Warren Tolman on the Community Preservation Act

On Thursday, I had the opportunity to talk with Watertown resident, former state Senator and 2002 candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination Warren Tolman. Tolman is currently spending his free time as one of the co-chairs of the Watertown Committee for Community Preservation which is seeking to get the Community Preservation Act passed in Watertown's November municipal election. I spoke with him at length on the benefits of the CPA to Watertown, and then on some issues in state politics in general.

Tolman made a number of good points about the Community Preservation Act. Firstly, under the CPA, town residents spend $3 and get $10 back. For each $10 of CPA funds, $3 comes from the residents, $2 comes from the local businesses and $5 comes from the state. That's 233% return on the homeowner's investment for the town. Since the town spends more on average than the proposed surcharge of $800,000, adopting the CPA in Watertown could shift items from the town's capital budget to the community preservation fund, thus freeing up money for education, public works, and so on. Projects that Tolman mentioned that can use the CPA funds on include converting Victory Field to turf, rebuilding the Grove Street entrance to Fillipello Park after the recycling center is moved, restoring the Edmund Fowle House, building a regulation Little League field or helping seniors and town employees remain in Watertown. According to Tolman, there's enough money in the CPA fund on the state level to fully fund it for the next four years, using conservative economic estimates and assuming that a dozen new communities pass it every year. After five years, the town could repeal the act if the state can't continue fully matching. In addition, there is wide bipartisan support for the CPA around the state in the communities where it has passed.

On the state political scene, Tolman was critical of Bill Galvin's recent call to raise the state political contribution limits. He also had a few suggestions for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, as a former candidate himself, and predicted that Kerry Healey would not face much opposition when she seeks the Republican nomination after Governor Romney finally announces he's not running for reelection himself.

You can read the entire interview inside, or skip past the CPA part of the conversation and read the former state Senator's thoughts on statewide matters here.

More From the Interview Inside...

Q: Can you just give me the quick rundown of what the CPA does and how the committee is going about trying to get it passed?

Sure. First off, in order to get it before the voters, we needed to collect approximately a thousand signatures. We've collected about 1500, turned in several – 1300 or so – and we're on the ballot now, and the vote will take place on November 8th. Basically, what the CPA does, is, it is legislation passed into law in the year 2000 and signed by Governor Paul Cellucci – Republican governor Paul Cellucci, I might add – with a great degree of bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats alike, to allow communities to do things to maintain the character of their community, be it a city or town. Specifically, communities are authorized to place a surcharge on the real estate property assessment of between 1 and 3 % -- in Watertown's case, we chose 2% -- to preserve open space, to promote affordable housing, to expand upon or improve public recreation, and to do things to preserve historical artifacts and, basically, historic preservation projects. Those are really the four key elements of what a community can spend these resources on.

Q: What specifically do you envision those moneys being spent on in Watertown?

Well, there are a number of different things. First of all, there are lots of projects that we could have spent money on in the past, which would have actually lessened the burden for the Watertown taxpayer, because it would have been done with 50% state funds. The perfect example of that is the renovation of Victory Field, or the renovation of all the tot lots across town. All of those are basically projects that would have been eligible for CPA funds, which means state matching funds could have paid for 50% of the projects like this. And because we spend more on average than the proposed surcharge of $800,000, adopting the CPA in Watertown can actually shift items from the town's capital budget to the community preservation fund. So, there are a whole range of -- Victory Field, the renovation of Edmond Fowle house on Marshall Street, and there's lots of things that we haven't done that we could have done. That's number one. Secondly, I think an important component of this is that the low-income households and moderate-income seniors are exempt from the CPA. A family of four earning less than $66K, and seniors over 60 earning less than $57K, almost $58K, pay no surcharge. And the first $100K of assessed value is exempt from surcharge, which means basically for a median-valued home in Watertown, which is assessed – not valued, but assessed – at $450K, the cost will be about a buck a week, $57 a year. The cost is not high, but the benefits, in our opinion, are very huge.

Q: In all likelihood, the Town is going to have to move the recycling center down by Grove Street. Could we use CPA funds to fix up the Grove St. entrance to Filipello Park?

Absolutely. That's a perfect example of what these funds can be utilized for. Recreational is anticipated to be a huge component of what CPA funds are utilized for. Particularly in Watertown, where you have hundreds of kids participating in sports, in four square miles with not a lot of open space, and not a lot of excess fields. The fields are very, very intensely utilized. We have a tremendous field hockey team, year in and year out, Eileen Donohue does a great job, Gary Spence's a football coach, he's improving things, the soccer team has a coach, Kaz Keuchkarian, doing a great job, and then you have all the Pop Warner teams and everything. They're all using Victory Field and consequently it gets really torn up.

Q: So, we can use CPA-earmarked funds for things like reseeding the fields?

Better than that. Cambridge has two turf fields. Belmont has one. They cost over a million dollars. You get a turf field, there's no reseeding. And these are beautiful fields. They're not like the old artificial turf that we used to play on. These are state-of-the-art, you don't get more injuries, they're low-maintenance -- basically maintenance-free, actually -- and they're a terrific addition.

Q: So, I know that under the CPA there's historical preservation but there's also, you can allocate money for open space, and also for affordable housing. How do you reconcile that, because it seems like the more open space you have, the less land you have to develop housing on, and vice versa.

Well, there are a couple of things. First of all, you want to maintain the quality and the character of the community, and if it's all about just building on every available lot, whether it be commercial or residential, then I don't think that's the type of community that anyone would like to live in, whether it be paving over Oakley Country Club or Victory Field or whatever. So obviously we draw a line somewhere. In Watertown's case, it's pretty densely packed, but nonetheless, the question is how much further we go. So, you reconcile the affordable housing component by saying, Look, we have existing housing, perhaps we can take some of this existing housing and make that housing affordable, whether it be helping first-time home buyers, or town employees. Newton has a great program that helps town employees get grants and loans for their purchase of a home -- public safety, teachers, etc., they want to stay in Newton. So it's a great opportunity for a community to do something that helps people that live and work in the community. So I don't think you're all adverse, I think actually it's all about the quality and character.

Q: It seems like the affordable housing part is the hardest to sell – everybody wants more open space, but people are skeptical about increasing the affordable housing stock. What do you say to somebody who has that sort of skepticism?

I think a couple of things. For some people it's the “attraction of undesirables” to the community -– it's a blind spot that people have for affordable housing, and I think there's a lot of inaccuracies out there, and affordable housing is not -– first of all, it's not just low-income housing, it can be helping town employees, it can be helping with the deleading of units, it can be helping seniors remain in Watertown, so there's a wide variety of components. By the way, it's not just low-income, it's moderate-income families. [Housing Costs are] through the roof. I mean, a family that needs help in Watertown, in Oklahoma they could buy a beautiful home.

Q: There have been a lot of letters in the TAB, a lot of them very against the CPA, talking about how anyone supporting it is a communist, singling you out for abuse and urging the defeat of any counselor that is in favor of it. Why do you think there's such a violent reaction?

First of all, the two letters that singled me out most recently -- I looked and they're both registered Republicans. Now, statewide there's I think about 13% of the state that's registered Republicans, and in Watertown it's even less than that, so you gotta look at the source, number one. Number two, I'm happy to talk about my tax record -- I have a voting record, eight years in the legislature. I was chair of the taxation committee. I wrote many of those tax cuts that Bill Weld touted on his way to running for the U.S. Senate, and the like – actually after that, but also with Paul Cellucci, so I'm proud of my record on taxes, and sure, did I vote for tax increases? Absolutely, and I also wrote tax cuts, so I have a record that's pretty clear. I was the only candidate to run for governor in 2002 on the Democratic side that supported the will of the people to lower the tax rate as the people had voted for, consistent with my stand on clean elections. So these people, they don't want to let the facts get in the way of throwing mud, unfortunately. I've offered to debate them, and if the phone doesn't ring, I know it's them.

Q: I've looked at some of the towns that have passed the CPA and out of the handful of towns in Massachusetts that voted for Bush in 2004 almost a dozen of those have enacted the CPA, and some of them by landslides. Do you think there's bipartisan support?

Absolutely. In May I talked to a friend of mine last week. I used to work with her on Beacon Hill and she's a Republican, and she led the effort in -– I don't know whether it was in Andover or North Andover -– I think it was all Republicans who led the effort. But, there's certain people in certain towns who just want to say no, whatever it is, even if it's a good deal, they'd rather have our tax dollars subsidize the projects that Cambridge chooses to sponsor, or other communities in our area, Newton, that are more affluent than Watertown. So Watertown taxpayers are paying for -- believe it or not -- we're actually helping subsidize Concord's projects, and I, for one, don't like it, and for two, see a lot of projects that we could do in Watertown. From the turfing of Victory Field, to a certified nice Little League park with the appropriate dimensions, to restoring the Edmond Fowle house, and putting some appropriate markers on historic colonial sites in Watertown, restoring veteran's graves and veteran's sites in cemeteries and the like in Watertown. It would be nice to have the Saltonstall monument in a place where people could actually see it, as opposed to along the Charles River Road where a lot of people don't even know it's there, maybe we should move it to Saltonstall Park, since it was named after him. There's 27 acres of the Gore Estate which borders residential areas that developers have attempted twice in the last eight or ten years to develop, and purchase it from the Gore people, and they have withstood the offers, but how long do they withstand it? Wouldn't it be nice if the town could acquire it, and use it for open space or parks or whatever. That end of town is under heavy development pressure, and it might be nice to preserve some of it.

Q: One of the criticisms that I've read is that this winter will be tough, the economy's not doing so hot – is this really the right time for a surcharge on the property tax?

I think for some people that can't afford it, hopefully those people would be eligible to be exempt. If they're a family making more than $66K a year, they would have to pay it, but if they're making less they're exempt. A family of four making less that $66K, or seniors making less than almost $58K, for a senior making about a thousand a week, that's a fair amount of money for a senior if you're living on a fixed income, so I would suggest that most seniors are going to be exempt. It is, for the average home in Watertown, $57 a year, I realize some people are on very tight budgets, but I think the payback is well worth it. The only place that I know of where you can spend $3 and get $10 back, basically the way that works is if the town of Watertown wants to raise $5 in taxes, under the system of taxation that we have, we get $3 from the residents and $2 from the businesses. So to get 5, you get 3 from the residents. To get 10, under this structure, you get 3 from the residents, 2 from the businesses, and 5 from the state, so 3 gets you 10. That's a great deal. The other criticism I've heard, if I may, is, who decides how the money is spent? And, first of all, there's a public hearing and recommendations come from a committee consisting of representatives from the recreation dept. -– these are town departments, by the way -- the planning board, the housing authority, and the historical commission. Plus, four addition members were approved by the town council. So that's number one – public hearings before this committee made up of town officials and people appointed by the town council. Secondly, the town council then must approve every project. They can vote against it if they don't want to fund it, and it's not funded. The town council has the last say. So, this, oh, we're going to get these people who are going to spend this money willy-nilly, that's just not the case. But again, why let facts get in the way?

Q: One other criticism is that some people are worried that the legislature will repeal the Act and we'll be stuck with the full bill but we won't get the matching funds anymore. Do you think that's likely?

First of all, they're wrong, because if we want to repeal this the town can repeal this in five years. That's number one. Number two is that there will be enough funding based on conservative estimates, of low levels and no refinancing boom, in other words, plus a dozen communities adopting this for the next five years. The fund will have, unequivocally, enough money, according to the experts, to fund all the towns that pass this -- 12 additional a year -– for the next 4 years guaranteed. It's hard to predict beyond 4 years, but they think even the 5th, but they're certainly guaranteeing the next 4. So, 4 out of the next 5 years, we're going to have enough. And I would also add, as someone who's served up in the legislature, the more communities that adopt this, the more sacrosanct the fund is -– the more hands-off the legislators are going to be with the fund. We were with the assistant manager of the city of Cambridge yesterday. They got a check for $5M last week. Five million bucks to spend on the projects they deem most appropriate in Cambridge. It's incredible! Watertown would be eligible for $800K. If we raise $800K in town, we get an annual check of over $800K back. A hundred communities have already adopted the CPA, including 92% of the communities that have put the CPA on the ballot in the last 2 years. It's clear, people are figuring out this is a good deal.

Q: Anyway, if you don't mind I'd like to switch gears a little bit and talk about some things going on in the state. When Secretary of the Commonwealth, Bill Galvin was in town last month he mentioned that he'd like to lift the $500/year contribution limit to comply with federal standards under McCain-Feingold. As a former clean Elections candidate, how do you feel about that?

I think somehow people are making the argument that if we let special interests contribute more money to the political process, we'll have less special interest influence. I don't buy it. First of all, the McCain-Feingold limits are $2200 per primary and $2200 for the general. That's more than quadrupling per election. It would actually be about eight times what we're allowed today, almost nine times, because it would it would be $4400 per election cycle, which in my opinion is much too much to allow. It was lowered to $500 from $1000 to lessen the influence – to get people focused on smaller donations. Yeah, is it harder? Sure. I ran for Lieutenant Governor and raised a million dollars on $500 contributions. It is harder. There's no question about it. But it also makes you spend a lot more time with a lot more people. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing either.

Q: One of the things I've noticed is it gives an advantage to candidates who can self-fund.

So, the argument is that if we raise it to $1000 it would be less advantageous to the wealthy people?

Q: Well, the argument is that it would be easier for people to raise enough money to compete with someone who can self-fund.

Well, that may be true, but if that's the only problem with the political system, then where do I sign on? The problem with the political system, however, I believe, is not that wealthy people can buy elections. I think that the problem is the pernicious influence of big money and special interests on the political process. If you allow for more big money, you're going to get more big money and more special interests and all of a sudden that person who‘s raising and spending a lot of money for you at $500 intervals is now going to be spending a lot of time raising more money for you, and arguably have more influence on the political process by raising in $1000 increments. That's the real problem in my opinion. It's not that people are running and they're writing their own check or what-have-you. I don't like that, but that's what Clean Elections attempted to do – level that playing field. And I think it did so, or would have done so pretty well. But, obviously, I got my money at the end of July, and they don't move the date of the election, so it was very difficult to get the aircraft up on a short runway. But even with that, we almost did it. If it was the type of thing where the rules were allowed to operate, it might have happened. If not for me, then for someone else.

Q: Do you think that Mitt Romney is going to run again?

Nope. I think he's gone. He's running for president. He's tipped his hand right along. I mean, you don't announce your criminal justice proposal on capital punishment to the New York Times, and talk about how you've had an incarnation on what was previously an 'always been pro-choice' stance, since his mother ran for the US Senate in the '70s if you're planning on running again in Massachusetts. I think the only guy he's fooling is the guy who looks back at him when he looks in the mirror.

Q: As a former candidate yourself, do you have any advice for the Democratic candidates?

I think that Tom Reilly has a very powerful personal story to tell that he doesn't tell that often. I think he ought to let people see the personality that he has. I would say for Deval Patrick, I think he's got to keep working and dialing for dollars to show that he's going to be a viable candidate. That's hard to do, but in order to cut through in Massachusetts you really need to. A media buy is about $400,000 a week and that's a lot of money and it goes very quickly.

Q: On the Republican side, do you think they'll clear the field for Kerry Healey, or will we see somebody else step up?

Christy Mihos has said, no he didn't want her to have a free ride and everything. But to be candid, that's not necessarily a message that people are going to cartwheels over -– No one should have a free ride so therefore I'm running. That's OK, but why you? So, far be it from me to be the pundit for the Republicans, but I don't see any real serious challenge for Kerry Murphy Healey.

Q: How about for yourself, are we going to see your name on the ballot anytime soon?

I'm just supporting the CPA. You know, all politics is local, and I'm pleased to be able to work on some local issues. As far as running, I'm hoping to run about four miles tomorrow morning and beyond that I don't have any plans. I'm probably too young and too foolish to retire, but short term, I've got three kids -- 12, 15 and 7 -- so I get to spend more time with them, which isn't a bad thing. So, if I knew the answer I'd tell you but I really don't know the answer. We'll see what plans God has, as my sainted Irish mother used to say.

Q: Thanks for taking the time to talk to me.

My pleasure. I'm happy to do it. You do some good stuff -- it's actually very entertaining, I've found. Thanks for shedding some light.