 |
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
Friday, July 27, 2018
CBD: Who's telling
the lies?
|
Before lawmakers legalize community benefit
districts that would have the power to demand fees from
property owners to pay for local improvements, they should
ensure those entities are subject to the public records law,
Secretary of State William Galvin wrote to a top House
official on Wednesday.
The House and Senate have already passed the
bill, but amid a flurry of opposition from liberals and
conservatives, the House has yet to send the bill to the
Senate for final enactment, frustrating supporters with less
than a week left of formal sessions. Similar bills have
reached Gov. Baker's desk in prior years, but the governor
opposed them.
"It's similar to how it's happened the past
two sessions where you have outside groups reaching out in
opposition before doing their homework at the very last
minute and unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation out
there," bill sponsor Sen. Brendan Crighton, a Lynn Democrat,
told the News Service....
Galvin, a Brighton Democrat, said that
community benefit districts (CBDs), which would be granted
the power to impose fees on properties for improvements
within their neighborhood, should be subjected to the type
of scrutiny the public can apply to city halls.
"As the law's main purpose is to promote the
enhancement of municipal centers and public spaces, one
would think that any activities or processes carried out by
these corporations would be subject to public records
oversight established in Chapter 66 of the General Laws, yet
no such provisions exist," Galvin wrote to House Ways and
Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez. "It is very troubling to
imagine granting any entity in a city or town the power to
impose taxes, enter into agreement to provide transit or
sanitation services, maintain public spaces, or buy and sell
real property without any public accountability."
State House News Service
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Galvin: Make benefit districts subject to public records law
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
We've been hearing for days that backers
of this "Community Benefits District" sham are accusing
we the opposition of spreading untruths.
On hearing this my initial reaction was:
“Follow the money. Who has the most to financially
gain from passage of this bill? We opponents are only
trying desperately to hang on to what we have left, that
hasn't already been taken by government. So who’s doing
the lying?”
Then I read the State House News Service
yesterday. My own state senator Brendan Crighton
(D-Lynn), the bill's creator, doesn't like our
opposition. He said:
"It's similar to how it's happened the past two
sessions where you have outside groups reaching
out in opposition before doing their homework at
the very last minute and unfortunately there's a
lot of misinformation out there."
I immediately called Sen. Crighton’s
office again, the good senator wasn't available so I spoke to his chief of staff, Daniel J.
Napolitano. I asked him exactly what “homework”
I’d missed, what “misinformation” we were circulating,
as reported in his statement, which I read to Daniel.
He insisted that as a homeowner whose
property is his primary residence, I and others likewise
situated would be exempt from the proposed CBD. I asked
just where he found that in the bill, asked him
to send me a copy of the bill highlighting that
exemption.
He sent me a copy of the final bill,
noting "’Exempt property’ . . . A municipality may
classify all owner-occupied residential property as
exempt property when approving the petition to establish
a new community benefit district.”
It isn’t there – but for some weasel
words that some residents “may” be exempt if so decreed
by the city council or town selectmen in granting their
CBD approval. How likely do you suppose that will
be – and how would the bill work if so many (read
everyone) would be exempt from it?
I replied:
Daniel, it
states “may.” Not “will” nor
“shall” but “may.”
We both
know the legal distinction between those terms
in legislation.
Thank you
for the confirmation of my primary concern.
For the uninitiated, here's a literal
translation of that legislative legalese: "Will" means
ought to; "Shall" means must, and "May"
means maybe, maybe not.
So who is spreading the misinformation?
Answer: The usual suspects – if their
lips are moving.
The vote in the House on enactment of
this abominable power to tax is scheduled for today.
If it passes the House it'll be whisked over to the
Senate.
Secretary of State Bill Galvin has
concerns. House Minority Leader (and co-sponsor)
Brad Jones has changed his tune (that was an important
inroad), our opposition coalition has made the bill’s
flaws so well-publicized, and constituent calls have
been flooding the offices of state reps and senators. I
expect most if not all House Republicans will also have a
change of heart when the vote comes up. A few have said
they didn’t know what they were voting for when the bill
was sprung on them back on May 30. That will not be an
excuse this time, and with all GOP senators rejecting it
on Wednesday night, I expect we’ve awakened a large
swath – especially to the consequences.
My goal has been to provide enough
opposition votes to assure at least a veto from Gov.
Baker, especially after the last 149-2 House vote – with
all Republicans voting for it. Another result like
that will absolutely assure no veto from the governor,
running for re-election while avoiding controversy at
any cost. Now that the Senate Republicans have
unanimously rejected it, and GOP House members including
the minority leader (and co-sponsor) have publicly
expressed reservations, I think we have Charlie’s
attention. He has, after all, vetoed it twice before.
Next to come is whether we have enough
votes to sustain his veto, if we can get one. That’s a
very close thing in the Senate, but that would do it for
us. Will House members consider that when they vote
today? We’ll see, but if the bill is called it will
likely mean they have the votes – otherwise they’ll just
let the clock run out next week and go home. Remember,
they’ll be in "recess" home campaigning among their
constituents for the next few months.
The tough part is that the community benefits district
bill, as a Senate amendment, is now attached to the
bigger $600 million economic development bill. Much will depend on
whether the House can and will reject the Senate
amendment and just send the bill back without including
it. That wouldn’t give the Senate much time to do other
than just accept the House’s version and pass it. Sheesh,
very high stakes indeed, all around.
I just got a call from Larry Field,
deputy director of the Mass. Smart Group Alliance
― the biggest advocate of
community benefit districts. We spent ten minutes
debating the merits. He tried his best to convince
me that this is not a tax, it's a voluntary
self-assessment. I ended the call telling him I
had to get back to trying to defeat his end-run around
our Proposition 2˝, his
"self-assessment."
That he called CLT at this eleventh hour
so desperately trying to change my mind tells me that we
have the backers concerned.
I gave a statement to Beacon Hill Roll
Call last night, which will be sent out late today to
its newspaper subscribers around the state:
“Activist organizations from left, right, and
middle have united in strong opposition to this
power grab," said Chip Ford, Executive Director
of Citizens for Limited Taxation and an
opponent. "It takes a political cataclysm
to unite such diverse grassroots factions on
anything, especially in today’s political
climate. This is one of those rare moments in
history. It’s clear this “Community Benefits
District” sham should be rejected by those who
allege to represent their constituents.”
Here's
the statement our unlikely left-right-and-center
coalition issued on Wednesday. (My Point #7 was
inserted on behalf of CLT.)
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
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Galvin: Make benefit districts subject to public
records law
By Andy Metzger
Before lawmakers legalize community benefit
districts that would have the power to demand
fees from property owners to pay for local
improvements, they should ensure those entities
are subject to the public records law, Secretary
of State William Galvin wrote to a top House
official on Wednesday.
The House and Senate have already passed the
bill, but amid a flurry of opposition from
liberals and conservatives, the House has yet to
send the bill to the Senate for final enactment,
frustrating supporters with less than a week
left of formal sessions. Similar bills have
reached Gov. Baker's desk in prior years, but
the governor opposed them.
"It's similar to how it's happened the past two
sessions where you have outside groups reaching
out in opposition before doing their homework at
the very last minute and unfortunately there's a
lot of misinformation out there," bill sponsor
Sen. Brendan Crighton, a Lynn Democrat, told the
News Service.
Crighton said he believes a response he gave to
Galvin's office on Wednesday is "going to
satisfy any concerns he has" about public
records.
The legislative language was the result of
negotiations with Housing and Economic
Development Secretary Jay Ash, a member of
Baker's Cabinet. Asked if based on Ash's
involvement he thinks the governor will sign the
bill (H 4546), Crighton said, "That's my
understanding but I respect the governor's
position," and Crighton said he is sure the
governor will review whatever reaches his desk.
"We came to an agreement on a compromise bill
and when it gets to the governor's desk we'll
see what the governor wants to do with it," Ash
told the News Service on Thursday. He said,
"It's not our general policy to talk about
signing things before it gets to the governor's
desk, so there's always a last review of all the
items that come along."
Ash said he supports the latest version of the
bill after opposing a prior iteration. The new
version has greater protections for elderly
residents and small property owners, and it
requires more transparency by the districts.
Baker vetoed a similar measure last session,
saying the fees it would establish are "the
functional equivalent of new property taxes."
Galvin, a Brighton Democrat, said that community
benefit districts (CBDs), which would be granted
the power to impose fees on properties for
improvements within their neighborhood, should
be subjected to the type of scrutiny the public
can apply to city halls.
"As the law's main purpose is to promote the
enhancement of municipal centers and public
spaces, one would think that any activities or
processes carried out by these corporations
would be subject to public records oversight
established in Chapter 66 of the General Laws,
yet no such provisions exist," Galvin wrote to
House Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez.
"It is very troubling to imagine granting any
entity in a city or town the power to impose
taxes, enter into agreement to provide transit
or sanitation services, maintain public spaces,
or buy and sell real property without any public
accountability."
In a response to Galvin, Crighton said the
non-profit entities administering the districts
would need to open their books to participating
property owners and he pointed out the
distinction between a non-profit and a
government agency.
"Also, public records are for municipal
entities. A CBD is a 501c3 charity, not a
municipal entity, it doesn't receive public
funding or tax revenue, and is not subject to
public records law," Crighton wrote. Crighton
also said the fee would not be a tax but rather
an assessment, and if a municipality was tasked
with collecting it, the city or town could
charge the CBD for that service.
Before a community benefit district could be
established under the bill, it would need
approval from the city council or town meeting,
which have to adhere to public records laws as
well as open meeting laws.
Galvin recommended lawmakers amend the bill to
"ensure that any and all records arising from
the creation and activity of community benefit
district corporations be considered fully
subject to the state's public records law."
A Brighton Democrat, Galvin will face a primary
challenge in his re-election bid this September
from Boston City Councilor Josh Zakim. Asked
whether Crighton's response satisfied Galvin's
concerns, a spokeswoman said officials in the
secretary of state's office are "still actively
reviewing the materials that have been submitted
to us."
In a phone interview, Crighton said there are no
specific plans underway at this point to
establish a community benefit district in his
North Shore district, but he said local
officials are eager for the ability to do that.
The bill passed the House 149-2 in May and
passed the Senate 22-15 last week. Since then,
Democrat Reps. Denise Provost, of Somerville,
Michelle DuBois, of Brockton, and Mike Connolly,
of Cambridge, have kept watch over the chamber
to ensure the bill does not pass during an
informal session. The House didn't take it up
when it met in a formal session on Wednesday and
the House is meeting in an informal session on
Thursday.
Groups spanning the ideological spectrum -- from
the anti-eviction group City Life/Vida Urbana to
Citizens for Limited Taxation -- issued a
statement Wednesday opposing the legislation,
calling it "essentially taxation without
representation."
"The bill would impose an additional financial
burden on residents to pay for services beyond
those historically provided by the state and
municipality, thereby essentially creating a
wholly new tier of government at the
neighborhood level, without any mechanisms for
accountability," said the statement, which also
expressed concern that there is no provision for
compliance with prevailing wage laws.
Several mayors and chambers of commerce support
the legislation, as does the Massachusetts Smart
Growth Alliance, which is led by the
Conservation Law Foundation, Citizens Housing
and Planning Association, and the Massachusetts
Association of Community Development
Corporations.
|
| |
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
|
