Subtract the irrelevant nonsense and get a starker story:
(No words added or moved, only subtracted.)
Property tax bills soar as services fall
Residential property taxes rose an average of $161 in cities and towns across the state in the past fiscal year.
The average property tax bill for a single-family home hit $3,962, up 4.2 percent from the previous year. Taxes climbed 7 percent or higher in more than 65 communities, according to data from the state Department of Revenue.
Since 2000, property taxes have shot up nearly 50 percent, from $2,679, far outpacing gains in wages, which climbed 30 percent statewide over the same period, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the past seven years, the average annual property tax hikes for homeowners have ranged from about $150 to nearly $215.
Taxpayers are being asked to pay more at a time when they are seeing local services decline, as cities and towns struggle to cover rising healthcare, utility, and pension costs.
The average increase in taxes was relatively modest, but the overall financial news is still tough to digest, said observers.
“There’s a double whammy going on for homeowners,” said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “There are increasing residential property taxes on the one hand and cuts in local services on the other.”
“Each year, more cities and towns are facing a tighter squeeze. The implication of holding town tax rates is to broaden cuts in programs and services,” resulting in layoffs of teachers and other municipal employees, said Widmer.
The assessment and tax averages included about 340 of the state’s 351 communities. A number of the largest communities, including Boston, were not included because the single-family home taxes are computed differently.
More than three-quarters of the state’s cities and towns raised their property taxes in fiscal year 2007 to just under the limit allowed by law, according to data from the Department of Revenue.
That is a significant increase from 2000, when about half of the communities pushed close to the limit. Under Proposition 2 1/2, communities are constrained by how much they can raise property taxes. They can raise the total amount of property taxes collected by a maximum of 2.5 percent each year, plus any additional taxes stemming from new development.
Many communities had raised less than they were allowed by law. But that is changing because of financial pressure.
“Communities are essentially taxing up to the maximum level possible under Proposition 2 1/2 because they have no choice,” said Geoffrey C. Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, a nonprofit representing cities and towns.
Communities have been hard hit because they have received less state aid, he said. Property taxes make up an increasingly greater proportion of local revenues, climbing from about 50 percent to about 54 percent now, he said.
Robert R. Bliss, a spokesman for the Department of Revenue, said the numbers are a “strong argument” for supporting Governor Deval Patrick’s Municipal Partnership Act, which is an attempt to help communities fiscally by saving money on pensions and healthcare and giving them new tools for raising revenues.
There is actually a third story in the piece, about how some people’s property taxes increase sharply due to revaluation. (Note that someone else’s taxes in that community essentially decline by the same amount.) This is not fluff, but after trying it both ways I took that part out of my above “rewrite.” It is really a different story.
There could be an actual point to the assessment angle–if assessed property values dropped sharply enough some communities could bump against the absolute 2-1/2-percent cap. If that is what is happening, though, the Globe story doesn’t say.
It is really frustrating to find this kind of fiscal illiteracy about a very basic relationship that lies at the heart of state government and the quality of life here in the Bay State. The death spiral continues at the Incredible Shrinking Globe.
I suspect this is a failure in editing rather than reporting but I just don’t know.
pablo says
I am also quite tearful about Eric Taieb’s taxes in Brookline.
<
p>
<
p>
One of the problems we are seeing in our part of the world is the sharp increase in residential property values, relative to commercial property. We have had several business properties demolished to make room for residential development. The result? The increased value of residential properties has meant that residential taxes have gone up much more than 2.5%, and businesses are actually paying less. Meanwhile, the selectmen won’t vote to split the tax rate to give homeowners some relief. No wonder why it’s hard to pass an override.
daves says
Can someone offer a course called “municipal finance 101” to all reporters and editors? Now, how would we convince them to take it?
sabutai says
howardjp says
I thought you meant the Globe Magazine piece about the Boston schools, which was typical “just passing through your city, thanks” rhetoric. Thankfully, they also had a solid column by Yvonne Abraham, talking about the improvements in the system.
Look, all urban systems have problems, but I know many parents who sent their kids all the way through the Boston schools and had them go to excellent colleges. It can be done and more and more are working with the system to make improvements, from JP, to Brighton to Roxbury and the South End.
As usual, the Globe is conflicted by its “Boston” name and its suburban mentality … Another glass of whine please …
nopolitician says
I don’t mean to hijack the discussion here, but while devoid of solutions, I found the article on the Boston Public Schools to be right on target with respect to urban school systems and the choices faced by middle-class parents.
<
p>
I live in Springfield and am experiencing similar issues. While I know that many teachers in the Springfield Public Schools (SPS) are equal to, or better than suburban schools (due to an increased focus on professional development and scrutiny), I am extremely hesitant to send my children to the SPS because the vast majority of students (75%)in the system are from families below the poverty level, and although I would love to expose my children to people from all walks of life, I think that there is too much baggage associated with such a high percentage of poverty.
<
p>
My choices are essentially what is laid out in the Globe article:
<
p>
1) Try to find a public school that I’m comfortable with for at least few years.
<
p>
2) Go private, at great expense (at least $10k, perhaps $20-30k per year for 2 kids).
<
p>
3) Try my hand at a lottery for a charter school.
<
p>
4) Move to a suburb, pay a higher mortgage or accept a smaller house, but use the schools for free.
<
p>
Due to similar decisions facing people, Boston is experiencing a reduction in children in the city. This has just shifted the demographics of the city toward younger professionals and empty-nesters. There is still considerable demand to live in Boston, primarily because it has a lot to offer in the quality-of-life department, because many companies still see Boston as a desirable address (as compared to suburban Boston) and because you can save significant time living in Boston versus commuting.
<
p>
Springfield has seen an overall reduction in demand because it is very easy to move away and commute to Springfield from a suburb, companies have been very happy to move from Springfield to suburban industrial parks, and the city doesn’t offer nearly as many amenities as suburban towns.
<
p>
The Globe article mostly talked about this dilemma, marketing Boston schools and making them even better, but it failed to hit the point that it’s usually not the schools or the teachers that people are fleeing — it’s the other students in the system.
<
p>
A lot of that flight has unspoken racial overtones. I was talking to a relative who just transfered his YMCA membership from downtown Springfield to the suburban Scantic Valley YMCA. He had been a Springfield member for years. When asked why he did so, his candid response was “too many Blacks and Puerto Ricans at the Springfield Y”. I’ve heard too many people tout the “whiteness” of suburban districts to me to discount this as a significant factor in their decision-making process.
<
p>
But there are middle-class Black and Hispanics, as well as people who wouldn’t prefer an all-White suburban district, leaving Springfield too. Why? Because they don’t want to expose their kids to other kids whose parents are in jail, a large number of children in DSS custody, kids who don’t care about education, kids with poor discipline, no preschool preparation, etc.
<
p>
There is no safe haven for people who want diversity, but not concentrated poverty or kids who don’t want to learn. Those things are generally screened out — de facto — in suburban districts because you don’t move to a town known for education and pay a mortgage premium unless you are concerned about education. Moving there is like a country-club initiation fee — pay it and you’re all set.
<
p>
There is no place in the public schools for middle class families in Springfield, and likewise Boston, that resembles the diversity of the state. In fact, the entire educational system in this state is built on segregation, and the state seems all-too-willing to go along with the status quo. As a result, our “gateway cities” are floundering.
howardjp says
Boston has a number of aspects to its system that are a bit different than Springfield.
For one, Boston was out front in establishing “pilot” schools, the forerunner of the state's Horace Mann Schools — models of innovation within the public school systems. It's one part of the reason that Boston has won awards for improvement from the Broad Foundation every year for the past 5-6 years;
Boston has three “exam” schools, plus the Boston Arts Academy, and other specialty-oriented high schools (Tech Boston, Academy of Public Service, etc). The non-exam schools have a way to go, admittedly, but have had their moments, such as Boston English's nationally recognized debate squad from a few years back. Boston has one of the highest percentages in the nation of urban high school grads that go on to college, however, staying there is one issue, as is the unacceptably high dropout rate.
Boston, I would guess, has more private sector partnerships — Read Boston, Write Boston, Project Refresh to bring the technology system up to date, etc. The direct involvement of the City's Mayor helps in this regard. (disclosure, I did work for him for 10 years, but believe that businesses respond to mayoral calls for help for the schools, at least here)
Springfield gets more Chapter 70 money from the state than Boston, I believe, due to comparative poverty levels and property tax capacity.
Both cities are dealing with issues of extreme poverty, issues that carry over into the classroom. So families may leave for the suburbs, as they have for decades before that, but the issues remain to be addressed, flight or no.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! As a graduate of the Boston public schools, I still think that a strong urban public school system is still well worth fighting for.
peter-porcupine says
Is this the end of them being an honest clearing house in favor of being a Patrick cheerleading organization?
I remember Agency Heads advocating for legislation, even testifying for it – but spokemen? Never.