Re-open the topic of CPA? (0.00 / 0)
The controversial Rappaport-sponsored study of CPA is over three years old. At the time, the response seemed to be mostly against the study’s conclusions.
Since then, the state’s economy has gone through a major down turn. The divide between incomes in the Boston area and the gateway cities like Fall River, Brockton, Lowell, Springfield, Pittsfield, Fitchburg, etc. has grown wider.
At this point the reason for home foreclosure is less sub-prime mortgages and more longterm unemployment, which is more common in rural areas and the gateway cities.
The CPA is funded by real estate transaction fees, and those fees come into play in the foreclosure process, though I assume the person foreclosed on is not charged them.
The question is: Can we still refute the claim that the less wealthy are subsidizing the wealthy through CPA?
The proposed legislation to Sustain the CPA is knocking around Beacon Hill. Is it the right thing to do in the present economy?
The pool for matching funds from the state is funded by real estate fees. Needless to say, the lack of mortgage fees, real estate filings, etc., had sharply depleted that pool. Most towns which adopted the CPA have been told to expect a ZERO metch, even though the ‘free’ state money is why it was passed in the first place.
<
p>No, day in and day out, the CPA is funded with a SURTAX on the property tax rate. It can be from one to three percent, and must be spent per the statute. Many towns adopted the three percent surtax, because that provided the biggest bonanza in the now-depleted state match. So every property owner pays the property tax, and then an additional three percent more.
<
p>Communities must vote to re-adopt the CPA every 5 years, adn that 5 year mark is coming soon. Expect some repeals, or at LEAST a reduction in surtax in the wake of local aid cuts.
The local tax increase is the main funding, as the share paid by the state to each city or town declined as more communities adopted CPA.
<
p>I voted against CPA in my town for another reason: the law puts CPA dollars under the control of a CPA committee that is outside the normal appropriation/budget process. In a town, town meeting can only adopt or reject a CPA project as a whole, but cannot modify the project, or change the appropriation. The selectmen cannot propose a CPA project to town meeting, it must come through the CPA committee. I think its an unwarranted change in town government by the state.