So yesterday I rote about the CPA in Sturbridge and how we really need to vote to get out of the whole mess. I also posted an article on Examiner.com which went into more detail than what I wrote on here. By the way feel free to subscribe to my posts there (shameless plug). So here is what I have learned today.
First it seems that when the ballot question was first proposed to the Town Clerk, the proposers asked if the Town Counsel could review it to make certain it met all the criteria for these things. One would think you could just write a question such as "Do you want to rescind the CPA?" but evidently it isn't quite that simple, after all this is Massachusetts. Well the person in the Town Hall who is in charge of these things told the ballot proposers that the town couldn't spend the money on these things so they had to pay a lawyer on their own to have it done. And guess what? It seems that the person in charge of these things had it run by the Town Counsel anyway and the original wording has been changed.
The ballot question says:
"Rescission of the CPA will mean that the Town will not collect the surcharge or matching funds from the state. Note, however, that even after the CPA is revoked, the surcharge will continue to be assessed until such time as any contractual obligations incurred by the Town under the CPA have been satisfied, including the payment of debt service."Now, I am no lawyer, but this looks to me like if the CPA is rescinded, we will still have to pay the existing debt off, but the state will no longer match these funds, which is wrong. The state will still match the existing funds.
So here is the question: Why was the wording of the original question changed? Was it to confuse voters to make them think there would be no matching funds from the state? Would this be to scare voters into voting no?
And then there is the question of using the CPA funds for the Cedar Street playground. Now I am not the sharpest tool in the shed but this was in 2008, the Newton case I referenced in my Examiner article was from 2007. Shouldn't the Sturbridge Town Counsel have researched this? Just saying.
seems like if ya gonna write something accusing folks of doing something wrong you'd check it out to make sure it's fact. just saying.
ReplyDeleteIf you referring to the change in the wording of the ballot question, I have the original question as submitted. It is not the same.
DeleteAs far as I know,although I am not 100% certain,this wording should not have been changed since the petitioners signed thinking that is what the question would read.
If you are referring to whether or not using this money for the playground equipment was illegal, the Newton case says it was.
Anything else, feel free to let me know exactly where I am wrong.
Just saying.
referring to the wording change. if ya gonna say somethings changed, might be a good idea to read the whole thing. nothing can be changed if it weren't there in the first place.
DeleteHere is the wording of the two, first is the petition as submitted:
DeleteCPA Petition
REVOKE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT
Shall the Town of Sturbridge revoke acceptance of Chapter 44B of the Massachusetts General Laws, Sections 3 through 7 inclusive, also known as the Community Preservation Act, as proposed by a petition signed by at least 5% of the registered voters of this town, a summary of which appears below?
Sections 3 though 7 of Chapter 44B of the General Laws of Massachusetts, also known as the Community Preservation Act, established a dedicated funding source to: 1) acquire and preserve land for Open Space purposes; 2) preserve Historic Resources; 3) create Community and/or Affordable Housing.
In Sturbridge, the Community Preservation Act is funded by a 3% surcharge on the annual property tax assessed on real property and by matching funds provided by the state from a trust fund created by the Act, and excludes a $100,000 exemption on each taxable parcel of residential real property, as voted and accepted by the Town of Sturbridge on April 9, 2001 at the Annual Town Election as a Local Ballot Question.
Ballot Question 4:
4. Shall the Town of Sturbridge revoke its acceptance of sections 3 to 7, inclusive, of chapter 44B of the
General Laws, as proposed by a petition signed by at least five percent of the registered voters of this Town, a summary of which appears below?
The Community Preservation Act (“CPA”), G.L. c.44B, establishes a dedicated funding source to: acquire, create and preserve open space and land for recreational use; acquire, preserve, rehabilitate and restore historic resources; acquire, create, preserve and support community housing; and rehabilitate and restore open space, land for recreational use and community housing that is acquired or created in accordance with the CPA.
The Town accepted the CPA at the 2001 Annual Town Election, approving assessment of a surcharge of 3% on the annual tax levy on real property and exempting the first $100,000 of the value of each taxable parcel of residential real property. Each year, the Town has spent or set aside at least 10% of the estimated annual revenues, which include the surcharge and matching funds provided by the state, for each of the three purposes of the CPA. Rescission of the CPA will mean that the Town will not collect the surcharge or matching funds from the state. Note, however, that even after the CPA is revoked, the surcharge will continue to be assessed until such time as any contractual obligations incurred by the Town under the CPA have been satisfied, including the payment of debt service.
Sure look different to me.
Trifecta bankruptcy great!!
ReplyDeleteI'd say Just Musing has got it right! Sure don't look the same to me. We can' t trust the government at the federal or state level. Why should local be any different?
ReplyDeletePhew, glad it wasn't just me then. It all starts at the local level as I have written many times.That is also where the change starts.
DeleteSpend, spend, spend... it has to stop somewhere.
ReplyDelete