Submitted by HRJafael t3_yhxg12 in WorcesterMA
Comments
legalpretzel t1_iuhr2q7 wrote
There is so little reason to vote no it’s laughable. We’re talking an extra $40-100/year on property taxes. If your house is valued at $700k you likely won’t even notice that extra $100 tacked onto your $8k property tax bill.
This is free money from the state, but only if we put in our share. We need more affordable housing. Our kids need nice parks and fields (since there’s not much else for them to do in Worcester). I don’t get the reticence in Worcester to actually contribute to making this city better for everyone.
We love to turn out to vote Democrat in national elections and then sit back and let the provincial white haired voters do everything in their power to screw the city in local elections.
your_city_councilor t1_iuipzx5 wrote
Isn't one of the issues that the free money from the state is becoming less and less each year?
I plan to vote yes - the cost is such a low gamble to improve the city - but I would like the clarification.
Karen1968a t1_iujk8kj wrote
As a provincial white haired voter, I’m voting no, but I will be shocked if it doesn’t pass.
redstarohyeah t1_iuj8n0t wrote
Without fail, every single person I’ve listened to that’s said they’re voting no is an asshole. Yes that’s anecdotal, but it’s also a vast swathe and totally unfailing in its prediction. This is such a no-brainer, if you find yourself a no vote, I regret to inform you: you are an asshole.
Terminus1066 t1_iuid7q4 wrote
It’s already been adopted by 189 cities and towns in MA. Yeah it’s an added fee of ~$50/year for homeowners, but it’s for programs that directly benefit the public. Plus there are matching funds, so by not doing it we’re leaving money on the table. Seems like a no-brainer.
orzechod t1_iuhpcnj wrote
on the one hand, you could pay like $50 a year (or $0, if you are exempt) and get free money from the state in order to improve parks and make housing more affordable. on the other hand, you could discuss your $4/mo surcharge using catchphrases like "a tax on a tax" as if that's not how all taxes everywhere already work. good arguments on both sides if you ask me!
dont_think_outofstep t1_iuh5w6k wrote
"a committee"... probably consisting of cronies and yuppie Avalon developers.
barry_abides t1_iuj4cef wrote
The state statute mandates five members of existing city boards and committees - up to four more "at-large" members can be added depending on how the city sets things up. There are very specific guidelines on how the CPA funds can be used (and lots of legal precedent excluding specific uses) so misappropriation would be highly constrained and likely to trigger a lawsuit or state intervention. More info here: https://www.communitypreservation.org/CPCs
doublesecretprobatio t1_iuhi5rz wrote
take $45 of whatever i pay that goes to the WPD. fuck, take most of it.
your_city_councilor t1_iuiqsam wrote
I was planning on voting yes, but just read this article and came across this bit:
>The measure would add a 1.5% surcharge on residents' annual assessed property tax beginning in July 2023. The first $100,000 of residential and commercial-industrial property value will be exempt from the surcharge. Low-income families and low- to moderate-income senior citizens who own homes will also be exempt from the surcharge.
The average resident will pay $44.45 while the average commercial taxpayer will pay $604.58 if the measure is passed.
I'd previously heard the $44.45 number before, but not the way it's calculated. If you've got a little house that's worth $300,000, and the chop off the first $100,000, that means you're taxed at 1.5 percent on $200,000, right? And 1.5 percent of $200,000 isn't $44.45, but $3,000.
Would the person owning a house like the one described be paying $44.45 or $3,000 more?!
Now I'm thinking I need to vote no, unless someone can explain why I'm off in my calculations or the premise.
entropyvsenergy t1_iuiwahp wrote
It's 1.5% on top of the tax not on top of the house value. So if you own a $700k house, your tax bill is likely around $8,000 so this would add $120 (1.5% of $8,000) to your tax bill.
your_city_councilor t1_iuiz60o wrote
Thanks for the information!
[deleted] t1_iuk2ktc wrote
[removed]
JoshSidekick t1_iujd79f wrote
I'm voting yes, but I swear I'm going to be so pissed if they use the money to build a new stadium so we can snipe another town's developmental basketball team.
tugaim33 t1_iuhh7in wrote
“the benefits of the CPA — affordable housing, historical preservation and open space - are “nice to have.” But he identified other things in the city such as roads and sidewalk repairs that should be prioritized.”
That’s a false choice. CPA can’t be used for roads and bridges, but if we fund the CPA and use the funds for preservation and affordable housing, then there should be money not being spent on those things that can now be spent on roads and bridges.
The bottom line is this is a good thing to spend our money on. Lots of towns around us do it. That said, I don’t fault anyone for not trusting that the city would run it well, or for wanting to keep that $45 in their bank account.