orzechod t1_isy850y wrote on October 19, 2022 at 3:58 PM

take the assessed value of your house, subtract $100K from it, and calculate what the property tax would be on that reduced value. pay 1.5% of that number into a special state fund, from which Worcester can withdraw as much as its residents pay in and use it to improve parks, recreational spaces, and affordable housing.

teddygrahamdispenser t1_isyawus wrote on October 19, 2022 at 4:16 PM

It's actually a better deal than that: the statewide Community Preservation Trust Fund that was created when the bill was signed into law in 2000 is funded both by property taxes from participating communities and a surcharge on every real estate transaction in the state. The real estate surcharges add up to about $60 million a year, and if there's a state budget surplus (like the one we have now), that money can also be added to the fund. We've essentially been leaving free money on the table for over twenty years because we would have gotten the money we raised via taxes plus a share of the money raised by the state. Here's a map of the towns/cities that have already adopted it: map

orzechod t1_isy8a9g wrote on October 19, 2022 at 3:59 PM

sources:

https://www.communitypreservation.org/about

https://www.communitypreservation.org/funding

Zinski t1_isycgy7 wrote on October 19, 2022 at 4:27 PM

Mhmm mhmm. What if you can't afford a home and won't be able to for another 15 years of saving

teddygrahamdispenser t1_isye9qc wrote on October 19, 2022 at 4:38 PM

Then you don't have to worry about the increase in property tax at all and should definitely vote for this because it'll be great for the city.

orzechod t1_isyg8mm wrote on October 19, 2022 at 4:51 PM

then there's no direct financial impact to you, though I'm guessing your landlord will try to use this to justify yet another rent increase. (don't fall for it; the owner of a triple-decker worth $700K will only see their tax bill go up by something like $147 per year)

the benefits would be: nicer outdoor spaces, better historical preservation efforts, and more affordable housing. it's not a general slush fund; the money can only be spent on certain types of things. and as another reply to my comment mentioned, Worcester residents are already putting money into this fund (via surcharges on real-estate transactions) but never taking any money out of it (since we haven't signed on as a CPA community).

I'm voting yes on Q5. it'll cost me an extra $53 next year. I'll gladly pay $53 for better parks and more accessible housing.

Wooden-Letter7199 t1_iszjsvu wrote on October 19, 2022 at 9:03 PM

I want to agree with you but is there anything in the bill requiring the cities/towns to use the funds? What if they just sit there because no town gets their act together to use the funds?

barry_abides t1_it0wfxf wrote on October 20, 2022 at 3:02 AM

Nothing that literally compels them to spend the money, but they are required to set up a committee (populated in part from other relevant city boards/commissions) which collects proposals and recommends which to fund. City council would ultimately approve the use of those funds. No reason the city shouldn't want the extra cash to spend, though. Also the new affordable housing trust can be allocated CPA funding to help with projects they choose to support. (Source: used to work as a planner developing CPA plans).