 |
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
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Act
in this moment that counts
|
A bill allowing the creation of Community
Benefit Districts where residents can be taxed to fund local
improvements is getting a second look after passing both the
House and Senate, amid criticism by groups on both the right
and the left of the political spectrum.
"Many municipalities are struggling to find
resources to help grow their local economy and make
neighborhood community improvements," said Sen. Brendan
Crighton, D-Lynn, who sponsored the bill. "We feel that
through this community benefit bill, it will empower the
community to decide on additional and supplemental services
that could help attract more folks to their downtowns, main
streets, town centers, etc."
But critics say the bill would force
residents to pay an assessment even if they did not agree to
form the district. They say the bill lacks sufficient
protections to ensure that the district's governance is
transparent.
"We believe the bill, regardless of good
intentions by the proponents, is dangerous and should not be
enacted," said Ruth Bourquin, senior attorney at the ACLU of
Massachusetts. "It gives wealthy property owners unbridled
control over spaces that are now public, including our
parks, and too much power over their own neighbors." ...
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which
opposes increased taxes, called it "an end-run around the
restrictions of Proposition 2½," the provision that
restricts how much property taxes can be raised.
"Block by block they're coming for
taxpayers," said Chip Ford, the group's executive
director.
A dozen organizations representing tenants,
poor people, minorities, government reform groups and others
all wrote a letter opposing the bill. These include the Mass
Law Reform Institute, ACLU, Common Cause Massachusetts,
NAACP, Massachusetts Fair Housing Center and others.
The group wrote that the bill would let
private property owners in residential and commercial areas
impose assessments on their neighbors to fund activities
that the wealthiest landowners support, "with no controlling
standards or proper checks and balances on how that power
can be wielded."
They worried that property owners would
"own" public parks and sidewalks without safeguards for
First Amendment and anti-discrimination rights. The
management associations would not be subject to public
records or open meeting laws. Tenants would not have rights
in deciding how the districts are operated.
"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 mechanism of
accountability," they wrote.
Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin
wrote to House Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez,
D-Boston, that he thinks the management of the districts
should be subject to public records laws.
"It is very troubling to imagine granting
any entity in a city or town the power to impose taxes,
enter into agreements to provide transit or sanitation
services, maintain public spaces or buy and sell real
property without any accountability," Galvin wrote.
Bourquin, of the ACLU, said, "We can improve
neighborhoods without ceding core principles of democracy."
The bill passed the House, 149-2, and the
Senate, 22-15. But it still needs a final procedural vote to
make it to Gov. Charlie Baker's desk. Some lawmakers have
been working to block that vote since the opposition
emerged.
Baker vetoed earlier versions of the
legislation, but proponents of the bill say they have been
working with Baker administration officials to address some
of the governor's concerns in the bill's latest version.
The Springfield Republican
Friday, July 27, 2018
Controversy emerges over taxes, free speech in proposed
'community benefit districts'
The Senate's decision not to meet during
three of the remaining five days of formal sessions came as
a surprise to many on Beacon Hill including House Speaker
Robert DeLeo, who voiced disappointment Friday morning over
the schedule.
The House is meeting in a formal session on
Friday, when it could approve three conference committee
reports and begin overriding Gov. Charlie Baker's budget
vetoes. The Senate does not plan to meet again until Monday,
the second-to-last day this year that lawmakers can take
recorded roll call votes.
"I just found out yesterday about four
o'clock, I guess probably from you folks, the Senate's not
coming in until Monday, because my discussions, again with
the previous Senate president, was that we had planned that
we were going to be in all weekend, especially having
everyone in the building to put pressure on folks to get
their committee reports done," DeLeo told reporters after
attending a signing ceremony for a law repealing old
anti-abortion statutes. "It was disappointing to find out
that we all weren't going to be here so that we could do
that." ...
Both branches have passed conflicting bills
dealing with opioid addiction and economic development,
which were approved after a new deadline for sending bills
to conference. The rule could be suspended, or lawmakers
could iron out a deal informally.
State House News Service
Friday, July 27, 2018
DeLeo disappointed that Senate's out until Monday
Senate President Karen Spilka thinks Monday
and Tuesday will be enough time to complete Beacon Hill's
laundry list of priorities, an assessment House Speaker
Robert DeLeo did not agree with during a break in the
House's session Friday.
"There could be. I don't know, but the
problem is I don't know," DeLeo told the News Service when
asked if he agreed with Spilka that there would be enough
time next week to wrap up major legislative business.
Before the clock strikes midnight Tuesday
night into Wednesday morning, the Legislature is hoping to
override the governor's budget vetoes and act on more than a
half-dozen bills that are still stuck in House-Senate
negotiations....
The speaker and House members are upset that
Spilka, who was installed as Senate president Thursday,
chose to give senators a three-day weekend. That apparently
violated an agreement DeLeo had struck with Chandler, who
stepped down from the presidency Thursday, to hold formal
sessions this weekend.
State House News Service
Friday, July 27, 2018
DeLeo unsure about finishing major business on time
The Massachusetts House on Friday inched the
state closer to more environmental spending, voter
enrollment reforms and new veterans benefits.
After bills emerged from six-member
House-Senate conference committee talks, the House
unanimously approved a veterans benefits bill, voted 147-2
for a $2.4 billion environmental bond, and passed an
automatic voter registration bill 134-16.
It appears all three bills may be teed up
for Senate votes on Monday, when the bills could reach Gov.
Charlie Baker.
State House News Service
Friday, July 27, 2018
House adopts three conference committee reports
By Michael P. Norton
Cash-strapped cities and towns in
Massachusetts have enough trouble paying for roads, schools,
and storm drains — much less the optional amenities that
make neighborhoods more fun and attractive. Think arts: If
towns have to decide between paying firefighters or funding
a theater festival, what’s more likely to get the ax?
A long-debated bill on Beacon Hill would
give municipalities a valuable tool to fund supplemental
services. Similar legislation passed twice before, but the
bill has run into unexpected opposition this year. Its
underlying rationale, though, hasn’t changed: Municipalities
need new ways to pay for the amenities that create vibrant
neighborhoods, and the bill merits passage before the
session ends on July 31....
Here’s how the legislation would work: If
property owners in a geographic area want to create a
district funded through assessments, and owners accounting
for more than 50 percent of the district’s prospective
budget sign the petition, the local governing body could
then authorize its creation. Paying the fee would be
mandatory, even for property owners who didn’t sign the
petition. The proceeds would go to a nonprofit organization
that would spend the money on “supplemental” services in the
district; it could not be used to pay for or replace basic
city services like police.
The mandatory nature has lead critics to
characterize the bill as a stealth tax....
But the bill proposes to add services
— it doesn’t take work away from anyone. And the fees differ
from a tax because they benefit the people who pay them
directly, rather than going into the town’s bank account to
be spent by elected officials....
A long list of business, environmental,
housing, community development, public health, and municipal
organizations back the legislation, and existing districts
like Boston’s don’t support the gloom-and-doom predictions.
Last-minute fearmongering shouldn’t derail the bill now.
A Boston Globe editorial
Saturday, July 28, 2018
A small tool, to help towns meet big needs
Proponents describe it as a tool for
economic development. Opponents call it a work-around to
levy more taxes.
After sailing through the Massachusetts
House of Representatives, and a positive, though weaker,
show of support in the state Senate, a bill allowing the
creation of Community Benefit Districts is a few procedural
votes -- and a signature from Gov. Charlie Baker -- away
from being entered into law....
For many -- including those involved in a
late-developing bipartisan resistance to the bill -- the
fees are a stumbling block.
"Community Benefit Districts allow property
owners who create the district to impose additional fees or
an increase in fees and taxes without a consensus, taking
away the voice of the people. This is unjust and
unconstitutional," said state Sen. Dean Tran, a Fitchburg
Republican, in a prepared statement. In a vote last week, he
was one of 15 state Senators to oppose the bill, which
passed with 22 votes. In May, the bill passed 149-2 through
the house....
The future of the bill is unclear as support
has faltered as the end of formal sessions near.
Previous versions have passed through both
the house and senate, but stalled on the governor's desk.
Donoghue said this version incorporated input from Baker's
office, including greater protections for the elderly and
small property owners.
Meanwhile, organizations from the left,
right and center have come out in opposition of the bill,
including City Life/Vida Urbana, Citizens for Limited
Taxation and American Civil Liberties Union of
Massachusetts.
The latter, along with Secretary of State
William Galvin, have called for the nonprofit entities that
govern these districts to be subject to public record laws.
The Lowell Sun
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Push for community benefit districts called a tool by some,
a tax by others
Keller @ Large
Sunday, July 29, 2018 (8:42 AM)
Beacon Hill Update (Part 2)
State House News Service reporters Katie Lannan and Matt
Murphy join Jon Keller, discuss
Proposition 2½ vs. Community Benefit
Districts
Click above
graphic to watch
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
What happened at the State House on
Friday?
There was no vote on the $600 million economic
development bill ― to which
the Senate-passed amendment for the Community Benefits
District was attached. The economic development
bill needs to be passed again in the House since the
Senate amended it. Everyone expected that vote to
occur on Friday.
Everyone's still trying to figure out
why there was no vote on it in the House
― especially considering
the looming deadline before the Legislature must recess
by midnight Tuesday night.
When the Senate presidency changed hands
on Friday, the gavel passed from Sen. Harriette Chandler
to Sen. Karen Spilka, the incoming president
unexpectedly recessed the Senate until Monday, shocking
House Speaker Robert DeLeo. In turn, he cancelled
the scheduled Saturday House session.
In my last
CLT Update commentary I wrote:
"Next to come is whether we have enough votes to
sustain [the governor's] 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."
Is that what happened? Did they
discover there weren't enough votes in the House to keep
the Community Benefit Districts amendment in the
economic development bill? Are the backers in the
House stalling for time, hoping to gather together
enough votes for passage?
While the backers are lobbying for
votes we must do the same. Tomorrow will be
D-Day for this new property tax, this end-run around
Proposition 2½.
I know it's the
weekend, Sunday, your day off. Believe me, I
know ― but that isn't slowing ME down,
getting in MY way. It can't get in yours
either if you want to prevent higher taxes on you
forever.
Pick up your phone
and CALL your state representative and
state senator RIGHT NOW if you don't want
to pay higher property taxes.
Call NOW ―
or forever hold your peace when the new "assessment"
bill arrives demanding that you pony up, forever.
Tomorrow will be
too late.
This is the
moment that counts. You'll know and live with
this for the rest of your life ― what you did when it
really mattered, when it counted.
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 |
|
|
|
|
The Springfield Republican
Friday, July 27, 2018
Controversy emerges over taxes, free speech in
proposed 'community benefit districts'
By Shira Schoenberg
A bill allowing the creation of Community
Benefit Districts where residents can be taxed
to fund local improvements is getting a second
look after passing both the House and Senate,
amid criticism by groups on both the right and
the left of the political spectrum.
"Many municipalities are struggling to find
resources to help grow their local economy and
make neighborhood community improvements," said
Sen. Brendan Crighton, D-Lynn, who sponsored the
bill. "We feel that through this community
benefit bill, it will empower the community to
decide on additional and supplemental services
that could help attract more folks to their
downtowns, main streets, town centers, etc."
But critics say the bill would force residents
to pay an assessment even if they did not agree
to form the district. They say the bill lacks
sufficient protections to ensure that the
district's governance is transparent.
"We believe the bill, regardless of good
intentions by the proponents, is dangerous and
should not be enacted," said Ruth Bourquin,
senior attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts.
"It gives wealthy property owners unbridled
control over spaces that are now public,
including our parks, and too much power over
their own neighbors."
Under the bill, a group of landowners --
including residents or businesses -- could
submit a petition to a city or town to create a
Community Benefit District. These landowners
must represent at least 50 percent of the money
that would be collected from the district. Then,
the city or town's governing body must approve
the petition, a process that includes approval
by town meeting in a small town and the mayor in
a city.
Public property and nonprofits are exempt, and
can choose whether to join the district. A
municipality, if it wants, can exempt
owner-occupied houses. There are provisions for
hardship waivers if someone cannot afford to
pay.
The members of the district are assessed a fee,
similar to a condo fee, and the money would go
toward improvements in the district. This could
be things like street furniture, public art,
farmer's markets or branding.
There are limits on how high the assessment can
be, and the district must be renewed every 10
years.
"This is important because our communities can't
take care of their important public spaces,"
said Andre Leroux, executive director of the
Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance, which
supports the bill. "We need more investment in
our downtowns, in our urban squares, in our
villages, and this is a way to create a
public-private partnership that will bring more
resources to the table."
Massachusetts already has seven similar zones,
called Business Improvement Districts, including
one in Springfield and one in Downtown Crossing
in Boston.
In 2014, a judge ordered Northampton's Business
Improvement District to disband, ruling that a
number of mistakes were made during its
formation.
The Community Benefit Districts would be easier
to form.
Three-fourths of a Business Improvement District
must be zoned for commercial, retail or
industrial use. A Community Benefit District
would not have zoning requirements.
A business district needs support from 60
percent of all landowners in terms of numbers,
in addition to 50 percent of owners based on the
value of the land. The proposed community
districts would only require the support of
landowners from whom 50 percent of the money
would be collected.
The Community Benefit District would be
regulated as a nonprofit.
"They function the same way as a Business
Improvement District does, but there's some
modest adjustments to the procedures that should
help more communities be able to take advantage
of these tools," Leroux said.
Crighton said the proposal "allows the city or
town to work with the neighbors to decide what's
the best fit for them."
Business groups, including the Springfield
Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Economic
Development Council of Western Massachusetts,
have come out in support of the creation of
Community Benefit Districts.
However, the effort is encountering opposition.
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which
opposes increased taxes, called it "an end-run
around the restrictions of Proposition 2½," the
provision that restricts how much property taxes
can be raised.
"Block by block they're coming for taxpayers,"
said Chip Ford, the group's executive
director.
A dozen organizations representing tenants, poor
people, minorities, government reform groups and
others all wrote a letter opposing the bill.
These include the Mass Law Reform Institute,
ACLU, Common Cause Massachusetts, NAACP,
Massachusetts Fair Housing Center and others.
The group wrote that the bill would let private
property owners in residential and commercial
areas impose assessments on their neighbors to
fund activities that the wealthiest landowners
support, "with no controlling standards or
proper checks and balances on how that power can
be wielded."
They worried that property owners would "own"
public parks and sidewalks without safeguards
for First Amendment and anti-discrimination
rights. The management associations would not be
subject to public records or open meeting laws.
Tenants would not have rights in deciding how
the districts are operated.
"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 mechanism of
accountability," they wrote.
Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin
wrote to House Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey
Sanchez, D-Boston, that he thinks the management
of the districts should be subject to public
records laws.
"It is very troubling to imagine granting any
entity in a city or town the power to impose
taxes, enter into agreements to provide transit
or sanitation services, maintain public spaces
or buy and sell real property without any
accountability," Galvin wrote.
Bourquin, of the ACLU, said, "We can improve
neighborhoods without ceding core principles of
democracy."
The bill passed the House, 149-2, and the
Senate, 22-15. But it still needs a final
procedural vote to make it to Gov. Charlie
Baker's desk. Some lawmakers have been working
to block that vote since the opposition emerged.
Baker vetoed earlier versions of the
legislation, but proponents of the bill say they
have been working with Baker administration
officials to address some of the governor's
concerns in the bill's latest version.
State House News Service
Friday, July 27, 2018
DeLeo disappointed that Senate's out until
Monday
By Katie Lannan
The Senate's decision not to meet during three
of the remaining five days of formal sessions
came as a surprise to many on Beacon Hill
including House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who voiced
disappointment Friday morning over the schedule.
The House is meeting in a formal session on
Friday, when it could approve three conference
committee reports and begin overriding Gov.
Charlie Baker's budget vetoes. The Senate does
not plan to meet again until Monday, the
second-to-last day this year that lawmakers can
take recorded roll call votes.
"I just found out yesterday about four o'clock,
I guess probably from you folks, the Senate's
not coming in until Monday, because my
discussions, again with the previous Senate
president, was that we had planned that we were
going to be in all weekend, especially having
everyone in the building to put pressure on
folks to get their committee reports done,"
DeLeo told reporters after attending a signing
ceremony for a law repealing old anti-abortion
statutes. "It was disappointing to find out that
we all weren't going to be here so that we could
do that."
After installing Sen. Karen Spilka as its new
president on Thursday afternoon, during a
session that DeLeo attended, the Senate passed
several bills and then adjourned until Monday.
Spilka told the News Service after the session
that the body planned to start taking its
override votes -- which must originate in the
House before coming to the Senate -- on Monday.
"Originally we were looking at the weekend, but
it turns out there will be about 48 votes on
inside vetoes and about 19 to 20 concerning
outside section amendments, plus we have some
conference committees to do and some
land-takings, and maybe some miscellaneous," she
said. "Last year, if I can remember correctly,
we did 70 or 80 votes in a day, so with the apps
that we have we believe that we can take care of
our business on Monday and Tuesday, so we're
starting at 10:30 in the morning on Monday."
Under rule 57b, the Senate president may deploy
electronic voting at any time. Senators usually
announce their recorded votes individually by
standing at their desks and electronic voting
enables the Senate to get through roll call
votes more rapidly.
Baker signed a $41.7 billion fiscal 2019 budget
on Thursday, handing down $48.9 million in
spending vetoes across 48 line items. He
returned 19 outside policy sections to the
Legislature with proposed amendments.
Asked about DeLeo's comments, Spilka spokeswoman
Sarah Blodgett said, "The Senate stands ready to
do the people's work, as we have done steadily
every week the past 18 months. We are confident
there is sufficient time to finish our work
before the end of formal sessions and look
forward to working with our colleagues in the
House to finalize the few significant matters
remaining."
The House kicked off its session at 11 a.m.
Friday by reading in Baker's budget messages and
enacting an Alzheimer's disease bill, and then
broke for a recess until 12:30 p.m.
Besides taking up the governor's vetoes and
amendments, lawmakers' end-of-session to-do list
includes several major pieces of legislation
that are being hashed out by conference
committees.
Three conference committee reports could surface
in the House for approval votes, which typically
move swiftly. An environmental borrowing bill
and automatic voter registration were filed in
the House clerk's office Thursday, and the
Senate on Thursday accepted the conference
report on veterans benefit.
The House Ways and Means Committee on Friday
began moving 10 land bills and an amended bill
dealing with school transportation (H 4132).
The five bills still in conference address
short-term rental regulation, education funding,
health care, animal protection and clean energy.
"That's sort of disappointing to me that with so
many conference committees that are out there,
that we're the only body that's in today, and I
had hoped that with remaining committee reports
and maybe with some of these veto overrides,
we've got land takings, we've got amendments,
that both branches would have been in today, or
over the weekend anyways, to address that
issue," DeLeo said.
He said he "had hoped that if we were all in,
maybe we could push over the goal line some of
these other conference committee reports which
are very, very important."
Though the Senate is not meeting this weekend --
and DeLeo said he now doubted the House would
proceed with its formal session originally
slated for Saturday -- conferees can continue
their negotiations, and any other
behind-the-scenes dealmaking can also continue.
Both branches have passed conflicting bills
dealing with opioid addiction and economic
development, which were approved after a new
deadline for sending bills to conference. The
rule could be suspended, or lawmakers could iron
out a deal informally.
― Colin A. Young
contributed reporting
State House News Service
Friday, July 27, 2018
DeLeo unsure about finishing major business on
time
By Colin A. Young
Senate President Karen Spilka thinks Monday and
Tuesday will be enough time to complete Beacon
Hill's laundry list of priorities, an assessment
House Speaker Robert DeLeo did not agree with
during a break in the House's session Friday.
"There could be. I don't know, but the problem
is I don't know," DeLeo told the News Service
when asked if he agreed with Spilka that there
would be enough time next week to wrap up major
legislative business.
Before the clock strikes midnight Tuesday night
into Wednesday morning, the Legislature is
hoping to override the governor's budget vetoes
and act on more than a half-dozen bills that are
still stuck in House-Senate negotiations.
"When I dealt with President [Harriette]
Chandler it was our agreement that we felt we
would have a better opportunity to make sure
that that all happens if we were here at least
one or most likely two days during the weekend,"
DeLeo said.
The speaker and House members are upset that
Spilka, who was installed as Senate president
Thursday, chose to give senators a three-day
weekend. That apparently violated an agreement
DeLeo had struck with Chandler, who stepped down
from the presidency Thursday, to hold formal
sessions this weekend.
Asked Friday why he made the agreement with
Chandler when it has been known for weeks that
she would cede the presidency to Spilka this
week, DeLeo said he thought the deal would carry
over to the new president.
"I presumed, quite frankly, that when one
transitions to another that that person who was
leaving would say that this is where we were
relative to scheduling," the speaker said. "I
guess that was not the right presumption I
should have made."
He also added, "Senate President Spilka has just
taken over, I wish her the best. I'm looking
forward to working with her and all of that. But
right now, in 2018, we've got issues that we
have to deal with. We have important issues to
deal with and I wanted to make sure we get
everything done and that, at the very least, the
members of the House and the opinions of the
members of the House are counted and not lost by
default."
Before recessing until Monday, the House stayed
in formal session past 5 p.m. Friday and took
votes to override about half of the governor's
48 budget line item vetoes and adopted three
conference committee reports.
The session began in January 2017.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 28, 2018
A Boston Globe editorial
A small tool, to help towns meet big needs
Cash-strapped cities and towns in Massachusetts
have enough trouble paying for roads, schools,
and storm drains — much less the optional
amenities that make neighborhoods more fun and
attractive. Think arts: If towns have to decide
between paying firefighters or funding a theater
festival, what’s more likely to get the ax?
A long-debated bill on Beacon Hill would give
municipalities a valuable tool to fund
supplemental services. Similar legislation
passed twice before, but the bill has run into
unexpected opposition this year. Its underlying
rationale, though, hasn’t changed:
Municipalities need new ways to pay for the
amenities that create vibrant neighborhoods, and
the bill merits passage before the session ends
on July 31.
The bill is inspired partly by districts like
Boston’s successful Downtown Business
Improvement District, which is funded by
property owners around Downtown Crossing and
pays for signage, street ambassadors to help
tourists, graffiti removal, and the like.
Here’s how the legislation would work: If
property owners in a geographic area want to
create a district funded through assessments,
and owners accounting for more than 50 percent
of the district’s prospective budget sign the
petition, the local governing body could then
authorize its creation. Paying the fee would be
mandatory, even for property owners who didn’t
sign the petition. The proceeds would go to a
nonprofit organization that would spend the
money on “supplemental” services in the
district; it could not be used to pay for or
replace basic city services like police.
The mandatory nature has lead critics to
characterize the bill as a stealth tax. Some
labor groups, meanwhile, worry the bill
constitutes privatization of public services
because the workers wouldn’t be public
employees.
But the bill proposes to *add* services — it
doesn’t take work away from anyone. And the fees
differ from a tax because they benefit the
people who pay them directly, rather than going
into the town’s bank account to be spent by
elected officials.
Other critics say the districts would be
antidemocratic, because in theory a minority of
large landowners in a district could clear the
50 percent threshold. But there is a safeguard:
The local government would still have to approve
any district’s creation. The districts would
also have to be reauthorized every 10 years,
meaning decisions won’t be permanently binding
on future property owners.
The most unfortunate criticism of the proposal
is that it could hurt renters, because
improvements funded by the districts could make
those areas more desirable, thus leading to
higher rents. The notion that cities mustn’t be
allowed to make neighborhoods too nice is civic
defeatism at its worst: If the state’s strategy
to prevent gentrification is to limit investment
in neighborhoods, it’s doing something wrong.
A long list of business, environmental, housing,
community development, public health, and
municipal organizations back the legislation,
and existing districts like Boston’s don’t
support the gloom-and-doom predictions.
Last-minute fearmongering shouldn’t derail the
bill now.
The Lowell Sun
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Push for community benefit districts called a
tool by some, a tax by others
By Elizabeth Dobbins
Proponents describe it as a tool for economic
development. Opponents call it a work-around to
levy more taxes.
After sailing through the Massachusetts House of
Representatives, and a positive, though weaker,
show of support in the state Senate, a bill
allowing the creation of Community Benefit
Districts is a few procedural votes -- and a
signature from Gov. Charlie Baker -- away from
being entered into law.
In short, Community Benefit Districts allow
businesses, residents and nonprofits to form a
local organization that can levy fees on
property owners in a certain geographical area,
particularly down towns, for projects like
landscaping or event planning.
"Some people will say that's the job of local
government and in an ideal world that might be
true, but local governments are dealing with
rising costs," said André Leroux, executive
director of the Massachusetts Smart Growth
Alliance. He described the bill as a form of
"community governance" that empowers local
people, but does not replace municipal services.
For many -- including those involved in a
late-developing bipartisan resistance to the
bill -- the fees are a stumbling block.
"Community Benefit Districts allow property
owners who create the district to impose
additional fees or an increase in fees and taxes
without a consensus, taking away the voice of
the people. This is unjust and
unconstitutional," said state Sen. Dean Tran, a
Fitchburg Republican, in a prepared statement.
In a vote last week, he was one of 15 state
Senators to oppose the bill, which passed with
22 votes. In May, the bill passed 149-2 through
the house.
The proposal has roots in Lowell, where former
state Sen. Eileen Donoghue was a sponsor of the
bill. Calling the fees a tax, isn't correct she
says.
"It's not coming from the municipality at all,"
she said.
While a City Council vote may be necessary to
set up one of these districts, she said the
organization to create the district must be
formed by community members, not the government.
Leroux expanded on her argument.
"Tax is a one size fits all," he said. "People
pay it and then it goes into general funds."
Fees -- based on property assessments -- that
fund a Community Benefit Districts never enter a
municipality's coffers and only "property owners
that directly benefit from these services" pay,
he said.
"That's why it's not a tax," he said.
Proponents equate the structure to a homeowner's
association. These districts can also use
funding from other sources, like entrepreneurial
revenue, charitable support and parking fees.
The bill allows property owners to draw a
district and start charging fees as long as the
people who initiate the district pay the
majority of the proposed assessment. The annual
assessment could equal up to half of 1 percent
of the district's total assessed valuation.
The bill allows exemptions for some properties
including non-profits and government owned parks
or buildings. While a district is being
established, municipalities can also choose to
exempt residential owners.
Outside these exemptions, the options of an
individual who simply doesn't want to pay the
fee yet owns property inside the district are
limited, according to Donoghue.
"If it's approved they would be involved in it,"
she said. "It's not an opt out situation."
Like many other aspects of the district, who is
included in it depends on the community group
that creates the district and isn't precisely
spelled out in the bill, he said. Leroux
recommends creating a district where everyone
participates and working with owners to see what
they can pay.
"You can't have a district that looks like Swiss
(cheese)," he said.
In at least two gateway cities, officials
believe Community Benefit Districts could be an
option for economic growth and revitalization.
Fitchburg's Tom Skwierawski, executive director
of community development, said these districts
or the similar Business Improvement Districts
are on the city's list of strategies for
promoting the area, especially Main Street.
"This would be a tool we would use if and only
if we had the support of local business owners,"
he said.
Skwierawski said the community could benefit
from a more sustainable funding source to
promote downtown and a structure to manage the
area's aesthetics.
"These fees are seen as an investment," he said.
"Sometimes you have to spend money to make it."
Donoghue, now the City Manager of Lowell,
remembered ultimately unsuccessful efforts to
create a Business Improvement District, or BID,
downtown last year.
"It roadblocked and that's been the history of
business districts," she said.
In over two decades, only a handful of BIDs have
been created in the state. Comparatively, she
said Community Benefit Districts have less
barriers and need to be renewed every 10 years,
instead of five years.
"Not that they're simple to form, but they're
more manageable," Donoghue said.
Community Benefit Districts also have a broader
focus, allowing residential and non-profit
owners to get involved in the district in
addition to businesses.
Donoghue said she hasn't spoken to any
proponents of BIDs recently, but believes there
still might be an interest.
"I wouldn't be surprised if a group in Lowell
would like to support a Community Benefit
District," she said.
Chelmsford Community Development Director Evan
Belansky said these districts are considered
most applicable to municipalities with dense
downtown areas. The possibility of incorporating
a Community Business District of BID hasn't come
up in Chelmsford recently, though a property
owners association on Route 129 is in the early
stages of forming, he said.
"I'm generally aware, but there hasn't been any
previous or recent discussions," Belansky said.
The future of the bill is unclear as support has
faltered as the end of formal sessions near.
Previous versions have passed through both the
house and senate, but stalled on the governor's
desk. Donoghue said this version incorporated
input from Baker's office, including greater
protections for the elderly and small property
owners.
Meanwhile, organizations from the left, right
and center have come out in opposition of the
bill, including City Life/Vida Urbana,
Citizens for Limited Taxation and American
Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.
The latter, along with Secretary of State
William Galvin, have called for the nonprofit
entities that govern these districts to be
subject to public record laws.
"I think there may have just been a fundamental
misreading or misunderstanding of what CBDs
are," Donoghue said.
The legislation is supported by several mayors
and chambers of commerce as well as 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.
Community Benefit Districts are used in other
states, particularly California and resulted in
success stories like Little Italy in San Diego,
according to Leroux.
"It's about local people solving local
problems," he said.
State House News Services contributed to this
report. |
| |
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
|
