|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Monday, March 3, 2014
Proposition 2½
again under assault
Let’s start with some simple
questions. First, why should the Hyannis Fire District (and the
four other districts) be exempt from the Prop 2½ law? According
to the chiefs and fire commissioners, they claim to be while the
law states to the contrary.
Is this new fire station an
override? Many people in town think so, as do I as well. My own
opinion is that the law, MGL Ch 59, section 21c also states it
is. Hyannis Fire also raised the tax levy by 10 percent when the
law only allows a 2.5 percent increase.
Do Hyannis fire commissioners
and chief have the right to force voters to appear in person to
vote rather than a ballot vote as the law postulates? Again,
many people think not and I agree. In my opinion, this forced
vote is both intimidation and a bullying tactic designed to
disenfranchise voters in Hyannis....
In conclusion, these decision
makers left us no other choice. Their belief and contention that
they are exempt from Prop 2½ in my opinion, is pure ignorance,
so we will now let a judge and court decide. None of us wanted
to choose this path, but when the Prop 2½ law was enacted by the
voters in the Commonwealth in 1982, we believe that the intent
was to have all of the 351 cities and towns to be in compliance
with the law and not exempt just the five fire districts in
Barnstable. It is my opinion that for the fire chiefs in
Barnstable to contend that they are exempt is both a pipedream
and pure arrogance. How sad is it that this had to be brought to
a judge and a court for the final conclusion? No one wanted any
of this, but so be it.
The Barnstable Patriot
Friday, February 21, 2014
Letter to the Editor
Reasons for a lawsuit over fire station vote
John Julius, Hyannis
A group of taxpayers is asking
a judge to block a coming vote on a new fire station in Hyannis,
citing alleged violations of state and federal laws.
"The intention here is to get
an injunction to have a judge stop this vote," said John Julius,
who spearheaded the lawsuit filed in Barnstable Superior Court
earlier this month against the Hyannis Fire District, the town
of Barnstable and the state Department of Revenue.
The Fire District has a vote
on spending $19.8 million on the new station planned for a March
5 special district meeting.
The residential tax impact of
the new station in the first year on a home valued at $311,000,
the median price in the district, would be $42.72. The next year
it would rise to $152.78 and drop from there. The total cost
over 30 years would be $3,309.73.
On Tuesday Julius filed a
motion for a hearing on a preliminary injunction to stop the
vote. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
The Cape Cod Times
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Taxpayers challenge upcoming Fire District vote
A Barnstable Superior Court
judge has affirmed that a law imposing tax increase limits on
towns does not apply to fire districts, dealing a setback to
foes of a pending vote on a new Hyannis fire station.
Judge Christopher Muse ruled
late Thursday that Proposition 2½ could not stop Wednesday's
vote on spending $19.8 million to build a new fire station. The
total cost of the project, including the price of the land and
other expenses already approved by district voters, is $23.2
million.
The motion for an injunction
to stop the vote was part of a lawsuit filed by Hyannis resident
John Julius and nine other residents. Massachusetts law allows
groups of 10 or more taxpayers to seek judicial review of a
government body's actions.
Julius and the other
plaintiffs sued the Fire District, the town of Barnstable and
the state Department of Revenue, arguing that the location and
timing of the vote disenfranchised voters and that it
constituted a Proposition 2½ override.
The law restricts towns from
raising the tax levy by more than 2½ percent without an override
vote.
"The court recognizes the
concerns of the plaintiffs and acknowledges that their reasoning
has some common-sense basis," Muse wrote in his order. "Clearly
the appropriation costs shall be passed on to the village
taxpayers, and without argument, in combination with presently
accessed property taxes, it would propel taxpayer obligations
beyond that allowed by Proposition 2½ without an override."
But, Muse continued, the law
is clear: It applies to cities and towns only, and not fire
districts.
The Cape Cod Times
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Judge won't douse fire vote
In his decision released
today, Muse said he limited his decision to the one issue “in
view of substantial time constraint.” He concluded that state
law Chapter 59, Section 21C “does not include fire districts
within its purview, and indeed is replete with references to
cities and towns,” and “the court concludes that the statute
does not apply to fire districts.”
The Hyannis residents
questioned the legality of the special meeting on several
levels, including the Proposition 2½ statute. At the beginning
of the Feb. 27 hearing, Julius said he was speaking on behalf of
all 10 residents, including his wife, Pat Richards, but Muse
stopped him immediately. “You can’t represent them,” he said,
because Julius is not an attorney. However, Muse allowed Julius
to speak on his own behalf.
Julius argued that the
Proposition 2½ statute applies to the fire district as well as
the town. He claimed that the district is an entity within the
town, noting that the taxes for both are on the same bill.
He said the district increased
its tax by 10 percent from 2013 to 2014 and that the taxes would
increase by 27 percent if the new station is approved.
“The Hyannis Fire District
does not have the legal authority to be a taxing authority,”
Julius said.
“Fire districts are an
anomaly,” Muse said, adding that he doesn’t know of any other
such districts in the state. He turned around in his chair to
reach for the statute book on the shelf and read it, noting
there is no reference to fire districts.
“It tells me that fire
district members are not selectmen or a town council,” he said.
Attorney Michael J. Maccaro,
of the Quincy law firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey and Lehane
representing the fire district, argued that the district is a
separate entity and thus is exempt from Proposition 2½.
The Barnstable Patriot
Friday, February 28, 2014
Court won’t stop Hyannis fire station vote;
Judge says Proposition 2½ does not apply to fire districts
|
|
Barbara Anderson's CLT
Commentary
OK, set aside Russian aggression in
the Ukraine, Obama’s general assault on America, and the renewed liberal
call for a graduated income tax:
The issue of the day is fire districts
in Hyannis. But I warn you, you’ll think I’m making this up.
We’ve been contacted by some property
taxpayers in Hyannis, who have filed a class action lawsuit against the
Department of Revenue’s Division of Local Services and something called
the Hyannis Fire District.
Most of you live in communities like mine
and the two Chips: there are various city/town departments, including the
fire department, and they are funded by the community within the limits
of Proposition 2½.
The Town of Barnstable is different.
Though it has several villages, it is run like our communities, with all
town departments funded by a property tax levy limited by Prop 2½ to a
2.5% increase a year, plus new growth and any overrides.
But THEN – believe it not –
Barnstable has five fire districts that levy a property tax in
addition to what the town levies! E.g., In Hyannis (one of the
"villages" within the Town of Barnstable), property taxpayers pay their
share of the town levy, as we all do ― and
THEN pay an additional amount levied by the "Hyannis Fire
District." As the levy has become onerous, ten Hyannis taxpayers went to
court arguing that districts as well as (other) town departments are
subject to Prop 2½. Here is what the Superior Court Judge said Friday as
he rejected their request.
“The court recognizes the concerns of the plaintiffs and
acknowledges that there reasoning has some common sense
basis. Clearly the appropriation costs shall be passed on to
the village taxpayers, and without argument, in combination
with presently-accessed property taxes, it would propel
taxpayer obligations beyond that allowed by Proposition 2½
absent an override. However, as the court advised the
plaintiffs and their supporters, there exist rules of
statutory construction that a court must follow in the
application and interpretation of statutes. Guided by these
principles, and noting that Massachusetts General Laws,
Chapter 59, Section 21(c), does not include fire districts
within its purview, and indeed is replete with references to
cities and towns, the court concludes that the statute does
not apply to fire districts.”
This is news to us. Our original Prop
2½, passed by Massachusetts voters in 1980, stated
that “The total taxes assessed by the commonwealth or by any city, town,
county, district, authority or other governmental entity upon real
estate and personal property … shall not, in any fiscal year, with
respect to any city or town, exceed the total taxes so assessed in the
preceding fiscal year by more than two and one-half percent.…”
(See
the Secretary of State’s 1980 Voter Information booklet, below.)
You may wonder, as we do, what part of
“district” the Department of Revenue and the judge don’t understand? Is
it possible that we needed to add the word “fire”?!? The only
information I’ve been able to get from the Division of Local Services
(part of the DOR, created by Prop 2½) is that Barnstable had this
100-plus year tradition. Well, all our communities had a
tradition of unlimited property taxes, but that tradition changed in
1980.
To complicate this, however,
apparently, is the fact that when the Prop 2½ petition became law,
it was formatted by the Department of Revenue to be
part of the General Laws of the commonwealth. For some reason,
probably simplicity, the limit language referred only to cities and
towns. My guess is DOR assumed that this included all town departments,
which it does: but in Hyannis (and maybe Wareham) fire districts have
always been separate from the town of Barnstable. This must be why the
drafter of our Prop 2½ petition included the word “district,” just in
case something odd existed: our intent was clear, to include fire
districts as town departments.
To prove a point about unlimited
taxation: I’m told that Hyannis, with 14,000 people, 9.5 sq. miles, has
a fire budget of $10.2 million; while Plymouth (whose fire department is
part of the town budget), with 56,000 people, 96 square miles, and seven
fire stations, has a fire budget of $8.5 million. The FY’14 Hyannis Fire
District budget increased 10% because “the district is exempt from Prop
2½.”
The ten taxpayers are appealing the
judge’s decision. They are looking for an injunction against a debt
exclusion for a new Hyannis fire station — and the way they hold the
election is a whole other incredible story — but right now we are
concerned about the additional tax levy.
CLT may file an affidavit as to our
intent (never mind our law’s actual language!). I’ve been interviewed on
this by
Joe Shortsleeve at WBZ TV, so you may learn more by tuning in to the
Channel 4 news tonight at 11:00 PM.
|
 |
 |
|
Barbara Anderson |
Incidentally, according to the
Secretary of State, within the 351 cities and towns of Massachusetts
there are over 4,000 "archaic communities," districts,
neighborhood sections and villages!
1980 Secretary of State's Voter Information Booklet
Question 2 ― Proposition 2½
The Law
CLICK TO OPEN OR
DOWNLOAD
|
|
|
|
|
The Barnstable Patriot
Friday, February 21, 2014
Letter to the Editor
Reasons for a lawsuit over fire station vote
Let’s start with some simple questions. First, why should the Hyannis
Fire District (and the four other districts) be exempt from the Prop 2½
law? According to the chiefs and fire commissioners, they claim to be
while the law states to the contrary.
Is this new fire station an override? Many people in town think so, as
do I as well. My own opinion is that the law, MGL Ch 59, section 21c
also states it is. Hyannis Fire also raised the tax levy by 10 percent
when the law only allows a 2.5 percent increase.
Do Hyannis fire commissioners and chief have the right to force voters
to appear in person to vote rather than a ballot vote as the law
postulates? Again, many people think not and I agree. In my opinion,
this forced vote is both intimidation and a bullying tactic designed to
disenfranchise voters in Hyannis.
And do the Hyannis fire commissioners have a right to disallow Hyannis
business and commercial owners their opportunity to vote? Our lawsuit
contends that this violates their right to equal protection under the
14th amendment of the US Constitution.
I personally attended many of the public meetings and, along with many
others, asked why we need a 40 to 60 thousand square foot building. I
told them publicly at one meeting that the Boston fire station on
Boylston Street handles more calls than Hyannis and was built in 1888
and is still standing, after many renovations. My question was, “Why not
a renovation?” After all, the cost would be half, if not more! Deaf
ears! They would have nothing of the sort.
Other people questioned why not a metal building to cut more cost? No,
not good enough.
We have continually been told that they ‘need more space.’ Many do agree
with this and I do as well, but a $20 million-plus Taj Mahal? This is a
mere ‘want’ on their part and surely not a need! Besides this, they
state that they scaled the cost down to $ 19.9 million when the truth is
that they already spent about $ 3.6 million on the land and architect
and other costs. They continue to conveniently leave this figure out.
How disingenuous! It is a $23.5 million fire station and not $19.9
million!
The truth is that this fire station will increase taxes on business and
homeowners by some 27 percent, which is obscene and unconscionable! What
happens when taxes go up? In this case, the Hyannis business owners will
need to again raise costs and charges. Homeowners will have less to
spend, which will impact these already struggling business owners more.
And what about all the renters and tenants in Hyannis, where there are
hundreds of rental homes? Why, of course, rents will have to rise as
well. Have the fire commissioners and its chief even listened to any of
the concerns from the residents? I submit to you that they have not,
plain and simple.
In conclusion, these decision makers left us no other choice. Their
belief and contention that they are exempt from Prop 2½ in my opinion,
is pure ignorance, so we will now let a judge and court decide. None of
us wanted to choose this path, but when the Prop 2½ law was enacted by
the voters in the Commonwealth in 1982, we believe that the intent was
to have all of the 351 cities and towns to be in compliance with the law
and not exempt just the five fire districts in Barnstable. It is my
opinion that for the fire chiefs in Barnstable to contend that they are
exempt is both a pipedream and pure arrogance. How sad is it that this
had to be brought to a judge and a court for the final conclusion? No
one wanted any of this, but so be it.
John Julius
Hyannis
The Cape Cod Times
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Taxpayers challenge upcoming Fire District vote
By Patrick Cassidy
HYANNIS — A group of taxpayers is asking a judge to block a coming vote
on a new fire station in Hyannis, citing alleged violations of state and
federal laws.
"The intention here is to get an injunction to have a judge stop this
vote," said John Julius, who spearheaded the lawsuit filed in Barnstable
Superior Court earlier this month against the Hyannis Fire District, the
town of Barnstable and the state Department of Revenue.
The Fire District has a vote on spending $19.8 million on the new
station planned for a March 5 special district meeting.
The residential tax impact of the new station in the first year on a
home valued at $311,000, the median price in the district, would be
$42.72. The next year it would rise to $152.78 and drop from there. The
total cost over 30 years would be $3,309.73.
On Tuesday Julius filed a motion for a hearing on a preliminary
injunction to stop the vote. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
Proponents of the new station say it is needed to keep up with the high
volume of calls for service and because the existing 49-year-old station
is too small for current operations and personnel.
Opponents of the project say it is too expensive and that a district
building committee has not done enough to reduce the cost of the
structure. The total cost of the project, including the price of the
land and other expenses already approved by voters, is $23.2 million.
Critics also argue that the March vote makes it difficult for residents
to participate because of the time of year and the nature and location
of the meeting.
In the lawsuit, Julius and nine other Hyannis residents argue that the
auditorium at Barnstable High School where the meeting is scheduled to
be held is not large enough for all the voters who could possibly
participate and, by not holding the vote at polling places around the
district, officials are making it difficult on older residents and those
with disabilities, violating the federal Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Knight Auditorium at the high school has space for 340 people and the
school's Performing Arts Center has space for 1,430 people, according to
a school facilities official. There are about 9,000 registered voters in
the Hyannis Fire District.
"For these people to have a vote structured in a manner like this, not
only is it illegal and unconstitutional, it's insane," Julius said.
Instead of opening polling places in the seven precincts in the district
from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. so voters can easily cast a ballot when they have
the time, the Fire District is forcing voters to show up at 7 p.m. for
the meeting to be counted, Julius wrote in the lawsuit.
In addition, according to Julius and the lawsuit, the measure
constitutes a Proposition 2½ override vote.
Although Dan Bertrand, director of communications and policy with the
Department of Revenue's Division of Local Services, told the Times
earlier this month that fire districts are not restricted by Proposition
2½, which limits the amount towns can raise in taxes without an override
vote, Julius and the other plaintiffs argue that state law does not
exclude districts from those limits.
"Since this is a pending legal matter we will not be commenting at this
time," Bertrand wrote in an email Tuesday.
Town Attorney Ruth Weil said town officials are reviewing the lawsuit
and crafting a response.
Richard Gallagher, chairman of the Hyannis Board of Fire Commissioners,
said the district believes it has a strong legal argument to present to
the court.
Gallagher said he was reserving further comment on the complaint because
of the litigation and potential need to discuss it in executive session.
Gallagher said district officials are reaching out to voters in advance
of the March 5 vote and momentum continues to build to move the project
forward.
"I'm only trying to help people," Julius said.
"This whole thing is just so wrong."
The Cape Cod Times
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Judge won't douse fire vote
By Sean F. Driscoll
BARNSTABLE — A Barnstable Superior Court judge has affirmed that a law
imposing tax increase limits on towns does not apply to fire districts,
dealing a setback to foes of a pending vote on a new Hyannis fire
station.
Judge Christopher Muse ruled late Thursday that Proposition 2½ could not
stop Wednesday's vote on spending $19.8 million to build a new fire
station. The total cost of the project, including the price of the land
and other expenses already approved by district voters, is $23.2
million.
The motion for an injunction to stop the vote was part of a lawsuit
filed by Hyannis resident John Julius and nine other residents.
Massachusetts law allows groups of 10 or more taxpayers to seek judicial
review of a government body's actions.
Julius and the other plaintiffs sued the Fire District, the town of
Barnstable and the state Department of Revenue, arguing that the
location and timing of the vote disenfranchised voters and that it
constituted a Proposition 2½ override.
The law restricts towns from raising the tax levy by more than 2½
percent without an override vote.
"The court recognizes the concerns of the plaintiffs and acknowledges
that their reasoning has some common-sense basis," Muse wrote in his
order. "Clearly the appropriation costs shall be passed on to the
village taxpayers, and without argument, in combination with presently
accessed property taxes, it would propel taxpayer obligations beyond
that allowed by Proposition 2½ without an override."
But, Muse continued, the law is clear: It applies to cities and towns
only, and not fire districts.
In the Thursday hearing, Muse said he would focus his ruling on the
Proposition 2½ matter and not rule on Julius' other argument, that the
time and place of the vote was disenfranchising voters.
Julius said in court Thursday that the decision by the Fire District to
hold the vote at a meeting in an auditorium at Barnstable High School
that can seat only several hundred people meant that if even a third of
the almost 9,000 district voters showed up, they wouldn't fit.
The district's lawyer contended that the vote could be moved to a larger
high school auditorium, which seats 1,400, or rescheduled if capacity
were an issue.
In fact, Hyannis Fire Chief Harold Brunelle and Richard Gallagher,
chairman of the Board of Fire Commissioners, said Friday the meeting
would be moved from Knight Auditorium to the school's larger Performing
Arts Center.
Julius did not return phone calls seeking comment Friday afternoon.
The Barnstable Patriot
Friday, February 28, 2014
Court won’t stop Hyannis fire station vote;
meeting is moved to larger room at BHS
Judge says Proposition 2½ does not apply to fire districts
By Susan Vaughn
Superior Court Judge Christopher Muse has denied a motion for a
preliminary injunction submitted by 10 Hyannis taxpayers to stop a March
5 vote on the proposed $19.8 million new Hyannis fire HQ.
Meanwhile, Fire Chief Harold Brunelle said today that, in response to
the judge's concern that all efforts be made to accommodate a large
number of voters, the meeting was being moved from Barnstable High
School's Knight Auditorium to the much larger Performing Arts Center in
the same building.
"Originally, [the PAC] was booked," Brunnelle said. "Staff at the school
rearranged a lot of things to make it available. It's the biggest room
in town."
On Feb. 27, Muse heard arguments of the plaintiffs, led by Hyannis
resident John Julius, and the defendants, represented by attorneys for
the Hyannis Fire District and the town before a nearly full courtroom.
At the end of the hearing, he whittled the case to one factor – whether
the vote next week would violate the provisions of Proposition 2½, which
limits annual tax levy increases to 2½ percent.
In his decision released today, Muse said he limited his decision to the
one issue “in view of substantial time constraint.” He concluded that
state law Chapter 59, Section 21C “does not include fire districts
within its purview, and indeed is replete with references to cities and
towns,” and “the court concludes that the statute does not apply to fire
districts.”
The Hyannis residents questioned the legality of the special meeting on
several levels, including the Proposition 2½ statute. At the beginning
of the Feb. 27 hearing, Julius said he was speaking on behalf of all 10
residents, including his wife, Pat Richards, but Muse stopped him
immediately. “You can’t represent them,” he said, because Julius is not
an attorney. However, Muse allowed Julius to speak on his own behalf.
Julius argued that the Proposition 2½ statute applies to the fire
district as well as the town. He claimed that the district is an entity
within the town, noting that the taxes for both are on the same bill.
He said the district increased its tax by 10 percent from 2013 to 2014
and that the taxes would increase by 27 percent if the new station is
approved.
“The Hyannis Fire District does not have the legal authority to be a
taxing authority,” Julius said.
“Fire districts are an anomaly,” Muse said, adding that he doesn’t know
of any other such districts in the state. He turned around in his chair
to reach for the statute book on the shelf and read it, noting there is
no reference to fire districts.
“It tells me that fire district members are not selectmen or a town
council,” he said.
Attorney Michael J. Maccaro, of the Quincy law firm of Murphy, Hesse,
Toomey and Lehane representing the fire district, argued that the
district is a separate entity and thus is exempt from Proposition 2½.
Muse then asked Julius about the voting process – if everyone is
eligible to go to Barnstable High School where the vote will be held and
if the vote is to be a show of hands.
Julius claimed the vote was an election and would not be legal because
the Knight Auditorium holds only 348 people and would not accommodate
all the district’s registered voters, of which he said there are 8,900.
Muse disagreed with Julius’ contention that the meeting vote constituted
an election. “They are not the same,” he said.
Maccaro also agreed that the special meeting is “a vote of individuals
of the district, not an election.”
Muse asked Maccaro whether the district officials would be able to
“easily manage the vote” if the auditorium cannot hold the voters who
show up.
Maccaro said the voting could be extended into the gymnasium, which
holds up to 2,000. If anyone is denied a vote, Maccaro said, the
moderator could set another date.
“No one is going to be excluded,” Muse said. “A hand or voice vote
doesn’t change things. If anyone is denied, I suggest it ought to be
postponed to another venue.”
Muse said he would hold the district accountable for conducting a fair
vote. “My bet is a lot will be going to the high school gym. Your job is
to make sure they’re welcome,” he told Maccaro.
Maccaro also presented the district’s public interest argument, saying
to stop the vote would stop two and a half years of progress with more
than 50 public meetings on the fire station plan.
Muse acknowledged that a lot of people are interested in the fire
district vote. “Both sides have the right to vote.”
After the hearing, Maccaro said agreed with Muse that the Proposition 2½
statute was the fundamental issue.
Julius’s responded afterward that he was “a little surprised” by the
judge’s comments and held to his contention that the statute applies to
the fire districts. “I think the law is clear and concise,” he said.
“It’s the total taxes assessed in the town. This is the essence. It is
an override and should be on the ballot.”
|
| |
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
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|