June 25, 2007
Editorial: Legislature should back Chapter 40T
Anyone can pass through an old, run-down neighborhood and pass judgement.
"What a dump."
"It's not like it used to be."
"They should fix the sidewalks."
"They should repair this street."
The reality is people would sooner vote for the abolition of firefighters than for a tax hike to finance sewer repairs in a rundown neighborhood.
Politicians blather about unity among city or town residents, and let the voters perpetuate cities' cultural, racial, religious and economic divides, whether latent or apparent.
But proposed legislation called Chapter 40T would allow groups of property owners to decide for themselves what happens to their neighborhoods, and if the legislature truly wants to see infrastructure improvements and new capital projects underway in Massachusetts, it must pass 40T into law.
Chapter 40T recognizes that the needs and wants of one area of a city may not be the same as the needs and wants of another. Under 40T, if a sufficient number of property owners in any section of a municipality wants to, say, replace sewer lines, they can form a local improvement district, use long-term, tax-exempt bonds to get the work done, and agree to tax themselves to pay for it.
The beauty of this system is that it gives property owners control over what happens in their neighborhoods. Their project's financing is not beholden to the whims of city councilors who only care about the neighborhood around election time. It's not put under the skeptical eye of residents of other sections of town who couldn't care less what goes on in any other section of town, but who would surely turn out to vote down even a modest bond authorization.
If less than 100 percent of property owners in a proposed improvement district agree to the special assessment to pay off a 40T bond, the district would need the approval of a city or town council. There are also provisions in the 40T proposal that keep single, large landowners from running roughshod over entire neighborhoods.
So, residents of these districts are protected, and have reached a consensus, and the project isn't costing the town a dime.
And 40T wouldn't just be for rundown neighborhoods.
It could be used for downtown revitalization projects, residential housing projects, retail developments, and perhaps most importantly, for improvements to infrastructure like sewer and water lines. Nearly everything is in play as long as it's public property, or the project benefits the public good.
We don't necessarily like the prospect of more laws on the already thick books, and it seems like some of what 40T would accomplish could be done without the legislature putting its hands all over it.
But the folks at the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, which would issue 40T bonds, say the law would make equals of private property owners, developers and state and municipal governments. They also say the current 40T proposal is an improvement over the one vetoed last year by then Gov. Mitt Romney.
Property owners who want to form an improvement district to undertake a project, must first pass through the local land use and permitting gantlet, but the days of the city council holding sway over which projects get financing, and which do not, may be nearing an end. We hope they are.
"What a dump."
"It's not like it used to be."
"They should fix the sidewalks."
"They should repair this street."
The reality is people would sooner vote for the abolition of firefighters than for a tax hike to finance sewer repairs in a rundown neighborhood.
Politicians blather about unity among city or town residents, and let the voters perpetuate cities' cultural, racial, religious and economic divides, whether latent or apparent.
But proposed legislation called Chapter 40T would allow groups of property owners to decide for themselves what happens to their neighborhoods, and if the legislature truly wants to see infrastructure improvements and new capital projects underway in Massachusetts, it must pass 40T into law.
Chapter 40T recognizes that the needs and wants of one area of a city may not be the same as the needs and wants of another. Under 40T, if a sufficient number of property owners in any section of a municipality wants to, say, replace sewer lines, they can form a local improvement district, use long-term, tax-exempt bonds to get the work done, and agree to tax themselves to pay for it.
The beauty of this system is that it gives property owners control over what happens in their neighborhoods. Their project's financing is not beholden to the whims of city councilors who only care about the neighborhood around election time. It's not put under the skeptical eye of residents of other sections of town who couldn't care less what goes on in any other section of town, but who would surely turn out to vote down even a modest bond authorization.
If less than 100 percent of property owners in a proposed improvement district agree to the special assessment to pay off a 40T bond, the district would need the approval of a city or town council. There are also provisions in the 40T proposal that keep single, large landowners from running roughshod over entire neighborhoods.
So, residents of these districts are protected, and have reached a consensus, and the project isn't costing the town a dime.
And 40T wouldn't just be for rundown neighborhoods.
It could be used for downtown revitalization projects, residential housing projects, retail developments, and perhaps most importantly, for improvements to infrastructure like sewer and water lines. Nearly everything is in play as long as it's public property, or the project benefits the public good.
We don't necessarily like the prospect of more laws on the already thick books, and it seems like some of what 40T would accomplish could be done without the legislature putting its hands all over it.
But the folks at the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, which would issue 40T bonds, say the law would make equals of private property owners, developers and state and municipal governments. They also say the current 40T proposal is an improvement over the one vetoed last year by then Gov. Mitt Romney.
Property owners who want to form an improvement district to undertake a project, must first pass through the local land use and permitting gantlet, but the days of the city council holding sway over which projects get financing, and which do not, may be nearing an end. We hope they are.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments