budget
writer.
Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal
Association, which represents cities and towns, applauded Patrick
for continuing to push the issue.
“The governor set a big, audacious goal and our understanding is
he’s not backed off that, which is great,’’ Beckwith said.
Patrick said that, if he wins a second term, he will try to increase
local aid and reduce local health care and pension costs, with the
ultimate goal of delivering relief for homeowners, particularly
seniors and others who can least afford rising property taxes.
“We have done so much of what we said we would do in the first term,
but we haven’t accomplished everything, and that’s what a second
term is about,’’ Patrick said. “This is one of the things I want to
finish.’’
State House News Service
Friday, April 23, 2010
Weekly Roundup
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Jim O’Sullivan
[Excerpt]
Of course, how decentralized and disorganized the voices of those
Scott Brown Democrats are hung in sharp relief Thursday, when
Revenue Committee House chair Jay Kaufman – who memorably said the
fiscal 2010 budget would be measured “in terms of lives lost” –
rented spacious Gardner Auditorium to discuss two tax rollback plans
aimed at the November ballot. There were paid advocates, some
reporters, a few staffers and, as Kaufman noted, “stunning silence.”
The most significant proposal on the agenda, slashing the state
sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3, elicited not a bleat of testimony.
While this inaction was taking place, House leaders were busy
defending their unannounced plan to grant municipal governments
authority to skirt, essentially, the 1980 voter law restricting
property tax hikes.
In a purportedly reassuring memo addressed to the Citizens for
Limited Taxation, the group that publicized the issue, House
budget chief Charles Murphy wrote, “There is no incentive to raise
more than what is needed as the money can only be used for a tightly
defined purpose. Moreover, any proposed increase must be approved as
‘reasonable’ by the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue to
meet the specific exposures covered by an overlay account … This
proposal is not a permanent increase.”
These aren’t the broad-based tax hikes you’re looking for. Move
along.
The gubernatorial candidates dived on it like kids scooping up
piñata emissions, blasting the permission slip for tax hikes as
tone-deaf, back-door, and bad news.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Quiet permission sought quietly for a
polite property tax increase.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 24, 2010
You have the power
By Adrian Walker
You make fun of the Boston City Council for years, mock their desire
for more power, and then one day you wake up and, thanks to an
arbitrator, they have actually stumbled into real power.
I don’t know about you, but I find this deeply unnerving.
The jaw-dropping $74 million in pay raises awarded to the city’s
firefighters last weekend is so far removed from reality that even
firefighters were shocked. Only one group of people can derail this,
the council, and they show no signs of having the nerve to do so.
Forget all the talk about whether the true price tag is $74 million
over four years or something far less. If anything, the cost is
really more than advertised, because the inflated salaries will
drive up pensions, as well.
And the price tag is also greater because it will drive up the
contracts of the city’s other employees, especially police officers
and teachers. Think they’ll settle for 15 percent raises now?
Please. Their union presidents would be drawn and quartered.
“There are four police unions, and it’s a foregone conclusion they
will all go to arbitration now,’’ said one high-ranking city
official involved in the negotiations. “There’s no telling how much
this decision will cost in the end. It’s probably hundreds of
millions of dollars.’’
That’s no exaggeration.
Finally there is something to like about Proposition 2½, the law
that overhauled municipal finance in 1980. It effectively ended
“binding’’ arbitration by giving legislative bodies the right to
refuse to fund excessive awards. That power has seldom been invoked.
But this is just the situation it was intended for. If the council
refuses to write the check, the two sides must go back to
negotiating.
That prospect seems to appall John Tobin. He was the first city
councilor to openly pander to the firefighters, declaring that he
must “respect’’ the collective bargaining process. You would have
thought he was talking about $74, not $74 million.
Council President Mike Ross told me he wanted the firefighters union
to be partners in solving the city’s financial woes, but couldn’t
say exactly what that meant. Earth to Ross: Local 718 has never been
a partner in anything.
Mark Ciommo, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the size
of the award reflected “bad faith’’ negotiations, though he backed
off when I asked if he was saying the city had negotiated in bad
faith. “I think the relations between the city and the firefighters
are well documented,’’ he said.
No question, years of truly ugly haggling preceded arbitration. But
this shouldn’t be about whether the mayor likes Edward Kelly, the
union president, or vice versa. The issue here should be about
what’s good for Boston.
People like Tobin seem to think this is the mayor’s problem. But it
isn’t the city’s money or the administration’s money we’re talking
about. It’s your money.
I believe in collective bargaining. I’m a dues-paying union member.
But this isn’t a question of “respecting a process.’’ It is about
fairness, especially in the middle of a fiscal crisis. No one can
make a serious argument that this award meets that standard. Sure
the firefighters deserve more money. Just not $74 million more.
This council has a record of dealing with financial adversity, and
it isn’t impressive. Just a couple of weeks ago, the prospect of
dealing with a $3.3 million deficit at the Boston Public Library
seemed to leave it paralyzed.
The councilors’ real problem is obvious: some of them, like Tobin,
harbor mayoral fantasies, and all of them, seemingly, are terrified
of alienating public employee unions. But what about alienating the
taxpayers? The electoral clout of the firefighters is vastly
overrated.
There’s time to help our craven councilors get up a little courage.
Just call 635-4000, ask for any councilor you voted for, and tell
them to just say no. They have the power to stop this disaster in
the making, and you have the power to help.
Remember, it’s your money.
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|
