In my own hometown of Brockton we had three overrides on the ballot in ’08 (all three failed), and then had to lay off more than 400 teachers last week. Sadly, we don’t have hundreds of thousands hidden away in other accounts, let alone hundreds of millions.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Boston, and I work in the city like a million other people.
But like six million other people I don’t live in the city. In most of the cities and towns where the vast majority of Mass residents live, budgets are tight, override attempts are common (and mostly unsuccessful), and the state isn’t exactly falling over itself to send more money gushing off the hill. Why do we have to scrape by, when Boston coasts?
Do people outside of Boston know about Boston’s imperviousness to revenue shortfalls? Were they paying attention when the Mayor tried to shut down four library branches under the guise of budget cuts, and Boston State Reps. were more than willing to spend another $3 million of state money to keep them open? (By the way, as Bernstein reports, Menino tried to kill that effort, because closing those branches was never really about the money).
As the economy recovers, building is going to resume in Boston much faster than it will in cities like Brockton. Business growth and tax revenues will rise for the capitol city much faster than they will for towns across the state. And so Boston will continue to bask in excess revenue and never have to threaten its residents with overrides or legitimate cuts to education or public safety, while the rest of us continue to watch our services diminish.
It’s a startling inequity that should be addressed on Beacon Hill. Legislators from outside Boston far outnumber those from within. It’s time to start taking advantage of the real majority.
That Conor’s response to Brockton’s undeniable fiscal woes is to blame the City of Boston and urge state legislators to take yet another pound of flesh from the city coffers. Fortunately, the mayors of the Commonwealth including Boston’s, have, for the most part, worked together to:
<
p>1) Try to stem the seemingly endless flow of local aid cuts (BTW, since FY 2002, Boston has lost over $175 million in net state aid or approximately 42% of such aid. Boston, along with many of its neighboring communities have suffered far disproportionate local aid cuts relative to other communities over this period. Is this “crying” to note this?);
<
p>2) Try to secure additional revenue raising measures, such as the meals tax (which has probably saved many city workers across the Commonwealth from layoffs), and rise in the hotel-motel tax;
<
p>In fact, we have this from the “Brockton Post” of May 12:
<
p>”In moves that could keep the Raymond Elementary School open and keep 10 school buses on the road and avoid layoffs in the fire department, library, and other city departments, Mayor Linda Balzotti has proposed the City Council approve a meals tax on prepared fast food and restaurant meals-one of several financial moves that would decrease the school’s deficit in next year’s budget from about $13.2 million to about $9.7 million.”
<
p>3) Regionalize services, as the Metro Mayors Caucus does for a number of Greater Boston communities and similar groups do around the state. Metro Mayors also took the lead in championing municipal health insurance reform (years ago, Boston and Chelsea worked out a joint purchasing plan that helped our neighboring community deal with these rapidly rising costs).
<
p>Conor notes that Brockton had had three Prop 2 1/2 overrides put before their voters, all of which lost. This is not unusual for urban communities. Boston did put a question on the ballot to implement the Community Preservation Act (legislation to raise property taxes for acqusition of open space and development of affordable housing). This ballot question did not succeed.
<
p>It is also important to consider that residential property taxes have risen in Boston due to the state of the economy and its impact on downtown commercial buildings. These fluctuations, obviously, impact far more on Boston homeowners than on Brocktonians. This impact would be far more acute if the state legislature and former Governor Romney had not worked with the City to revise the classification system to mitigate the immediate impact of the economic downturn.
<
p>Boston is a $2 billion + municipal entity, therefore the City would certainly have far more in “reserves” than its smaller counterparts, some of it required by state law. However, a number of municipal unions looked at the city’s books the past couple of years and agreed to forego raises last year in order to mitigate layoffs (as I read that Quincy’s teachers are now doing). Did they misread the budget? What about the Municipal Research Bureau, Finance Commission, etc?
<
p>Conor also notes that when there is a recovery, that Boston’s revenues will rise faster than other commnuities. This is factored into state aid, notably the Chapter 70 program, which provides a far greater percentage of aid to cities such as Springfield, Lawrence and yes, Brockton, due to their more limited revenue raising capacity. Note also that Chapter 70 has been cut far less over the past decade than other local aid accounts. Note further that our state does virtually nothing to compensate Boston for state-owned land and buildings, a significant percentage of our tax exempt property which makes up 52% of total land.
<
p>I was in Philadelphia this past weekend to see the Sox and connected with a couple of former Bostonians, one of whom lamented the City’s relationship with their state capital (with the exception of Governor Rendell, a former Philly mayor, who has continued to be a major supporter). No matter that large cities like Boston are major economic generators for the entire state, this love-hate relationship will always exist. But it’s an unfortunate diversion from a real discussion of how to adequately fund local communities like Brockton and Boston.
<
p>Note: the author formerly served in Boston city government during the Flynn and Menino Administrations and as a consultant to the Menino Committee in the fall of
2009.
Howard,
<
p>I am not trying to blame Boston for the budget troubles of Brockton or other cities and towns. All I’m saying is that Boston plays by a different set of rules.
<
p>The Mayor’s office didn’t deny Bernstein’s report that they are sitting on $200 million in various accounts. Why then has the challenge of providing $3 million to keep the libraries open fallen to the state?
<
p>Boston residents also receive a significant property tax exemption (30% of a home’s value – allowed by special legislation that applies only to Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville), meaning they don’t pay property taxes on a significant chunk of their home value.
<
p>It must be nice for the city to afford that kind of tax break, when the rest of the state is struggling pay for education and public safety services.
<
p>Before the rest of the state starts shelling out for more Boston services like libraries, we should have some measure of fairness in the tax burden.
It simply shifts the property tax burden within the residential class toward the higher valued properties within the class.
<
p>It has no effect on the overall property tax revenue nor does it shift any of the property tax levy away from the residential class. Further, it has no effect on the overall tax levy of any town.
<
p>All towns and municipalities within the state may adopt a residential exemption of up to 20% (Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville up to 30%).
These two sentences:
<
p>
<
p>are in direct conflict.
<
p>Either you’re in the Blame Game, and you’re blaming Boston for your cities woes (which, BTW, is ridiculous), or you’re not. If it’s the latter, you should probably delete this sad excuse for a diary.
<
p>The frustrating thing about class warfare is what usually happens is the wealthy, who force down decisions that hurt working and middle class folk living in these kinds of cities, not allowing cities and towns to have the resources they need, are almost never the ones who get the ire directed at them. No, we’re all too damn stupid and just go after each other, out of some (absurd) perceived notion that the other, middle/working class schmuck next door has it better. It’s almost never true, but it doesn’t for a second take away the fact that we allow ourselves to be divided nearly every day, on nearly every issue, which is why America — including Massachusetts — has been so thoroughly conquered by interests that don’t really have the rank and file citizen at heart.
<
p>Conor… stop the stupidity and wake up. Boston isn’t your city’s problem, it’s mega corporations and people with enough funds to give thousands in donations every year to tell politicians not to raise their taxes, or cut the $1.2 billion the state doles out in ridiculous tax credits. These are the kinds of people who prevent our cities and towns from having enough resources to even just do the kinds of things that are reasonably expected from them, never mind going above and beyond that. Continue the blame game at your own peril.
If you read my comments you will see they are not directed at Boston, but at the Legislature.
<
p>There are inequities in the system that is set up and maintained on Beacon Hill.
<
p>For all these comments rebutting my argument, nobody is denying that a) Boston is sitting on $200 million, but b) Boston’s Reps. still tried to get another $3 million from the state for the libraries.
<
p>You don’t see a problem with that line of thinking?
That’s patently NOT what your “comments” do. They paint Boston as some kid on the block that gets everything on a silver platter and never has to sacrifice, while everyone else (or at least Brockton) suffers under the constraints of Prop 2 1/2. It’s BS and the rapidity with which you are trying to draw yourself back suggests even you realize terrible that argument was, but you can’t freaking have it both days.
<
p>A piece of advice: Stop Digging. Do yourself a favor. You’re halfway to China now.
Hence their designation as a “regional reference and resource center” that is used by many researchers, students, etc. The issue is not the $3 million, it’s the $6 million that the legislators cut beforehand, as well as the notion that legislators should “control” the city’s budget decisions. You (legislators) don’t like them, run for Mayor … or City Council.
<
p>So in this case, as many others, Boston does play by a different set of rules, because it is a different kind of city. Not better, just different. Some things favor the city, some don’t. For example, the Legislature has refused to change the Lottery formula to help “point of sale” communities, something that would help both Brockton and Boston, locales of significant lottery sales. The MBTA assessment formula also weighs against Boston in terms of “trips” from Boston, often by commuters from outside the city, being charged to Boston. Fair? Probably not, but that’s life in the big city – :).
<
p>As for the Phoenix article, there have been similar claims made in the past, usually made by municipal unions as a negotiating tactic. nothing wrong with that, but these issues have been the subject of articles, Council hearings negotiations, etc, and found not to hold up. Thus the aforementioned wage freeze accepted by numerous bargaining units last year.
<
p>
Is definitely something we can agree on!
<
p>By “not holding up” it sounds like you mean the money isn’t there. But the city didn’t really dispute any of Bernstein’s claims in the article. It seems that the question isn’t so much whether funds are available but whether the city wants to use them for this or that particular thing, or to save them for the future, etc.
<
p>Also, the fact that the other municipal unions agreed to wage freezes might just speak to a lack of aggressiveness and/or skepticism on the part of their leadership. Layoffs of AFSCME or SEIU workers would probably be more palatable to the general public than teacher, fire, or police layoffs, so leaders of those unions might feel that, in the final analysis, they have less leverage than those other unions. Or maybe they just trusted the mayor, took his word for things, and wanted to seem like good team players in what certainly seemed to be a dire financial situation. The fact that they caved in easily does not mean that Bernstein is wrong about how much money the city has in the bank.
We are in the midst of budget hearings and I’m sure that questions will be asked relative to revenues, reserves and proposed cuts. Who knows, the mainstream media may even cover a hearing or two …
So you’re saying the state should just keep writing checks but the City of Boston should control what happens to the money. At some point the notion of fiscal accountability seems to have left you.
<
p>As for the libraries, there’s a signature project for this Grover Cleveland of a mayor — you must be so proud of your work for this forgettable man.
Note above that the State has cut over $175 million in state aid. Never mind that Boston generates far more than it gets back, the percentage of state aid relative to local revenues has been constantly declining.
<
p>The City has argued against cuts, and for new revenues that would make communities left dependent on the wild fluctuations of state finance.
<
p>Anyway, the whole principle of “unrestricted” local aid is to get funds back to communities for schools and services, not for legislators to pick and choose.
<
p>As for libraries, I’m sure that the Administration is proud of the new libraries in Allston, in Mattapan and in Grove Hall, and in the major renovations in Brighton, and Hyde Park, and in the plans for a new library for East Boston
Just because they have the advantage doesn’t mean that they are to blame. It sounds like the diarist is just looking for some equity, but that’s for the legislature to address, not the City of Boston.
Conor
You are onto some things that Boston politicians would rather not see dredged up.
As a practical matter legislators all see Boston on a regular basis so while they may fight with each other over shares for their districts, they have some first-hand experience with Boston. On the symbolic level maybe there’s something to be said for the idea that Boston is our capital and as such the responsibility of all of us in the way other municipalities are not.
If only you had a blog of your own to pontificate on, and possibly update regularly. That might be something to think about starting up. Just a thought.
And the Menino defense league springs into action. The sheer hypocrisy of this comment sends chocolate milk spurting out through noses of 1000 bmg facebook friends. Come near the special case of the City of Boston and all of a sudden Conor is pontificating, like the rest of BMG is hard news?
<
p>Conor, it’s so much simpler than you seek. The City of Boston is not poor. These activists, connected lawyers, and permanent fixtures of the social service/development nexus make all their money by sucking in state and federal dollars for projects that the city doesn’t really need. The governor and the feds then believe they have thrown some money at the blacks and check that off their list.
<
p>What you’ve seen with the library is a middle-class revolt, from people who want a service that they use. However that doesn’t fit into the City’s money machine, because it leaves no room for payoffs to lawyers, architects and developers to build new buildings. The customers are also savvy enough to know what they are getting and not getting, unlike the destitute consumers that the city would rather deal with.