 |
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(508)
915-3665
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
44 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
We have their
attention
Quick, keep
those phone calls going!
|
Three
state representatives have kept vigil in the House this week
to prevent passage in an informal session of legislation
that would give landowners the ability to levy fees to pay
for improvements in a given area. Since the House passed
the measure 149-2 in May, a slew of organizations from the
left, right and center have come out in opposition to the
bill, which only needs a couple procedural votes to reach
Gov. Charlie Baker's desk.
Calling it a "sly end-run around Proposition 2½,"
Citizens for Limited Taxation on Tuesday urged House
Republicans to oppose the bill when it comes back up.
A voter-approved law that has withstood challenges,
Proposition 2½ limits the amount that local governments can
extract from property taxes....
"Block by block they're coming for taxpayers," said
Chip Ford, CLT's executive director. "Will the
Legislature next propose also taxing us at the street level,
then backyard by backyard? Today such speculation is not so
far-fetched."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts said
the bill violates the principle of "one person, one vote"
and called it "troublingly silent" about the open meeting,
public records and procurement laws that guide local
government. The Massachusetts Collectors & Treasurers
Association said that the "bulk of the work will fall on
municipal treasurers and collectors" but there is "no formal
mechanism for reimbursing the municipalities for expenses
incurred in the issuance and collection of the fees." ...
Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT) noted that no
Republican member of the House voted against the proposal.
They all voted for it. Provost and DuBois were the only no
votes. Connolly said that he had hoped to have more
information before his earlier vote and would now vote
against the proposal.
Addressing Republican members of the House, CLT
wrote, "We understand that the vote came up so quickly that
many didn’t know what they were voting for. It would seem
that the default position when one doesn't know what a bill
would do should be a nay vote, but it happened." The group
went on to say, "We hope that by your No vote you will
provide Gov. Baker with the inspiration and support to again
veto this new assault on taxpayers."
All seven Republicans and eight Democrats opposed the
bill in the Senate where it passed 22-15. Senate President
Pro Tem Marc Pacheco, a Taunton Democrat, said he might vote
against the bill on enactment unless his concerns about it
are allayed....
State House News Service
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Benefit district bill facing squeeze from right, left
Recent controversy over legislation that
would allow local organizations to levy fees on property
owners to improve their neighborhoods has led the leader of
the House Republican caucus to question his support for the
bill he cosponsored.
North Reading Rep. Brad Jones, the House
minority leader, was a cosponsor of a bill authorizing
community benefit districts and supported it when it passed
the House 149-2 in May, but a surge of opposition to the
bill has caused him to rethink his position.
On Tuesday, Citizens for Limited Taxation
said community benefit districts would serve as an end-run
around statutory limits on property taxes, and the American
Civil Liberties Union has raised a slew of concerns about
the governance of the proposed districts.
"I and a number of my colleagues are
reviewing the wide variety of feedback from many interested
parties that have raised concerns about this legislation.
Frankly, most of these concerns were not raised over the
course of the last few years as this issue has been
discussed; nonetheless, they are serious concerns and in the
absence of a compelling reason to move forward and a lack of
answers to address these concerns, I am seriously
considering changing my vote on this matter," Jones told the
News Service in a statement. "It may well be better for any
community that wants to pursue a Community Benefits District
to pursue it as a home rule proposal on a community by
community basis." ...
Meanwhile a major backer of the bill, which
is once again near the legislative goal line, wants to rally
supporters for "probably our last chance ever" to authorize
the creation of the districts, which would raise money from
local property owners to pay for local services.
"Our most-loved public spaces need this
investment and oversight to help them become more vibrant
cultural centers and thriving small business districts," the
Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance wrote to supporters
Wednesday.
The group said the House and Senate are
expected to vote Wednesday or Thursday to enact the bill (H
4546) and send it to Gov. Charlie Baker's desk....
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Benefit district cosponsor Jones sees "serious concerns"
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
We have their attention.
Now we need to keep those calls pouring into
the State House, to your state representative's and state
senator's office.
The time is running out.
If there was ever any doubt what the
supporters' intent has been all along
― an end-run around our Proposition 2½
property tax limitation ― it's out in the open now.
Just read some of their desperate comments from today's
State House News Service report as they see victory possibly
snatched from their grasp:
Salem
Mayor Kim Driscoll, one of several mayors to support
the idea, said the approach would give
municipalities a "tool" to improve specific areas,
and she said the local approval necessary to create
a district would provide a forum for public input.
"We don't have authority to do too much without the
Legislature and I think this is one way that they're
saying to communities, 'If you're interested in
this, put a coalition together; make sure it's
something that there's broad-based support for;
elected officials will have to sign off on it; and
it's an opportunity,'" Driscoll told the News
Service....
Driscoll said, "There's pockets of every community
that need extra attention or services and the CBD is
perfect for that. I don't think it's a recipe for
every urban renewal area or every square-inch of the
community."
Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce President Tim
Murray said other cities around the country have
more options to raise revenue in support of local
investments, but Bay State municipalities are
reliant on property taxes and local aid distributed
by the Legislature.
"Massachusetts is one of the most restrictive states
in the country in terms of how municipalities raise
revenue," Murray, the former lieutenant governor
under Gov. Deval Patrick, told the News Service.
Please keep those call pouring it.
Victory for taxpayers is not yet ours.
If you want to stop this abomination
call you state representative
and state senator right now!
To find your STATE REPRESENTATIVE & SENATOR
CLICK HERE
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Benefit district bill facing squeeze from right,
left
By Andy Metzger
Three state representatives have kept vigil in
the House this week to prevent passage in an
informal session of legislation that would give
landowners the ability to levy fees to pay for
improvements in a given area.
Since the House passed the measure 149-2 in May,
a slew of organizations from the left, right and
center have come out in opposition to the bill,
which only needs a couple procedural votes to
reach Gov. Charlie Baker's desk.
Calling it a "sly end-run around Proposition
2½," Citizens for Limited Taxation on
Tuesday urged House Republicans to oppose the
bill when it comes back up.
A voter-approved law that has withstood
challenges, Proposition 2½ limits the amount
that local governments can extract from property
taxes.
The bill (H-4546) would allow property owners to
draw a district, and start charging assessments
within that district as long as the landholders
who initiate the community benefit district
would pay the majority of the proposed
assessment. Those districts would also need
local approval under the bill. The total annual
assessment could equal up to half of 1 percent
of the total assessed valuation of the
participating properties.
"Block by block they're coming for taxpayers,"
said Chip Ford, CLT's executive director.
"Will the Legislature next propose also taxing
us at the street level, then backyard by
backyard? Today such speculation is not so
far-fetched."
The American Civil Liberties Union of
Massachusetts said the bill violates the
principle of "one person, one vote" and called
it "troublingly silent" about the open meeting,
public records and procurement laws that guide
local government. The Massachusetts Collectors &
Treasurers Association said that the "bulk of
the work will fall on municipal treasurers and
collectors" but there is "no formal mechanism
for reimbursing the municipalities for expenses
incurred in the issuance and collection of the
fees."
The bill is the product of months of
negotiations between Sen. Brendan Crighton,
Secretary of Housing and Economic Development
Jay Ash, and Eileen Donoghue, who was a senator
and is now Lowell's city manager, according to
the bill's backers.
A fact-sheet about the bill provided by
Crighton's office said it "carefully balances
the interests of large and small property
owners," allows for exemptions in certain cases
to the mandatory fees, and has the backing of
several mayors, chambers of commerce, the
Massachusetts Municipal Association and the
Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance.
Both the House and Senate have passed the bill
that would authorize community benefit
districts, and the governor, who vetoed a
similar provision last year, has not taken a
definitive public stance on it.
"We've talked to many folks in the Legislature
about this issue, and as you know we sent back a
couple of earlier versions that we felt did not
give enough local folks input into that
decision-making process," Baker told reporters
on Monday. He said, "We'll deal with whatever
comes to our desk. But we understand what
they're trying to accomplish here, but we did
have questions about the mechanism in previous
bills."
Because he has 10 days to review any bill and
because under the joint rules the Legislature
cannot take roll call votes after July 31, the
governor has heightened leverage over whether
the proposal becomes law this session.
Democrat Reps. Denise Provost, of Somerville,
Michelle Dubois, of Brockton, and Mike Connolly,
of Cambridge, have been keeping watch on the
House chamber Monday and Tuesday to ensure the
House does not enact the bill in an informal
session. The House will meet in a more heavily
attended formal session on Wednesday when the
bill could be taken up.
Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT) noted
that no Republican member of the House voted
against the proposal. They all voted for it.
Provost and DuBois were the only no votes.
Connolly said that he had hoped to have more
information before his earlier vote and would
now vote against the proposal.
Addressing Republican members of the House,
CLT wrote, "We understand that the vote came
up so quickly that many didn’t know what they
were voting for. It would seem that the default
position when one doesn't know what a bill would
do should be a nay vote, but it happened." The
group went on to say, "We hope that by your No
vote you will provide Gov. Baker with the
inspiration and support to again veto this new
assault on taxpayers."
All seven Republicans and eight Democrats
opposed the bill in the Senate where it passed
22-15. Senate President Pro Tem Marc Pacheco, a
Taunton Democrat, said he might vote against the
bill on enactment unless his concerns about it
are allayed.
"Community benefit districts can help by
offering a tool that brings all stakeholders
together with the goal of making neighborhood
improvements, creating jobs and growing local
economies," Crighton, a Lynn Democrat, told his
colleagues last week, arguing in favor of the
bill he filed earlier this session as a member
of the House.
DuBois and Provost said they opposed the bill
because they think it grants outsize power to
wealthy corporations, and Provost said she
expects more votes against it if another roll
call is taken in the House.
"It's a very odd arrangement where you get local
government to legitimize these corporations that
are going to be running districts," Provost told
the News Service outside the House chamber on
Tuesday afternoon.
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Benefit district cosponsor Jones sees "serious
concerns"
By Andy Metzger
Recent controversy over legislation that would
allow local organizations to levy fees on
property owners to improve their neighborhoods
has led the leader of the House Republican
caucus to question his support for the bill he
cosponsored.
North Reading Rep. Brad Jones, the House
minority leader, was a cosponsor of a bill
authorizing community benefit districts and
supported it when it passed the House 149-2 in
May, but a surge of opposition to the bill has
caused him to rethink his position.
On Tuesday, Citizens for Limited Taxation
said community benefit districts would serve as
an end-run around statutory limits on property
taxes, and the American Civil Liberties Union
has raised a slew of concerns about the
governance of the proposed districts.
"I and a number of my colleagues are reviewing
the wide variety of feedback from many
interested parties that have raised concerns
about this legislation. Frankly, most of these
concerns were not raised over the course of the
last few years as this issue has been discussed;
nonetheless, they are serious concerns and in
the absence of a compelling reason to move
forward and a lack of answers to address these
concerns, I am seriously considering changing my
vote on this matter," Jones told the News
Service in a statement. "It may well be better
for any community that wants to pursue a
Community Benefits District to pursue it as a
home rule proposal on a community by community
basis."
Meanwhile a major backer of the bill, which is
once again near the legislative goal line, wants
to rally supporters for "probably our last
chance ever" to authorize the creation of the
districts, which would raise money from local
property owners to pay for local services.
"Our most-loved public spaces need this
investment and oversight to help them become
more vibrant cultural centers and thriving small
business districts," the Massachusetts Smart
Growth Alliance wrote to supporters Wednesday.
The group said the House and Senate are expected
to vote Wednesday or Thursday to enact the bill
(H-4546) and send it to Gov. Charlie Baker's
desk.
With the House and Senate barred under the joint
rules from conducting roll calls after July 31,
the community benefits bill that has passed both
branches is among the end-of-session crush of
legislation heading toward the governor's desk.
How the governor responds to the bill is also an
open question. The governor vetoed a similar
proposal last year.
On Monday, SEIU Local 888 President Brenda
Rodrigues wrote to lawmakers urging them not to
enact the bill, which she said "raises serious
concerns about the privatization of public
properties and public services by granting
powers and responsibilities traditionally held
by government to a few wealthy property owners."
Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll, one of several mayors
to support the idea, said the approach would
give municipalities a "tool" to improve specific
areas, and she said the local approval necessary
to create a district would provide a forum for
public input.
"We don't have authority to do too much without
the Legislature and I think this is one way that
they're saying to communities, 'If you're
interested in this, put a coalition together;
make sure it's something that there's
broad-based support for; elected officials will
have to sign off on it; and it's an
opportunity,'" Driscoll told the News Service.
Under the bill, property owners who will pay the
bulk of the district's fees would draw the lines
of the community benefit district (CBD), which
would then need local approval.
"It's not just going to be one property owner
who wants to do this, but it shouldn't just be
one property owner who holds it up either,"
Driscoll said. She said, "There's pockets of
every community that need extra attention or
services and the CBD is perfect for that. I
don't think it's a recipe for every urban
renewal area or every square-inch of the
community."
Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce President
Tim Murray said other cities around the country
have more options to raise revenue in support of
local investments, but Bay State municipalities
are reliant on property taxes and local aid
distributed by the Legislature.
"Massachusetts is one of the most restrictive
states in the country in terms of how
municipalities raise revenue," Murray, the
former lieutenant governor under Gov. Deval
Patrick, told the News Service. He said,
"There's going to be a very involved, thorough
process where these things are looked to be
implemented. So this is just a tool. It's not a
fait accompli whether it's going to happen or
not. You've got to make the case."
The Senate passed the bill 22-15 last week. |
| |
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
|
