The Davis Square Community

Thanks! The key bit seems to be:

# Cut the Property Tax by Reinvesting in Cities and Towns. Today there is too much reliance on local property taxes as a source of revenue for essential services. As Governor, restoring local aid to pre-2000 levels will be one of my highest budget priorities. Once restored, we should commit a fixed percentage of annual state tax receipts to direct support of local services by cities and towns. Furthermore, the state must uncap lottery disbursements to cities and towns.
# A Fair Deal for Public Schools. In addition, we will update the chapter 70 education aid formula so that it is allocated in a manner designed to deliver the resources needed to bring all children in all schools to grade-level proficiency in key academic subjects.
# Give Cities and Towns Flexibility to Develop New Revenue. I will support giving local communities the option to raise revenues from sources other than the property tax. In many other states, cities and towns have the authority to raise additional revenue from such sources as a reasonable local meals tax. Such local options, subject to local control, can help local communities raise the revenue they need to support the services businesses need to thrive.

From:

Well, when property taxes are used to fund schools it means where property taxes are higher, schools get more money, i.e. rich towns with expensive homes and high property taxes get the best schools because their schools get more money. It's a really tax-regressive way of funding education and sort of ensures that the rich will always have access to good education while poor neighborhoods won't.

I am not sure what his alternate plan is to fund schools. I imagine that he plans to replace the regressive property tax with a more progressive tax that would more evenly distribute funding for schools.

From:

ukelele.livejournal.com

Yes and no. I mean, yes, rich towns can afford to spend more from properrty taxes on their schools, and rich towns often have good schools, but that doesn't mean that A causes B.

When I was a teacher's aide at Cambridge Rindge and Latin, the town was spending something like $19K per pupil -- so much it could have actually sent many of its students to private schools. And yet many of these kids were getting educations that flat-out sucked. You can spend an awful lot of money in ways that don't really benefit students.

Now that I am teaching in a ritzy private school many of whose students come from those wealthy towns with good public schools, I can tell you that those towns may have a lot of money to throw at it, but they also have a lot of educated parents who value education and expect their kids to do well. And they have a lot of parents (well, mostly moms) who don't need to work and can therefore spend lots of time being involved in schools. And, when you have those sorts of parents, you're going to have pretty good schools regardless of what you're spending. The best K-12 school I ever attended was run on a shoestring budget but had very committed parents.

Once, for the heck of it, I googled town per-pupil funding and town MCAS scores, and found there was surprisingly little correlation. Of course MCAS scores measure only a narrow slices of what's going on, but they're the data that are easy to get.

In short, there are things you have to have money for, but there's absolutely no more money = better education equation; the things that matter most for school quality have a lot more to do with community values (the town's and the school's).

However, money's an awful lot easier to talk about and do something about politically than parental and school culture are.

From:

Are you seriously trying to imply that say Newton has the same level of public educational quality as oh say, Roxbury or Mattapan? And that more funding to recruit better teachers, update texts and fix buildings that are falling down *wouldn't* help at all?

I think everyone understands that money doesn't buy everything but in cases of great disparity it *does* do something.

From:

ukelele.livejournal.com

No. Did you read my post?

I said that money is a less important factor than many people seem to think, and that other factors (which are unfortunately much harder to influence via policy) are much more important. It happens that some of those other factors -- things like parental commitment to education and free time with which to get involved -- correlate strongly with socioeconomic class, which does help wealthy towns to have good schools, but that doesn't mean that the school quality is a direct function of the amount of funding. There's a certain minimum that's necessary (for instance, for the functions that you imply, although the link between higher salaries and teacher recruitment is surprisingly weak; my colleagues and I could easily make $10K more if I switched to public schools, but other factors make us happy where we are, for example). But once you've gotten some infrastructure basics down, money is not the factor everyone makes it out to be.

For reference, according to the Department of Education (http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/schfin/statistics/ppx05_comp_auto.aspx), Boston spent an average of $9708 on non-SPED students in FY05. (It isn't broken down by neighborhoods so you can't query for Roxbury or Mattapan specifically.) Newton spent $9338.

From:

agnosticoracle.livejournal.com

You can read about Deval Patrick's position here (http://www.devalpatrick.com/issues_towns.cfm). The short answer is Deval Patrick wants to increase state funding to cities and towns, so the cities and towns might lower property tax. They aren't talking about cutting school funding. The issue is whether schools should be funded from property tax or income tax. Property taxes are less progressive (greater tax burden on the poor and middle class) than income taxes.

From:

clevernonsense.livejournal.com

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but isn't it the opposite? Lower income people have no property to tax or a cheaper property to tax, while the rich some big fancy house and possibly a house on the cape which will not get the permanent resident property tax break...

In MA, the income tax is flat, so it's as non-progressive as it can get.

From:

agnosticoracle.livejournal.com

When property taxes go up, so do rents. The landlords just pass the tax on as a rent increase.

The people hit hardest by property taxes are lower and middle income elderly. These are the folks who bought their houses 30 years ago or more and are now on fixed retirement income. As property taxes go up they often aren't able to continue living in the homes they have lived in all their lives.

From:

clevernonsense.livejournal.com

Landlords can only charge what rent a tenant is willing to pay. I just got an apartment for $100 less than the original asking rent. So clearly, landlords can't just pass on the increase willynilly. And still, the share of property tax for a small apartment in a large building is far less than that of even a modest house.

For the second point, I have never bought this argument at all. They can't afford to live in a house worth 600K or more (that they paid under 30K for in 1970)? That really breaks my heart.

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, and I do think you have a point. I just don't think it's so clearcut.

From:

bluedaisy.livejournal.com

The market is changing, so right now tenants have a lot more power than they did, say, 5 years ago. When housing is scarce and/or the market is strong, landlords can just pass on property taxes to their tenants.

From:

agnosticoracle.livejournal.com

Landlords can only charge what rent a tenant is willing to pay.

I don't disagree, it is more complex. There is an intermediate step. But a landlord needs to cover the cost of the mortgage and property tax on the house. Similarly if property tax did temporarily drive up the cost of home ownership vs renting, the ratio of people wanting to rent will go up. This increases the demand for apartments which increases rent. The amount passed is probably less 100%, I'm sure there are some economics papers on this somewhere if we wanted to look. But a good portion of it must be passed on.

When comparing income levels it might be useful to compare within the homeowner and renters groups than between them. That is compare the effect on a lower income family that owns a house to a high income family that own a house, and compare a lower income family that rents to a high income family that rents. What you will see within the groups is that the housing expense to income ratio is largest for lower income families in both groups. Since property taxes are generally a "flat rate" it means that the tax burden to income burden will be highest on lower income people in both groups.

From:

chumbolly.livejournal.com

First, I don't know beans about Mr. Patrick's tax proposal, but while it is true that school funding generally comes from property taxes, cutting property taxes will not necessarily cut school funding. Generally, proposals to cut property taxes that come from state leaders come hand in hand with increasing the amount of "state aid," or money that comes from the state's general fund (which is funded by income and business taxes and fees) to help cities and towns pay for expenditures that are made at the city and town level. Some would argue that schools shouldn't be funded primarily by the property tax because that means that towns with expensive property (Winchester, Weston, and Wellesley, really, all the "W" towns) get nice schools as a result, whereas towns with low property values, like Lynn, have very little money for schools. It's simple: poor people get poor schools and rich people get rich schools, at least in Massachusetts with it's tiny little towns that tend to consist of one income class or another (as opposed, for example, to the Los Angeles school district that covers millions of people, rich and poor). If, in the alternative, education spending comes from the state, then it can be more evenly spread amongst pupils across the state. Cambridge (with it's big commercial tax base) spends many thousands of dollars more per pupil than Somerville does. Is that fair? On the other hand, good schools are often good because the parents give a damn, and directly linking the property tax to school spending seems to strengthen the connection between the local community and its schools. I don't know which method of school funding is better, but I doubt Mr. Patrick's property tax plan would result in less school spending as it probably comes hand--in-hand with more state involvement.

From:

No time to read everyone's post, but that's the main reason that B won't vote for Deval Patrick. He thinks that cutting prop taxes will be bad for teachers. He doesn't understand why the teacher's union supports DP. Will have to read more about it and his plan to make up that funding---I dont' know if B is correct in his thinking or not. But I do believe (as does B) that Healey's plans for education/teachers are pretty bad as well.

From:

Well, looking at his site, it does appear that he's planning on finding other ways to fund education and town infrastructure.

From:

Not only does the Mass Teachers Association support DP, they are his biggest fiscal supporter amongst unions with SEIU coming in second. Maybe he should ask a teacher?

From:

He is a teacher, but I'm not sure he was aware that Patrick was going to ensure continued educational funding from the state (though the mechanics for that seem slightly unclear right now).

From:

I dunno, I guess I think that's crappy logic.

Basically he's saying, "this guy's going to tinker with the system and since I don't know the specifics of his plan I'll just stay with the status quo even though that has a standing record of not having been very good."

Or at least that's what I interpreted from the post.

From:

I think that's being a little hasty. If he was unaware (as I stated above) that Patrick intends to ensure continuity of educational funding,
then I can see where his concern, completely legitimate, would come from. That's different from what you posted above.

From:

Yes, I believe "unaware" is the word.

Like I said in my long post there, he hasn't actually read up on the candidates and their platforms and is going by hearsay and conjecture.

It would be unfortunate for him to remain ignorant and simply not vote, but that's his problem.

From:

Well, for B, this election is a tough one. He doesn't like any of the candidates. Most people will at least vote on one issue, even if they disagree with other views that a given candidate may have. B does it the other way--as soon as the candidate supports something that B doesn't, he'll decide not to vote for the candidate, regardless of the rest of the platform. I think that's silly, but to each his own.

In this case, B doesn't support Healey or the status quo, but is turned off by DP and his property tax cuts and I think one other thing about DP (can't remember what). B also hasn't gone out of his way to actually research what the candidates' platforms are, so basically, he's being lazy and that's disappointing when it comes to voting for people who will do things that affect you.

B is very hard to please politically---on one hand, he is a teacher, so voting for candidates that will do good things for education is in his best interests. (obviously left-leaning candidates excel here) He also hopes to be a homeowner soon, so lower property taxes would help him personally. On the other hand, B likes his hard-earned money in his pocket and believes that any time the govt tries to take it away for any reason is bad, so if his taxes are going to increase, he doesn't want it. (and here's where right-leaning candidates excel) Now--I see this looks contradictory---DP says he'll lower property taxes, not raise them. But if the property taxes go town, the funding has to come from somewhere (or teachers and schools get a raw deal), and I think B assumes that other taxes will go up.

If that's true, then we really break even---pay less on your property but more on income taxes=same amount of money leaving your paycheck to the town or state. So what difference would it make?

From:

la-ti-da.livejournal.com

plus, my roommate is a teacher and she says kerry healey would be horrible for the education system and is praying she doesn't get elected. but i'm not sure on the details either :)

From:

mrf-arch.livejournal.com

Healey supports raising the cap on the number of charter schools in the state, and in one of the 4-way debates, stated "Let's make them all charter schools" regarding Massachusetts public schools. Charter schools tend to have less regulation, more authority vested in the school administration, and weaker teachers unions than public schools.

The teachers' union is counting (rightly, I think) that whatever modifications to the state's tax system Patrick makes, anything that results in a net cut to school budgets across the board will get him wiped off the map next election, and that he knows it. So there's not much risk to teachers in that direction. Whereas, between pushing charter schools and pushing a merit-based pay system for teachers that would circumvent union seniority pay rules, Kerry Healey has all but declared war on the Massachusetts Teachers Association.

From:

Yep.

Charter schools are NOT the way to go.

From:

ron_newman

I'm voting for Patrick, but at the same time I support more experimentation in our school system. Why shouldn't we have more charters?

From:

ukelele.livejournal.com

I imagine the union supports DP in part because he's the Democrat, and in part because his education platform -- which contained a lot of reformist ideas back when I first looked at it when I first heard of him, the sort of ideas the unions usually hate -- has since been substantially changed, with the bit the unions are liable to really hate (eg merit pay) removed and replaced with things they are liable to like.

Also, his wife is a lawyer specializing in education and labor law, so she must have all sorts of connections with the unions, but I'm not sure exactly what she's done in her practice, so I'm not sure of the nature of those connections.

From:

My husband taught in a charter school last year. It was a nightmare. I realize that not all charter schools are the same, but its hard to know about this school and think that charters are a good idea.

This place was so poorly run, its unbelievable. The school is in an inner city and so many of those kids need so much more than that school can offer. Many of the kids had special needs (learning disability, psychological issues or behaviour problems) and the school simply did not provide anything for them. There were no classroom aides. I think the school gets away with things that a public school could not get away with, though I doubt the public schools in that town were much better, at least they had been running for a while. This charter school was only 6yrs old and what a train wreck.

From:

dominic-santos.livejournal.com

Disclaimer: I am a Republican, and will be holding my nose as a I vote for Kerry Healey (as she soft on social issues).

So...Deval claims that he can cut the property tax. As we know, however, the Commonwealth does not set the property tax. Local cities and towns do. I assume that his argument goes something like this: I will raise local aid and Chapter 70 school funding (stuff that he can control), and cities and towns will reduce the property tax because of the additional revenues. While this seems logical, local government is not in the business of lowering taxes. Assuming that the City of Newton receives more local aid and Chapter 70 money, it will likely not reduce property taxes. Instead, it will allocate tax receipts that would have paid for education into other projects. Government will always find something to spend your money on.

As for the Governor's Race, it is pretty clear that Deval will win. Kerry just didn't run an effective campaign. The test for Deval will be keeping him promises will maintaining fiscal discipline on the Hill. I don't think that this will happen. Instead, he will keep his promises and run our Commonwealth into massive debt.

In speaking with my Republican friends, we agree that a Deval win is good for the Republican party in Massachusetts. For too long, the party has been focused on the corner office, and has neglected Representative and Senate races (e.g., Bill White). Maybe, just maybe, the party will focus on building a grass roots team to establish a veto-override proof hold on both chambers, and then focus on the corner office. Ahh...to dream, to dream.

From:

ron_newman

I did not know you were a Republican. Now that Bill White no longer is, you may be the last one remaining in Somerville.

From:

dominic-santos.livejournal.com

I am certainly the only vocal Republican left. Republicans are alive and well in Somerville; however, being openly Republican is something that most Republicans don't practice.

Ron: Do you know of any space in Davis Square for a hotel? Not for sale, but that makes sense. I am thinking that a hotel would look great on the parcel where the Dominos once operated. What do you think?

From:

dominic-santos.livejournal.com

Ron: In regard to my question in the previous comment, see the following map http://local.live.com/?v=2&sp=Point.r1z279925ync_Hotel%20Space___ (click on Bird's Eye for a better view). A hotel at the end of the Square would be great.

From:

ron_newman

To my knowledge, Domino's is still in business at the location you suggest. It is still listed on Domino's web site.

Possible sites I can think of:

- the former Enterprise Rent-a-Car, at Cutter and Summer streets
- perhaps close this short block of Summer Street, and combine Enterprise with the small triangular parking lot on the other side
- the small parking lots along Grove Street; don't know if any of them are really large enough
- the private parking lot on Winter Street across from Store 24
- the private parking lot behind One Davis Square
- the municipal parking lot at Day and Herbert Street -- but this would displace the Wednesday farmer's market

From: