Last week’s mega millions jackpot was about $6 million. Since I didn’t “hit the jackpot,” does that mean I “lost” $6 million? I don’t think so either.
Welcome to the wonderful world of CPA Tax Proponent logic. This notion that we are “leaving money on table” and we have “missed out” neglects to mention a very important part of this Utopian equation; the money they “could have had” would’ve only belonged to them if they had somehow managed to get YOU, the homeowner and renter, to agree to part with it to begin with. All this money we “lost” starts by coming out of your families wallets first. Please, can we have one conversation that doesn’t lose sight of that?
I’ve read the fliers, I’ve seen the argument, and as someone who has competed on the business field of battle most of my life, I can say this pitch appears to be being peddled by folks who somehow seem to know what’s best for strangers, whose finances they know nothing about, with the disingenuous tag line that it “Helps us all.” Are you sure about that? If not there are a few things the Pro CPA Tax folks conveniently omit as the knock on your door and send expensive looking flyers to your mailbox.
This legislation is 16 years old. We owe to the electorate to present it, warts and all. If 161 towns have it that also means 190 don’t. We have an obligation to not just tell everyone around us who has it, but remind voters about who doesn’t have this tax and why as well. That town being our most liberal, progressive neighbor, Brookline, where voters defeated this 57 percent to 43 percent because they were concerned about a looming school override. They needed to fix one or two schools. We need to renovate all five. That’s just two things to take into account that have been left out of this narrative. I could go on, but even an online newspaper has only so much capacity.
This election proponents keep talking about the greater good, as they ask you to voluntarily raise your own taxes. I too hope everyone indeed thinks of “the greater good” this election as well. That’s why, I believe that’s exactly what I did, when I voted NO on Question 5 Friday. It wasn’t because my wife and I can’t afford the $200 a year. We can. My NO vote was for future students and 4500 families in Watertown who are absolutely, positively, spending a disproportionate amount of their income to live here. (35 percent according to HUD)
A No vote is vote for fiscal prudence, as well as empathy for our neighbors, whose families may need that 200 bucks for something next week.
John Labadini
Main Street
Great article John.
I have been trying to raise the same point throughout this election. There are many families in town who will not qualify for an exemption to the CPA tax that will be hurt by it (renters, as well as home owners making a good income but have high expenses but the only expenses they can deduct for the exemption are personal income tax exemption, cost of heath care insurance, and the cost of health care expenses. )
The wealthy can afford to pay the CPA tax but that does not mean that everyone can. The answer is of course not! Lets have a little empathy for our less fortunate neighbors who are living week to week, and just as important lets not allow out of town money to influence our votes with their slick colorful flyers for nice to have things!
VOTE NO ON QUESTION 5
John, you should mention that not one of the 161 towns who have passed CPA has repealed it. That should stand as some measure of satisfaction with what CPA has meant to these communities.
You can only repeal the CPA once all debts have been satisfied. Do you have any data on which of the 161 CPA-adopting communities had fully satisfied debts, had the option of repealing the CPA go to ballot, and then failed to vote it out?
That is a good question. It is a shame that the debate on this issue has focused more on disparaging people and creating rumors of special interests and outside meddling. It would have been nice to have some serious reportage about other communities experience with CPA.
But I imagine that out of 161 communities, some would have been able to repeal it if it were not beneficial.
Charlie, a story on this would be great, but it is probably too late. But these are the types of questions that should have been the center of the debate.
You can vote to repeal it before the debts are paid off but the surcharge does not end until the debts are paid off.
Julie,
You may have been given some misinformation – there’s alot out there! The CPA can be repealed after 5 years – regardless of debt. The debt still has to be paid back – same as if we took it out without the CPA.
The CPA has come up for a repeal vote twice that I know of:
1)There’s a great example of how well thought of the CPA is thought of once adopted in Northhampton. In 2005, the CPA passed by just 175 votes. In 2011, Northampton voters soundly rejected a referendum to repeal the CPA by a vote of 6,204 to 2,732, a margin of better than 2 to 1.
2)Hingham is the only other community in the state that I know of that put a CPA repeal question before voters. Residents in Hingham voted to keep their CPA by a margin of 72 to 28 percent.
A few communities with town meetings have had repeal presentations brought up and defeated.
A handful of communities have voted to reduce their % as well.
It’s not that communities can’t get rid of the CPA is that those communities that have it don’t want to. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you, this very valuable information and shows the reality of how the CPA has affected those Cities and Towns who have adopted the CPA. Obviously these communities are grateful for what it has done for them.
Thank you, you are very welcome! I think it’s so important to share information about how this has or hasn’t worked in other towns. If it hadn’t worked in other towns, I’d have been the first to not support it. It has worked though, and based on early returns, it seems like Watertown agrees with us.
Great article Jhon.we working hard to pay all of the expenses plus that stupid CPA.the property taxes in Watertown are very high but our legislators need more money for their own expenses. Vote yes on 5 will put our community on risk.no no.. no on 5
Money is being left on the table. The funds, distributed by the Department of Revenue to communities who have adopted the CPA are collected from deed recording fees charged by the state’s Registries of Deeds, which are the funding source for the statewide Community Preservation Trust Fund. Revenues from two sources—the local CPA property tax surcharge and annual distributions from the state’s Community Preservation Trust Fund—combine to form a city or town’s Community Preservation Fund. By not adopting this, Watertown does not receive any funds collected from property transactions. People moving into town or relocating within town are paying into this and the other communities are getting it. Yes, they have to pay to play. But to date Watertown is sitting on the sidelines paying to watch.
If you haven’t purchased or sold a home this hasn’t cost you a penny. We average about 100K in registry fees a year. So lets tax 4500 households, whose income we know nothig about, other then that they are designated as “Housing Cost Burdened” meaning the spend over 30% of their income to live here. Walk down your street, there is a 1 in 4 chance the door you knock on is living paycheck to paycheck.
Given that registry of deeds fees are about $125, this would represent about 800 properties every year or 20% of the households based on your referenced total. This would be significant over the the course of years Watertown could have been participating in this program. Maybe there would have been more affordable housing units set aside if we had been receiving these subsidies, which could have helped secure housing for some of those who you are trying to protect.