Rolling Green Apartments, 204 units
In a college town where over half the housing units are rentals the sudden doubling of the Community Preservation Act tax to 3% combined with a whopping increase in property valuations at all the major apartment complexes will almost certainly lead to rent increases for the average consumer, many of whom can't afford to buy a home.
In a town with an average tax bill already one third higher than surrounding communities!
Back on May 5 when Amherst Town Meeting voted to put the CPA question on the ballot (but unlike the wording of the question shown to voters, did not vote yes to the increase) I pointed out to Town Meeting, overwhelmingly made up of homeowners, that Amherst is half owned by tax exempt entities -- mainly our institutes of higher education.
Thus the overburdened other half have to contribute more than their fair share to the town revenue stream. I also pointed out that the November elections would get less than a majority turnout and to me (and my Irish mother) that is not democracy.
Vince O'Connor, the main architect of the CPA tax increase, replied that in his 40 years experience in Amherst the November elections had never attracted less than a 50% turnout, and he was expecting this one not to go below 70-75%.
According to Town Clerk Sandra Burgess the recent election had a 37.8% turnout. The 2010 November election had a 45.39% turnout.
Do over.
I cannot claim that I, as a Town Meeting member, did not know what I was doing when I voted for TM to approve the CPA surcharge increase, which resulted in it being placed on the ballot for the voters to decide upon.
ReplyDeleteI knew that under MGL. Ch. 44B, "approval by the legislative body" of the town was THE threshold requirement in order to put the question on the ballot for the voters to decide upon. I knew that it was not simply a passing of the buck to the voters. It was rather a clear affirmative approval of the actual increase itself by Town Meeting, because the statute required it. I voted in a voice vote "yes" along with Select Board's and Finance Committee's recommendations.
I agree with Mr. Kelley that Mr. O'Connor, whether intentionally or unintentionally, did not represent the effect of our decision to Town Meeting in that way. But that does not change the effect of the vote, which is determined by statute, not by Mr. O'Connor, and Town Meeting members are responsible for knowing that. So I disagree with Mr. Kelley's claim in his latest post as to what we were voting for in TM.
I have no problem being accountable for the consequences of how I vote in Town Meeting, and, if we had more accountability, we'd probably be better off as a town.
Rich Morse
Precinct 7
It has been said that Jim Crow Segregation really was about social class and not race -- that in thinking they were "better" than someone else, the White working class never asked why they didn't have what they didn't have.
ReplyDeleteBy treating the UMass students as the contemptible "others", a lot of people who work in Amherst aren't asking the questions they ought to be asking, starting with why they can't afford to live in Amherst.
It isn't because the students are renting all the housing because they wouldn't want to live in the housing that the students rent. Instead, it's why no "median" housing has been built in a quarter century -- why a circa-1960 Rolling Green doesn't have a circa-2010 competitor.
And as to taxes, the TOTAL of all the non-college tax exempt properties exceeds that of the colleges -- while the three colleges are the most valuable tax exempt parcels individually, the cumulative value of the others exceeds them. Facts do matter...
So hate the evil students to your heart's content -- it is YOU who suffer... YOU who are silenced...
Just like the working class White guy who didn't have a paved street....
Larry, you can always propose an underride.
ReplyDeleteProp 2 1/2 not only permits overrides but also underrides -- same process for both, and while you may or may not be able to "do over" this increase, you could always do a 3% general underride (reduction) in taxes.
With the popularity of Team Maria right now, that might just win...
any news re: the ARHS bomb threat this a.m.?
ReplyDeleteEd, the underride would actually be far less than 3% to offset the 1.5% CPA surcharge.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about the increase in property tax assessments was that voters received their property assessment mailing two days AFTER the CPA vote. Not a good move for a town government already suffering from a good deal of citizen distrust--at least coming from the anti-development contingent. I voted in favor of the increase and probably still would (even after hearing that my assessment went up over 20 per cent). It would have been nice, though, to have been able to make that choice with a complete picture of what my overall tax liability was going to be. Hard to believe that the timing of that particular mailing wasn't calculated.
ReplyDeleteNot a combined 3% CPA surcharge...
ReplyDeleteYou know what, Anon 3:51 pm? I don't think that the town leadership, including the Town Manager, cared that much about the surcharge increase. This is primarily play money for those interests that care about the different purposes CPA money in intended for (and the Town Meeting members who love them). The folks in Town Hall care far more about core spending, the basics of municipal government.
ReplyDeleteWe had one Select Board member who announced that she personally would vote against it. So, as to your notion of some conspiracy to withhold information from taxpayers, I think you are overthinking this. If you were paying attention, you would have heard before the election that property tax rates were going down. That wouldn't happen unless the assessments are going up to offset that. So there was no surprise here.
Anon. 6:00 PM:
ReplyDeleteThe Town Manager spoke in favor of the CPA tax increase, so he did, indeed, care. And so he should. The money addresses important quality of life issues in town that the town budget could never adequately fund. Perhaps you should be the one paying better attention. It's one thing to know that assessments are trending up. It's quite another to know the actual percentage increase for your individual household, before voting (voluntarily) to increase it even more.
Anon 9:46 pm:
ReplyDeleteGet a grip. Did the Town Manager, or anyone else in Town Hall, for that matter, care enough to synchronize mailing of notices of assessment with the election?
No. Perhaps you should be the one having just a little perspective. If you voted for the CPA surcharge, you should own it, instead of doing some ridiculous straddle here. If you're having some remorse about your vote, because you didn't think about it carefully enough, get over it.
You can believe that these increases in tax payments for the apartment complexes will result in lots of abatement applications. They have good accountants, the money to pay them, and the data from empty units to show that income is not increasing while expenses go up every year. In my time as assessor these abatements were granted when the documentation was available.
ReplyDeleteBut income is going up -- rent is increasing...
ReplyDeleteAs the quality of the apartment complexes declines through lack of maintenance, lack of reinvestment, and poor management, vacancies climb.
ReplyDeleteMuch of this problem is caused by the zoning bylaw which prevents the owners from making any changes without a special permit. All these complexes are pre-existing, non-conforming uses and so are locked in to their current configurations.
Vacancies are increasing?
ReplyDeleteDocumentation?
In a normal economic market, increased vacancies results in lower rents....