Community Preservation Act

LETTER: Resident Concerned With Incivility of Debate Over the CPA

By |

To the Editor:

Though reasonable people can disagree on the CPA, I urge my Watertown neighbors to exercise their civic pride and vote “Yes” on Question 5. Let’s give CPA a try and see what we can accomplish together to better our community. We can withdraw from the program if the results aren’t satisfactory. Presently Watertown is at a critical juncture when the physical landscape of our community is changing drastically. A strategic investment in preservation and open space will help us pass on a more livable town to those who follow.

Campaign Finance

Groups Opposing the CPA May Have Missed Campaign Finance Reporting Deadline

By |

It appears two groups opposing the Community Preservation Act may have violated the state’s campaign finance laws by missing the first deadline to report campaign contributions, but the law is long and confusing. 

For candidates for elected office – local or state – the reporting times are eight days before the election, eight days after, 30 days following the election and Jan. 20 of the next year. For political committees there are different reporting days. However, neither the Concerned Watertown Homeowners nor the Watertown Strong Schools group are political committees, since they did not form to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. They appear to fit under the Section 22 of the law applying to individuals or corporations making contributions.

Elections

LETTER: Police Chief Shares His Concerns About Marijuana Ballot Question

By |

Question #4. If it passed it would have a negative impact on the safety and health of our community, especially our youth and future generations. This ballot question is about allowing commercial sales in cities and towns in Massachusetts. It would also allow people to grow marijuana in their homes. A NO vote will keep marijuana retailers out of our community and lessen the availability of this drug to our youth.

Community Preservation Act

LETTER: Watertown Has Lost Out on CPA Money Since Rejecting It in 2005

By |

To the Editor,

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.

Elections

UPDATED: See Where the Money is Coming From for the Pro & Con CPA Campaigns

By |

Signs have popped up around Watertown this fall, literature has arrived in the mail, and ads have appeared in newspapers and online, all regarding Watertown’s Question 5 – whether the town should adopt the Community Preservation Act. The CPA would add a 2 percent surcharge to local property taxes, both residential and commercial, to create a fund for affordable housing, open space and recreation, and historic preservation and the town would receive some matching fund from the state. (See more information here.)

Like most town elections, the majority of the funding comes from people and groups in Watertown, but some has come from groups based out of town and even out of state. In the campaign finance report filed by Invest in Watertown, the backers of the Yes on 5 campaign, 26 Watertown residents contributed along with Newton-based Metro West Collaborative Development (which gave $500), whose executive director lives in Watertown and works to build and create affordable housing in communities west of Boston. In total, the group raised $9,822.

Community Preservation Act

LETTER: Resident Opposes Town Purchasing House & Question 5

By |

To the Editor,

If your wondering if the CPA money will be spent responsibly, just look at what the Town Council just approved. In a 7 to 2 vote on Tuesday October 25 they voted to spend $800,000 to take a home on Winter Street, across from the old police station. Why is the town buying this house? To extend a bicycle path!! Is this responsible use of taxpayer’s dollars?

Elections

LETTER: Vote No on the Ballot Question to Legalize Recreational Marijuana

By |

Almost all of the money that funds the legalization of marijuana comes from out of state Washington, D.C., special interest groups. It is all about the money for them. All of the vote “no” money comes from those concerned with public health. That alone should tell you something. Joan Vennochi’s Vote No Globe article on Friday outlines how this ballot question was written by the proponents and lacks many of the safeguards which it would need if passed.