As you may have heard, today I announced my candidacy for Governor of Massachusetts. I am committed to running a grassroots campaign in the truest sense of the word, and I look forward to engaging with you, answering your questions and most importantly reading your feedback in the days ahead.
First, a bit about me.
Twenty-five years ago, as a young mechanic and pilot, a handful of people joined me to start an airline. With one plane, six employees, and one route, we created Cape Air. Through hard work and a collaborative spirit, we grew. Today Cape Air is an employee-owned company with more than 1000 people, still headquartered in Massachusetts, serving communities around the world. That’s my American Dream. Bootstrap a company, create hundreds of good jobs, build a great life in Massachusetts, share that success with the people I work with, and support the communities we’re proud to serve. I am also proud of my work in the State Senate, where I have worked tirelessly on the progressive causes that so many of you care about.
As a business person and entrepreneur, I know that government cannot solve all our problems. But it can and should help define a vision for our future, a vision of economic and social justice, and then make investments to ensure that every kid has a chance to reach her full potential.
I’m running for Governor because I understand that while I was building Cape Air, our economy has not served all of us well. Our great wealth, our common wealth, has been concentrated in the hands of fewer people, literally at the expense of our middle class and working neighbors who built this country but have been forced to accept less and work more. That has to change, and that will change, when we reaffirm the values that made our nation the great hope of working people everywhere, when we rebuild our middle class, when we reinvest in our schools and infrastructure, and when we reconnect our policies with the values that we know in our hearts to be right for us all.
Together we can show that an economy is better when it grows from the middle out, not the top down, and that government helps build that kind of economy when we spend today’s dollars on tomorrow, rather than continuing to spend tomorrow’s dollars on today. That’s why I am running for Governor.
I look forward to working with you on this journey over the weeks and months ahead. You can check out our new website at www.danwolf2014.com. and I hope to see and meet many of you at the convention this weekend in Lowell.
You left out the http:// when you linked it – this one works:
http://www.danwolf2014.com/
…but I heard Sen. Wolf speak at the statewide platform hearing in Worcester and was very impressed. I won’t complain a bit if it turns out he is the nominee.
For a would be Murray supporter like me, Dan seems like a good fit. Solid progressive record and opinions but also a business owner and self made man who can talk and walk blue collar. Might end up being the most left wing in the field while ironically being best suited for the general compared to his potential opponents.
I’m the opposite of you Christopher, I would be happy with Grossman as my nominee but want to see a bigger and more diverse field. I welcome him to the field and to BMG!
In this particular case I’ve made up my mind.
Before I heard Dan Wolf was considering running, I had been leaning Grossman. But with Wolf’s announcement, it’s no contest. I’m very excited to get a real, strong progressive, who’s bold about progressive issues, who also has excellent executive and business experience, and a message that can so powerfully co-opt the stuff Republicans like to say. Someone who was able to both found a successful startup and stick with it and keep running it successfully as a large company is rare. Someone who, while doing so, ran it in a progressive manner even though he wasn’t in politics for most of that time and wasn’t trying to earn voters, but who also got involved with government and worked on public-private partnerships, and who now has several years experience as a legislator on top of that. This combination of progressive political leader and business leader, and the ability to neutralize and co-op right wing narratives and be *real* about “pro-business” while also doing things like going out of his way to travel to Washington to testify in favor of health care reform as a CEO, or being outspoken in opposition to Citizens United… it’s rare.
Grossman is pretty good. Dan Wolf is amazing. It’s not even mildly close, from my perspective. Not the same ballpark.
I’m excited for Wolf to enter the race, but it will be a tough choice for me between him and Berwick (and Capuano, if he joins).
What do people like about Grossman? He strikes me as the ultimate Big D democrat, not a progressive champion.
Certainly not that he is a DINO. He’s reasonably progressive and very competent. He thinks things through and does his homework. For me it’s personal as well having known him for several years.
I use Big D to describe those with very mainstream party views. Definitely not DINOs. More along the lines of the Clintons.
I think they are fine enough for many roles, but I don’t look to them to be leaders for progressive causes. If it’s a choice between someone like that and an experienced and talented progressive, the choice isn’t hard for me.
…considering I’m a fan of both Clintons. Plus Grossman was tapped by Clinton to be DNC chair, the context in which I first met him, so that fits.
poster boy for the D establishment. We can and have done better with Progressive champions. Grossman is ultimate Big D, Big money. Other than his history of methodically paying to play in the big leagues and prolific campaign fundraising/donations, I do not see a candidate I can trust or support to lead or decide on issues in my family’s best interests. He’s a business shark and maybe those are good skills for Treasurer or Fed Chairman.
Not a guy who reflects my life experience or values.
I am looking for an individual who has a huge heart, huge mind with strong progressive values and skills to get results. Heart, mind, values and skills that trump political calculus.
Not personal…..just politics.
Looking forward to learning about non-constitutional officers who may be running.
…that Grossman has plenty of heart, mind, and values to go around. He has been state and national party chair and sure, in that sense something of an insider. He is also a shining example of how to run a business based on those values (not that Dan Wolf isn’t, obviously).
I don’t believe you can label Steve Grossman as Big D simply because he has held leadership positions nationally and has fundraised nationally. That ignores his time as state party chair when he went on the road as a one man truth squad against Bill Weld when no leading Democrat would accept the challenge.
Steve also worked in the trenches on State Rep and State Senate races (I had personal experience with him and “feet on the street” campaigns).
Treasurer Grossman is a dedicated Democrat who has his grassroots badge and a high profile. You don’t find many of those around!
…is that he is not afraid to change his mind.
I was at a ceremony where he got an award from Cape Wind. After years of fighting the wind farm, based mainly on fears about aviation hazards, he looked at NTSB data and other studies and announced his support based upon new information.
This was not a popular step at the time – Kennedy, Delahunt, Reilly, et al, were united in opposition. He wasn’t in politics at the time although he was a good Democrat.
If he runs, I hope he retains that ability to get past boilerplate and conventional wisdom and address realities.
He has positioned himself as the electable progressive which is a great strategy for winning the primary and the general. Solid business owner credentials to appeal to independents, but a great progressive record on the issues. Also it’d be great for Dems to elect a legislator for a change. One of the reasons Cellucci was so effective was due to that experience, and dealing with the legislature is the one area Deval could’ve used some help.
On a side note, who besides Mike Lake is gunning for LG? If Coakley and/or Grossman jump in who will take their place? Ditto Capuano
Rick Sullivan has been mentioned as a possible (and likely candidate for LG, although with Murray’s exit, GOV may also be on his radar). Sullivan is the current Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, immediate past commissioner of Department of Conservation and Recreation, and importantly, the former mayor of Westfield.
He explored running for Congress in the 2007 CD-5 special and served as CEO of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
State Senator Barry Finegold is a likely candidate for Treasurer and I’ve heard mentioned Lisa Wong, Mayor of Fitchburg, for that race as well.
is making the rounds for Lt. Gov as well.
Mike Lake has declared as well. Striker, are you with anyone in either gov or LG races. K
Waiting for the fields to fill out.
Thanks for the kind words, all. I’m excited to catch up with many of you at the convention and in the near future.
Welcome to BMG, Mr. Wolf, and welcome to the gubernatorial race.
I’d like you to address several questions whose answers will guide my choice of candidates:
1. Do you support the transportation vision proposed by Governor Patrick — including the tax increases needed to fund it? What steps will you take to overcome the short-sighted opposition currently driving the legislature?
2. The wealth distribution of Massachusetts is, like the nation, dramatically concentrated in the top one (or even one-half) percent of residents. This wealth concentration has accelerated in recent years. Do you view this as a problem, and if so how do you plan to address it?
3. The current interpretation of the Massachusetts state constitution prohibits the imposition of a graduated income tax. Do you view this as a problem, and if so how do you plan to address it?
4. The privacy of every American, including every Massachusetts resident, is under attack by multiple federal agencies. What steps do you propose to protect Massachusetts residents from this unprecedented shredding of our most basic rights?
Mr Tom….
I will occasionally refer to “President Obama”, but I generally avoid such titles. Had Mr. Brown followed this policy, he might not have alienated so many by trying to turn “Professor Warren” into an epithet.
I’ve used ” Mr. Wolf”, “Ms. Warren”, “Mr. Kennedy”, etc., or “Dan Wolf”, “Elizabeth Warren”, “Ted Kennedy” (explicitly not “Danny”, “Liz”, “Teddy”, etc.) since I’ve been here, and I’ll continue to do so.
Thanks for asking, though.
The others elected him twice. I have no problem respecting the voters choice or Senator Wolf’s service by using his title.
I like his response to my questions and I think I indicated that.
Senator Kennedy, Senator Warren, Senator Kerry, Governor Patrick, and the many other elected officials I mention here have all earned their titles as well.
1. Do you support the transportation vision proposed by Governor Patrick — including the tax increases needed to fund it? What steps will you take to overcome the short-sighted opposition currently driving the legislature?
I applaud Governor Patrick for proposing the generationally responsible plan we need to fund infrastructure repair, improvement and transportation. While I also remain open to other ways to generate the revenue we need, I do support the Governor’s overall vision and appreciate that he has started this important conversation about what kind of Commonwealth we want.
We can’t talk about a healthy economy without a healthy transportation system. The T, the first subway system in the United States, remains a lifeline for so many working people in and around our metropolitan hub and it must be supported and improved. This is not an issue of concern only to Greater Boston – it is crucial to our entire state.
Additionally, commuter rail needs to be improved and extend; investments in transportation create good jobs immediately and long term, lead to environmental benefits, and revitalize our communities. But we need to think even more creatively about transportation. Multi-modal connections are more than a catchphrase. Linking air, rail, road and water is not only feasible, it is essential. Putting creative partnerships together to accomplish this is a priority, and I’ve done just that. On Cape Cod, Cape Air has also played a vital role in revitalizing the municipal airport in Hyannis. I was also instrumental in bringing the Cape Cod National Seashore into collaboration with the Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority to fund new green busses that provide workers and tourists with convenient, inexpensive public transportation. I’ve been a strong advocate for improved rail service along the South Shore, and was actively engaged in the successful effort to revive rail service between Boston and Cape Cod (in light of the July 4th weekend traffic back-up, we will certainly see an uptick in public use of this rail link). As we speak, Springfield’s economic development is centered around Union Station, which will be Southern New England’s rail hub. Let’s continue to foster such growth by extending an east-west rail connection from Boston to the Berkshires.
Finally, let’s not overlook low-tech alternatives; I am a strong supporter of extending bike paths wherever appropriate, and encouraging bicycle commuters whenever possible.
Where we need to continue the dialogue is how we fund these ambitious projects. I am open to generating revenue as long as we protect our middle class families, our seniors and our most vulnerable. We can all do our part to make reasonable investments for the benefit of our children and grandchildren while spurring economic development and creating jobs in our time.
We need to continue to articulate the goals and vision that justify making important, necessary investments in both infrastructure and economic development. If we can win the hearts and minds – which I know we can- people will come to understand our shared goals and vision and we will win the necessary support.
2. The wealth distribution of Massachusetts is, like the nation, dramatically concentrated in the top one (or even one-half) percent of residents. This wealth concentration has accelerated in recent years. Do you view this as a problem, and if so how do you plan to address it?
Yes, it is a serious problem. When it comes to economic justice — the growing disparity of wealth over the past 30 years, corporate control of our economy, the loss of income, power and strength of our middle class — we need to look in the mirror and have the courage to say that we have not made good on many of our promises, and our idealism.
Thirty years ago, who would have thought that in-state tuition and fees at our great public university, UMass Amherst, would have climbed from $3,800 to more than $23,000 a year, saddling our children with debt, making public higher education no longer affordable?
Who would have thought that the state’s minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, would have diminished by 25 percent, and that women still would be making only 70-odd cents on the dollar?
Who would have thought we would have 30,000 of children in MA on waitlists for early childhood education?
Who would have thought that one percent of our nation would control 40 percent of our wealth and assets, that five percent of our nation would control 75 percent of our wealth and assets, and that the richest among us would pay less taxes than working people struggling to make ends meet?
As Democrats, we know who we represent, and it’s not just the one percent, or the five percent, or the 20 percent. We represent all Americans, and together we must fulfill our promise, and rebuild our economy so that it grows from the middle out. We know it cannot grow from the top down. So let’s move forward together, with a clear goal: economic and social justice.
Let’s speak truth to power, to those who control our financial services, our health care, our energy sources, our food production, and say that the profits of your shareholders never will be more important than the health of our families and communities.
Let’s ensure that excellent public education is accessible and affordable.
Let’s tackle climate change, promote clean energy, and once and for all end the false division between a healthy environment and a healthy economy.
Let’s continue to make Massachusetts a national leader on health care by providing universal access while at the same time finding ways to drive down costs for families and businesses.
Let’s be the Party that not only helps organized labor, but helps labor organize.
Let’s close the gap between where we are and where, with all our resources, we know we could be.
3. The current interpretation of the Massachusetts state constitution prohibits the imposition of a graduated income tax. Do you view this as a problem, and if so how do you plan to address it?
The crucial conversation we must have is about how we fund government’s essential functions. Our tax code, our revenue, defines our budget. And without a budget — a real budget, a tested budget, a sufficient budget — vision becomes nothing more than a mirage. It cannot translate into reality without the hard structure that a budget creates. Every other issue on the table sooner or later connects back to our capacity to fund. And so we must understand that as our challenges and opportunities have changed over time, the structure of our economy has evolved as well.
Today, wealth has concentrated in fewer and fewer hands; middle class workers and families have less buying power, less security, less opportunity. But our tax policies do not reflect the changes of the past 30 years. We need to structure how we generate revenue to acknowledge this shift. By shying away from this conversation, we continue to balance our state budget only by making very difficult and hurtful decisions. We add yet more burden on our cities and towns, where the fiscal crisis hits hardest but where the tool available to raise revenue is property taxes. Those who have benefited most should be willing and prepared to pay their fair share; those who have been stymied and hurt by this deep recession cannot shoulder more burden.
With a clear understanding of how government can move us forward, and how our tax code can change to reflect today’s economic realities, I believe that we can move beyond knee-jerk “no new taxes” debates and make the convincing argument that an investment today will bring us a brighter tomorrow. Last November’s election sent a clear signal that this is a conversation we can and should begin.
I believe the conversation need not center around higher taxes or lower taxes, rather we need to focus on fairer taxes. While a graduated state income tax, patterned on federal lines, could be one strategy, constitutional barriers to such reform exist. Changing tax code is still possible, however, via strategies such as the “Invest in Our Communities Act”, legislation I co-sponsored last session. The act would raise deductions for working families while raising the tax rate, in effect not increasing taxes for most working people while bringing more revenue from the highest income brackets. We also need to take a hard look at capital gains taxes, long-term and short-term, with appropriate deductions at the lower end of income, to fashion a more equitable relationship between taxes on earned and unearned income.
4. The privacy of every American, including every Massachusetts resident, is under attack by multiple federal agencies. What steps do you propose to protect Massachusetts residents from this unprecedented shredding of our most basic rights?
Much of the concern in this area, while well justified, is under federal jurisdiction, not state policies and practices. However, we need to have an open and honest conversation about the sacrifices we are willing to make in the name of national security. We can certainly strike a better balance between civil liberties and national security and as your governor I will vigorously pursue this dialogue with our federal partners.
I appreciate your thoughtful responses, I welcome your clarity and insight. I am particularly heartened by your approach towards transportation and wealth concentration.
One item that I would ask you to consider, alongside capital gains taxes, is a greatly increased gift and estate tax (with a correspondingly high exemption for principal residences). Massachusetts is among the wealthiest states in the wealthiest nation in the world. Studies have shown that, over the next decade, there will likely be trillions of dollars of inter-generational wealth transfers here in Massachusetts — that wealth is even more concentrated than the already historic concentration of overall household wealth.
I suggest that the very best thing we can do to improve the business climate of Massachusetts is to put significantly more wealth into the middle- and working-class families of Massachusetts. In my view, one hundred middle class families with an extra $100,000 in each of their bank accounts does far more to create prosperity than that same $10M parked in the offshore tax-haven of one Belmont resident.
These are the same questions I’ll be asking the other candidates (even if not in person). You have set a high threshold, and I’m glad for that.
Thank you, Mr. Wolf — thank you for answering my questions, and thank you for entering this campaign.
Not that you’re thinking of anyone in particular, right?:)
I wasn’t thinking of anyone in particular. After all, making a ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR inter-generational wealth transfer with zero gift/estate tax obligation (the instrument was, after all, worthless when transferred — the legal filings said so) and an effective tax rate of 13% when the taxes do come due is perfectly reasonable and helps preserve our business climate. Right?
It belongs on your web site, Dan!
I appreciate your thoughtful responses, I was ready to resign myself to another “defensive voting” (like defensive driving) election where I pick the Democratic nominee out of duty rather than desire-but you offer a solid chance to solidify the gains of the Patrick administration and extend them. I do want some more specific answers on a couple of Tom’s points and feel free to respond here or on your website if its easier.
On the public transit question you stated you want to raise revenues without burdening working families, do you support the Governors revene plan, the Senates, the Speakers or a different plan and explain your reasoning? Also how have you fought and will you fight for these principles in the legislature as how do you expect to work with it as Governor?
On the civil liberties front it is a larger national issue but there are some local initiatives that are questionable from the bill proposed by our Attorney General and Rep. Clark to the fusion centers set up by Gov. Romney, what are your thoughts on that pending legislation and would you continue those centers as Governor or look into alternatives?
I support the governor’s vision and focus on expanded early childhood education and transportation. I also support a modified version of the governor’s plan that would adequately fund important initiatives in a progressive way. But the key is that the governor’s plan was progressive, avoiding tax hikes on those who cannot afford further burden.
The conversation we need to have starts with implementing progressive taxation, so we can raise revenues consistent with how our economy has re-structured in the last 30 years. I have supported and will continue to push for a constitutional amendment to address this issue.
When it comes to civil liberties, I know we can find a balance between national security and our inalienable rights. I am happy to continue the dialogue as I familiarize myself with the specific legislation you reference.
The bill in question
I have a question. Can you give thoughts on issues affecting the Gateway Cities?
I’m thinking about things like:
high concentration of poverty and the problems that accompany it, such as crime and blight.
Stifled services because of an over-reliance on property taxes (Springfield is at the $25/1000 levy limit)
Housing values that do not support redevelopment (i.e. more and more it costs more to rehabilitate a property than can be recouped by the sale price of a rehabilitated property)
Troubled schools (deemed troubled because we have shunted the bulk of the Commonwealth’s troubled population into them)
Business stagnation (the city of Springfield, population 150,000 does not have a single bookstore, and the bulk of the small businesses being are nail salons and pizza restaurants – very different from Eastern MA). The city of West Hartford (population: 68,000) has two Trader Joe’s while the 300,000 people living within a 10-mile radius of Springfield have none because we are deemed “demographically bad”.
The cherry-picking of good jobs by surrounding communities who use their low property tax rates as a lure (property tax rates are lower in the suburbs because of a concentration of high-end housing there)
The general negativity that pervades gateway cities because we are in a constant state of managing a decline versus managing growth.
One Starbucks in a city of ~154K says a lot.
Not one Whole Foods or Trader Joes. Inner city convenience food marts and the WORST public health indicators for decades in the Commonwealth with no plan for improvement….oh, ‘cept for a casino which will kill the remaining business community and degrade residential property values.
These communities are a fiscal burden to the Commonwealth. Without judgement….just fact. The aid amounts that continue to be dumped into certain communities with no plan for strategic and sustainable development is failed public and failed fiscal policy.
This is an area where the Patrick Administration has tried to make strides but without a huge commitment from the entire Legislature to move these communities out of downward chronic spirals we will all continue to pay for failed results.
This is of such critical importance, I would suggest that any gubernatorial candidate call upon the MA Congressional Delegation to convene task forces to implement solutions.
What’s your plan Dan?
Heartlanddem, I’d like to make one point with respect to what you posted.
Gateway Cities are treated exactly like the poor are treated nationally. There is a pervasive belief that they deserve their lot in life, that whatever condition they are in is because of choice, not happenstance or external forces. Any minor transgression is amplified and held up as proof of how they deserve exactly zero help (such as the people here – staunch Democrats – who decry Springfield because of corruption found in several non-governmental agencies such as the Springfield Housing Authority almost 15 years ago).
This attitude must change. Communities are not single entities, they are groups of many people who come and go. Their overall demographics largely determine their fate. When you have 100,000 people who are poor versus 20,000 who are wealthy, the odds are pretty low of finding a group of leaders in the poor community who will be brilliant enough to raise their community up by its bootstraps – and the odds are pretty high that you will find a group of leaders in the wealthy community who can simply keep their community on a widely prosperous path.
Gateway Cities are not going to figure out a plan for “strategic and sustainable development” on their own, and even if, by a miracle, they could come up with such a plan, they could never fund and implement it due to the constraints placed on them by the state. These cities are cutting services on an annual basis, they are not in a position to do anything game-changing.
I have never seen anyone here post a vision as to how Gateway Cities can improve themselves doing the little things either.
Casinos? It’s a ludicrous plan, but how can you blame the voters of Springfield for their likely Springfield of it? It’s the only thing we’ve seen in 40 years. I personally will not vote for it, but I can see why people would not turn down the promise of 3,000 jobs, even at minimum wage, and a billion dollars of development, especially when the casino company has spent millions on advertising how much they will help the city, and has showered so many organizations with cash to convince them of their greatness.
When choosing between a casino and nothing, the choice will be obvious to most. And keep in mind that casinos were thrown on us by the state legislature, not invented by the residents of Springfield. Blaming the city for choosing such a thing would be like blaming a drug user while exonerating the drug pusher who got him hooked.
Our Commonwealth could be much better if we pursue a vision of Gateway Cities as regional growth centers. Our growth is fractured right now, we are building shopping centers and tech parks in former farmland that is difficult to reach, and then we will need to build more roads to meet the demand that these things generate. And then we will lament the empty shopping centers and business faculties in urban areas, and will criticize those places for their emptiness.
I do not disagree with anything you stated above. My statements were not intended to render “blame” upon the Gateway cities or cycle of poverty.
To be clear, my statement about “strategic and sustainable development,” was aimed at the Commonwealth and the Lege as a whole. I took the shared responsibility and resources a step further by suggesting:
I am eager to hear Senator Wolf share his vision on the topic you raised with us here at BMG.
Thank you.
I’d like to follow up with a different way I thought of asking the question: What is the purpose of a Gateway City?
Remember, we’re not talking about Boston here. We’re talking about mid-sized cities like Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, Holyoke, Lawrence, Fitchburg, Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford, North Adams, Pittsfield, and Haverhill. Cities that once served as regional economic engines but, due to a variety of factors – most of which outside their control – no longer do.
Why do these cities exist, and should they even continue to exist?
It seems to me that the Commonwealth’s current vision of the purpose of those places is to use them as a dumping ground for the problems that other communities don’t want, and a nursery from which good things that other communities do want can be plucked.
These cities are completely out of the focus of attention of most people in this state, except when someone on the right complains that they’re getting too much state aid.
So what is to be done? Is the state’s vision to keep these cities as dumping grounds for everyone, is it to somehow try and transform them back into regional economic engines, or should it set policy that ensures that these places shrink and shed their problems, perhaps by demolishing housing, similar to what is happening in Detroit?
Do we now require each city, town, and municipality to have a declared “purpose”? Shall those entities cease to exist if some amorphous entity decides that they serve no useful purpose?
Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, Holyoke, Lawrence, Fitchburg, Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford, North Adams, Pittsfield, and Haverhill exist because people choose to live there. Unlike many cities outside New England, they exist because geography and past economic patterns made their locations attractive. Some of them exist because they contain harbors. Some of them exist because they lie at the confluence of rivers. Some of them exist because they lie in or near passes and valleys that were gateways through mountains that were barriers to commerce in an earlier era. Some of them exist today because generations of families have grown up there, and their descendants want to remain connected with the homes of their ancestors.
Many cities in the rust belt exist because the railroad made them attractive in the 19th century. Many cities in the west and far west exist because highways and automobiles made them attractive. None of them necessarily serve an explicit purpose.
It seems to me that people who live in our gateway cities are entitled to receive the same benefits of our collective prosperity as people who live anywhere else. The last time I checked, we all live in a republic, and one implication of that is that government exists to serve the people, not vice-versa.
I appreciate where I think you’re going with your comment, I’m not trying to be argumentative or oppositional. I do, however, feel that we need to keep the philosophical foundation of our decisions about governance on reasonably firm footings.
No city should be a dumping ground. Not every city must be a “regional economic engine”. Perhaps our vision should instead be focused on how we can create sustainable prosperity for every Massachusetts resident.
These places exist due to state policy as well. One could argue that without state subsidies, these places would not exist anymore (or would not exist in a functional way). Springfield’s bare-bones budget is about 3x what it can support from property taxes under Proposition 2.5. The state prevents Springfield from raising revenue in other ways because under state law, cities are subservient to the state. These laws prevent cities from passing their own laws to put their destiny into their own hands.
A classic example is that state policy subsidizes the construction and rehabilitation of housing, provided that the housing remains “affordable”. Without such a subsidy, wouldn’t these cities shrink instead of grow? The state pays suburban developers money to put more liabilities into urban areas.
I’m asking the question in a more rhetorical way – cities were once regional economic engines. Suburbs rose up because they were outside these engines. Suburbs don’t grow in the middle of a desert. Then something changed, and instead of fueling regional growth, cities became visualized as the place to avoid, the place to put things that you don’t want in your own community.
Tom, I can tell you’re a bright guy, can you tell me what the purpose of a Gateway city should be?
for living in a place that is not needed in Massachusetts. No worries, we are moving out slow but sure. But ugghhhh, where will you get all your regressive tax revenue from. See, that’s our purpose. Nothing pretty or growing here. Just a great tax revenue source.
and relocalize. At least in the suburbs of the Gateways. To become independent of the cities. To live with less, live off the grid as much as possible. To downsize and simplify. To walk instead of drive. To buy used and/or local instead of global. To grow our own, make our own, mend our own. Growth is a thing of the past. Now, it’s survival.
I would have argued we were born and raised here, and here are our roots. You did mention that and I appreciate it, because it is meaningful for those who grew up here.
I think that Tom is ignoring a very important fact: choice is limited by many factors, both economic and governmental.
Zoning is the primary tool that “choice” is controlled. All things being equal, don’t you think that someone might choose to leave a Gateway City and move to another community, especially if they’re not happy with the schools? Whoops! Can’t let that happen. Can’t let the market overrun a community. So instead of dense housing being constructed where people might “choose” to live, we allow communities to exclude dense housing via zoning. And if that doesn’t do the trick, how about a little state program for “open space preservation”, which really means “buy up the land using someone else’s money so that we can keep people out of our community”.
You can’t argue “free choice” without being totally Libertarian on the concept of restrictive laws.
I’m all too familiar with zoning laws, regressive tax policies, and the many creative ways that those who are wealthy and powerful exploit those who are not. That wasn’t and isn’t the point of my comment.
My point is that in my view the millions of people who live in Massachusetts, including in our “Gateway Cities”, should have a large say in those zoning laws. I’m not at all sure that the extreme autonomy of our cities and towns is sustainable in our twenty-first century economy. Counter-intuitively, I suggest that that extreme autonomy worsens the phenomena that I think we agree are problematic.
A more regional approach to schools, police, fire, and even municipal services — funded by more regional tax policies (specifically including a personal income tax surcharge) might well relieve the overly heavy burden we place on regressive property taxes. It also makes it more difficult for wealthy towns like Concord, Carlisle, and Andover to use zoning (and other) laws to ensure that the “undesirable element” remains walled into cities like Lowell and Lawrence.
I particularly disagree with your criticism of open space preservation programs. During the eighties, out-of-control development stripped those towns who were effectively powerless to stop it of nearly every acre of open space. A huge portion of our exurban open space is owned by land-poor families who inherited family farms — and little else — and are forced to sell it to greedy developers in order to pay the skyrocketing property taxes that result from the greed of those developers. Open space preservation programs provide a mechanism to protect those families and to protect the open space that benefits all of us.
I am no advocate of libertarianism. I agree that zoning laws and similar planning tools are crucial to the long-term sustainability of our commonwealth. I also believe that we can do a much better job than we have done until now of ensuring that those of use who are NOT wealthy and powerful — like all too many of those who live in the Gateway cities — have a strong and effective voice in structuring those restrictive laws.
A sustainable vision must be a vision that includes all of us. It cannot be accomplished by excluding huge swaths of people because they fail to meet some externally-imposed standard of “purposefulness”.
I’m not sure you’re viewing zoning the same as I am. Yes, zoning is a tool that a community can use to protect themselves – however, by “protecting” themselves, they simply push the problems somewhere else, usually Gateway Cities, because Gateway Cities grew up before zoning was invented in the 1920’s, and their zoning is grandfathered as to be non-exclusive.
The zoning is what is preventing true “residential choice”, as you refer to it, from happening. The zoning is perpetuating economic segregation. If you eliminate the entire concept of zoning tomorrow, what would happen? Developers would start building high-density housing in communities – which were previously untouchable – at a more affordable price. Families with children would move to those communities. This would have two impacts: 1) tax rates would go up in those communities as the cost of schools would be spread among lower-valued housing, and 2) the “quality” of the schools would drop as more lower-income people moved in. That would make property values in those communities drop, making their tax situation even more precarious. They’d be in the same boat as Gateway Cities.
In other words, economic segregation would be diminished because property values would equalize across cities and suburbs. We’d all be in it together.
I posit that you can’t take the position of supporting zoning while simultaneously taking the position that everyone “chooses” to live somewhere or that communities “choose” to be what they are. One community’s zoning directly hurts another community.
Regarding open-space laws, it is more of the same – a noble goal of “self-protection”, with the impact of driving economic segregation even higher, with public funds being used (in many cases from a deed tax that is primarily coming from urban areas) to take potential inventory off the market.
Which part of ” I agree that zoning laws and similar planning tools are crucial to the long-term sustainability of our commonwealth” is difficult for you to understand?
I have not and do not agitate against zoning laws.
I disagree with your characterization of open-space preservation efforts and their results.
In their current incarnation, zoning laws do more harm than good toward Gateway Cities. I think you are viewing them as a tool to let cities get better whereas I’m viewing them as a tool that keeps things out of non-cities.
If we had less economic segregation and stronger Gateway Cities, we wouldn’t need open space laws. The need for open space laws is borne from the exclusivity that communities are using to segregate economically.
In my view, the need for open-space laws is driven by a vise with two jaws — the state forces cities and towns to be almost entirely dependent on property tax revenue, and explosive growth (especially commercial growth) causes property values to skyrocket.
In the absence of open-space preservation laws, every acre of open space is squeezed out of existence in that relentless vise. No matter how strongly an individual owner wants to hold out, the pressure from commercial and residential growth drives up the property taxes on that open space. Few towns can afford to protect that open space from increased taxes without outside assistance. The “Gateway Cities” and other cities and towns that are not wealthy are the most vulnerable to this pressure.
In my view, the need for open-space laws is born from the increased market demand that drives property values skyward. I don’t know about economic segregation, but higher property values in Lowell and Lawrence (which must be a part of what you mean by “stronger Gateway Cities”) will surely put even more pressure on the already-scarce open space in the neighboring towns.
We need open space laws because we need open space.
The third part of that vise is that towns have the ability to control the density of the development through zoning, and they choose to require low-density development. This is what is forcing the consumption of the open space. If towns allowed for multi-story apartment buildings which could be sold for $150k per unit, then developers would build them because they would make more profit per acre.
Towns are refusing to allow multi-story apartment buildings – they want 2-acre houses, so developers look to the farmlands which have a lot of acreage.
Zoning operates under the philosophy that a town can “zone out” the kind of person who would live in a multi-story apartment building – maybe best said as “the kind of person who can only afford to live in a multi-story apartment building”. They then throw up excuses such as “it would change the character of our town” to explain why they don’t want this.
You can solve the problem of overdevelopment a few different ways. Clearly the best deal for suburbs is to use state money to buy up land and then keep it as “open space”, because this keeps property values high. Another approach would be to allow for dense development, but this is bad for the suburbs because it would make property values drop.
This doesn’t happen in a vacuum because wealthy communities become like the 1% – things look better to everyone, this drives demand even higher and suppresses the communities that are not so exclusive – who can’t be so exclusive because they were built for a different era, one which didn’t reward exclusion.
Some towns are embracing cluster zoning, which addresses the residential sprawl issues in a way that isn’t so devastating to the remaining open space in the town.
An important driver that your approach doesn’t address is the extreme runup in property values driven by commercial/industrial development. Strip malls, industrial complexes, and office parks require acreage, and are relatively insensitive to residential height restrictions.
My main point is that open space restrictions and zoning laws can work together to accomplish the kind of future that most of us want — the voice of those most impacted by these laws must be listened to and respected.
…wanting a little bit of elbow room or breathing room in your community does not make you a bad person. I wish you were not quite so negative about the idea that people don’t necessarily want to be packed in like sardines.
you’re right that suburban town have used open space laws to insulate themselves from growth they thought undesirable. But, if zoning were curtailed as you suggest, open space laws would be more needed than ever…assuming we actually want to have some public, open space. And it would be just because, with the population more evenly dispersed, people would have equal opportunity to enjoy the open space.
is probably the most prohibitive reason. I thought it was the progressives who wanted to make it costly to live in the burbs and rural area, so that people would stay or move to the cities so their resources were within walking/transit service distance. There are many factors that go into why people don’t move out of the cities. Plus, there are few to no jobs in the burbs or rural areas. Just expenses. If you are already established here, you can barely manage. Trying to establish here is very costly. Many would have to start by buying a car.
I think you are actually mostly correct — however, I fear you misplace the timeline.
People gathered in cities and towns for tens of thousands of years for the very reasons you cite. In fact, the aberration was the brief two-decade period just after WWII when, in the US,
– suburban land was cheap
– gas was unsustainably cheap (for a variety of reasons)
– the baby boom needed space
– the nation was prosperous because we had just defeated all our enemies.
The explosion of suburban sprawl that resulted was a ghastly and utterly unsustainable outcome. As you observe, without an automobile, highways to drive it on, and cheap gas to fuel it with, the entire house of cards collapses. In the meantime, once-attractive town centers were destroyed by ever-widening roads and ever-increasing traffic — traffic carrying single workers who neither knew nor cared one iota about the homes and towns they destroyed in their urgency to get to work on time.
Stately gorgeous older homes, intentionally built close to existing roads for convenience to horse-drawn wagons and carriages, became unlivable slums destroyed by unrelenting traffic speeding directly underneath rotting porches (built to enable conversation with pedestrians who no longer traverse the sidewalks that those roads destroyed) and bedroom windows.
Centuries of family structure and tradition were destroyed by first fathers and then mothers who left home and children behind at 6:30a and returned at 6:30p. Children grew up never knowing or seeing their parents in the workplace. The adults those children do know and see are themselves away from home, family, and friends. It doesn’t seem surprising to me that many of our traditional social structures crumbled.
Those huge and sprawling tracts of land we call “suburbs” and “exurbs” work better for farms than for what we’re trying to do with them now. The era when we could simply throw dollars and CO2 around is over — an extreme case is Phoenix, AZ — a city that cannot be sustained without massive amounts of money and energy.
We must, therefore, evolve a new approach that works and is sustainable. Some of that approach almost certainly involves finding ways to grow new villages and towns in today’s exurbs and suburbs. Some of that approach almost certainly involves revitalizing the cities and towns that already exists. Some of that approach must include rebuilding the short- and medium-distance public transportation system that existed and was destroyed by GM in the post-war era.
There is simply no way the cost of gas can ever nor should ever come down again. Even at today’s prices, we do not pay the replacement costs and we do not even begin to nibble at the astronomical costs of its impact on climate change.
Someday, perhaps, after a painful and expensive transition period, we may be able to shift the bulk of transportation needs to a hydrogen-fueled fleet and use renewable sources to create the needed hydrogen. That will alleviate some (but not all) of the catastrophic impacts of today’s petroleum dependence. I would support an effort to recapture wealth from the top one- or one-half percent in order to subsidize those most impacted by that painful and expensive transition.
Nevertheless, the “ridiculously high cost of gas” is never going to come down, nor should it.
because the the suburbs and rural area away from the cities used to be sustained by manufacturing. Now they are simply retail and residence. I do believe as well that the goal should be to revitalize the rural and suburban village/towns/regions with Made in America manufacturing and then work to get people out of the cities into the other areas. There is no point in adding people to places that already have few resources. It will not accomplish a single thing except more hardship. I disagree with you on gas prices. I firmly believe that the outrageous price of gas is one of the biggest reasons we continue to be in recession, if not a depression.
Most of Massachusetts was settled long before “manufacturing” sustained anything. Several of the “Gateway Cities” we are talking about were the first manufacturing centers of the new world. They were neither suburban nor rural.
The manufacturing you describe happened later. We should also include railroads in the recipe of what sustained them, because the manufacturing was done in centers that were accessible by rail. The workers in those towns lived in the towns (the old worker housing is still standing near a great many New England mills).
The automobile, and the wrenching changes that came with it, destroyed that lifestyle. The “suburbs” and “rural areas” were “sustained” by manufacturing only during the brief period I described above — a period of artificially cheap (and unsustainable) gasoline and undeveloped land.
The “outrageous” price of gas is a consequence, not a cause, of the unsustainable expansion we attempted while in the grips of our petroleum dependence. Just as the heroin addict must kick the habit in order to regain his or her sustainable life, so too must we kick our petroleum habit. Lower prices, like cheap heroin, only sabotage that necessary development. I agree that the withdrawal pains cause great suffering, and I agree with you that we must find ways to mitigate that suffering for our least fortunate.
In my view, we must nevertheless continue to break away from our unsustainable petroleum-deluded past and build a prosperous future based on renewable energy.
Tom, you’re talking a good game about how sprawl is bad – this is something that people love to do here. But to combat sprawl, you have to utilize the capacity of the Gateway Cities.
Here’s a concrete thing that could help Gateway Cities – reduce the state’s take of the sales tax and give that 1.25% to the cities in which the transaction occurs. Wait! Not fair for the suburbs who don’t have much commercial action, you say? Exactly. Throw a bone to the cities and not to the suburbs for a change.
How about coming up with compensatory revenue schemes associated with some of the things that Gateway Cities serve as the dumping grounds for? How about $100k per year in state aid for each group home? How about $5m per year in state aid for each homeless shelter? How about $50k per year for each unit of family (not senior) low-income housing? How about $1m per year for a drug treatment facility?
I’m a little troubled that Mr. Wolf has chosen to stay out of the discussion of Gateway Cities.
It appears to me that those Gateway Cities would be as vulnerable as the MBTA to a sudden and drastic decrease in revenue when a recession/depression slashes consumer spending — precisely at the time when those Gateway Cities most desperately need to increase spending.
Your other proposals may well be viable, I’m not sure. I think that until we find a way to tax the wealth concentrated in the well-to-do enclaves like Concord, Carlisle, Lincoln, Dover, Wellesley, and such, we’ll be perpetually nibbling at the edges.
General government state aid to Springfield has been reduced each year for the past few years. It generally remains flat, and sometimes goes up. I don’t see how sales tax revenue can be any worse.
Springfield depends on state aid for about 60-70% of its budget. Wealthy communities may be around only 5-10% That means when state aid is frozen, Springfield has 30% of its budget that increases by 2.5% and 70% that either gets cut or remains constant. Other communities have 90% of their budget go up by 2.5% and 10% that gets cut or remains constant. The property-tax slush-fund that is “new construction” in many communities makes such impact even smaller.
As you observe (without saying so), Massachusetts needs a progressive tax increase.
Too much of our wealth is concentrated in the hands of far too few, and simultaneously protected from taxation. Our cities and towns are far too dependent on property tax revenue, and sales tax revenue is no solution.
We need a broad-based tax increase, together with increases exemptions, very much like the proposal offered by Governor Patrick — and roundly rejected by an overwhelmingly “Democratic” legislature.
If you let cities keep 1.25% of sales taxes then big cities with lots of sales or cities with large shopping complexes are going to be getting a lot more of that pie. Boston will also get a lot of that money you suggest for homeless shelters, drug treatment centers, and so on. It also seems that you would also not want to provide a perverse incentive to put unneeded facilities in your city just to get the money.
The day that we build “unneeded” homeless shelters, drug rehab shelters, and low income family housing will be a glorious day indeed.
I was under the impression that such designation was given to indicate that the state wanted to prioritize growth and development in those communities, not at all to be a dumping ground.
The name of the “Head Start” program is also an indication that its recipients will be prioritized for growth and development. I think the discussion is about how those cities fare in governance and funding, more than their name. Similarly, I think the phrase “dumping ground” refers to the implied attitude of the wealthier communities that surround them, rather than to the name and purpose of the “Gateway Cities” program.
I don’t use the term Gateway City as a negative; I want to make sure that this initiative is given at least the amount of attention that the Patrick administration has given it, and in an ideal world, more, because so far not much has happened since the term was created 7 years ago.
I am under the belief that – implicitly – the majority of the state still views these cities as a place to push things that they don’t want in their own communities, things that they see as negatives.
It is not like the so-called “gateway cities” all have the same problems and same economic conditions and it is not like the State was responsible for the growth of these cities in the first place, so it seems a bit unfair to heap the bulk of the responsibility for fixing their problems on the Governor and the State.
What exactly are you hoping to hear, anyway?
One way to help our Gateway Cities is to consider turning them into magnet cities. Let’s foster cities that attract and maintain citizenry by paying a livable wage and offering the amenities we all deserve. At the root of this is an educational system that works, building the necessary infrastructure for businesses and residents and encouraging quality of life issues like improving environmental conditions. This will allow us to race to the top, not to the bottom.
Our Commonwealth has made remarkable progress in education, consistently scoring among the highest – if not the highest – in the nation on standardized tests. We need to build on that success, expanding our educational system first by emphasizing and supporting universal early childhood education; study after study has shown that programs like Head Start at pre-school levels offer children beautiful benefits going forward.
We need to train young people for today’s tests and tomorrow’s jobs while also celebrating the full range of creative learning and effort. This is why as Chair of Labor and Workforce Development I focused on job training and education. Massachusetts’ institutions of higher education are the envy of the world. Let’s not forget our community college system, many of which are located in Gateway Cities. Through our community colleges, we are primed to produce labor-ready young adults who can earn a good salary with decent benefits and raise a family.
In a previous post, I outlined my feelings on the importance expanding transportation infrastructure. You mention Springfield, and I am excited to see the continued development of Union Station and the positive economic affect it will have on Springfield, the Pioneer Valley, western Massachusetts and the entire Commonwealth. Big transportation projects like Union Station are the engines we need to put people back to work and improve our Commonwealth for our children and grandchildren. Government doesn’t create wealth, the private sector does. What government helps to create is opportunity. As Democrats, we are the Party of opportunity. At the crux of this are Gateway Cities, which can be our centers for education, transportation, healthcare and a cleaner environment.
As a mechanic and pilot, with one airplane and six employees, flying one route from Cape Cod to Logan and back again, I started Cape Air almost 25 years ago. Today, as one of the largest independent regional airlines in the country, still headquartered in Massachusetts, Cape Air employs more than 1000 people, flies more than 70 aircraft, serves communities across New England as well as Florida, the Caribbean, upstate New York, the mid-West, and as far away as Guam.
Cape Air’s revenues this year will pass $100 million; since 1996, employees have shared ownership and shared in the success they have helped build. No one has a better record bootstrapping a company from scratch, creating good jobs, making payroll, weathering tough times while continuing to grow, forging strong partnerships in the public and private sectors all while maintaining a company-wide ethical standard that celebrates collaboration in the workplace and commitment to communities served.
I believe my experience building a successful business in Massachusetts and cultivating public-private partnerships while maintaining a vision of economic and social justice positions me very well to guide our Gateway Cities and our Commonwealth.
Education is actually the primary thing that Gateway Cities have going against them. I don’t care if you have the finest teachers on the planet in Springfield – the vast majority of people in this state do not want to send their children to school with the children of the “others” – be it the poor, the troubled, the minorities, or the homeless. That is why most people avoid the Gateway Cities, they refuse to use the schools – but not because of the quality of the schools, because the company their children would have to keep. I can assure you that this is the precise conversation I hear all the time from everyone who doesn’t live in Springfield. People use a lot of their income simply to buy segregation – not moving for more “elbow room” – moving to keep their kids away from others.
Although I think Head Start is a reasonable-enough program, it hasn’t helped Gateway Cities usher in an era of prosperity by a long shot. More of it isn’t going to help the Gateway Cities. Same thing for Community Colleges – important pieces of the puzzle, but by themselves aren’t going to change anything.
Honestly, Union Station isn’t going to do a single thing unless the Federal Government revamps the entire rail system. Bottom line is that a train from Springfield to NYC takes about 3.5 hours and costs anywhere from $43 to $85 per person, with limited departure times. Driving takes 2.5 hours and costs $75 for a tank of gas, and about the same price for 1 to 6 people. Although it could eventually be, rail is currently not competitive with the automobile in terms of either price or efficiency. Get the time down to 2 hours and you’ll see rail traffic flourish. Get the time from Springfield to Boston (currently 3 hours by train, 90 minutes by car) down to 1 hour and you’ll see the same.
What was I hoping to hear? I think I alluded to it a bit – things that would help put Gateway Cities on a bit more of an even ground with other communities. De-emphasizing policies that chase people away from them, such as publicly rating the students who attend certain schools (make no mistake, that is exactly what is being done by publishing test scores and demographics of each school, and that is exactly how people use the data).
How about re-working state aid so that we are rewarded for our housing affordability rather than penalized for it? How about an appreciation that lower-income residents require a higher level of governmental service at just about every level and funding this appropriately? How about realizing that housing policy should focus on balance (i.e. a healthy mix) rather than designing incentives to get low-income housing built in Boston without looking at the impact that these policies have on Gateway Cities?
How about some ideas and discussions as to what Gateway Cities should actually be? What role should they serve, what goals should they have? What things should they encourage, and what things should they deter?
It is just smart business to revive Gateway Cities instead of abandoning them – as I mentioned, the state is chasing its tails by overbuilding in communities that are far away from already-build infrastructure. We develop one farm into housing, then another into a shopping plaza, and then we have to spend a ton of money on expanding roads and bridges to handle the criss-cross of people driving from their suburban residence to a suburban office park in another suburb. Meanwhile existing infrastructure goes unused.
nopolitician — I admit to not understanding the problems, culture, demographics, or infrastructure of Gateway Cities, short of what I see the few days a year I spend in Lowell, Springfield, New Bedford, etc.
I wonder though: what if Gateway Cities made a concerted effort to attract residents who don’t have kids. I’m not suggesting to discourage those with kids, but rather figure out how to attract shiny new college grads and empty nesters. The idea in both cases is to drive up property tax revenue (and retail expenditures) while simultaneously driving down municipal costs, primarily school operating costs. The seniors will provide some stability and, if smart mixed development is part of the mix, could do lots of that on foot. Stairs and driving are real struggles for lots of seniors, and walkable safe areas with commercial amenities can be very attractive. For the youngsters, you’ve got the white collar jobs stimulating real estate downtown and the vitality, and the low(er than Boston Metro) housing costs can be really attractive.
It certainly won’t change any of these cities overnight, and by itself isn’t enough. But, it does seem like a way to add stability to costs, add vitality to downtown areas, and take advantage of the downtown infrastructure which simply doesn’t exist in the ‘burbs at prices Boston can’t match.
Lowell actually started this two decades ago with its conversion of its downtown mills into apartments and condos. For all the challenges facing Lowell, this aspect of its development seems to have been at least reasonably successful — much improved over what it replaced.
Lowell remains too dependent on the automobile. Although accessible by commuter rail, the service is far too infrequent. The refusal of New Hampshire to extend commuter rail northward from Lowell to Nashua, Manchester, and Concord — in spite of formal agreements to do just that — has greatly harmed sustainable development in the entire region.
I very nearly moved to Lowell fifteen years ago after my last divorce. It offers many of the amenities of downtown living at a small fraction of the cost of Boston.
Couple of friends who went to UMASS Lowell liked the area so much they stayed. I guess it’s got a vibrant punk scene and a DIY mentality that attracts them. I read in some policy mag they were trying to revive their local trolley system, that seems like a good way to handle the paucity of transit options for locals while attracting new development and residents.
I’m surprised Lynn hasn’t had that kind of renaissance yet. Industrial grit meets cheap waterfront properties-you’d think that gentrifying pioneers would’ve gobbled that up by now.
Yes, that is a sensible strategy. There are several huge issues prevent that. The main problem with attracting that crowd is that seniors (or at least all my relatives, in-laws, and friends’ relatives) tend to be less tolerant of the demographics of Springfield. To be blunt, they are afraid of non-white people and simply don’t like being near them.
Another major issue facing Springfield is crime and the perception of crime. Although when viewed objectively people in Springfield aren’t at a much higher risk than people in other areas, we do get 15-20 murders per year here, nearly all of them centered on drug activity, domestic incidents, or altercations between people who know each other. These get highly publicized in the media to the point where people truly and honestly believe that a murder happens every week in Springfield. But how do you fight the problem of crime, and even harder, the perception of crime? Police are very expensive to hire, and the city is at its Proposition 2.5 levy ceiling. As I mentioned, the city has been managing a decline in services rather than expanding them. This is not due to “fraud and waste” – this is due to structural issues with the city finances itself. The city is dependent on state aid – which is usually frozen – and new growth is non-existent. Property taxes are basically limited by the income of the residents but we operate in a regional economy which means that we can’t simply pay teachers less and hope to get good applicants (Springfield already has some of the lowest teacher salaries in the region). The city’s hands are basically tied, and no one, not even a state Finance Control Board, has figured out how to crack that nut.
With respect to attracting “hipsters” and other non-seniors, the major impediment there is the housing issue. We have housing that hipsters might like, but it has been locked into low-income housing by private developers who chased tax credits. Why did this happen? Because the low-income housing program has been modeled after the Boston real estate market where inner-city housing is expensive.
In Springfield, developers are eligible for federal and state low income tax credits for agreeing to capping their rents at levels that are currently above market rates – so it is like free money for them.
They then fill their units with low-income people because that is the only population they are allowed to rent to. Subsequently, over 90% of Springfield’s downtown housing is low-income. This was not something that the city chose – state policies created the right incentives to make this happen. This has killed the viability of the downtown because people who live in low-income housing don’t have disposable income to spend, and no one wants to live in close proximity to a population which is 90% low-income.
So you see, that is why I proposed two things: more revenue to the city so that it can expand services instead of contracting them, and state housing incentives that will create market-rate housing rather than low-income housing.
A few observations:
* RE: fear of non-whites. You know, black and brown people grow old too. I’m not saying that “soft” racism isn’t part of the problem, but my bet is that it’s also a fear of living near the poor urban folks of any color.
* 15-20 murders per year is a murder every 3 weeks, not every week. Your point about it being fairly easy to not be murdered [don’t get involved with drugs or be killed by your friends and family] are well taken, as is the public’s misconception about the danger. I wonder: what about property crime and non-deadly battery though?
* Of course, any redevelopment will come with improvements on structures, which allows Springfield [et al] to add to the total tax revenue. So, that’s helpful, if only marginally.
* The problem with the 90% affordable housing [your stat, probably not accurate but the point is well taken] is a big deal. Hell, it’s worthy of its own diary. That’s a major policy fail, and it should be remedied. We need affordable housing, sure — but it’s clear that this isn’t the right way to do it.
Thank you for the dialogue. Very informative.
* As older people move on, I think that the racism problem will decline a bit – let me give you a flavor of it though; my parents recently went to a seafood restaurant in Connecticut, near Hartford. They liked it, but told me plainly that there were “too many minorities there”. It wasn’t necessarily fear – they have been trained to think that non-white people are bad. My sister has not realized that she thinks the same way – she won’t go to certain stores because “they look dangerous”, which means that the clientele doesn’t look like she wants them to. That could be poverty or behavior based, but I suspect that it is skin color that sets her off.
* Regarding the murders, we have 5 TV stations in the Springfield market (which means plenty of news time to fill) and a sensationalistic newspaper whose lazy writers have taken to parroting the press releases sent out by the Springfield Police Department and, as largely white suburban residents, have their own fears and prejudices about the city. Crimes in Springfield get amplified, crimes in their towns get played down. One example, which should be obvious to their editors was when an incident in Springfield was described as a “melee” whereas a nearly identical incident in a more upscale town, Northampton, was described – by the same reporter – as:
More people arrested in the upscale incident, but they didn’t have Hispanic names and it wasn’t in Springfield. A follow-up article even jabbed at me when I called them out on this by stating “Four men and three women were arrested following what police described as a series of disturbances and fights and not a free-wheeling melee.”
This is what drives the public perceptions. Yes, there are more incidents of battery and property crime, but much of the battery is domestic (bad, but not a general threat) and the property crime tends to not be reported in any communities so it’s hard to know if there is more in Springfield affecting the general public.
* I do not think that Springfield characterizes building renovation as “redevelopment” in the sense of Proposition 2.5, so that means a $15m rehab of a building may simply shift the allocation of who is paying taxes.
* I was incorrect on the affordable housing stat – according to the city’s former director of development, David Panagore, the percentage was actually 77% – 2,000 out of 2,600 units. That is still unbelievably high. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston actually did a study on Springfield Housing. I actually just discovered it in searching for the low-income rate, so I can’t comment on the recommendations it puts out, but the basic problem that I see is that Springfield’s housing rates are so low that there is no demand for market-rate housing – so the only redevelopment taking place is low-income conversion because there are federal and state tax credits to do this.
I just finished reading the housing paper; it made some good points, some of which I had previously stated here. They claim that poor people live in urban centers because it is convenient for them to do so – because that is where public transportation is centered, and also because that is where the low-income housing is centered. They notice the difference between high-demand cities like Boston and low-demand cities like Springfield, and note that housing policy should be different for each community. They note that incentives for low-income redevelopment are 10x higher than all other redevelopment incentives.
The article also briefly touches on how amenities could be used to provide incentives for market-rate residents in older urban cities. I’m always struck by how Springfield can’t even scrape up enough money for kids’ playscapes at its parks – suburban parks offer 2-3 times the playing experience in parks that serve 1/5 the number of residents. That’s the kind of thing that could be easily fixed by the state.
Although nearly everyone here is a Democrat or Progressive, there is such little talk about urban issues such as this. Talk is about issues that are important to be sure – global warming, progressive taxation, public transportation, but no one seems to even like to think about Gateway City issues. I’m really disappointed that a gubernatorial candidate described as “very progressive” could only offer very high-level platitudes about education and Head Start on this topic. Although the number of residents in Gateway Cities are not a majority in the state (and tend to vote less often), these cities are such a wasted opportunity for our state right now and should be addressed.
The state cuts funding to the Gateway Cities because the state claims it lacks the “resources” (tax revenue). The best way to address that problem is to make our taxes more progressive — raise them, and raise them a LOT for our wealthiest residents (not necessarily highest income).
We can surely quibble about what level of explicitness is required to make “racist” an accurate characterization. In my view, although many people admit (at least superficially) that the root causes of the various urban ills are primarily economic, the reality is that we are talking about pervasive racism. When someone feels uncomfortable because there are “too many minorities”, that’s just plain racist.
I predict we will be talking about this more in the aftermath of the one-two punch of the ACA ruling followed by the Zimmerman verdict.