If you can afford it …
The CPA is a good deal for municipalities whose residents can afford it. In exchange for a property tax surcharge of 1 to 3 percent, the state will provide matching money (used to be $1 for $1, is now more on the order of 50 cents state matching on each dollar of local property tax surcharge). At least 10% of the match must be spent on each of 3 categories – open space, historic preservation, and affordable housing; the remaining 70% can be spent on a much wider (but still limited) range of possibilities.
Spending is thus on projects which most communities would like to spend money anyway. The state match reduces by half the cost of extra spending. Bottom line is that CPA money is worth spending on, if one can afford it.
I suggest that individual support for or opposition against the CPA is based largely on one’s personal finances. Those who feel they can afford to pay more have compelling reason to support it; those who feel they can’t have compelling reason to oppose it. Thus, the municipal vote that is required to pass the CPA is a proxy poll on individual voters’ perception of their own financial state. I believe that those who are most vocal in support of Arlington levying a CPA surcharge are those who can most afford it. In contrast, as in most matters of spending, those who are of more limited means are quieter or silent in their opposition.
I suggest that community spending (on CPA or anything else) is biased in favor of more spending rather than less, for multiple reasons: 1) Generally, and with exceptions, the more affluent have more time and energy to advocate for more spending; those with less have less time and energy to oppose it. 2) Higher spending results in a higher match rate; communities which surcharge the maximum 3% receive more than communities which surcharge less.
Poorer cities avoid it
The CPA is generally used by affluent communities, suburbs, and rural communities, but not by its larger, poorer cities. Notably absent from the list of CPA users are Massachusetts’ larger, poorer cities, euphemistically called “gateway cities.” Notably absent from a list of communities which have utilized the CPA since its inception in 2001 are 10 of the 11 original gateway cities, and 10 of an additional 15 cities designated as gateway cities in 2010. Nor has Boston, the state’s largest city, seen fit to adopt the CPA. In short, 21 of Massachusetts largest and poorest cities, in which live roughly one-third of the state’s population live, have not seen fit to adopt the CPA in any of the 13 years that the CPA has existed.
This bias has continued to exist despite attempts to reduce the cost of the CPA to poorer communities. Cities and towns who pass the CPA can exempt from the CPA surcharge the first $100,000 of assessed value of residences, and can reduce or exempt low-income residents from the surcharge.
Between the mortgage crisis, which greatly reduced the amount of CPA funding available, and the increased number of cities and towns that have applied for CPA funds, CPA funding is nowhere near as generous as it used to be. The original 100% (dollar for dollar) match of state money quickly fell to 50%. As of this year, the current match is 23%. If the Legislature adds additional money, then those cities and towns who surcharge the maximum of 3% *may* see their match increase to 52%. Other cities and towns will stay at a 23% match.
AHS project agrues against CPA
One final reason to oppose CPA funding that is specific to Arlington: I believe we need to either renovate the existing high school or build a new one. Even after state reimbursement from another state program, it’s gonna be expensive, the single biggest capital expenditure Arlington will make for decades, surpassing even the $50 million we spent renovating all 7 elementary schools. As much as we’d like to, we can’t afford everything we’d like. We need to make some hard choices. As desirable as I find historic preservation and open space, I’m willing to forgo such spending in order to have more money for a high school, which I find more important.
I have given a number of reasons to oppose CPA funding in Arlington. Some are practical – it’s a matter of personal affordability, the state match is much less than it once was, and we need a new high school. Some are more of policy; the CPA as implemented helps affluent communities, suburbs, and rural towns, but does not help poorer, larger cities.
All of my reasons have rebuttals. A 23% state match isn’t as much as a 50% match, but still worth getting. We can and will make good use of any money.
I hope the debate will be civil. I hope that all, especially those who are opposed to more spending but are also less likely to vote than those who favor more spending, will turn out to vote against it.
This viewpoint was published Sunday, April 13, 2014.
Your response to this view is welcome at the comment link below.
