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

Reply to comment by Zinski in Question 5…explain it like I’m 5 by Krny73

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).