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.

CPA on the Ballot and in the Yards

The Community Preservation Act has officially been on the ballot here in Watertown for all of a week and already the town's would-be Gover Norquists are putting up yard signs against it. I can understand that some people are against every possible action the Government could take, but opposition to this seems rather short sighted to me. I've already explained why I think it's a good deal for the town, so I won't go into that much further. Proponents of the CPA had planned to run an under-the-radar campaign, but the opposition has been very vocal -- the TAB has at least two anti-CPA letters each issue and has published several anti-CPA columns. Granted, I'm not sure if anyone actually reads the TAB, so maybe it's not a big deal, but if that was your only source of local news, you would come off with the impression that the CPA is just another tax that an ever-expanding government wants to impose on us.

But that's not what's going on. What's really going on is that by enacting the CPA, Watertown can stop funding projects in other communities and, with a little investment of its own, get state funding for projects here. Of the ten towns with the highest median household income per the 2000 census, seven of them have adopted the CPA. Of the top 25, seventeen of them have also passed the act. That means money from Watertown is going to subsidize places like Weston and Carlisle which have median incomes of more than double ours. Short of repealing the CPA on the state level, which will never happen since legislators from the towns that have enacted it have a stake in making sure it stays, the only way to stop shifting money out of Watertown and into our parks, historic buildings, and open spaces is to vote Yes on the CPA in November.

Watertown CPA Needs Signatures!

The Watertown Committee for Community Preservation is still looking for signatures for their petition to get the Community Preservation Act on the ballot this November. The committee is looking for a total of 1,750 signatures by September 27 and they're already more than halfway toward their goal. Under the CPA, Watertown stands to generate over $800,000 for open space/recreation, historic preservation, and affordable housing. If the committee doesn't get the required signatures, however, all that money is left on the table, and it'll go to subsidize projects in towns like Chatham, Cohasset, Duxbury and Wellesley.

If you're interested in signing the petition, and you're a Watertown resident, volunteers will be collecting signatures in front of the Watertown Post Office (Main Street) on Saturday, September 10 and Saturday, September 17 between 9:30 am and 1:30 pm. In addition, Community Preservation supporters will have a table at the Faire on the Square, September 24th in Watertown Square. If you can't make any of those days, drop me a line and I'll try to hook you up with a petition.

If you're on the fence about the CPA, think of it this way. Imagine the state is giving you a magic box that your taxes are already paying for no matter what you do. If you put $25 into the box, it shoots out a $50 Home Depot^* gift card. Sure you can't use that money to pay the mortgage or other bills, but suddenly everything you do to improve your house (and increase your property value) is half price. Who could turn that down?

For more information about the CPA, see my interview with Dori Peleg of Watertown Community Housing.

^*For those of you boycotting Home Depot for various reasons (ideological or incompetence) substitute Coolidge Hardware or an equivalent outside of Watertown.

Affordable Housing and the CPA

Monday night I had a brief conversation with Dori Peleg of Watertown Community Housing. WCH is one of the groups involved in bringing the Community Preservation Act to the ballot here in Watertown, so I wanted to ask her about that and some of the other projects that WCH is involved with.

Since the CPA sets aside funds both for open space and affordable housing, I asked whether those were two conflicting missions; after all, a parcel of land can't simultaneously be a park and an apartment. Peleg assured me, though that a good development project -- and certainly the ones that WCH are interested in -- will balance the environmental, historical and housing needs of the community. Peleg pointed out the Trolley Square Development in Cambridge, which also uses CPA funds, as an example of what could be accomplished. Of course Cambridge, as others have noted, is one of the only communities with any interest in using CPA funds for affordable housing above the minimum required. When I asked about this, Peleg admitted that affordable housing was harder to get support for than park space or even historical preservation, but the reason that WCH wanted to get involved early in the CPA approval process was to ensure that they had a seat at the table should the measure be enacted.

As a non-profit, WCH would be the recipient of much of the CPA funds earmarked for affordable housing. While the town does have an inclusionary zoning law that requires 10% of all new developments of ten units or more must be affordable, this is the responsibility of the developers, not the town. CPA funds would only go towards properties that are owned and managed by the town, so under normal circumstances a for-profit developer would not be eligible for subsidies.

The town is currently spending money that could be replaced with CPA funds, should the CPA be enacted. The town is working with WCH on a number of existing projects, including the First Home Program. With additional funds from the Community Preservation Act, WCH could provide larger loans at less cost to the town and other involved parties. (Properties bought through the First Home Program are deed restricted; when they are sold, the price is limited to ensure that they remain affordable.)

So, who would be eligible for the affordable housing? Generally, those who earn under 80% of the area's median income -- a condition which is normally only checked at the time of application for assistance. In Watertown, median income for a family of four is $68,465, so a family is “low-to-moderate income” if it takes in $54,772 or less. At present 5.45% of Watertown's housing stock is considered affordable, though WCH considers “enough” affordable housing to be at a level that would allow all moderate-income or below households (about 10,000 in Watertown) to pay a third of their income (or less) on housing. For that to happen, roughly a third of the town's housing would have to be affordable.

WCH was also involved in a bid to turn the vacant Coolidge School in the East End into affordable housing units. Last week, the town council rejected the WCH plan in favor of a private developer. Peleg expressed her dismay at the decision, which would still create ten affordable units out of a total of 35, but said that the decision was expected. The silver lining, from her point of view, was that at least those ten units would be created, whereas if the town had voted to move the police station to the Coolidge School site, there would have been no additional housing stock put on the market.

While some landlords may complain that affordable housing could depress rental prices in Watertown, those fears seem to be unfounded given the scope of WCH. The number of subsidized units is so miniscule compared to the larger rental market that it is unlikely to be a drag on rents, at least in the short term. In addition, creating affordable housing allows municipal employees, firefighters, police officers, and teachers to actually live in the town they help support. An abundance of housing can also help attract new businesses to the town because they will not have to worry where their workforce is going to live or if they can afford to live there.

In fact, the wider application of the CPA could serve to increase property values in Watertown. For example, using CPA money to restore historical character to old houses can help to increase property values in entire neighborhoods, as could creating more open spaces.

If you are interested in learning more about Watertown Community Housing, you can contact them through their website.

CPA Web Activism

Via h2otown.

A group of Watertown citizens have started up a new website as a clearinghouse for information on support for the Community Preservation Act here in town. I can't say I'm a big fan of their use of frames, but the information there is great.

Here are some facts I learned from the State's CPA Website: The state gave over $30 million to 61 cities and towns in 2004. That amounts to around $4.85 for every man, woman and child in the Commonwealth. By my crude calculations, Watertown's share of that is nearly $160,000. That's money we're spending to subsidize places like Cambridge, Nantucket and Cohasset and getting zilch in return. Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to get more out of my taxes than the five units of affordable housing in Newburyport that money pays for.

You can read my previous posts on the CPA here and here.

CPA Followup

As a followup to my post last month on the exploration of the Community Preservation Act here in Watertown, I'd like to point out former State Senator and 2002 Gubernatorial candidate Warren Tolman's Letter to the Editor in Friday's Watertown Tab. Here's an excerpt:

It should be noted that the State matches 100 percent of the monies raised in the 100 communities that have passed CPA. Initial estimates are that we will generate in the area of $750,000 per year with the same amount coming from the state. Imagine what we could do with approximately $1.5 million per year for open space, historic preservation, affordable housing and recreational facilities!

In other words, we in Watertown are subsidizing with our state tax dollars the other communities that have shown the foresight to adopt this bill. I am sure we are all for affordable housing in Agawam or Needham, recreational facilities in Cambridge or Braintree, historic preservation in Newton or Peabody and open space acquisition in Acton or Ashland, but I hate to see those communities, which have all adopted the CPA, benefit from our collective state tax dollars only to have my community lose out on this opportunity.

Now, compare Tolman's letter to this screed that compares the CPA to "rape" and those that support it to Communists. It's good to see that reasoned discourse is alive and well in Watertown...

Personally, my view is that the CPA is like a membership fee for someplace like Costco. Yes, you have to pay some money up front, but everything the town gets under the CPA is at a deep discount. Some of that, we're probably going to buy anyway. We've already slated to upgrade our playgrounds -- it would be nice to have the state chip in for that. Storm damage and hoodlum damage to what little open space we have is going to happen; if we can use CPA funds for cleanup, we're actually saving the Town money. Don't forget, town money that we don't have to spend on these projects can go to the schools or the roads, or, heck, to prevent another tax increase.

Preserving the Community: Half-Price

I learned last week that there is a group of people here in Watertown trying to gauge support for the Community Preservation Act. The Watertown Tab describes the CPA thusly:

The Community Preservation Act places a 1 to 3 percent surcharge on property taxes. The money is matched by the state and must be used for programs that either preserve a town's historical and natural assets or create affordable housing.

One hundred Bay State communities have passed the CPA, including Newton, which added a 1 percent surcharge. A 2 percent surcharge in Watertown on the average property tax bill of about $4,000 would cost homeowners another $80 per year, but Town Councilor Susan Falkoff said exceptions could be made for low-income and elderly homeowners.

On a whim, my wife and I went to Councilor Falkoff's reelection campaign kickoff on Friday. Former state Senator Warren Tolman was there, and he spoke briefly about the CPA. The most salient point he brought up, in my opinion, was that since the state matches the funds, towns that don't enact the CPA end up subsidizing the towns that do. That pretty much sold it for me. I don't want to pay for a hiking trail in Agawam -- I want my state taxes to go to connecting East Watertown to the Minuteman Bike path. Watertown is in pretty good financial shape compared to other cities and towns, but that doesn't mean we should turn down free money from Beacon Hill, even if it means raising property taxes. Eventually, we're going to have to maintain our historical spots and open spaces, and under the CPA, we can do it at half price.