We debated Article 22, which if passed would place a question before the voters on whether Arlington should adopt the Community Preservation Act, or CPA for short.
In a nutshell, adopting the CPA is accepting a small (current proposal is 1.5%) surcharge on existing property taxes, and pledging to spend that money on particular categories of projects: low income housing, the preservation of open space, historic preservation, and recreation projects.
There is a website where you can find out more about the CPA, here:
http://www.communitypreservation.org/
In exchange for accepting these limitations, the state provides matching funds of a variable amount depending on how high of a surcharge a community chooses to adopt and on how much money the state makes available for the program. I think of it as an employer match for a 401(k). There is money on the table, if you agree to the limitations.
The deliberations last night boiled down to 20 or 30 different arguments.
Those opposed to sending this before the voters argued that we have necessary things we need to pay for, and we have nice things to pay for. Things that would fall under the CPA, it is argued, are "nice" but not "necessary."
Those in favor of sending this before the voters argued the remaining 19 to 29 different points or so, all of which can be summed up as "It would be fantastic If we could find the money to do [insert your valued project here]."
That sounds like I’m being dismissive of the proponents arguments, and I’ll confess to some mild frustration with a lack of focus I perceived in proponents arguments, compared to the tight and narrow arguments being made by the opponents.
In defense of proponents arguments: if you look at it another way you take away this: the CPA can be used for all kinds of things that we currently routinely appropriate money for year after year after year.
With the CPA, the spending we already do on these projects will be cheaper for the taxpayer, thanks to the state matching funds.
Overall I don’t have the brain for this level of financial planning, and I can’t say whether we would spend as much money as we are asked to put into the CPA anyway even if we did not adopt it, or not.
I suspect the later, but if the former were true then the CPA seems a no-brainer to me. It makes our money go farther than it would otherwise, and that’s a good thing. There are even arguments being made that CPA money could be used partially to help pay for work at the High School and other very large capital projects we have looming in our near future.
It may still be a good idea to adopt the CPA, even if it results in us spending more money in these areas than we’d otherwise choose to.
Say that overtime the investment made in these projects returns dividends through a higher quality of life, a more desirable destination for people to visit and spend money, make us a more desirable destination to relocate to or establish a business: this could be a fiscal win for Arlington in the long run.
That scenario is more similar to the 401(k) many of us are encouraged to contribute to at work: there are other necessary ways we need to apply what money we have available, and we’re being offered this carrot in the form of matching funds to convince us to take a longer view.
What I believe, and this was only lightly touched on during our session last night, is that the voters in Arlington understand how important decisions about our financial future are.
Over here in East Arlington, we are very aware of what it means to our pocketbooks when we talk about the need to rebuild the High School, renovations we’re going to be asked to cover at the Minuteman Regional Vocational school, and choosing whether or not to adopt the CPA.
I don’t know how Arlington would vote on the CPA if they get that chance, but I do know that they are qualified to make this decision.
Further, from what I've heard from my neighbors, they want a chance to do so.
I will be voting to let them do just that.
PS: If you're reading this and you think the voters should consider this issue, I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE you to contact your Town Meeting members prior to Wednesday night's session and let them know you think that.
There are some powerful arguments being made against sending this question to the voters, and members are in a tough spot, trying to guess what the people want. So remove some of that guesswork for them, and just let them know.
You can find out who your Town Meeting members are, and how to contact them, here:
http://www.arlingtonma.gov/public_documents/ArlingtonMA_TownMeet/2014_TMMembers.pdf
CPA might make sense if Selectmen said they would lower their annual property tax increase by 1.5% (ie a 1% increase instead of 2.5%). So far, Selectmen have not promised that, thus CPA has the effect of increasing taxes. Other promises I want to hear include the money not going to private corporations like Housing Corp of Arlington, and instead going to the public Arlington Housing Authority. They already get plenty of money from CDBG. How many new housing units have they created? Any? It just seems like they mostly buy up properties and get low tax assessments on them instead of building new apartments. This has the effect of taking apartments off the open market, thus lowering supply and raising prices of market priced units. I don't want tax dollars supporting that and rather have them go to AHA.
ReplyDeleteHi Mark,
DeleteFirst of all, the CPA is a 1.5% surcharge on existing taxes, not a 1.5% increase of existing taxes.
My view is that Arlington voters want a chance to voice their opinion and make this decision, and further that they are very capable of doing so.
Whether or not to adopt the CPA is exactly the sort of decision that should be put before the voters.
While I don't believe that residents want to consider every specific decision that needs made on the ballot, given arguments I've heard from you previously I assume you do favor this going to a vote on the ballot.
I believe Arlington voters not only know the facts and have the wherewithal to make this decision, but that they desire to do so.
Are you changing direction on your previous positions about putting issues on the ballot? Or do you still support letting the voters decide whether or not to adopt the CPA?