See What Your Neighbors Think!

Calling for a YES on Question 5

Senator Will Brownsberger

Representative Jonathan Hecht

Representative John Lawn

Councilor Aaron Dushku

Councilor Susan Falkoff

Councilor Lisa Feltner

Councilor Tony Palomba

Councilor Kenny Woodward

School Committee Member Kendra Foley

School Committee Member Candace Miller

Former State Senator Warren Tolman

Former State Senator George Bachrach

Former Library Trustee Kathy Button

Charles River Conservancy

Historical Society of Watertown

Mass Audubon

Massachusetts Environmental League

Progressive Watertown

Watertown Citizens

Watertown Democratic Town Committee

Watertown Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee

 

State Representative Jonathan Hecht

Key reasons to support the CPA in Watertown (Question 5)

In this election, we have the opportunity to adopt the Community Preservation Act in Watertown by voting yes on Question 5.  In doing so, we will join our neighbors in Waltham, Belmont, Cambridge, and Newton, all of which have found the CPA a valuable tool for preserving the quality of life and special character of their communities.  Boston is voting on the CPA in this election and is also expected to adopt it.

Invest in Watertown, the campaign supporting Q5, has done an excellent job of laying out (www.investinwatertown.org) how the CPA works and how it will benefit Watertown.  I want to highlight a few reasons to support the CPA that strike me as particularly important.

• The timeliness (urgency) of adopting the CPA: There has been a spirited debate in town about whether this is the right time to adopt the CPA, given the need to invest in our school buildings. I think it would be detrimental for Watertown if we put off adopting the CPA.  We all see the big changes happening around us.  Trends in the regional economy have made Watertown a hotbed for development.  Left unchecked, this development will lead to greater density, higher housing prices, and loss of Watertown’s unique character.  The CPA is tailored precisely to meet such challenges by providing a dedicated fund to save and improve open space, playgrounds, and parklands, create affordable housing options, and preserve our history.  The CPA by itself can’t solve all problems, but it will definitely help, and the sooner we have it in place, the sooner we can use it to keep what’s special about Watertown.

The other timing issue is whether adopting the CPA will put at risk a future debt exclusion override for the schools.  I don’t think so.  I believe that if a well-reasoned, fiscally-sound school building plan is put before the town, it will be supported by a majority of the residents, irrespective of whether we adopt the CPA or not.  The schools are core to the identity and vitality of Watertown and, as demonstrated by the recent increases to the schools’ operating budget, the town is committed to supporting them.  What makes this aspect of the CPA debate difficult is that there are many unanswered questions about the school building plan.  People are implying that the town will need to ask voters to pass a very large override, but that’s not actually clear.  We don’t know which schools will be renovated (or replaced), when work will begin, how much it will cost, how much the state will contribute, or how the town will finance its contribution (we won’t necessarily need a debt exclusion override for the full amount).  When we have a good plan and solid numbers, we’ll pitch in to make it happen.  I’ll be advocating as hard as I can for the state funding.  To conclude today, before we have that plan and the chance to advocate for it, that Watertown won’t support both the CPA and renovated schools seems to me entirely speculative and much too pessimistic.  Let’s not sell ourselves short.  Arlington, which has median household incomes and average tax bills very similar to Watertown’s, adopted the CPA in November 2014 and this spring overwhelmingly approved a debt exclusion override to support over $100 million in school construction.  Is Watertown less committed to its children?  I don’t believe so.

• The CPA contains protections for those for whom the CPA surcharge is a significant burden: Unlike regular property taxes, the CPA takes into account people’s ability to pay. Individuals with annual incomes under $51,150 ($68,670 for seniors) and couples or families with incomes under $58,450 ($78,480 for seniors) are exempt from the surcharge. This is in addition to other measures already in place to reduce the burden of property taxes on people of modest means, such as the residential exclusion (which reduces property taxes for owner-occupied houses) and the senior property tax circuit breaker (which provides an income tax credit to senior renters and homeowners whose housing costs are greater than 10% of their incomes).  Nothing is watertight, but together these measures provide a broad array of protections to people, especially seniors, who are “house-rich but cash-poor.”

• The extra bang for the CPA buck: One of the most attractive things about the CPA is that the locally-raised funds are eligible for a match from the state’s CPA trust fund. The size of the state match has fluctuated over the years and has trended down recently, but with the adoption of the CPA by more and more towns (likely including Boston this year) the political pressure will grow to keep the match at a healthy level.  Sadly, Watertown property owners and other taxpayers have been paying into the state’s CPA trust fund for years without enjoying any of the benefits.  By joining the CPA, we’ll start to leverage the state match to benefit Watertown rather than seeing that money go to other cities and towns.

But the bang for the CPA buck doesn’t stop there.  In the Cambridge part of my State Rep district, the CPA has been the key to restoring historic Lowell Memorial Park and improving open space along the Charles River.  In both instances, the CPA is enabling Cambridge to leverage state funds twice over – once when the locally-raised revenue is matched by the state trust fund, and again when the state matches those combined CPA funds with additional, project-specific funding.  At a time when state capital spending is very limited and many projects are in competition for funding, the ability of a city or town to bring CPA dollars to the table is a big leg up.

Patrick Fairbairn

Question 5 (Adoption by Watertown of the Community Preservation Act in 2016) as an exercise in risk analysis

CERTAINTY:  Watertown registered voters face Question 5 on the ballot on 8 November 2016.

POSSIBILITY:  Watertown registered voters may face a property tax override vote for schools improvement at some indefinite date during the next decade. 

By voting YES for adoption of the Community Preservation Act (Question 5), we see the CERTAINTY of:

 establishing a fund worth over $2 million per year that is dedicated exclusively for outdoor  recreational developments, affordable housing, and protection of historic resources;   

paying a 2% surcharge on our annual property tax bill from which low-income and senior moderate-income homeowners can claim exemption;

incurring among some citizens the fear of the POSSIBILITY that their efforts to raise funds for schools improvement might fall short of the entire amount requested in the ideal time frame.

By voting NO, we see the CERTAINTY of:

Forgoing two million dollars annually in support of opportunities afforded by CPA funding;

Having to wait a decade or more before another attempt to reap the CPA’s benefits can be made with any strong likelihood of success;

Contributing over $100,000 per year in property-transaction fees to the State Registry of Deeds  for the use of municipalities that have already adopted the Community Preservation Act, while  we continue to wait and forgo our share.

All things considered, I say Vote YES!

Ernesta Krachiewicz

Some of those who are urging a No vote on CPA, Question 5, are insisting that they do not oppose CPA but that this is just the wrong time for it.  Their proposal that this should be postponed to a later date is in my opinion a false option.  If the CPA is defeated for a second time, I believe it may be gone for good in Watertown; at least we will be missing it’s financial benefits for a very long time to come.

Those who propose a delay to a future time are clearly not aware of the enormous time, energy, organization, and numbers of people involved in getting the question on the ballot and educating voters about it.  The Town Council will also be reluctant to put it on the ballot after a second defeat.  It took 11 years after the 2005 defeat for a group to propose it again; a second defeat will seal it’s fate for the foreseeable future.  Watertown’s tax dollars have been going into this fund all these years; it is time that we start getting the benefit of the program.  Please vote YES on Question 5. 

Tia Tilson

In 2005 I worked to pass the Community Preservation Act (CPA) for Watertown—a small surcharge on real estate tax bills that releases matching CPA funds from the state. These funds can support Watertown’s affordable housing, open space, historic preservation, and recreation projects. It was defeated and we have paid a steep price.

Watertown residents, like all Massachusetts residents, have indirectly paid into the CPA trust fund with fees on real estate transactions and additional general revenue contributions since its start in 2000. For 16 years we have funded these same projects in 161 other Massachusetts communities. And Watertown has nothing to show for our contributions to this fund.

Then, as now, the CPA makes good financial sense for Watertown. By voting Yes on Question 5, you vote to return funds to Watertown. You vote to grow a 2% investment by around 27%. Yes on Question 5 would generate an estimated $1.7M annually from Watertown taxpayers. And it would add an estimated $400K each year to our town budget from the CPA trust fund. This is a good deal by any measure.

Three things happened when Watertown voted down the CPA in 2005. We lost the opportunity to invest $12M-$15M of our own funds in Watertown. We left $7.5M – $9.5M in state CPA funds on the table. And we asked Watertown taxpayers to pay every penny of projects that would have been supported by the state. CPA funds would have defrayed the $3M cost of renovating Victory Field and helped with the recent $800,000 Town purchase of property for the bike path. CPA funds for projects like these would free up money to support our schools and other budget priorities in Watertown like salaries and benefits for our municipal employees.

A Yes Vote for Question 5 will add approximately $70 – $150 per year to your tax bill (depending on your home’s value), or about $6 – $12.50 per month. For those of you concerned that the CPA will put our neighbors living on limited incomes in financial jeopardy: an income exemption is available for those who need it.

For others who believe an annual projected $150 tax increase on the most expensive homes in Watertown will limit the success of an override to fund the
renovation of the schools in 2-3 years—quite frankly—this is unproven speculation and unknowable.

We can cast our vote based on an unfounded fear that the good, generous citizens of Watertown won’t support their schools when asked 3 years from now.

Or we can vote Yes on Question 5 based on the facts of a strong business case. When Watertown puts skin in the game by investing in our own community, the state will give us money to fund projects we already pay for. We will be able to support our neighbors living on limited incomes by funding affordable housing. And, importantly, we will increase our budget flexibility to support critical priorities, like our schools. Who knows? Perhaps a Yes Vote on the Question 5 would give the Watertown budget enough flexibility so we wouldn’t need an override for the schools.

We can’t afford to make the same mistake again. On November 8, make the smart financial decision for Watertown. Please join me in voting Yes on Question 5 for the CPA.
Tia Tilson, 83 Hovey Street

Lisa Feltner, Town Councilor

 Why I am Voting Yes on 5 for CPA, Councillor Feltner

Dear Watertown Voter,
I understand it can be difficult to keep an open mind throughout a campaign, especially once folks become invested on one side of an issue. Emotions can run deep and opinions become cemented before understanding all of the facts. I am also concerned about underestimating the impacts of Watertown’s rapid transformation. When approached by the citizen-led Invest in Watertown Committee, I initially expressed concerns about adopting the
Community Preservation Act (CPA) this November, given our school building needs and the timing of even a small surcharge on taxpayers, knowing it can be a tough sell any time you seek additional funds. I have attended most of the school-related meetings
and community forums this year. In addition to speaking with Watertown constituents, I have researched and spoken with citizens and officials in CPA-adopted communities. My questions included: is this something that could benefit our schools as well as our
whole community? The answers kept coming back: yes, yes, and yes.

There are many reasons why I am voting Yes on 5, more than can be fully explained in one letter. But here are just a few good reasons to consider it: Vote Yes on 5 if for no other reason than to return our contributions toward the state CPA trust fund and claim our share of state matching funds. Monies generated from real estate development and income tax currently support the CPA trust fund. But they are supporting all the exciting things that other communities are doing, instead of Watertown. We have paid over $2 million into this trust fund, and we will effectively continue to subsidize other cities and towns if we do not adopt the CPA on November 8.

What I find so exciting about the Community Preservation Act is how it stimulates creative and innovative proposals to meet the needs of a town, while improving public life and programs for all. Just one of hundreds of examples: Arlington leveraged their
CPA funds in support of replacement windows at Drake Village senior complex, to also receive a state HILAPP program match; put another way, $200K of their CPA funds provided the seed to attract the remaining 70% needed for this $1.8 million project!
The surcharge that Watertown taxpayers would contribute (about $10/month) goes a longer way than one might expect at first glance. I also find it worrisome that we would lose out on about $500,000 from the state match in the first year alone, if we vote No on 5.

The CPA works so well that not only has no community advocated its repeal, its adoption has stimulated public participation in defining and reclaiming the local community vision. It empowers citizens and is progressive in its funding with exemptions for low-income households and moderate-low-income seniors. CPA project recommendation and approval process is specifically designed to be participatory -Watertown residents and Town Council get to decide what, how and when the funds are used. Arlington has decided to renovate Robbins Farm Park Field with enhanced ADA compliance, but this is just one of five projects
recently approved. Waltham and Newton have created homebuyer and rental assistance programs. Year after year our surrounding neighbors are finding ways to enhance and preserve what is special, unique and meaningful while reducing competition for capital
funds. 

And CPA allows regional collaborations, which means cities and towns can pools their funds for mutual benefit even if the location of “the project” lies fully in one community, including recreational fields. Imagine the possibilities for collaboration if we decide to team up with Waltham, Belmont, Newton, Cambridge –all of whom have already adopted CPA.

CPA funds are used for open space and recreation, community housing, and historic preservation –which includes archives, artifacts, archaeology; we have many needs in order to claim our historical heritage including preserving maps and documents, whether they are in the Assessor’s office, the Commander’s Mansion, or the Police Department, etc. You can see there is much to ponder.

I ask for your willingness to consider the many facts and benefits about the Community Preservation Act before voting. I welcome your questions. Learn more from the public database at CommunityPreservation.org or InvestInWatertown.wordpress.com or even YesBetterBoston.com websites. I hope you will join me in voting Yes on 5.

Lisa Feltner, District B Town Councillor
LFeltner@watertown-ma.gov
http://www.LisaFeltner.com

Charles River Conservancy

Dear Parkland Friend,  This Election Day, Boston and Watertown voters have an exciting opportunity to make a real commitment to parks and open spaces.  With a “yes” vote on Question 5, Boston and Watertown would adopt the Community Preservation Act (CPA), adding a nominal 1% surcharge to all Boston property tax bills and a 2% surcharge to all Watertown property tax bills.  The average Boston residential homeowner’s annual property tax bill would increase by $24, generating an additional $16 million in revenue each year for Boston, which would be matched by an additional $4 million in state funds.  The average Watertown residential homeowner’s annual property tax bill would increase by $109, generating an additional $1.7 million in revenue each year for Watertown, which would be matched by an additional $300K in state funds.  All CPA funds must be expended to:   Develop and improve parks, playgrounds, trails, and gardens Acquire land to protect water quality and reduce climate change impacts             Create thousands of new, affordable homes for seniors, families, and veterans Restore and preserve historic buildings, and rehabilitate underutilized resources Don’t let Boston and Watertown lose out. Make sure to tell your family and friends to vote YES on Question 5 on Tuesday, November 8.  For more on Massachusetts’ Community Preservation Act, including a detailed database of all CPA communities’ project expenditures since 2001, click here.  Sincerely, Renata von Tscharner Founder and President

 

Environmental League of Massachusetts

CPA Hits the Ballot in 16 Communities in November ELM is a long-time supporter of the Community Preservation Act (CPA), which has now been adopted by 161 communities across the Commonwealth. CPA helps communities preserve open space and historic sites, create affordable housing, and develop outdoor recreational facilities. On election day, November 8, 16 more communities in Massachusetts will have the opportunity to vote to adopt CPA.  Remind your friends and neighbors to vote! Amesbury Billerica Boston Chelsea Danvers East Bridgewater Holyoke Hull Norwood Palmer Pittsfield Rockland South Hadley Springfield Watertown Wrentham If you live in one of these communities please vote on November 8 to adopt the Community Preservation Act!

Mass Audubon 

Vote YES on CPA, Question #5 on the November 8^th ballot!

Dear Mass Audubon Member,

Mass Audubon played a pivotal role in passing the Community Preservation Act (CPA) legislation in 2000. CPA is a tremendously effective tool that enables participating cities and towns to create a dedicated fund for local open space, outdoor recreation projects, historic preservation and community housing. CPA funds are generated by a small surcharge on local property tax bills, as well as annual distributions to the town from the statewide Community Preservation Trust Fund. To date, 161 Massachusetts cities and towns have passed CPA.

Watertown will have a chance to adopt CPA at the November 8^th election. The benefits would be significant, as there are many critical projects that could be undertaken with CPA funds, including:

• Rehabilitation of existing parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields
• Creation of new walking trails and community gardens
• Preservation and rehabilitation of historic town buildings and other historic resources
• Broadening of affordable housing options for seniors, veterans, and young families

A Community Preservation Committee composed of Watertown residents will make recommendations on the use of the funds and all expenditures must be approved by Town Council.

Please vote YES on Question #5 on November 8th to adopt CPA in Watertown!

For more information on CPA, visit www.communitypreservation.org.

Thank you,

John J. Clarke, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations

Warren Tolman, Former State Senator

I hope Watertown voters will vote yes on Question Five to join the 161 other Massachusetts Communities, including our abutting neighbors in Waltham, Belmont, Newton and Cambridge, that have adopted the CPA.

Watertown residents have contributed over $2 million to this fund for more than the past 12 years and have helped lots of other communities.  While I like these other towns and cities, and in fact I represented all or part of every one of the above listed communities in the legislature, I would like to see Watertown benefit like other communities have!  In fact, the CPA has been so successful that NOT ONE community out of 161 has ever repealed it.

There is a cost of approximately ten dollars per month for the average homeowner, with exemptions for low and moderate income folks, but the state provides matching fund of varying percentages thereby making it a good deal for communities.

The bottom line is that I want to see our contributions help Watertown fields, playgrounds, historical sites and community housing.

Those who say that this is “not the time” are speculating about what is good today based on what may or may not come up down the road.  I am convinced that Watertown voters are smart enough to make informed decisions on the merits as questions arise.  Indeed, I think that is the only way to vote in a democracy.  Thank you!

Warren Tolman, 30 Stoneleigh Circle

Town Councilor Aaron Dushku

Let’s say ‘Yes’ to the CPA

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

I’m writing you today to share why I have chosen to vote YES on Watertown’s Question 5 -the Community Preservation Act (CPA). I have changed my mind a couple of times on this one because people that I respect have expressed a lot of good concerns on the contrary. I thought about those concerns a lot but I always come back to the same place when I do and it really dawned on me when I recently attended the 2nd annual candlelight vigil for those lost to the substance use disorder epidemic in Watertown. A great young leader in Watertown rose to speak at the end of the event and made some gracious remarks to the attendees that ended with him professing his love for our town and referring to it as “4 square miles of pure heaven”. Naturally, the event provoked feelings about a lot of things but this comment really inspired me to remember why it is that I do the work I do for Watertown. In weeks since, I’ve looked across the school-yards, playing-fields and the Council chambers and realized that even though we don’t always all agree on every issue, we all really do love this town. With that, I ask you all, if you feel the same way, why can’t we agree that for the price of one mediocre bottle of wine a month, we can together invest in these important and often-overlooked matters?

In 2016, taxes went down for many home-owners in Watertown except the multi-family homes whose values are skyrocketing. The secret is out that our town is a great place to live. Despite this fact, the Town Council sought and was granted special permission from the state legislature last year to increase the residential owner-occupied exemption from 20% to 30% if we wanted to. We did not vote to play this card last year but we have in in our pocket should we ever need it (in fact, the legislature has now allowed all communities to do this). This mechanism, helps to make an out-of-pocket increase of 2% from the CPA a bearable increase given the great benefits it brings to the town. It also helps that if you’re a homeowner on a low-enough fixed-income, you’re eligible for a surcharge exemption. If you are a renter in a multi-family property and if the landlord decides to put the full burden of the tax increase on the tenants, then it should be diluted across the number of residential units in the property. Furthermore, when I speak to renters in and around Watertown, I keep coming to the same conclusion about rents and that is that landlords charge whatever the market will allow and this is as much dictated by our neighboring towns as internal factors. So, yes, the year-to-year increases in taxes plus 2% from CPA would be a sacrifice but I feel that it is a worthwhile one that is a part of a greater earnest effort to really improve this town.

Regarding what projects would be funded

There has been a lot of chatter on the various town social media pages about this and a few calls on the councilors like me who are supporting the CPA to say what the new money would pay for. In other communities, you can often see signs on public places everywhere ‘this fine project paid for by CPA funds’ as a hint. Of course I have my favorite ideas but the eventual project nominations will only come to the town council via an appointed committee so not entirely up to me. Since you asked, I would love to see an affordable housing project built in town somewhere. If we had to acquire a privately-owned property to do it, that might be necessary and we could do one of these EVERY YEAR with the kind of money we’re talking about. I’d also like to see the Walker Pond property acquired, cleaned up and converted into a public use. This is an important resource to conserve and acquire before it is too late. These were both aspirations of mine before the CPA came into discussion. Nevertheless, given our current plans, the first thing we’d need to do before these dreams would be to use the allowable CPA funding to pay for the ongoing needs that our capital improvement program (‘CIP’) would have already been paying for –like the overdue parks rehab at Victory or Fileppello, the annual monument restorations or the completion of the vitally-important Community Path project. Using CPA funds this way would free up space in the CIP for the eminent school master plan expenditures. An important piece to remember about the CIP is that this part of our annual budgeting is limited in that it can only arrive to 7.5-8% of our total budget (including debt paybacks).

So what about the schools?

I have been a vocal supporter of increased funding for our school department for the entirety of my short political life here. My kids are in these schools and me and my 3 siblings are products of them. I am committed to finding more money for the schools and to constantly improve on their governance, personnel and policies. I have demonstrated this with my active advocacy on the council, behind closed-doors and in my votes to aggressively increase funding over the past 3 budgets.

The members of our master planning committee have worked very hard this summer to identify the physical space needs for the next generation of Watertown youth and I know that we must find a way to support this expense. We also know that few school systems in Massachusetts can fund school building projects without the support of the Massachusetts School Building Administration (MSBA) paying 48% of the bill. So, for the last 3 years, Watertown has applied to and been rejected by the MSBA for financial assistance. Recently Belmont received this coveted MSBA support but this only happened after 10 unsuccessful years of proposals and with catastrophic damages incurred at one of their buildings to force the issue.

Next, no matter what the actual percentage will be, I see the money that comes from the state to match our CPA contributions as ‘found money’ that should not be turned away as it has been. As I said above, having CPA monies to cover the costs of eligible expenses will also help us to free up monies for the school building master plan. If and when the MSBA money comes, it will cover one building and the rest will need to come from bonds, tax revenue and from under every couch-cushion the town manager can turn over. You can bet the farm that he’d love to count on CPA money to offset maintenance expenses we’d otherwise be paying from CIP.

Speaking of maintenance… We are in the process of hiring a new school superintendent and business manager and our school facilities director has less than a year on the job. Five years ago, the UMass Collins Center for Public Management recommended that for more efficient operations, Watertown should consolidate its two facilities maintenance departments (schools and public works). Though many agree that this is a need, our department heads have barely started thinking about how to do it. When our school leadership traveled to Lexington this year to hear about what it takes to win an MSBA project, they were told that before the MSBA funds new facilities, it looks closely at how well a town takes care of the ones they have. So, I’d like to vote to put school building funding onto the ballot as soon as possible but in my opinion, the Master Plan and our School Department just aren’t ready to ask for it. We have a lot of work to do here and throwing the CPA under the bus today won’t help matters. We can and we should do BOTH.

Finally, I think that Watertown has a good, responsible leadership team and for the most-part, our town employees exhibit a deep-rooted service ethic and they appreciate how much their work affects people’s lives. I think that we don’t squander money and that we provide great services for the taxes that we pay. Yes, we can always stand to improve on things but our government is responsive to the residents that we serve and the elected officials here bust their tails every day to ensure it.

So, yes, this vote is yours to make but as your leader, I feel a sense of responsibility to lay out my reasoning for why my family and I are all voting this way. To help achieve all the goals that I committed to when I ran for office, I am asking you to consider these arguments and to trust in me and my colleagues to wisely spend this money on the important projects that matter to you. It is my job to pull out the stops to improve this community and I ask for your vote of confidence and for your investment in its future. These 4 square miles of heaven are well worth it.

Town Councilor Susan Falkoff

Would you pay $1 for $1.27?

Opponents decry the reduction of the CPA match to an all-time low of 27%. I’d go with 27% interest on my money any day. Guys, since we voted down the CPA in 2005 we’ve left an estimated $15 million on the table. It breaks my heart.

In 2005, the dystopian fantasies of the CPA-opponents were couched in personal attacks and purple prose. Wild accusations of “special interests” are starting to be thrown around again today. Soccer fields are a “special interest”? I’d like to know who profits. Valuing our history is a “special interest”? Who does profit from razing historic structures and replacing them with expensive new construction, I wonder? Certainly not the preservationists. I am incredulous, moreover, at the offense taken because CPA supporters “haven’t even said” how the money will be used. Are you kidding? The “Community” in the Community Preservation Act” means that the voters agree to share the costs of making improvements and they get to decide together how best to use the funds. The “Neiman Marcus of pork-belly spending?” Give me a break!

Time and again, people say that what they value about Watertown is diversity — cultural, ethnic, and economic diversity. Ask renters of modest income how they feel about the cost of rentals in Watertown — not so good. Ask young adults in small apartments if they’d like to stay and raise a family here. They are quite likely to tell you they would, if only they could afford it. If they love Watertown, let’s make it easier for them to put down roots.

Pitting schools against the CPA is a false dichotomy. We have no idea what kinds of repairs/renovations/new buildings will ultimately make sense or what it will cost or when it will begin. We will certainly not be tearing down and constructing five school buildings at one time. When we have a plan, we will figure out how to fund it and we will do the right thing for the schoolchildren in Watertown. I can’t see the sense of turning down 27 cents on the dollar because of unknown expense at an undetermined point in the future.

Some are arguing that “taxes are expected to go up by 5-8% this year” and taxpayers can’t handle another increase on top of that. This distorts facts. Yes, if we take all the tax of all the properties together, that giant sum will go up — because of all the fancy new building. It does NOT mean that the tax on your home will go up by anything like that amount and it may not go up at all. Look at the development around you. THOSE NEW BUILDINGS will supply the increase in our tax revenue. Furthermore, THERE IS NO TAX DEFICIT as some claim. The cited “shortfall” is a placeholder, an annual exercise in projecting how much money we will need in the fiscal year beginning the following July and how we will get it. This calculation is the FIRST step toward what will eventually become a balanced budget. This is sound financial planning. WE ARE DOING FINE.

CPA funds offer an opportunity to build community and enhance our town. I hope you will join me in supporting this effort to preserve and improve what we love about Watertown. We missed an opportunity 11 years ago. Let’s not let it happen again.

Susan Falkoff
Councilor-at- Large

Terry Belli

I was part of the original CPA committee back in 2005. It makes me sick to think of the money we lost by voting down the CPA. If we would have adopted the CPA in 2005 the surcharge would have raised $12,000,000- $15,000,000 depending on property values. Since 2005, the average matching funds have been 63%, this would have given an additional $7,560,000-$9,450,000 to Watertown by the State. I think it is safe to say that this $20,000,000+ could/would have directly offset town expenditures, leaving more money for schools. I know we can’t get that money back and the matching funds have declined to only possibly 19% (but with expectations from the statehouse that it could be in the 30% range), but let’s not use the same agreements that were used back than: people are hurting financial, taxes are too high, the money will go toward pet projects and finally, the time is not right.

While the CPA money can’t be used to directly fund our school projects (unless of course any of our schools have a historic designation), they can be used to fund other town projects to free up money to go to the schools. If you care about the schools that is the key point!!!! Money is being spent on lots of projects besides the schools, lets have the state help fund parts of those projects.

I understand the fear that voters won’t want to stomach a 2nd increase to their taxes to fund the school projects. Well I think it is short sighted to put off the CPA any longer because of that fear. I believe and trust in my neighbors to do the right thing and vote appropriate when/if a school funding proposal is presented. I think the schools, fire and police should be our number 1 priorities, but we can’t ignore our town’s other needs. Yes needs… we need to provide affordable house to keep our community diverse, we need to protect our history to keep our community grounded and we need to improve, enhance, and increase open space to address quality of live issues throughout our town.

For those residents who are financially struggling, there is an exemption. Part of the role of the CPA committee is to help residents with the exemption process.

Please don’t make the argument that it is not the right time, we lost $20,000,000+ last time because of that argument.

I hope my statements and arguments were helpful for any undecided voters and maybe even switched some people’s opinion.

Vote Yes on #5!

Terry Belli

Janet Jameson

Share

November 8 is fast approaching and it is time to make a commitment to vote yes on question 5 – the Community Preservation Act. By not voting yes in 2005 we have lost 15 million dollars that could have been used for historic preservation, parks and recreation facilities, and low income housing in Watertown. Our community has been contributing to the State Registry of Deeds which is the basis of CPA funding – but has received nothing in return. The surcharge on your tax bill is 2% of your real estate tax- ten dollars a month for the average household. Low-income seniors and households are exempt from the surcharge.

The rewards for our town are enormous. With so much development happening here, we want to preserve the character of Watertown, what makes it special to each of us. We can preserve the history of the neighborhoods, keep the green space that we have and add to it, and make sure our children and grandchildren can live here by providing affordable housing.

161 communities in Massachusetts have taken advantage of the CPA – and every one of the towns surrounding Watertown is on board. This year the CPA is on the ballot in Boston. More towns are joining and none has ever withdrawn. Let’s make sure this year that Watertown votes to be part of the CPA!

Janet Jameson, Winsor Street

Charlyn Bethell

Why I’m Voting Yes!

 I am a Watertown resident and I am enthusiastically voting YES on Question 5.  First of all, we have a finite amount of land and there is a great deal of development in Watertown right now.  I fear that development will devour spaces that would otherwise be used for public projects.  If we do not plan ahead to retain the beauty of nature around town, we cannot go back to recreate it.  It is rather like the ideals behind the creation of the national parks.  Had our forefathers not set that land aside, we certainly would not have those parks for public enjoyment now.  Not only that, those spaces are the habitats for plants and animals that will otherwise be gone forever.  It is wonderful to think that CPA projects, for example:  Hell’s Half Acre Marsh and Path Restoration on the Charles River, at Cambridge border near Watertown, will be maintained so that all can enjoy these projects for many years.

I have heard nothing about a school override.  The opposition would have us believe that we need to choose between planning projects such as building parks for recreation, preserving historic sites and creating more affordable housing in town and funding our schools.   But they are separate issues!   Our children need schools that meet their needs AND they need parks and places to enjoy our natural world.  Our children will greatly benefit from voting YES on this question.  We all need to remind ourselves of the value of saving the remaining spaces we have before it is too late.

I believe the time to act is NOW by voting YES on Question 5.

Charlyn Bethell, 1034 Belmont St.

Anne Benaquist 

I support the CPA for the following reasons:

1. It would make Watertown a better place to live.
        Parks, playgrounds, trails and gardens would be developed and improved.
Water quality would be protected and climate change impacts would be reduced.
Thousands of new, affordable homes for seniors, families, and veterans would be created.
Historic buildings would be restored and preserved, and underutilized resources would be rehabilitated.

2. It’s affordable.
        Adopting the CPA would add a nominal 1% surcharge to all Boston property tax bills and a 2% surcharge to all Watertown property tax bills.
An additional $1.7 million in revenue each year for Watertown, generated by an average increase of $109/year per residential homeowner, would be matched by an additional $300K in state funds.

3. Our neighbors are doing it and reaping many benefits.
        So far, 161 communities in the Commonwealth (46%) have adopted the CPA, including neighbors Waltham, Belmont, Newton, and Cambridge.
Over $1.6 billion has been raised to date for community preservation funding statewide.
Local legislative bodies have approved over 8,000 projects.
More than 23,000 acres of open space have been preserved.
Nearly 1,500 outdoor recreation projects have been initiated.
More than 9,000 affordable housing units have been created or supported.
About 23,000 acres of open space have been preserved.

I would hate to see Watertown lose out on this good deal.

Anne Benaquist

Kathy Button 

We all have friends in neighboring communities. Most likely these people live in towns that have already passed the Community Preservation Act (CPA). Since 2000, 161 cities and towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have adopted the CPA.

In our region, Arlington, Belmont, Cambridge, Lexington, Lincoln, Newton, Somerville, Waltham and Weston benefit from matching State funds for historic preservation, open space, including recreation, and affordable housing. The good people in Watertown deserve to benefit from the Act as well, especially as we have been paying into the trust fund with the State for all these years without receiving benefits.

Medway, the town of my growing up years, adopted the CPA in 2001. Last year I attended my 50^th high school reunion in the Thayer Home Place, circa 1830’s, restored by funds from the Medway CPA. When visiting relatives, I often stop to buy vegetables at the Medway Community Farm, a project of the town’s CPA. Choate Park, a favorite childhood place for play and exploration, benefitted from CPA money. Medway has also used CPA funds to restore damaged gravestones in the Evergreen Cemetery, dating from 1750, where several of my relatives are buried. Medway Community Preservation Committee is working on ways to increase much needed affordable housing. Oh, if we could do the same in Watertown!

Medway elected to pay a 3% surcharge on real estate taxes. The ballot initiative, Question 5, in Watertown asks for a 2% surcharge, with exemptions for low-income residents and moderate and low-income seniors. Taxpayers with residential exemptions will also receive a pro-rated reduction on the surcharge. The average homeowner would pay $10 a month, a little more than the cost of three lattés at the Watertown Library’s Bookstore Café.

Under the Act, our Town Council would appoint a Community Preservation Committee. In the spirit of accountability and transparency, meetings will be open to the public. The Town Council makes the final decisions on recommendations from the Community Preservation Committee. For inspiration and perspective about possible projects in Watertown, go to the Community Preservation Coalition’s CPA Projects Database, with completed projects town by town.

Every election cycle is exciting. I am thrilled to take part in the local campaign to bring the Community Preservation Act to Watertown, my home town since 1982. Please join me in voting Yes on Question 5. Look for details atCommunityPreservation.org and InvestInWatertown.org. Your vote matters. Your vote makes a difference.

Katherine Button, Edward Road

Patrick Fairbairn

 On timing the vote for the Community Preservation Act

As I observe and continue to participate in the debate between supporters and opponents of Question 5 (which proposes adoption of the Community Preservation Act by Watertown), I detect at least one salutary outcome.  Look at all the publicity we have generated in helping define the public interest!

I support voting YES on Question 5.  I admire the heartfelt dedication of its opponents from Watertown Strong Schools (WSS), but wince under their “friendly fire”.  I consider it needlessly alarmist for voices within WSS to advocate putting off Community Preservation Act adoption in 2016 – for what, another 11 years?  Talk to anyone in the Conservation Commission and you will hear that such adoption is outrageously overdue.  How long will it take us to complete Filipello Park?  Thirty-four years so far – and counting!  How long to attain the required statewide minimum of 10% affordable housing stock, with so many hundreds of units to go?  How much longer to watch our archives and memorials crumble into oblivion?  Waiting to adopt the Community Preservation Act has cost us at least $15 million in lost opportunities since 2005.  Meanwhile, urban development continues to diminish further opportunities and increase their cost.

The alarmist element of WSS has gone so far as to state that “Schools First is more than just a slogan, it’s a moral obligation and the right thing to do”.  I don’t feel particularly well positioned to engage in a “Holier Than Thou” contest on any subject.  Rather, the current debate on Question 5 seems to me more one of risk analysis.  WSS fears that if we adopt the Community Preservation Act next month we weaken our incentive to support a tax override for schools improvement two years later.  By the same reasoning, Question 5 supporters have the right to claim that deferring to the Schools First campaign could have a far more adverse effect on a subsequent, postponed Community Preservation Act initiative.  That’s because those facing real financial hardship have recourse to total exemption from the Community Preservation Act surcharge, whereas they could not escape a tax override for schools improvement — a bad memory that lingers in everyone’s mental balance sheet.  What’s more, the sooner the Community Preservation Act goes to work, the sooner it begins to relieve the hardship.

Watertown Strong Schools has further reason to relax its fears of opposition when the time comes to pass the hat – the forthright support of those who usually oppose new taxes on principle.  Back in 2005, it was primarily their opposition that defeated Watertown’s first Community Preservation Act initiative.   This group, loosely gathered under the Property Rights/No New Taxes banner, draws a clear distinction between what it terms WSS “needs” and CPA “wants”.  With the support of this self-appointed fiscal watchdog, Watertown Strong Schools should have little opposition to fear. Consider too, that those who support Community Preservation Act adoption are the natural allies of WSS – and there are many of us out there.  As tax-payers they can be counted on to reaffirm their support of the public interest on such an important community concern as its schools, whenever that need arises.  We can all afford to vote YES now on Question 5!

Patrick Fairbairn, 19 October 2016

Patrick Fairbairn

The “good folks of Watertown” have recently been advised to expect the sound of “strangers knocking on their door”.  Please don’t be alarmed.  They’re all “good folks of Watertown” too – like me.

This is my first and probably last time knocking on doors, because it’s not my favorite thing.  However, it’s for a cause I believe in — adoption of the Community Preservation Act, which appears as Question 5 on the November 8 ballot.

Along with my fellow members of the Watertown Conservation Commission, I have watched helplessly for years as opportunities for redeveloping property for public recreation are lost because the Town lacks a ready source of funds dedicated to such a purpose.  The same sense of frustration afflicts those who serve the housing needs of citizens who are in mounting danger of being priced out of town.  The historic character of Watertown also frequently loses to overwhelming market forces.

What to do?  Town government leadership was inadvisable.  Adoption of the Community Preservation Act in Watertown needed to be a citizens’ movement.  That’s why you see me and like-minded individuals at the grass-roots level, walking the streets and knocking on doors.

Much though I gulp and hesitate before taking on another street, I have to admit that the experience has revealed to me how decently people receive strangers at their door, how there’s a meeting of eyes, a willingness to listen as well as exchange politely many differing points of view.  Of course it’s intrusive, and tedious too.  It’s as messy as….Democracy in action!

Don’t ever fear a horde of strangers like me disrupting your domestic tranquility.  This is hard work, and I don’t expect it to get easier.  I do believe that I’m working to improve the opportunity for all of us “good folks” to create the common ground in which to meet, and find the “strangers” not so strange.

Patrick Fairbairn, 22 October 2016

Jennifer Van Campen

The CPA and Taxes

Some of the Anti-Community Preservation Act people argue that $100/year in new taxes is too much for Watertown residents to swallow. So, if that is true, how come when the 4,932 single family homeowners in Watertown received tax reductions of between $100-400 last year there wasn’t more jumping for joy or fainting with elation? My guess is it’s because they didn’t even notice. But it’s true! The residential tax rate for FY16 was lowered from $15.03 to $13.68 AND the residential exemption went up from $1,357 to $1,416 so that, I believe, every single-family homeowner received a tax deduction. You can do the math yourself – I’ll show you how at the end of this note.

There are 2,843 2-family homeowners in Watertown and many of them did see an increase in FY16 but as has been previously reported that is because most of those 2-family homeowners had flat assessments for several years in a row, meaning very nominal tax increases those years and then boom when the assessments finally went up so did their tax bill. However, in my pouring over tax assessments I did find many 2-family homes that saw the same tax deduction as the single family homeowners because they had kept up with regular consistent assessments.

So why were taxes able to go down for so many homeowners in Watertown in 2016? Because of the growth in the tax base. As much as people may not like the development going on in Watertown it does increase the tax base and therefore decrease the individual tax burden on homeowners.

 Also, a tiny bit of context. According to a Boston Globe article of January 2016, the average Watertown tax bill is $5,666 and the median income is $86,461. That means that Watertown households are paying about 7% of their income in property taxes. I ran similar numbers for the towns that surround us: Arlington 8%, Lexington, Newton and Cambridge are all 9%, Belmont is 10% and Brookline (the only one of this list that does not have the CPA) is a whopping 16%. So, again, I think Watertown residents might be jumping for joy and heartily thanking our Town Council for keeping our taxes so low while providing a very high quality of life. I’m voting yes on Question 5 so that we can continue to invest in our fabulous town in new and creative ways.

If you’d like to know how your tax bills have varied over time just go to:

1) http://watertown.patriotproperties.com/default.asp There you can enter your address, find your home, click on “Previous Assessment” to see the historical valuations of your property.

2) http://www.ci.watertown.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/18292 Then you need a document called “Tax Rate History” for the Town of Watertown which shows you the historical tax rates and residential exemptions.

3) Now you can do the math for any one year and then compare years:

(Your total tax assessment divided by 1,000) times (the tax rate) minus (the residential exemption) = your bill

p.s. Watertown is one of only 13 towns in Massachusetts that has a “residential exemption,” which is another reason to go hug your Town Councillor.

Jennifer Van Campen, Phillips St., Watertown

Tony Kelly

Penny Wise & Pound Foolish

The city of Watertown is being left behind.  This is occurring because we have been penny wise – pound foolish. It’s not the case for Belmont, Waltham, Cambridge, and  another 158 cities and towns in the Commonwealth.

Presently, Watertown sets aside budget money and allocates it for upkeep, update, and the repair of open lands, refurbish playgrounds, preserve historical areas, and other town needs. These are important projects. Unfortunately our town is spending more money than it needs to on these projects.  The State of MA is willing to match 28 cents ‘on the dollar’ for every dollar Watertown spends on these projects and we, as a city, are not taking advantage of this opportunity.

Watertown residents previously rejected our last opportunity in 2005, to participate in the Community Preservation Act. We managed to lose out on $14.2 million dollars since then. We now can correct that short sighted decision by voting YES on Question 5 this November 8^th and becoming a Community Preservation Act town.

This would mean the town would generate a fund by applying a 2% surcharge on our real estate taxes, averaging an additional $120.00 per household yearly; with the state matching 27% of this total.  This process would free up additional funds for various town needs. It only seems reasonable to share in the money we are currently paying for other towns to use.

Exemptions exist for low-income residents and for low-to-moderate income seniors. It would create a transparent process for determining town improvements, and encourage inclusive steps for all to participate in. We all want our environment to be beautiful and to always create “The Best Watertown Possible”, with an eye to our community’s future and vision!

It’s a no brainer. Make an affordable investment in the town, create a better place to live and increase your home value as well. Vote yes on Question 5.

Tony Kelly

Gerry Missal

An Open Letter to Watertown Strong Schools

I know that your members are sincere in your advocacy for the schools, but you are using bad judgement in your opposition to the CPA.  Without getting into the details, the CPA is a GOOD thing for the Town and question 5 should be approved.  Watertown Strong Schools should never have taken a position on this.  You have no stake in the outcome, or as some would say, no dog in the fight.

To say that the tax increase from the CPA will conflict with a possible future tax increase for a school building project is inaccurate.  The school building project is years and years down the road.  We are only at the initial stage of developing a Master Plan.  The Town has to decide how to sequence the needs of all the buildings and then develop a feasibility study focusing on the first priorities.  Then an application for funding has to be submitted to the State School Building Authority, and then wait, and wait, and wait for the MSBA to get around to consider Watertown’s application among the hundreds of applications from other communities.  This last wait could be years.

To ask the Town for a debt exclusion vote before waiting for State funding would be an extremely uphill battle, with only 20% of voters having children in the school system.  Even with families such as mine whose children have graduated but still support the schools, the percentage is still a small minority.  In my thirty years as a school finance director (in five different towns), I learned one axiom:  When advocating for the schools, do not do anything detrimental to undermine other Town efforts. You can not afford to alienate the majority of voters by opposing a worthy effort for the Town as a whole such as the CPA.

Watertown Strong Schools should reverse it’s decision and withdraw it’s opposition to the CPA.  Stay neutral, as you should have been in the first place.

Thank you, Gerry Missal – a parent of two Watertown Public School graduates, and a school supporter

Barbara Ruskin

I believe that we should Invest in Watertown and vote in favor of Question 5 as so many other cities and towns in Massachusetts have done before us.  We would get about $1.27 in matching funds from the State for every dollar paid into the fund. That’s a lot of return for about $124 per year for a family in Watertown. And it is a Watertown community committee that makes the local choices of how to spend the money.

The issue of competition between the Community Preservation Act and any schools to be built in the future is a red herring, a diversion, with different sources of funding and many years of planning yet to come. There are School Committee members who agree, as do Councilors. They support the CPA.
It’s the principle of the thing as well as the opportunities. We all do share in the cost of creating public gathering spaces, making affordable housing possible, and historic preservation. We value the existence of a common center in every community where all the people meet to enjoy the varied gifts that we can share together. The Community Preservation Act helps us invest in what we see as good for our town. Vote YES on QUESTION 5.

Barbara Ruskin, Spring Street

Susan and Will Twombly

Why Question 5 Offers Hope for Those Who Need It Most

On November 8th, Watertown voters will have a chance to approve the Community Preservation Act, which would provide funding for three kinds of projects in town: historic preservation, expanding and improving open space and recreational facilities, and providing affordable housing. These projects would benefit ALL residents of the community, and could be proposed by anyone. We strongly support approval of the CPA, both because we believe that it will enhance the quality of life in our town in many substantive ways, and also for a more personal reason: we have close friends who are homeless.

They are a family of seven. They were forced to move to the Boston area to obtain medical care for their son, afflicted with an extremely rare and life-threatening disease for which there is no permanent cure. The parents have spent their life savings to save their son. Now, even though both parents and some of the children are working, their combined income is insufficient to rent an apartment adequate for such a large family. Affordable housing for them is simply unavailable anywhere in the area.

And our friends are not alone. There are residents of Watertown sleeping in their cars. Requests for housing assistance are skyrocketing, according to Watertown’s Social Services Resource Specialist, the Helen Robinson Wright Fund at the First Parish, and the Marshall Home Fund, (which provides financial assistance to seniors). Applicants for apartments owned by the Watertown Housing Authority often wait many years before a unit becomes available. Public housing for the elderly is bursting at the seams, with long waiting lists as well.

It is true that there will be additional so-called “affordable” apartments offered within the new developments on Arsenal Street, but these units will be offered at the highest rents possible – about $1400.00/mth for a one-bedroom unit rented to a couple, and $ 1800.00 for a three-bedroom apartment rented to a family of four. For our homeless friends, $1800.00/mth would be entirely out of reach.

The availability of affordable housing is critical in maintaining the economic, cultural, and ethnic diversity that makes Watertown such a special place to live. Young people who grow up in town, some of whom are our firefighters, police officers, and teachers, should not be driven out of town by high housing costs. Passage of the CPA is our only hope for the creation of more truly affordable housing. The rental units on Belmont St. owned by Metro West Collaborative Development are a great example of how affordable units could be developed using CPA funds. The vacant lot on Mt. Auburn St. opposite Baptist Walk, would be an ideal location for additional housing for the elderly. The old police station might also be considered for affordable housing development. There are many other opportunities for expanding our stock of affordable housing, but precious few funding mechanisms other than the CPA, federal and state funds having substantially dried up.

Many oppose the CPA in fear of hurting the chances for large-scale school renovation. There is no question that a first-rate school system is essential for our community. Years ago, we worked very hard to pass the debt exclusion override that built an addition to the Lowell School, renovated the Middle School, and made additional repairs across the system. And we will do this again in a heartbeat, if and when the need arises. But the opportunity to fund the CPA, and create more urgently needed housing, is on our doorstep right now. Our homeless friends cannot wait. We as a town cannot afford to wait. If the schools need extra money in the future, we, and countless other parents, teachers, and supporters of education will be there to help. But if we defer passage of the CPA, who will be there to advocate for the poor and economically disadvantaged? We urge a YES vote on Question 5 on November 8th.

Will and Susan Twombly
Marion Road

Jon Bockian

Now Is The Time To All Pitch In To Preserve & Improve Watertown

It’s time for Watertown to recognize that we need to do more to create affordable housing, educate our kids for the present and future, maintain and improve our public parks and other recreational spaces, and preserve the heritage of old Watertown that’s getting destroyed. The pressures on us from commercial development and economic forces much bigger than our town or state make it necessary for us all to pitch in to keep Watertown an attractive place for young and old, families and individuals. The Town administration has done an exceptional job at keeping our tax rate well below the state average, but that discipline has come at a major cost. As a community we haven’t had the wherewithal to deal with the changes washing over us. We can’t afford to dream about how cities and towns ought to be funded while ignoring the realities of how the system now works and how to make the most of it. We can’t pretend we can stand still while the ground shifts under our feet. It’s for that reason that I’m voting yes on Question 5 and supporting community preservation. It’s a smart way to concretely deal with many of the challenges we face, harness more of the wealth being created by this wave of development, and also get our share of money we are now paying to subsidize other cities and towns. It’s not a question of choosing among education, housing, parks and heritage – we have to face up to the pressing need to address all these area. If we don’t do it now, we’ll only be less and less equipped to face the future.

Jon Bockian, Charles River Road

Bevin Croft, Jessica Middlebrook, David Pereira, and David Weintraub

“Say Yes to the CPA”

We are longtime Watertown residents with young children destined for our fine schools, and we are excited to be voting Yes on Question 5. As people who are deeply devoted to our town, we believe that the Community Preservation Act will bring innumerable benefits to us all.

When we decided to raise our families here, we did so for two reasons: First, we were inspired by the commitment of Watertown Strong Schools and other advocates to making our schools great. Second – and just as important – we love the community here. Raising four young children between our two families, we enjoy using Watertown’s parks, attending concerts in Saltonstall Park, strolling along the River, and watching the construction vehicles building up our town. These outdoor spaces are central to the way our families experience Watertown.

Like many working families, we live on a tight budget. Yet, we are happy to contribute to the CPA because we know that this investment of about $10 per month (the cost of a couple of drinks at Halfway Café, and less than our Netflix subscription) will be well invested in the form of $2 million in parks and playing fields, affordable housing, and preserving our historical heritage – the things that we love about this town.

Of course Watertown must have strong schools, but we do not believe that the vision for this community should involve a trade-off between the quality of our schools and the well-being of the rest of our our community. We believe that Watertown is strong enough to support both. We are pro-strong schools and pro-CPA. Watertown deserves strong schools and beautiful open spaces for everyone. We must invest in historic preservation so future generations appreciate the incredible history of this town. And we must support our neighbors and future neighbors by ensuring Watertown is an affordable place to live. In Waltham, Belmont, Newton, and 161 other towns and cities in Massachusetts, the CPA has been used to renovate old playgrounds, repurpose abandoned parcels of land into multi-use recreational spaces, and support homebuyers to enter into the housing market for the first time.

We chose Watertown as the place to live and raise our families because we believe it is the best town in Massachusetts. We are thrilled that our kids will grow up calling Watertown home, and we know that they will grow up with the same sense of community pride that we have, and that our neighbors have. Everyone in Watertown deserves the best possible quality of life, and we are a community that is deeply committed to supporting one another in that effort. Let’s vote yes on #5 on November 8th as a demonstration of that commitment.

Bevin Croft, Jessica Middlebrook, David Pereira, and David Weintraub
Main Street and Wilmot Street

Anni Clark

Watertown Voters should vote Yes on question 5. We all have wish lists of projects that would improve the quality of our lives and the value of our homes in Watertown. The extra revue from CPA would be about $2.2 million per year if we adopt it now. It would grow as the many capital projects that are being developed in Watertown are completed in the next few years and start paying property taxes. CPA is collected from all property taxes, from businesses as well as home owners. The funds could be used for renovation and preservation of our playing fields and parks, help preserve our historical sites and buildings, and keep up with our affordable housing needs. We could set aside money to buy additional green space as it becomes available. Even as Watertown’s  property tax income increases in the near future, due to rapid development , such projects are usually the last line items on our town budget.

Watertown did not vote for the CPA in 2005. We could have had $15 million available for CPA projects by now, if we had adopted it then. With that money we could have, for example, renovated our branch libraries. Instead, the east branch library is now being sold, a decision that Watertown will probably regret in the future. Without CPA, it took us more than 10 years to complete the bike path section from Arlington to School St. Cambridge recently completed a section of a path that will connect Watertown to the Minuteman bike path system with half the funds coming from CPA and the other half from the state. By not voting for CPA in 2005 we have left money on the table that we could have received from the state CPA trust fund, which contributed more than $500 million to the 161 communities that have joined CPA.

Anni Clark, Hall Avenue

Deborah Peterson

Screaming “TAX” as opposition to the CPA in Watertown is not sufficient.  Opponents of the CPA devalue amenities such a parks, recreational fields for youth and other organized groups, the upkeep and protection of cultural and historic assets unique to a community, and affordable housing as mere “WANTS”. Many of us consider these as community assets that contribute to our family’s engagement in the community, enhance our interactions with our neighbors and add to the quality of life as well as increasing the value of our property. Traditionally these assets have been funded by the towns –yes through taxes. Over the years, there has been an erosion of towns’ abilities to make these investments and the CPA was created as an alternate mechanism. Now over 160 towns in Massachusetts, including Waltham, Belmont, Arlington, Newton, and Cambridge, have already voted to participate. I urge residents to learn more about the CPA at https://investinwatertown.wordpress.com/ . The presentations highlight some of the many projects that could be possible under the CPA and the questions and answers ((https://investinwatertown.wordpress.com/homepage/cpa-in-watertown-extended-questions-and-answers/) give more details about the how the surcharge works. We believe the exemptions and structure of the surcharge protect many for whom the surcharge would be a burden and the multiple examples inspire confidence that passing the CPA will result in tangible benefits worthy of collective active and support.

Invest In Watertown

Yes on 5 Doesn’t Harm Watertown Schools

While it is true that our five aging schools will need significant improvements over the next decade and some discussions have included costs of anywhere from $160 – $400 million, let’s keep in mind a few things:

• These are ballpark figures, and draft recommendations have not yet been presented to the School Committee. Specific plans and budgets will take more time in order to determine how to proceed.

• Watertown will likely amend its current application with the State’s Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), depending on which recommendations are adopted. We will need to decide what needs to be done, how to implement changes, and when to move forward for each recommendation. If accepted into the MSBA program, we anticipate that at least part, if not all, of the request would receive an approximate 48% match.

• We are not even sure if a “debt exclusion” override is even necessary until it is clear what school is a priority and how it would be renovated. It is possible that we could fund a project though the Town’s Capital Improvement Program as where the renovations to the Library, the new Police Station, and the Public Works building.

Voting Yes on 5 now means we can start claiming the state match for the Community Preservation Act and pool funds to invest for public benefit: affordable housing, parks, fields, open space, Watertown’s historical heritage and more. It is not in conflict with the needs of the schools, and it could even leverage opportunities to kick-start collaborative public-private partnerships that will benefit all of us. Yes on 5 would generate over $2.2 million in just one year. Let’s not leave any more money on the table. Go to InvestInWatertown.org and CommunityPreservation.org for details.

Patrick Fairbarin

A CPA opponent asks good question – “What information do you need to form an educated opinion?”  The best answer is to visit the website investinwatertown.org, and the website of the statewide organization, Community Preservation Coalition.  I feel certain that many who do so will be convinced to vote “Yes” on Question 5.  Since the general tone of her remarks elicits doubts and misgiving, I’d like to offer these words of reassurance, including some questions of my own.

More municipalities join the CPA program every year, and none has ever rescinded it.  Is there that much to fear?

The waning/disappearing (?) State match.  Opposition to CPA adoption raises the red flag of fear, that we could be inviting a free fall to worthlessness.  This is the old argument made in 2005.  No one then believed that the State match would stay at 100%, but its growing popularity has led the State legislature to maintain it well above 0%.  What’s wrong with a return of 25% on our Town’s investment?  The CPA also can leverage us additional funds.

Sure it’s a tax!  Any tax is a collective investment in community needs.  There’s inevitably some pain to go with the gain.  The CPA gain is clearly earmarked for accountability.  You get to see every tax dollar at the specific work for which it was dedicated.  Gain, at a bargain rate!

Us versus Them?  Critics of CPA adoption in Watertown frequently imply that there are two distinct, incompatible interest groups, (1) those who support educational improvements in the school system and (2) those (sometimes described as “the CPA people”) who also see a need to help keep Watertown affordable, create and improve public open space for active and passive recreation, and preserve/maintain historic resources, including Town buildings.  Education, housing, recreation, respect for the past, these are all needs.  “The CPA people” are “the Education people” too!  Ask them if they voted previously for an education-related tax override.  You’ll find they did, and will again.

CPA “special interests”.  Affordable housing, dedicated public open space for passive and active recreation, historic preservation.  These are not the only “special interests” in play here.  For instance, there is the natural individual desire on the part of some property owners to make as hearty a profit from a project as regulations allow.  This understandable impulse, backed by the almighty dollar, often so overwhelms the aforementioned “special interests” that they come out looking even more like the underfunded public interests they genuinely are.  The CPA guarantees the public sector some dollars for their support .

Bad timing?

• Any tax increase is going to be inconvenient to somebody, no matter when proposed. Fortunately, those who would be least well able to pay the CPA surcharge (low-income /moderate-income senior homeowners) qualify for a full exemption.
• Taxes went down for many homeowners last year, not up. You don’t hear from them!  Almost all those who appealed their assessment received a significant abatement.
• CPA referenda are especially successful in a main election year (such as 2016), when the vote represents a relatively comprehensive Town opinion.
• The spurt of new development in Watertown has aroused many citizens to examine a wide range of development alternatives in their vision for the Town’s future.
• Watertown’s just-completed (2015) Comprehensive Plan recommends the CPA as a development tool for Housing (p.83), Open Space/Outdoor Recreation (pp. 110, 113) and Historic and Cultural Resources (p. 154).

The allegedly unbearable burden of CPA investment.  There already is a heavy tax burden for the not-so-well-to-do, a burden the CPA specifically aims to relieve.  The “affordability” of a 2% property-tax surcharge is a minor concern for those who value CPA interests and earn more than do low-income and moderate-income senior homeowners, all of whom qualify for complete exemption.  The better-off thus help support housing-cost relief!

Invest in Watertown

Vote Yes on #5

1) It does great things for communities!

161 towns have already adopted the CPA and not a one has repealed it. It has proven successful in meeting community needs, including protecting what is special while attracting even more funding from additional sources year after year. Waltham has restored buildings and monuments. Belmont renovated its swimming pool. Cambridge has led the way in creating affordable housing. Get inspired by hundreds of projects listed at communitypreservation.org.

2) It’s progressive and we already pay in!

The average homeowner will see a surcharge of $124 per year. There are exemptions that protect low-income households and moderate to low-income seniors. Watertown property owners and other taxpayers have put $2 million toward the state CPA Trust Fund which has gone on to fund other communities such as Waltham, Belmont, Newton, Arlington, and Somerville. Our money should come back to us!

3) It will help protect what’s special about Watertown!

Faced with increasing density, a Yes on 5 will help us protect and expand open space and recreation, preserve our amazing history, and create affordable housing including rental assistance that will help to keep Watertown affordable for town employees, seniors, veterans, all of us.

4) It is participatory, collaborative, and transparent!

Anyone can work with the citizen-led committee and propose ideas. Final recommendations from this Watertown CPA committee are presented to the Town Council for approval after significant public input. While 10% of the funds would be designated to go to each of the three areas: open space/recreation, affordable housing and historic preservation, categories can be combined for mixed use projects and to partner with other organizations. This allows for even more creativity in problem solving. Required yearly public reports show taxpayers how every dollar is spent.

5) It’s good for the whole town, including the schools!

CPA money can be used for school playgrounds and playing fields, to preserve history so our kids can study right in their hometown, to make Watertown housing affordable for our teachers and other town employees. Newton uses some of their CPA funds to provide affordable housing for their city employees. Far from being in conflict with school funding, Yes on 5 will free up funds for school renovation and construction. Past expenditures for Victory Field, Filippello Park, and playgrounds at the schools themselves could have been covered by CPA funds. Current Filippello Park phase 2 still needs funding; Victory Field phase 2 needs to be designed and funded. These and other projects would no longer compete with schools for our limited town capital funds. Yes on 5 means we can start claiming the state CPA match now and invest in ways that will benefit the schools and all of us. When we have a school building plan, the fact that Watertown is funding other projects through the CPA and taking those expenditures off its capital budget will strengthen our case for future state funding and with the bond markets.

6) Why should we do this now with everything else going on in town?

There is an old adage, “the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the second best time is today.”  This is as true for investments as it is for trees. Yes on 5 is an investment in Watertown, a way to fully fund important initiatives and needs that often go overlooked or unfunded due to budget constraints. CPA is a time-tested joint venture with the state since 2000 that has proven successful and continues to grow in popularity. Let’s embrace the possibilities.

Watertown is changing fast. Community Preservation Act has inspired neighboring communities to address their needs in innovative ways year over year. It is time for Watertown to claim this benefit for all of us.

Vote Yes on 5!

Invest in Watertown 

The    CPA  is    Good    for    the    Watertown    Schools!    

The  Community    Preservation    Act    (CPA)    does    not    compete    with    school    funding.    To    the    contrary,    it    will    strengthen  our    schools    and    the    education    we    offer    Watertown’s    children.

Imagine  an    “outdoor    classroom”    of    restored    open    space    and    buildings    where    teachers    and    students    study    how    Watertown    was    settled,    using    historic    maps    and    artifacts    that    bring    learning    alive.       All    of    this    would    qualify    for    CPA    funding    and    for    matching    state    funds    and    grants    that    Watertown    would    otherwise    be    unable    to    get.    And    affordable    housing    programs    funded    by    the    CPA    would    make    it    possible    for   our    teachers    to    live    in    Watertown    and    spend    more    time    with    students    instead    of    long    hours    commuting.

The  CPA    will    also    free    up    funds    for    school    renovations    and    construction.    Past    expenditures    on    Victory    Field,    Filippello    Park,    and    playgrounds    at    the    schools    themselves    could    have    been    covered    by    CPA    funds.    If    Watertown    votes    Yes    on    5,    these    and    other    projects    will    no    longer    compete    with    the    schools    for    limited    town    capital    funds.

The  school    department    and    the    town    are    working    hard    to    figure    out    what    to    do    about    our    school    buildings.    While    there    is    agreement    that    our    school    buildings  need    to    be    modernized    or    perhaps    even    replaced,    it    will  take    time    to    determine    exactly    what    to    do    and    how    much    it    will    cost.    Once    the    town    settles    on    a    plan,    it    will    take    still    longer    to    secure    funding    from    the    state’s    School    Building    Authority.

In  the    meantime,    voting    Yes    on    5    means    we    can    start    claiming    the    state    CPA    match    now    and    invest    in    parks    and    playing    fields,    open    space,    affordable    housing,    and    Watertown’s    historical    heritage    in    ways    that    will    benefit    the    schools    and    all    of    us.    When    we    have    a    school    building    plan,    the    fact    that    the    town    is    funding    other    projects    through    the    CPA    and    taking    those    expenditures    off    its    capital    budget    will    strengthen    our    case  for    state    funding    and    with    the    bond    markets.

Let’s  not    create    a    false    choice    between    the    CPA    and    our    schools.    They’re    not    in    competition.    They    go    hand-­‐ in-­‐hand    in    making    Watertown    a    better    place    to    live.    Other    towns    like    Waltham    have    adopted    the    CPA    and    built    new    schools    at    the    same    time.    Watertown    can    too!

 Marilynne Roach

In addition to some anti-CPA letters, the October 28 edition of the TAB also contained the glossy supplement Lens which included the article “Renovation and Innovation.” The piece showed how Bridgewater has restored and updated several historic buildings in ways that now save the town money, energy, and staff time as well as preserving examples of their history — a project partially funded by their CPA.

Creative solutions like that are what we at the Historical Society of Watertown have suggested when talking about Orchard House and the Schick House (houses we do not own and over which we have no control). They represent the type of buildings that could be restored and converted to use as office space for some small business or organization. The Schick House could even become a bed and breakfast. Using CPA funds for that sort of project, besides preserving historic architecture, would create useful space for small businesses that generate taxes and provide jobs.

The town could have used CPA funds to retrofit the two much-beloved branch libraries, not to mention the former Police Station. It could have updated the former Parker School which the town sold. One of the School Department’s plans suggests restoring and adding to existing school buildings, which CPA funds could be used for as the older buildings do qualify as historic despite what some have said.

The same issue of the TAB also included a two-color flier from Watertown Strong Schools that noted “the economic diversity of our Town” and the possible hardship of new taxes on “many of our neighbors.” CPA supporters agree, which is why the Act includes an exemption for low-income and senior tax payers. In addition, it also has a provision to be placed on the ballot in the future to be amended or even cancelled. A handful of towns have done just that and in every case have voted to keep their CPA once they saw how it has benefited them.

Marilynne Roach
Historical Society of Watertown