Initiative now underway to reconsider CPA
By Jay TurnerA few days after Canton voters collectively said “no” to the Massachusetts Community Preservation Act in the April town election, Deb Sundin, a conservation commissioner and an ardent CPA supporter, wrote a letter to the Citizen in which she thanked her fellow supporters for their vote, urged the CPA’s opponents to reconsider, and admonished all the “non-voters” for refusing to even show up at the polls.
Also in that letter, Sundin wrote about the many benefits of accepting the legislation, which allows communities to establish a dedicated fund, matched annually by the state at a certain percentage, for the preservation of open space, historic resources, community housing, and outdoor recreation. And she twice asked residents to strongly think it over when — not if — the CPA “comes up again” for consideration.
As it turns out, “again” could be as soon as this November, thanks to a petition started by Sundin and others who are determined to see the question back on the ballot in time for the upcoming presidential election.
These supporters, who call themselves the Voters for the Preservation of Canton (VPC), are currently canvassing the town and will need to collect approximately 800 valid signatures — equivalent to 5 percent of the town’s registered voters — by early next month in order to secure a spot on the November 6 ballot.
“I do think we’ll have enough signatures to present to [the town clerk],” predicted Sundin, who is spearheading the collection effort. “We have been out there trying to get signatures and have collected some already, but we really do need to make a push over these next few weeks.”
Sundin said they are seeking the same parameters that were considered in April, including the same funding source (a 1 percent surcharge on property tax bills) and the same exemptions (low-income property owners and the first $100,000 of residential real property). She added that the town could also now consider extending the exemption to commercial property owners — one of the many changes to the legislation that was signed into law by the governor on July 8.
And while some might say that the voters have already spoken — twice if one counts the town’s defeat of the measure in 2006 — Sundin and the VPC would argue that the opposite is actually true. The proof, they say, can be found in the paltry results from the last town election, when only 9 percent of the total electorate turned out at the polls.
“Not many people showed up to vote, and so it really doesn’t give us an idea of how popular or unpopular it was,” Sundin said. “In order to see if Canton really wants this, we really need to get it on the presidential ballot, and if we didn’t do it now, we would have had to wait another four years.”
Sundin was also quick to point out that the CPA, which has already been adopted in 148 Massachusetts communities, was overwhelmingly approved at the 2011 annual town meeting. She noted that a similar sequence is playing out in Freetown, where the town meeting approved it, the voters then rejected it in the local election, and now it is going back on the ballot in November by way of a petition.
In Canton’s case, Sundin felt the biggest obstacle was the lack of voter participation — a problem that is easily remedied in a presidential election year, when the average turnout spikes to around 80 percent.
“A lot of people we talked to have very strong feelings for CPA,” said Sundin. “A lot of them felt like it was a no brainer. I think some of them didn’t vote [in April] because they thought it would just pass.”
As for the opponents of the measure, which recently included four of the five selectmen and the entire membership of the Canton Association of Business and Industry, Sundin said she would like to believe that the people who did not want the CPA were the “[753] who voted against it and not many more.”
But rather than counting up likely “yes” and “no” votes, the VPC will instead focus its efforts on those who are either undecided or uninformed on the subject.
“We definitely feel that there’s some education out there that needs to be done,” acknowledged Sundin, “and through this petition process I think we are educating people about this issue.”
Specifically, the group is hoping to provide examples of projects and initiatives that could be supported using CPA dollars — everything from the preservation of the historic Paul Revere barn at the former Plymouth Rubber property on Revere Street, to the development of recreational facilities on York Street, to the maintenance and repair of existing senior housing complexes.
Sundin also plans to tout the many positive changes to the CPA that were signed into law earlier this month, including a provision that allows communities to fund the replacement of playground equipment and make other capital improvements on existing recreational facilities. The law also includes a potential one-time transfer of $25 million to the statewide CPA Trust Fund to boost distribution amounts for CPA communities, and Sundin expects the match percentage (currently at 25 percent) to go up considerably in future years based on recent legislative support for the act.
The bottom line, according to Sundin, is that now is an ideal time for a town to take advantage of what the CPA has to offer, and she is urging residents to learn as much as they can about the act before heading to the polls in November.
“What we really want is an educated voter to go into the booth and understand what the CPA is when they see it on the ballot,” she said. “We know people will definitely vote this time. This is really people’s opportunity to say, ‘Yes, we absolutely want this.’”
Those who would like to sign the CPA petition or get involved in the collection efforts can do so by calling Deb Sundin at 781-575-0232.
Short URL: http://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=15148
Posted by 
Here we go again! The citizens of Canton have not only spoken once, but twice about this issue. But wait! According to Deb Sundin, “The proof, she said, can be found in the paltry results from the last town election, when only 9 percent of the total electorate turned out at the polls.” I guess it’s how you look it. I would argue that the more CPA supporters really looked at this they decided they didn’t want this added tax. If it was so popular as Sundin said it should have been an over whelming victory with only a 9% turnout, but it wasn’t. She is also quick to point out that 148 other towns have passed this. I guess the other 203 Massachusetts don’t no what they are missing. You know 148 towns is a majority (42%). I hope she wasn’t a math teacher. I know, it’s only a 1% surcharge. Don’t forget, every year your property taxes go up (and they will) that 1% also goes up. Maybe not as a percentage, but in dollars! Of course if it passes who do you think gets to dole out the money? As Chairperson of the Conservation Commission for the town Deb Sundin gets too! Is this a conflict of interest? Maybe a little unethical? Be careful what you wish for.
M.G.L.C.44B Community Preservation Act, Section 5 (2) “The community preservation committee shall make recommendations to the legislative body for… and community housing that is acquired or created as provided in this section. With respect to community housing, the community preservation committee shall recommend, wherever possible, the reuse
of existing buildings or construction of new buildings on previously developed sites.”
2 Ibid. Section 2. “Community housing”, low and moderate income housing for individuals and families, including low or moderate income senior housing.
3 Ibid. Section 2.”Low income housing”, housing for those persons and families whose annual income is less than 80 per cent of the areawide median income. The areawide median income shall be the areawide median income as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development….”Low or moderate income senior housing”, housing for those persons having reached the age of 60 or over who would qualify for low or moderate income housing.
4 Ibid. Section 5. (b)(1) The community preservation committee shall study the needs, possibilities and resources of the city or town regarding community preservation. The committee shall consult with existing municipal boards and shall hold one or more informational public hearings on the needs, possibilities and resources of the city or town regarding community preservation possibilities and resources.
Thanks Deb, but I’ll go out on a limb and say the taxpayers don’t need or want any more 40B housing. But if you get your way there will be more people exempt from their share, and more on the backs of the working middle class. Because thats who foots the bill.
Don’t take my word for it. Tell’em Deb! “Sundin said they are seeking the same parameters that were considered in April, including the same funding source (a 1 percent surcharge on property tax bills) and the same exemptions (low-income property owners and the first $100,000 of residential real property). She added that the town could also now consider extending the exemption to commercial property owners — one of the many changes to the legislation that was signed into law by the governor on July 8.”
So lets see….. Low income people don’t pay. Businesses and Commercial property owners don’t pay. I guess that just leaves the middle class again! Canton citizens, stop the madness! tell Deb Sundin you say NO to the CPA for good.
Thank you for the opportunity to clear up some misinformation about the Community Preservation Act. This is were being educated about CPA is so important, so I appreciate your comments.
The CPA funds are “doled out” by TOWN MEETING, not by the Conservation Commission, or the Board of Selectman or even the Community Preservation Committee. Only town meeting can decide how to the spend the money. As you point out in your siting of the MGL that created the CPA, it is the Community Preservation Committee that reviews all projects and makes recommendations to town meeting on how the CPA funds should be spent. The Community Preservation Committee is appointed by the Board of Selectmen and must include a representative from the Historical Commission, Conservation Commission,Planning Board, Recreation Commission, Housing Authority, Board of Selectman and a member of the community.
The CPA is a tool that helps the town avoid 40B housing. What is referred to as 40B housing is a housing development that includes housing for low income citizens and, because a town has not met the 10% requirement for affordable housing, the developer has to only meet the minimum building requirements and is exempt from any local bylaws. By having the CPA in place, the town is able to decide the size, location, appearance and type ( i.e. senior or veteran housing) of any affordable housing its wants built, if any is needed. If we do not need to increase our stock of affordable housing, the housing money can be put into a housing trust to be used by the Housing Authority as the need arises to make repairs and assist those in affordable housing, including seniors and veterans, that need it.
The exemptions included in the proposed CPA for Canton were meant to lighten the burden for everyone. The exemption to exclude the first $100,000 of the homeowner’s property value is for everyone. The exemption for those that already receive an abatement on their taxes is to ensure the surcharge does overburden those that cannot afford it. If town meeting chooses to include the exemption for business and commercial property, which subtracts the first $100,000 of property value, it will be applied in the same way it is for residential property owners. It does not exempt commercial property owners from paying the surcharge.
There is no doubt that there is cost to adopting the CPA, about $40 a year for the average home, but we will receive a return on that investment in the form of state match money and in the form of grant money that could potentially double what we put in. Making our money work for us, investing in our community and giving the citizens of Canton control over how the money is spent is what the CPA is all about. It is an opportunity for the town to take control of preserving Canton by protecting our open space, creating and enhancing our outdoor recreation facilities, and, yes, providing housing assistance to those that need it. Thanks for letting me set the record straight.
If you want to tighten the burden for everyone, then exempt no one. Like the roads, everyone who has a car registered in the Commonwealth pays an excise tax. Everyone “lives” in the town, then everyone should pay. What makes you think that a 1% surcharge that will increase in dollar value every year our property taxes go up is not important to us? This economy stinks thanks to the current leadership (or lack of). The citizens would rather keep their own money to spend as they see fit. No matter how large or small.
According to State Representative James Arciero of Westford, “As part of the Fiscal Year 2013 House Budget, we were able to allocate an additional $25 million in funding for this successful and important program. Originally, the state funding amount was a 100% matching grant to that of the local contribution. Through the years, as more and more communities adopted the CPA, the matching percentage steadily dropped, and today it is approximately 22% of local contributions. Currently, state funds collected from deed fees across the state provide approximately $26 million for the program.
So the state had to add money because there was not enough, and state matching funds went from a 100% match down to 22%. This does not sound like a good “return on investment” It sounds like program in trouble, and this is with only 42% of Massachusetts towns participating. What kind of matching funds do you think would be available if all of the 351 towns participated? Can someone say taxpayer bailout!
State Representative James Arciero states,” Also, we gave towns the ability to use revenue sources aside from the property taxes surcharges to fund their local community preservation contributions. Finally, we allowed municipalities the option of exempting small businesses from assessment on the first $100,000 of property tax evaluation from the surcharge; previously this exemption was only available for senior and low-income residents in towns.”
Does this mean that CPA projects can potentially raid other town funds? Also, I would argue that Canton small business owners need all of their money to run “their ” business! Right now jobs and the economy is job one!, not open spaces or playgrounds or low income housing! Many citizens all over Canton are doing every thing they can to balance their own budgets. This is not the time to burden the middle class citizens of Canton with more taxes. Fix the economy first! What good is open space or parks if nobody is around to enjoy them?