Op/Ed criticizes Prop. 2.5 and the Community Preservation Act
andrei radulescu-banu
--
617.216.8509 (m), 781.862.5854 (h)
David Kluchman
Interesting read. And thanks for the trigger warning. I hate to not be prepared to have my assumptions challenged. ;-)
David Kluchman (sent from phone)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lextmma.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CALJb0sm02Y%3Dt9z7ik7%3D-do30R0LS7%3D0ReG%2Baw76hSZ2mdA-3dw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Rotberg, Robert
Dear Fellow Town Meeting Members and other Concerned Citizens:
For all of the obvious reasons, and because Lexington has first mover advantage and responsibilities, I have submitted a Citizen’s Article to the Warrant to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity gun magazines within the Town of Lexington. I hope that it will have your support now, and when the article comes before Town Meeting in March.
The proposed legislation will be modeled strictly on an ordinance enacted by Highland Park, IL (a suburb of Chicago) in 2013, approved in a Federal district court there, and by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, implicitly suggesting that local town and city bans on large scale weaponry do not impinge on Second Amendment rights under the U. S. Constitution, and are permissible despite its ruling in Miller in 2014. The U.S. has a long tradition of regulating weapons at the local level – think Dodge City, Kansas, and Tombstone, Ariz., not to mention Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.
The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court’s welcome inaction in the Highland Park case was the seventieth time since 2008 that the Court has declined to consider a challenge to state or local gun regulation. “This creates a big opportunity,” it said, “for Americans to put pressure on their…local leaders.”
As Nancy Rotering, Mayor of Highland Park and candidate for Congress wrote recently, the Supreme Court’s decision encourages “other cities and villages across the nation to follow our lead and pursue assault weapons without the threat of legal action under the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.” She also wrote: “One piece of legislation is not going to prevent every gun violence tragedy, but with courageous leadership, we can take steps to protect American lives.” I hope that the passage of the proposed amended by-law in Lexington will save Lexington lives and inspire other cities and towns within the Commonwealth to follow suit in this practical and sensible matter.
My proposed amendment to Chapter 97 of the Code of Lexington (Public Conduct) would in no way affect ordinary gun or hand-gun ownership in Lexington. It would, however, prohibit the possession within town limits of assault weapons – semiautomatic rifles that have the capacity to accept large capacity magazines. (The proposed article would specify in great detail exactly what kinds of weapons and magazines were covered.) The Highland Park legislation enumerates the brands outlawed. Large capacity magazines are defined as holding ten or more rounds.
Assault weapons do not include antique weapons. Citizens of the town would still be able to bear arms, just not weapons of mass murder.
I have consulted with the Selectmen, the Town Manager (and Town Counsel), the Moderator, and the Chief of Police. Everyone has been very helpful.
I will welcome your comments, criticisms, suggestions for improvement, and so on, but, please as few NRA rants as possible. This proposal will, I hope, attract widespread support from TM voters and from citizens of the Town. It is the least we can do to try to limit harm.
Robert I. Rotberg
Pct. 3
Vicki Blier
and because Lexington has first mover advantage and responsibilities,
Thomas, Ruth S
Ruth Thomas, 4
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 3:24 PM
To: Rotberg, Robert
Cc: Lex...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] assault weapons
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lextmma.
Joel Adler
Interesting read. And thanks for the trigger warning. I hate to not be prepared to have my assumptions challenged. ;-)
David Kluchman (sent from phone)
The Commonwealth: The downsides of Prop. 2½ and Community Preservation Act, by Lawrence S. DiCara and Michael Nicholson (Dec 17, 2015)Trigger warning: the op/ed will be an uncomfortable read, and it does go 180 degrees against much of the common wisdom (mine included).Andrei Radulescu-Banu, Pct 8.(P.S. Here's a companion article: How rich (or not) is your community?)
--====================================================================Andrei Radulescu-Banu86 Cedar St, Lexington MA
617.216.8509 (m), 781.862.5854 (h)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lextmma.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CALJb0sm02Y%3Dt9z7ik7%3D-do30R0LS7%3D0ReG%2Baw76hSZ2mdA-3dw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lextmma.
David Kluchman
The prop 2.5 argument seems specious. The general argument that richer communities will tax themselves at a higher rate seems like it would be true with or without 2.5.
David Kluchman (sent from phone)
--
Joel Adler
David L. Kaufman
Nancy Adler
Sent from my iPad
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lextmma.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/29B1C68E71B20C4FBB0108DDF7CFA450B1836160%40p-exmb1b-dc1.hks.internal.
Paul Chernick
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse typos & terseness.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lextmma.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAKJ90gjeW50d2%3DpwqQEn4PYDJQqLp_4nA1u7uek2e9pDYnYd_g%40mail.gmail.com.
Rotberg, Robert
As Paul wrote…Earlier I replied to Vicki that 1775 and all that give us first mover primacy in my view
From: lex...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lex...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Paul Chernick
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 4:44 PM
To: v...@blier.net
Cc: Rotberg, Robert; Lex...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] assault weapons
We are a light unto the nations. Lexington was a leader in the Nuclear Freeze, for example.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/70CC2137-0ECA-4100-8F27-4F104FDDFE6A%40verizon.net.
David L. Kaufman
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/02AEF422-7AB8-48E1-BC63-BB713C9BC49A%40rcn.com.
BEB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lextmma.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/29B1C68E71B20C4FBB0108DDF7CFA450B1836160%40p-exmb1b-dc1.hks.internal.
David L. Kaufman
"In everything the wise man does not seek greater precision than the subject allows."
-- Aristotle
On Dec 22, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Rotberg, Robert <Robert_...@hks.harvard.edu> wrote:
Elaine Ashton
It’s a broken model, though I have no ready answer, but if MA is a leader in political jurisprudence then perhaps there is an opportunity here to really readjust how we tax our citizens for capital and services.
>
> If the voters would support increased income taxes, so that the state could provide more state aid to the cities and towns, the burden would be shifted to the rich wherever they live. Unfortunately the low income voters in many of those poor communities, who are probably a majority numerically, are the main supporters of keeping income taxes low and real estate and regressive sales taxes high.
We need to get creative if we truly mean to retain all but the 1% of the US in Lexington. If I wanted to live in Wellesley, I’d have moved there.
Elaine
--
-=]) elaine ashton // elaine...@gmail.com // HappyFunBall ([=-
-=]) The heart is the real fountain of youth. — Mark Twain ([=-
Sandra Shaw
Elaine Ashton
On Dec 22, 2015, at 7:17 PM, David L. Kaufman <davidl...@rcn.com> wrote:I will be a supporter of that article. The NRA will probably want to have a big protest on the Battle Green while carrying assault weapons just before Town Meeting, but I think that weapons are not permitted on the Green under the current Selectmen's regulations (except muskets etc. on Patriots Day) anyhow.(I would be careful not to prohibit the manufacture of weapons for sale to the US armed forces in the wording.)
Frank Smith
Begin forwarded message:
dawnforlexington
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 4:32 PM, David L. Kaufman <davidl...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> These articles are certainly both interesting and valid, but the real problem is not the CPA or prop 2.5 but the over dependency on the Real Estate tax to fund all local public services in Massachusetts.
Just so, and the real estate taxes are subject to the whims of the market value and, in a town like ours which is suddenly the ‘it’ girl of local municipalities, many of those who could afford to live here even 5 years ago, may find themselves struggling soon due to the levy and upcoming capital projects.
It’s a broken model, though I have no ready answer, but if MA is a leader in political jurisprudence then perhaps there is an opportunity here to really readjust how we tax our citizens for capital and services.
>
> If the voters would support increased income taxes, so that the state could provide more state aid to the cities and towns, the burden would be shifted to the rich wherever they live. Unfortunately the low income voters in many of those poor communities, who are probably a majority numerically, are the main supporters of keeping income taxes low and real estate and regressive sales taxes high.
This is likely due to a lack of understanding and education along with an unwillingness to really change the model from those who promote alternatives.
We need to get creative if we truly mean to retain all but the 1% of the US in Lexington. If I wanted to live in Wellesley, I’d have moved there.
--
-=]) elaine ashton // elaine...@gmail.com // HappyFunBall ([=-
-=]) The heart is the real fountain of youth. — Mark Twain ([=-
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lextmma.
Michael McGuirk
People have always enjoyed associating with and living near people like themselves. The trait probably goes back to tribal ancestry in hunter-gatherer days. Did Chinatown exist before Prop 2-1/2? Was there a concentration of Irish in Southie before CPA?
The Op/Ed says: “Since 1990, the town of Marblehead, population 19,808, has collected $5.1 million in additional tax revenues obtained by override votes. The funds gained through these overrides enabled the town to build a new school, repair roads and drainage systems, and provided much needed updates to the town’s infrastructure.”
If Marblehead had money remaining to repair roads and drainage and update other infrastructure after building a new school with only $5.1 million in additional taxes, it must have been an awfully small school !
Could the article be a bit misleading? Could the authors have misinterpreted other data?
Personally, I don’t give any credence to the article, and I am sorry I wasted time reading it.
Thomas, Ruth S
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:23 AM
To: lextmma
Subject: RE: [LexTMMA] Op/Ed criticizes Prop. 2.5 and the Community Preservation Act
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lex...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lextmma.
andrei radulescu-banu
"Cambridge has received a total of $45.7 million in state matching grants since it adopted the CPA in 2002. This equates to Cambridge receiving about 15 percent of all state matching funds annually, while its residents only account for 1 percent of the amount of money paid into the CPA fund. Meanwhile, the two largest cities in the state, Boston and Worcester, contribute the most to the state trust fund through their transactions at the registry of deeds about $14.5 million annually but they receive no funds back because their voters have not approved a CPA property tax surcharge. The Community Preservation Act has unwittingly created a system in which the rich are subsidized by the poor."
The question is not to stop doing these things - but to find an equitable way to pay for them, at the state level. The goal is to provide the same services, but spread the load across the economic tribes more equitably.
Glenn Parker
People have always enjoyed associating with and living near people like themselves. The trait probably goes back to tribal ancestry in hunter-gatherer days. Did Chinatown exist before Prop 2-1/2? Was there a concentration of Irish in Southie before CPA?
The Op/Ed says: “Since 1990, the town of Marblehead, population 19,808, has collected $5.1 million in additional tax revenues obtained by override votes. The funds gained through these overrides enabled the town to build a new school, repair roads and drainage systems, and provided much needed updates to the town’s infrastructure.”
If Marblehead had money remaining to repair roads and drainage and update other infrastructure after building a new school with only $5.1 million in additional taxes, it must have been an awfully small school !
Could the article be a bit misleading? Could the authors have misinterpreted other data?
Personally, I don’t give any credence to the article, and I am sorry I wasted time reading it.
Yes, the authors goofed slightly by including "a new school" in that list of work funded by overrides, but that is hardly reason to dismiss their primary claim. In fact, Marblehead has rebuilt more than one school since 1990 using debt exclusions (obviously) and some MSBA support.
I went into the MA Dept. of Revenue database to see if I could figure out the numbers the authors present, and here's what I found. Since their first attempt at an operating override in FY1990, Marblehead has approved 6 (out of 17) override referendums, effectively boosting their levy limit by $5.1 million in FY2007 (the year of their most recent override referendum). Remember that each operating override effectively grows by 2.5% in succeeding years, and without an "underride" vote they never go away, so even small operating overrides are significant events.
Marblehead's Successful Operating Overrides*
| FY |
PURPOSE |
AMOUNT |
| 2002 | CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS AND SURFACE DRAINS | 300,000 |
| 2004 | SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET EXPENSES | 1,381,017 |
| 2005 | SUPPLEMENTAL EXPENSES FOR SCHOOL DEPARTMENT | 422,246 |
| 2005 | SUPPLEMENTAL EXPENSES FOR WASTE COLLECTION | 17,100 |
| 2005 | LIBRARY EXPENSES | 73,051 |
| 2006 | SUPPLEMENTAL EXPENSES OF SEVERAL TOWN DEPARTMENTS | 2,730,167 |
*Data from http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/municipal-databank-and-local-aid-unit/data-bank-reports/
As of FY2016, the additional annual tax revenue from those overrides has now grown to $6.4 million. FWIW, this accounts for over 10% of Marblehead's annual tax levy in the current fiscal year.
In addition to these operating overrides, Marblehead has also approved 40 out of 41 debt exclusions for capital projects since 1990, including the 2012 authorization to reconstruct the Glover Elementary School with a construction budget of $26 million (with $10 million reimbursement from the MSBA). Marblehead also approved rebuilding their highschool starting in 2003.
In FY2016, Marblehead will also collect about $5.5 million in revenue above the Prop 2.5 levy limit to fund their excluded debt service.
FYI: Lexington has passed 16 out of 19 override referendums, and 8 out of 8 debt exclusion referendums, since 1990. The net boost to Lexington's levy limit from operating overrides is about $30.3 million out of $163 million (18%) in FY2016.
The point of the article was to compare Marblehead, a town with fewer low-income families that is willing to raise its taxes, versus towns like Gardner where operating overrides *never* succeed. Lexington would make for an even starker comparison.
It is certainly worth considering how these differences arose, and what the future impact will be on the communities in the Commonwealth.
-Glenn Parker, Pct. 3
Glenn Parker
FYI: Lexington has passed 16 out of 19 override referendums, and 8 out of 8 debt exclusion referendums, since 1990. The net boost to Lexington's levy limit from operating overrides is about $30.3 million out of $163 million (18%) in FY2016.
The net boost to Lexington's levy limit from operating overrides is about $27 million out of $163 million (16.5%) in FY2016.
-Glenn Parker, Pct. 3