Submitted by GlobeOpinion t3_102af78 in massachusetts
GyantSpyder t1_j2scin6 wrote
This opinion piece is mostly a political consultant who specializes in rural issues arguing that there should be a new government job created for a political consultant who specializes in rural issues. It's a bit transparent.
Also all these rural "nobody listens to us" political operatives are always light on details for what issues they actually care about - and whether it's legitimately a concern of the people who live in rural areas or just some random niche interest claiming to have popular support because there aren't many people living in the area so nobody else is stepping up to "be the voice."
Like this article mentions "protecting our working landscapes of the agriculture and forestry sector" -- what does that even mean? What is a working landscape? If what you mean is "abolish all environmental regulations so I can cut down more trees without doing paperwork" or "Stop the minimum wage hikes because I don't want to pay farmhands that much" then just say it.
GyantSpyder t1_j2si7wo wrote
Okay, so, to be nicer and try to organize it a bit better, here are the issues for rural Massachusetts the writer mentions in this op-ed, leaving out the vague rhetoric that says nothing -
- They don't have enough high-speed internet
- Less populated towns have small town office staffs that can't complete the paperwork the state requires them to complete
- No members of the Legislative Rural Caucus are going to be given control of any powerful state committees (is this really a problem anyone else cares about? Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to caucus only with each other if it's hurting you. Go do some politics or something.)
- They need more dentists, doctors, and mental health professionals
- They want more people from the city to go apple picking and leaf peeping and stuff
These seem like decent issues to advocate for, sure.
Thinking about these, the one that makes obvious sense to tackle in this way (by the creation of a new state executive office) would be an ombudsman position for towns that have difficulty with their paperwork. I'm not sure if this position already exists or doesn't, and as a problem it certainly isn't limited to the rural parts of the state.
But also, it's a deceptively tricky issue - we had a situation where a consultancy was hired to do a revision of the town bylaws - like a pass to make them all one current version because it had all become a bit disorganized - and the version they presented to town meeting for approval even after being paid for like a year of work was full of new, obvious errors and problems (like obvious changes to the bylaws that had been voted in the previous year were just not in the draft, so it was unclear if approving the draft was repealing the last year of bylaws - but how would any of these consultants know what was voted in the previous year? Etc.) so it wasn't approved, meaning it had to wait for another year. This kind of work is boring and difficult and even professionals fuck it up frequently.
The article seems to use the word "bureaucrat" with the classic empty rhetorical contempt but it sounds like a big part of what they need are better bureaucrats, and that can be a hard sell because it's not free.
Also using the word "bureaucrat" with veiled contempt while asking for the creation of a new bureaucratic office is a bit hypocritical, but what are you going to do? Rhetoric dies hard.
BasicDesignAdvice t1_j2t1ax4 wrote
> \1. They don't have enough high-speed internet
Valid point.
> \2. Less populated towns have small town office staffs that can't complete the paperwork the state requires them to complete
A problem of every state in this country is absolute shit systems for this kind of thing. Major investments in technology and data engineering should be enacted to make everything online and streamlined like in other countries.
They live in a small town and it makes sense they can't keep up. That isn't going to change, the towns are small. The systems need to be updated and training done to make it work better. That isn't likely to change either unfortunately.
commentsOnPizza t1_j2uc5vh wrote
> > 1. They don't have enough high-speed internet > > Valid point.
It's certainly a valid complaint, but it's not like the lack of internet is because the state has ignored them. It's often an issue of the fact that it's really expensive to wire up rural areas for high speed internet. In fact, many towns in Western Mass have fiber because the state funded MassBroadband and offered a lot of grants to communities to subsidize it. MassBroadband has done last-mile projects in 46 towns with 7 more partly done: https://broadband.masstech.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/TownSolutionStatus-KeyCategories_Lit_8x11_20221201_300dpi.pdf
> 2. Less populated towns have small town office staffs that can't complete the paperwork the state requires them to complete
I think the answer to this is that there are functions that should simply be taken away from towns. I'm not talking about taking away local autonomy. I'm saying that there are things no one cares about that need to get done by someone and maybe we should have a county or regional office that administrates that. The towns can't complete the paperwork because their small tax base doesn't support hiring enough people or qualified enough people to do it. Even simple things like sending out tax bills become costly when you're doing it for so few households. Even if the towns continue to set tax rates, it probably makes sense for the county or even the state to collect the taxes. There's no reason why the town should be hiring someone to deal with collecting the taxes or putting out an RFP (request for proposals) for an electronic system for residents to pay their taxes. That cost should be spread among lots of people, not few people.
No one is saying, "You know what I love about my town? The property tax payment system!" Yes, people do care about a lot of things that come with local autonomy. There's also a lot of stuff people don't care about. We should be regionalizing those things or just delegating them to the state.
wgc123 t1_j2tl0zl wrote
It seems like your points 4 and 5 are they need to do more marketing.
> They need more … professionals
As a parent of kids entering college, I suggest service programs to help pay off student loans. I know such things exist but usually only for places that are the extremes. However for whatever reason you don’t have enough doctored, you may attract more by advertising a student loan benefir
SandyBouattick t1_j2soi1t wrote
That makes sense. Obviously rural MA has the same representation as everyone else, but I see some merit in the complaints that seem to come up over and over here. Rural MA gets outvoted by greater Boston on funding infrastructure for greater Boston, so they have to pay for it but never get to use it. The city response to this is that it is both available for everyone's use and Boston is the economic hub of the state and attracts all the good jobs that generate lots of tax money. I think the only real merit argument for the rural crowd is that there is terrible public transportation from rural MA to Boston. Commuting to Boston from rural MA is pretty unrealistic for most people, and we are trying to reduce the number of cars on the roads, not increase it. Decent commuter rail lines that actually serve western / rural MA would make this much more fair. Rural folks could actually access the jobs and hospitals and culture of the city, and city folks could also enjoy the rural events and sights and activities while bringing some revenue to small towns that need it.
wgc123 t1_j2tpl81 wrote
I’m not convinced Boston really does get outsized investment in infrastructure. Of course it gets most, since most of the people are there, most of the taxable income is there, and maybe that will always seem unfair. But does the metro area really get the most funding per capita, or per taxable income?
Infrastructure in rural areas benefits a lot fewer people who bring in a lot less tax income. Maybe your rickety town bridge that only serves a dozen cars a day is relatively more expensive than the Zakim bridge serving tens of thousands
SandyBouattick t1_j2tq1pr wrote
Yeah, it's a tough situation to figure out. Having the best hospital in Boston makes sense because the most people are served by it, but then if you pay taxes and have no hospital nearby you don't feel like you're getting much return on your investment. The same with public transportation. Paying a ton to keep the T going in Boston makes sense, but it sucks to pay for it and not even have a train station within a 45 minute drive. It's a classic problem.
GreatAndPowerfulNixy t1_j2v5xbz wrote
The furthest west MBTA train stop is in Fitchburg, which is decidedly central MA.
wgc123 t1_j31wn6m wrote
But it’s only useful to commute into Boston: are there really people willing to commute farther than that?
Personally I’d like to see high speed trains from Boston to Worcester and Springfield, and wonder if they are big enough to support the beginnings of a train system. While that wouldn’t directly support rural areas, it would be supporting a much higher percentage of residents plus putting transit in reach of more people
g_rich t1_j2wcaxu wrote
Greater Boston is the economic driver for the state and generates a majority of income for the state in terms of taxes so it’s actually the other way around.
Greater Boston is the one paying for the infrastructure in rural Mass, so a town 2 hours outside Boston of a few thousand is not paying to maintain the roads in the city of Boston or fund the T; they are actually receiving more for the $1 in taxes they contribute than someone living in Boston, Worcester or Springfield.
They should actually be championing for more investment in the infrastructure of greater Boston, because that investment improves the economic output of the state which generates more taxes which results in more funding for them.
SandyBouattick t1_j2wqdor wrote
Do you have a source for this? I'd like to see how the towns break down on local funding vs redistribution from Boston as you say.
g_rich t1_j2wwjk6 wrote
If I recall correctly tax sources are roughly 1/3 property tax, 1/3 income tax and the other 1/3 are things like sales tax, corporate taxes, and excise taxes. Massachusetts has a population of a little over 7 million and about 2/3 of those live in the greater Boston metropolitan area. We can remove property taxes from the equation due to those taxes going directly to the cities and towns to fund services such as education, police and fire. That leaves us with the other 2/3 that comprise mostly of income, sales and corporate taxes. Considering that 2/3’s of the population and a large portion of the major corporations being located in the Boston metro it’s safe to say that a majority of income, sales and corporate taxes are coming from the Boston Metro area.
SandyBouattick t1_j2xgrb9 wrote
I agree that is safe to say, but it is also safe to say that a majority of MA tax money is spent on the greater Boston metro as well, so that doesn't tell us how much leaves greater Boston and goes to all the rural towns like you said. Do you have a source for your claim? I'd like to verify that and see how much towns are getting from Boston.
Red7395 t1_j4dzo5l wrote
All Massachusetts residents pay sales tax. A penny of that goes to the T....whether residents have access to it or not.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments