Letters

Elections

LETTER: Watertown Parent Group’s Video Q&A on Community Preservation Act

By Guest Writer | October 15, 2016

Watertown Strong Schools parent group has posted a video about their stance on Question #5, the Community Preservation Act. 

Click on the video to play it.

Elections

LETTER: Yes on 5 Committee Says CPA Won’t Harm School Funding

By Guest Writer | October 12, 2016

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.

Elections

LETTER: Resident Urges Watertown to Follow Other Towns and Adopt the CPA

By Guest Writer | October 12, 2016

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, Somervile, 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.

Elections

LETTER: Resident Opposes CPA, Wants to See Money Spent on Schools

By Guest Writer | October 5, 2016

The Community Preservation Act (CPA) will create an additional tax burden on Watertown homeowners where funds will be controlled by the small group people who campaigned for it. Meanwhile, Watertown’s schools need funding for essential improvements. The CPA will, “…establish a dedicated funding source” for the specific wants of a minority of Watertown residents. That is probably why it is being pushed by the Historical Society of Watertown (Society), Invest in Watertown (Invest), and five members of Watertown’s Town Council (Council). These people treat Watertown homeowners and renters as an endless source of money for them to spend, no matter that many homeowners have higher priorities such as schools, homes, and family. Watertown homeowners can ill afford a continuing, “…additional excise of [2%]…” to fund the Society’s intense desire to socialize at the “Shick House” or Invest’s on Walker Pond and dog parks. Watertown homeowners are not a bottomless piggy bank; they cannot fund the wants of every interest group’s pet project. As desirous as it may be for Invest’s supporters to see an entirely new bureaucracy dedicated to dog parks, ponds, and open space, the CPA sends no money to where it is most needed: the Watertown Public Schools.

Elections

LETTER: Community Preservation Act is Not A Good Fit for Watertown

By Guest Writer | September 29, 2016

The CPA tax is the proverbial round peg in a square hole when it comes to Watertown’s already cash-strapped homeowners and renters. CPA funds can only be spent on projects involving: affordable housing, historic preservation, and open space/recreation. Please consider these facts:

• Watertown property taxes will rise by 2 percent if the CPA passes. This increase will be passed on to many renters. • The Watertown Housing Production Plan of 2014 said that 40 percent of Watertown households was “housing cost burdened,”meaning that housing costs consume more than 30 percent of their gross household income, according to federal estimates.