Signs have popped up around Watertown this fall, literature has arrived in the mail, and ads have appeared in newspapers and online, all regarding Watertown’s Question 5 – whether the town should adopt the Community Preservation Act.
The CPA would add a 2 percent surcharge to local property taxes, both residential and commercial, to create a fund for affordable housing, open space and recreation, and historic preservation and the town would receive some matching fund from the state. (See more information here.)
Like most town elections, the majority of the funding comes from people and groups in Watertown, but some has come from groups based out of town and even out of state.
In the campaign finance report filed by Invest in Watertown, the backers of the Yes on 5 campaign, 26 Watertown residents contributed along with Newton-based Metro West Collaborative Development (which gave $500), whose executive director lives in Watertown and works to build and create affordable housing in communities west of Boston. In total, the group raised $9,822. The biggest contribution was $2,000 (the report can be seen here).
The Concerned Watertown Homeowners has lead the No on Question 5 campaign. President John Labadini said the group spent about $2,000 on signs and advertising, and all the money has been raised from members.
“Any money spent on signs and advertising is 100 percent from Watertown residents,” Labadini said.
The other signs around town opposing Question 5 are from Watertown Strong Schools, whose message is that now is not the right time for the CPA because the residents will soon be asked to approve funding for renovating the town’s schools. Elodia Thomas, who has been active with the Watertown Strong Schools, said they spent a few hundred dollars of members’ own money on signs and advertising.
Neither the Concerned Watertown Homeowners nor the Watertown Strong Schools groups have filed campaign finance reports with the Town Clerk’s office, said Town Clerk John Flynn. Typically, any spending on signs, mailing and advertising must be reported, Flynn said.
Along with the lawn signs and advertising, the Yes on 5 group has also sent out mailers to Watertown voters. Recently, one was sent out about the CPA, but not from Invest in Watertown. This one was from the Trust for Public Lands (TPL).
The non-profit group was founded in 1972 to “save lands for people to enjoy – from neighborhood parks to national parks,” according to the TPL website. The group helps purchase land for parks, and also works on campaigns that secure public funding create public land and land conservation.
Some people in Watertown, particularly those opposing the CPA wondered why a national group got involved in a local election.
Tony Palomba, a Town Councilor and active member of Invest in Watertown, said that the Trust for Public Lands offered their assistance.
“We didn’t approach them,” Palomba said. “They are a member of the State Community Preservation Coalition. They provide education materials, presentations and advice to communities looking to adopt the Community Preservation Act.”
The mailer does not even mention Invest in Watertown, Palomba said, who said it is focuses more on the CPA in general.
According to the TPL’s website, the group has helped pass 486 ballot measures nationwide, which have created more than $59 billion in voter approved funding for parks.
Jennifer Van Kampen, who is executive director of Metro West Collaborative Development and involved in Invest in Watertown, said that the Trust for Public Land has been active in Massachusetts.
“Since then they have often provided educational materials to voters in the 161 towns/cities that have had the question on the ballot, I’m sure they ran similar pieces in several of the 16 towns that currently have CPA on the ballot,” Van Kampen said.
Palomba added that the Trust for Public Land has been involved in supporting the CPA since it was proposed, and helped write the legislation. Kevin Essington, TPL’s Massachusetts/Rhode Island State Director is on the steering committee of the Community Preservation Coalition.
Question 5 is on the back of the Watertown ballot, at the bottom. A “Yes” vote supports adopting the Community Preservation Act, and “No” opposes the adoption.
This sounds relatively benign. Nothing evil, corrupt or untoward, as was suggested by the “No” folks. Can we all calm down now?
As I recall Mr. Palomba the craftily written mailer you are talking about never mentioned one small tidbit. THE 2 PERCENT “SURCHARGE” on your property
tax bill. Must have been a slight oversight I guess.
This doesn’t reflect the cost of the mailers… These are simply donations to the campaign. They don’t include the in kind contributions of the mailers which will total Tens of thousands of dollars.
If I read their websites correctly both of these organizations also provide the design and building ofor CPA initiatives like affordable housing and recreation areas. With many years in the business arena I always found it troubling when an organization tried to give me something, as they almost always want something in return. If the CPA passes (and I hope that it does not) I will ask the town council to consider banning these two companies and their affiliates from performing any CPA work within the town for at lest 5 years due to its influence in getting the CPA passed. I don’t know if I have any legal grounds but I will find out.
VOTE NO ON QUESTIO 5 (on the back of the ballot)
Thanks for your comment. It may not change your feelings about them but Metro West Collabortive Development and The Land Trust are non-profit organizations, not companies.
They are also non-profits (read charities) that have a humanistic mission. There are your dangerous “outside interests”. Yikes.
I did not call them “companies” but “organizations” as I read that they were non profits. I also have been around log enough to understand that the salaries of non profits can be very high. (Don’t make a profit but pay their executives plenty of money and perks) I have no idea of what the executives make at these two places but one of them having an office on Milk Street in Boston does make a statement. Lastly lets keep in mind that they do perform the construction efforts for some of the CPA initiatives and I doubt that they do them at cost.
May have been an error, but this is a quote from your comment: “If the CPA passes (and I hope that it does not) I will ask the town council to consider banning these two companies”
Or, I might be mistaken and you are talking about two other companies, but that was not clear to me.
John, no sir, I have made no misleading statements. You are trying to lead people to believe that these non-profits are illegitimately lining their pockets with pubic money. It is you who are making insinuations about organization that you actually know little about. If that is not true, please show us evidence. An address is proof of nothing. The office could be tiny, shared or hosted by a larger organization. Please show proof if you are going to make insinuations. Thank you.
John, do you have any proof of excessive salaries or wasteful spending at these organizations or are you just speaking from your prejudices?
Joseph, you continue to surprise me with misleading questions/statements. I have copied my my statement below so that all can see that your question is misleading.
” I also have been around log enough to understand that the salaries of non profits can be very high. (Don’t make a profit but pay their executives plenty of money and perks) I have no idea of what the executives make at these two places but one of them having an office on Milk Street in Boston does make a statement”
As everyone can see I did not state that they were making excessive salaries or had wasteful spending practices.
So it is obvious that I am not prejudice! Never have been and never will be.
I can’t believe it. It says “Neither the Concerned Watertown Homeowners nor the Watertown Strong Schools groups have filed campaign finance reports with the Town Clerk’s office, said Town Clerk John Flynn. Typically, any spending on signs, mailing and advertising must be reported, Flynn said.”
Campaign Finance violations are serious. By not filing any paperwork with the Town both Watertown Strong Schools and Concerned Watertown Homeowners association have violated Massachusetts State Ballot Question Committee campaign finance laws. Leaders of these groups are most likely in for trouble. If this issue has been forwarded the article to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance for investigation it could end in fines and possible charges for each group.
My, my, that does seem to be true. While these guys were lambasting others for improper use of their office, etc., they weren’t filing the required forms? Oh my gosh. . .I am shocked.
Charlie,
It does sound like the Concerned Homeowners group and Watertown Strong Schools didn’t file and financial disclosure documents that they were required to. Is John Flynn, the town clerk, required to do anything about it? It seems like he says they violated the law, but didn’t say anymore..
I am not sure if the Town Clerk reports that, or if someone else has to report it to the Secretary of State’s office. That is what the opposition to Question 5 with charges that town appointed board members improperly used their office to campaign for the measure.
Thanks Charlie, for making clear that there is nothing to get upset about here. A vote for the CPA will not end the world as we know it. The vitriol behind the NO campaigners reflects the general attitude in this national election, which is unfortunate. I wish some of this energy could have been directed at the mess of development ruining our town right now. Talk about big money.
Hear, hear! We should keep our focus on the real issues that threaten our community rather making a big deal over smaller things.
There are non-profits and non-profits…. People garner handsome salaries working for non-profits. They therefore need to justify their existence by producing developments or the gravy train for their executives ends.
John, a;most everyone working for a non profit makes less than they could in the private sector. Why would they do so? Usually out of a sense of mission–wanting to improve some aspect of our world? Do you expect those who serve to subsist on bread and water?
So a group of parents worried about their kids future and group of homeowners worried about their taxes forgot to dot an I or cross a T…. Shows us all they aren’t professional activists and politicians. As opposed to the slick high priced campaign being waged by the pro-CPA camp, which we now know includes out of State Interests.
A little trip down memory lane. In 2005, the CPA supporters failed to form a committee and file a thing, and were collecting money for months in violation of the law. That is until I pointed out their rookie mistake and they corrected it. I was asked for quote by the Watertown Media at the time… and I said, it’s not a big deal… it’s rookie mistake.
What is more serious however, is the missing In Kind Contribution amount for the multi thousand dollar mailings from outside Watertown! That folks is a much more serious violation and it’s coming from professionals that ought to know better.
You weren’t so willing to overlook an inadvertent and well intentioned breach of protocol in the case of Patrick Fairbairn or the bike/ped committee. John don’t criticize the splinter in your neighbor’s eye without noticing the log in your own. You accuse all sorts of good people of nefarious deeds and ulterior motives. It’s not decent.
Our understanding is that according to form CPF M-102 we have 30 days after the election to file. http://files.ocpf.us/pdf/forms/cpf_m102.pdf
John Dimascio. Read above. Campaign finance violations by CWHA and Watertown Strong Schools! Have you reported these violations. I know you’re very concerned with conspiracy theories, transparency, and most importantly rule following when it comes to your politics!! Time to put up! I sure we’ll see Letters to Editors and Town Council appearances regarding this – right?
I’m actually extremely consistent here, holding the Home Owners and the School group to the EXACT same standard I held the Pro CPA camp in 2005, when they committed a similar violation. It was a rookie mistake in 2005 and it’s rookie mistake in 2016. I’m comparing apples to apples here.
If they committed offence, I’m sure they’ll pay the consequences.
With regards to Mr. Fairbain, as a member of Commission has the benefit of Ethics training. The same is the case with Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee. The Committee is also being investigated for serious violations.
These two citizen’s interest groups, fighting this unwarranted assault on our wallets , may or may not have violated the law. It will come out in the wash. And the proper authority will deal with it, as the case may be.
As I noted about, the Home Owner’s Association and Watertown Strong Schools, are not professional activists with big buck backing from out of State Corporations, as are the members of Invest Watertown. Note again their failure to disclose the $15,000 to $30,000 “In Kind” contribution for extremely expensive mailers. They may also not have been legally bound until after the election to disclose them. That will also come out in the wash. But certainly, with the likes of Town Councilors running the show in their campaign, they have no excuse for not knowing the nuances of the law. They have to file reports every year for their committees. So to leave out such massive contributions from out of town and out of state corporate interests, is far less excusable.
Again, I’m holding the Concerned Watertown Home Owners and Watertown Strong Schools to precisely the same standard I help pro-CPA forces in 2005, when they started collecting and spending money months before filing the proper paper work.
John no amount of shoveling will cover your hypocrisy and vitriol.
You should really do your research before spouting off your half-baked notions Mr. DiMascio. There is no way that the mailers cost “$15,000 to $30,000”, believe me, I know. Yet again, this is another exaggeration from the “vote NO” side of the fence, not surprising at all. If you are going to make any claims at all, you should be backing it up with proof, like who are these so called “out of State Corporations” that you keep mentioning or how do you know how much money was spent on what you call “extremely expensive mailers”, you don’t know. From what I can tell from what I’ve read is that you have no proof of anything at all, these are just unfounded and outrageous accusations. You and some others seem to be significantly more preoccupied with all of this nonsense, rather than focusing on arguing the ballot question itself. I wonder why that is?
Vitriol ? No anger… anger at dishonest people trying raise taxes for unnecessary special interest projects.
And as I said, I’m holding all people to the same standard. Re-read my post.
blah. . .blah. . .woof. . .woof
Enough already. Take a short walk to 7-11 and get yourself a Big Gulp. Then you can glug glug glug. Thank God for next Tuesday. Oh. Wait. Am I allowed to say that?