Cash-strapped cities and towns in Massachusetts have enough trouble paying for roads, schools, and storm drains — much less the optional amenities that make neighborhoods more fun and attractive. Think arts: If towns have to decide between paying firefighters or funding a theater festival, what’s more likely to get the ax?
A long-debated bill on Beacon Hill would give municipalities a valuable tool to fund supplemental services. Similar legislation passed twice before, but the bill has run into unexpected opposition this year. Its underlying rationale, though, hasn’t changed: Municipalities need new ways to pay for the amenities that create vibrant neighborhoods, and the bill merits passage before the session ends on July 31.
The bill is inspired partly by districts like Boston’s successful Downtown Business Improvement District, which is funded by property owners around Downtown Crossing and pays for signage, street ambassadors to help tourists, graffiti removal, and the like.
Here’s how the legislation would work: If property owners in a geographic area want to create a district funded through assessments, and owners accounting for more than 50 percent of the district’s prospective budget sign the petition, the local governing body could then authorize its creation. Paying the fee would be mandatory, even for property owners who didn’t sign the petition. The proceeds would go to a nonprofit organization that would spend the money on “supplemental’’ services in the district; it could not be used to pay for or replace basic city services like police.
The mandatory nature has lead critics to characterize the bill as a stealth tax. Some labor groups, meanwhile, worry the bill constitutes privatization of public services because the workers wouldn’t be public employees.
But the bill proposes to add services — it doesn’t take work away from anyone. And the fees differ from a tax because they benefit the people who pay them directly, rather than going into the town’s bank account to be spent by elected officials.
Other critics say the districts would be antidemocratic, because in theory a minority of large landowners in a district could clear the 50 percent threshold. But there is a safeguard: The local government would still have to approve any district’s creation. The districts would also have to be reauthorized every 10 years, meaning decisions won’t be permanently binding on future property owners.
The most unfortunate criticism of the proposal is that it could hurt renters, because improvements funded by the districts could make those areas more desirable, thus leading to higher rents. The notion that cities mustn’t be allowed to make neighborhoods too nice is civic defeatism at its worst: If the state’s strategy to prevent gentrification is to limit investment in neighborhoods, it’s doing something wrong.
A long list of business, environmental, housing, community development, public health, and municipal organizations back the legislation, and existing districts like Boston’s don’t support the gloom-and-doom predictions. Last-minute fearmongering shouldn’t derail the bill now.
