Arlington residents puzzled about how to vote Nov. 4 on the Community Preservation Act would like to know: “What will it pay for?”
Some voters say they do not yet know the specifics about how the $1.1 million that is expected to be raised here will be used, and so they are leaning toward checking no on their ballots.
KEEPING WHAT‘S OURS: A look at specifics Part 3
That view is made clear in a thoughtful post on Oct. 14 to the Arlington email list by Aram Hollman, who writes as a knowledgeable veteran about development issues.
“One reason many will vote against the CPA is very simple,” he wrote. “They don’t know what they will get for their increased spending! In general, as in Arlington’s annual budget, we first identify items on which to spend money, then propose specific amounts for each. With the CPA, we ante up the money first, then leave it to a committee to decide how to spend it.”
Hollman’s suggestion
That is usually how paying for projects works. Hollman cites the town’s elementary-school rebuild effort, which began in 1997. “The voters vetoed the initial $50 million proposal for all 7,” he wrote. “Proponents then split the proposal in two parts. The deal was: Authorize spending to renovate 4 of 7 schools. If the money was spent well, then, as a matter of fairness, voters would be morally obligated to fund renovations of the remaining 3. It worked.” One school remains to be renovated.
He draws a lesson for proponents: “Come up with a list of possible projects now, in advance of a CPA vote. Prioritize them. Run the list by the Finance Committee, see how well it matches their priorities (including high school renovations), and modify as needed.
“Then propose to the voters a CPA surcharge — for specific projects. This can be done in a manner entirely consistent with the separate committee that authorizes CPA spending. Thus, the voters can decide whether they want to spend extra for those projects.”
List of projects suggested
This is an intriguing idea, but to date no official is pushing it. The Finance Committee would have to be on board with such a process, and two of its members, Charlie Foskett and Dean Carman, outspokenly seek no other alternative than a no vote. Carman provides a link to last spring’s Town Meeting showing longtime Chairman Al Tosti showing longtime Chairman Al Tosti in opposition.
Without the process Hollman suggests, could we still list potential projects that funds from an adopted Community Preservation Act could cover? One prominent town official has already done so.
Selectman Joseph A. Curro Jr. issued a statement Oct. 16 in support of a yes vote. Targeting the general areas of open space, recreation, historic preservation and housing, the statement provides these specific uses:
— The Senior Center, previously the Central School, which was Arlington’s high school before 1914;
— Historical buildings that could be part of an effort to boost tourism — Jason Russell House, Dallin Museum, Old Schwamb Mill, Old Burying Ground and Cyrus Dallin’s sculpture “Menotomy Indian Hunter”;
— The Mugar property, along Route 2 near Thorndike Field, whose purchase might limit the Alewife-area development that threatens flood-stricken East Arlington homeowners; and
— Affordable housing on terms that the town wants.
Arlington High history
As to Arlington High School, which must be rebuilt or face nonrenewal of accreditation, Curro quotes a town report: “‘… we have the potential to fund a renewed high school facility without substantially increasing exempt taxes beyond FY2015 levels.’ The picture is not as bleak as has sometimes been portrayed in recent weeks.”
Curro’s statement does not mention using preservation funds to pay for renovating those parts of the school laden with history, a step that has been taken in other communities, including Cambridge, at Rindge & Latin.
Others have made recent specific suggestions for using the funds.
At the Monday, Oct. 20 meeting, of the Redevelopment Board, Christine M. Scypinski, the board chair, pointed to a possible use for preservation money: extensive upgrades for the Minuteman Bikeway in Arlington. Sections of the path have been in proved in Lexington and Bedford, communities that used such funds.
At the same meeting, at which the board voted 4-0-1 to support a yes vote Nov. 4, with Michael Cayer abstaining, preservation supporter Susan Stamps cited a number of specific uses for the money, including the Jefferson Cutter House.
Providing the estimate of the amount that a successful vote in November might produce — $1.1 million — was Clarissa Rowe, the former selectman who is chair of the state Community Preservation Act Coalition. She and Katherine Ross spoke to 23 people at the Hardy School on Oct. 20. Rowe was involved in the 1990s in developing the legislation that led to passage of the Community Preservation Act in 2000.
No-vote backer: Not part of group
Among residents urging a no vote is Carman, though he says he is not affiliated with the official opposition group.
In permitting YourArlington to quote from his blog, www.votenocpatax.blogspot.com, he wrote Oct. 9: “I wish you the best of luck in trying to describe the ‘Vote No’ group. The core group is easy to identify ([School Committee Chair Bill] Hayner, [Charlie] Foskett, [A. Michael] Ruderman and maybe [town Treasurer Stephen] Gilligan), but after that it’s an extremely loose coalition of people who have agreed to co-exist while maintaining their independence.
“I’m actually not part of them. I started my blog independent of them with no intention of joining any larger committee and have remain mostly independent with no contact outside of the two meetings I attended that were open to the public and the occasional e-mail question (I’ve never been active in an Arlington campaign besides maybe a 2006 and 2011 A-List post supporting the overrides, and to be honest I never in a million years thought I would get as deep into it as I currently find myself).”
In an Oct. 21 post, Carman addresses the issue of specific projects by suggesting proponents imply Arlington doesn’t spend money on historic preservation, recreation or open space “to paint the CPA Tax as a critical ‘investment.’ The problem with this argument is it’s completely false. They know it’s not true, I know it’s not true.”
Evidence of current spending
His evidence is a detailed listing of the amounts of money that Arlington already spends in these areas. Some examples he cites:
Recreation: Through the capital budget the town invests $500,000 to $600,000 annually in parks and playgrounds. “In future years this spending is planned to continue with Robbins Farm ($506,000), Spy Pond Tennis Courts ($467,500) and Wellington Playground ($429,000) on the plan within the next four years,” he wrote.
Historic: In the current fiscal year the town’s capital budget is spending $53,500 on the Whittemore-Robbins House, $40,000 on the Jefferson Cutter House and $250,000 on the Central School, “which by the way is the property the proponents constantly claim no capital money is ever spent on,” he wrote.
Open space: He quotes Tosti speaking at last May’s Town Meeting: “‘We’re going to buy some open space; well there is no open space. People have been talking about Mugar ever since I’ve been in this Town Meeting in 1973. We’re not going to get our hands on it, and if it does become available it’s going to be a huge amount of money’ [more than the CPA can handle].” (Carman inserted the last phrase.)
Less-than-timely progress on projects
Precinct 10 Town Meeting member Christian Klein, on Wednesday, Oct. 21, responded by pointing out that spending in these areas “isn’t always done in a timely manner.”
Klein adds to the list of potential preservation-act projects by citing Robbins Farm Park. He serves on the board of its Friends group, but his comments are his own.
The park project is in phase 2 of a two-part renovation effort. The first phase 1 was completed 11 years ago. Phase 2 was in the capital plan for 2004 with a $350K budget.
That year, work on the basketball court, baseball field and other elements on the upper field, was moved to the 2008 capital plan. It then reappeared in the 2009 plan, scheduled for 2013. The next year, it was shifted to 2015. In 2011, it was moved to the 2016 budget, where it has remained.
“I’ve been warned that it may be pushed out again,” he wrote. “Here’s a case where the town demonstrably hasn’t spent the money, at least not yet.”
Consider postponed projects
Klein continues, making a point relevant to specific projects:
“There have been many complaints that proponents of the CPA don’t say where the money is going to be spent. I would consider any eligible capital project that has been postponed more than five years would be a good candidate.
“… [I]ncreasing public housing to get ahead of40B is another.
“I don’t know enough about historic resources in town to address likely projects. We do have a town committee charged with leveraging the town’s history for commercial gain. I’m sure others have ideas, and I’d like to know what priorities our fellow citizens would have.
“In the spring, I started as a proponent of the CPA. I admit that much of the initial opposition information was very persuasive. I found Mr. Carman’s postings very reasoned and informative. However, I have found that much of the more recent opposition has been hyperbole and unhelpful. This has turned me back toward the CPA camp.
“Even if the state matching funds go completely away, I think it is valuable to have a dedicated funding source, paid by our taxes, to support the resources that are the first to be postponed or eliminated when the economic times are tough.”
The series continues with campaign-finance reports.
Part 1: Differing viewpoints among officials roil Community Preservation Act discussion
Part 2: ANALYSIS: A war of words around Community Preservation Act finances
Poll: How will you vote?
Vote-no committee | Supporters
Vote-yes committee | Supporters
This story was published Thursday, Oct. 23, 2014.
If you want comment on issues related to the Community Preservation Act, or this story, you may do so at the comment link below this blog entry >> or this blog entry >>
