Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

orzechod t1_isy850y wrote

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.

33

teddygrahamdispenser t1_isyawus wrote

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

21

Zinski t1_isycgy7 wrote

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

0

teddygrahamdispenser t1_isye9qc wrote

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.

20

orzechod t1_isyg8mm wrote

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.

17

Wooden-Letter7199 t1_iszjsvu wrote

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?

2

barry_abides t1_it0wfxf wrote

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).

5

SmartSherbet t1_isymfe3 wrote

Vote yes. It'll cost the average homeowner about $35-40/year in property taxes, which will be bolstered by a statewide pool of real estate transaction surcharges that we gain access to if we enact the policy.

Worcester really, really needs this.

21

not_quitenormal t1_iszz36q wrote

Only $40 a year? Voting Yes, then. This sounds like an incredible deal.

7

mamaofblackcats t1_isybdnl wrote

I talked to a person who was canvassing about this. They said "pretty much homeowners pay about $40/year through taxes. Those funds go to green space and other environmental community initiatives"

17

Clean_Citron_8278 t1_it0tqqy wrote

I don't trust the current office holders to use the money as they should. I fear the cause will be revitalize or improving Polar Park. We also know affordable housing isn't their goal.

6

barry_abides t1_it0wttk wrote

A committee would be formed, made up primarily of members of other boards (conservation commission, historic preservation, affordable housing trust, etc.) - they would be the ones to evaluate funding proposals and send the best on to city council for approval. This is all written into the Act, so Worcester can't circumvent the committee and only very specific uses of the funds are allowed.

7

[deleted] t1_isy7qxx wrote

[deleted]

1

beaux-tie t1_isyz3xx wrote

The research bureau made a report and calculator about question 5 and the cpa (https://www.wrrb.org/reports/2022/08/preserving-worcesters-past-present-and-future-statewide-lessons-for-worcester-voters-on-the-cpa/)

Yes for a Better Worcester also made a calculator to figure out what your surcharge would be (https://www.cpaworcester.org/calculator)

And as others have pointed out, communitypreservation.org is a good resource for what other cities have used the money for

1

CoolAbdul t1_iszyl25 wrote

Do not trust a single damn thing the Research Bureau says.

0

legalpretzel t1_it0973z wrote

Because math is hard? Subtract $100k from assessed value and then multiply by .015. Not sure where the deception comes into that, but my personal calculator came up with a number that is entirely consistent with the one on the research bureau’s page. Either way I’m looking at $53. Yay basic math!!

1

CoolAbdul t1_it0f6kl wrote

Because the Research Bureau is run by a pair of hardcore far right Ayn Rand cultists.

−1

Cran125GPS t1_it5j4jh wrote

Lol this is just blatantly false info

2

CoolAbdul t1_it6z6p6 wrote

You don't think the Shaeffers aren't extremists?

0

Cran125GPS t1_it74ry8 wrote

Roberta Schaefer hasn't been on the board in 8+ years....if you look at the board of directors and staff there is no one with the name Schaeffer. I know probably half of the board. I mean come on Allen Fletcher, Tim Garvin, Tim Murray, and Deb Packard are on the board....real right wing extremists there

1

CoolAbdul t1_it764z7 wrote

Okay then. I stand corrected.

Except for the part about the Schaefers being extremists.

1

sevencityseven t1_itabkyy wrote

Parks look good - no need for more taxes during raging inflation. Even better we don’t need more taxes period. Anyone who thinks this doesn’t get passed down to renters is out of their mind. City gets enough tax money - make better decisions.

1

Itchy_Rock_726 t1_it46odz wrote

It'll be another slush fund diverted to hiring another few hundred cops and firefighters.

−2

NativeMasshole t1_isy7c11 wrote

Yeah, that one caught me off guard too. Basically no information there and a quick google didn't turn up anything. Kind of hard to vote for an energy tax during an energy crunch when they can't even tell you where the fee will be implemented.

−5

kckid2599 t1_isya489 wrote

It's not an energy tax.

>With this CPA proposal, the Yes for a Better Worcester is putting forward a 1.5% surcharge on local property tax bills. Each dollar raised in Worcester through the CPA will receive a match from the state’s CPA Trust Fund, disbursed each November by the Department of Revenue.
>
>Worcester residents, through Registry fees, are already paying into this statewide CPA Trust Fund. The CPA Trust Fund money is generated by fees charged on documents filed at the Registries of Deeds ($50 and $25 as of December 31, 2019). The November 2021 base match for communities was 39.4% of what they raised at the local level – a new record-high distribution of $79 million to CPA communities.
>
>Worcester’s CPA proposal will include the following exemptions:-
>
>
>
>- First $100,000 of residential property value
>
>- First $100,000 of commercial & industrial property value
>
>- Low-income individuals & families
>
>- Low- to moderate-income seniors
>
>https://www.cpaworcester.org/yes-for-a-better-worcester

5

NativeMasshole t1_isyfmz7 wrote

Oh, whoops. I'm on the outskirts of the county, so I'm in a different district. My 5 was just a single line about whether my rep should pursue a fee on carbon fuels to offset their impact. Didn't have any information at what point the fee would be imposed nor on what fuel applications.

3

Roman_Boston t1_it067xk wrote

Another tax scheme. Can’t they just stop with the taxes. I mean we are in a recession and have high inflation. Why raise taxes.

−5

legalpretzel t1_it08jey wrote

We’re talking $50/year on average for most homeowners which then allows the city to access additional state funds to improve our green spaces and provide other community benefits. Many other cities and town in MA have been accessing those funds for 20 years while Worcester has been twiddling its collective thumbs. Worcester redditors are constantly complaining that the city is backwards and small minded (and they’re not wrong bc the elderly voters have long determined the city’s priorities). The CPA is a perfect example of a way to improve Worcester that will likely fail if the elderly voters have their way.

6

Karen1968a t1_it8ddlh wrote

And my completely unscientific view of all the redditors on this page is that they rent and therefore think they can screw someone else with no impact. So I hope every landlord and every impacted commercial property adds a CPA surcharge to help spread the impact. 😀

2

Roman_Boston t1_it09vcw wrote

Does the city publicly publish its expenses and revenues? Do you know where the city spends money? If not why would you want more money to go their way?

Just a question, I’m fine either way you vote.

−2

barry_abides t1_it0xp4a wrote

FY22 Annual Budget has a breakdown of revenues and expenses: https://opendata.worcesterma.gov/documents/be84fb023e6c45c89000c7f6d281c263/explore

This is a state program that is partially funded by fees recorded at county registries of deeds. There is a pot of money used for matching funds that Worcester currently receives none of because we haven't adopted CPA. Other cities have seen a lot of benefits from the additional revenue (worth noting that CPA funds can't be used to pay for other standard city operating expenses, only new projects that fall under one of the specified categories).

2

Karen1968a t1_isyut7e wrote

Simply put, it’s a tax increase.

−7

teddygrahamdispenser t1_isyyc4n wrote

Too simply put, it is. Not all tax increases are bad. This one is good (and extremely modest).

6

Karen1968a t1_isyzu2j wrote

They said to explain it like they were 5. I didn’t editorialize. 😀 But if I DID, I’d say it’s another tax grab attempt, and in an era of high inflation and a looming recession, I’ll keep every penny of my money that I can. But, I’m not editorializing. 🤷‍♀️

−9

barry_abides t1_it0y4mh wrote

Five year olds don't understand the concept of taxes, but they might have some concept of the value of nicer parks to play in and a better place to call home. (They might not quite be ready to discuss historic preservation).

1

tugaim33 t1_isyz9cy wrote

A (very slight) tax increase where double the money paid in comes directly back to the city to be spent on parks, historical preservation, and affordable housing.

3