So, let me get this straight, they want to sell us on a “Community Preservation Act”?

I’m not really sure how the Town of Beverly plans to “Preserve” our community by raising property taxes by 1% on my home, which the town values at $400K but the bank says is worth $300K (& is dropping with every new low income apartment that pops up in Beverly!) by hiding low income housing under the guise of preserving open space (excluding land for recreational use-so no parks allowed) and historical resources (whatever that is supposed to mean).

I am so tired of constantly working my butt off to support my family, pay kindergarten tuitions and ever rising taxes. Particularly when the government is chopping at the bit to take more and MORE of MY money and give it away however they see fit.

Guess what, cell phones privilege, not a right! Guess what, if you can’t afford to live a by the ocean there are other places that are less expensive. Guess what, I have and will continue to spend more than that 1% helping other families that have fallen on hard times and just need a break, but I don’t want the town to build another flop house that I get the pleasure of driving by every day on my way to and from work with droves of middle age men smoking and playing cards outside all day instead of looking for work. I don’t want a bloated, incompetent, broken bureaucracy to steal more of my income under the LIE of preserving my community.

So, I vote a resounding NO on 4!!

The 1% is taken on the tax, not on home value, and it is calculated after the $100,000 residential exemption. For most of us this will be about $26-39/year. Not a lot to give for enhanced trails, rehabiltated historic buiildings and landscapes, and more housing options. And "affordable" is not "homeless" shelter. A single person living in Beverly - maybe your child's new Kindergarten teacher - earning up to about $54k would be eligible for CPA low income housing programs that might include first time home buyers assistance. A two person household earning up to about $67k would also be eligible. The moderate income thresholds for those over the age of 60 differ slightly, but are still surprisingly high. CPA is a locally controlled, dedicated fund that can help preserve the character of our city and keep people in their homes. CPA is about doing things a little differently and planning for a better future.

I am not referring to a homeless shelter, I am referring to the last “affordable” housing that was sold to us as helping the community and was slapped up less than a mile from my home. And my kids teachers aren’t hanging out around the low income housing apartment they are too busy working.

Since we are talking about teachers. Why doesn’t the government throw a little more money towards the schools instead? If we spend more on education and less on handouts we wouldn’t have a need for all of this low income housing.

This is a lie hidden in a proposal to DESTROY the character of our community NOT improve or preserve it. And it is a proposal for me to right a blank check for something I am vehemently against that will keep growing in cost if we let it happen!

The CPA is great if your community has a vision of it's needs and they fit into the 4 buckets allowed by the CPA...Historic Preservation, Open Space, Recreation or Affordable Housing. But if Beverly has not identified projects on which to spend the money you are collecting a tax with no purpose.
In the community where I live, the CPA funds have turned into a big pot of money guarded by some in hopes of some day finding a project. To me it's better to collect the money when you know what you're buying instead of saving some that you could in the future through a bonds or grants.

I am voting yes, it is a no brainer to take advantage of the state money and be able to buy open space when it is available. It is a good investment. If $30 over the course of a year is too much, then you may want to take a hard look at your spending, or sell.

Vote NO!!!! They want to raise your taxes to give to an unelected board who will use that money to put land use restrictions on your private property and/or physically acquire your private property. One of their stated goals is increased watershed protection. The proposed watershed protection plan would prevent homeowners in this district from even putting a shed in their own yard. "Cassidy mentioned a part of the proposal is to restrict home improvements, such as paved driveways and walkways, sheds, garages and patios, with some flexibility given if owners install “storm water management and groundwater recharge systems.” Don't believe me just read their plan page 5. "Protect and acquire land in Beverly of high natural, scenic and recreational value. a. Acquire private lands with high natural values:" How are they going to do that? It is private property. Read the whole plan here. http://www.beverlyma.gov/docs/dm/Open-Space-Plan-July-2008.pdf

It says right on the CPA website their stated goal is to "Carry out priorities of the Open Space and Recreation Plan." including the watershed protection. "CPA can fund some of the priority projects identified in the 2008 plan including:
Completing the walkway from Greene's Hill around the Bass River
Waterfront and Bass River walkways
Watershed protection at Wenham Lake
Open Space linkage between Boyle and Thissel Streets
Preserving public access at Norwood Pond
http://communitypreservationbeverly.weebly.com/potential-projects.html

I would not bank on state matching funds.
Calendar Year # CPA communities State CPA Matching Funds Available for Distribution
(in millions of dollars)
2002 34 $17
2003 54 $27
2004 61 $30
2005 82 $46
2006 102 $58
2007 113 $68
2008 127 $54
2009 135 $31
2010 142 $26
2011 143 $26
Sources: http://commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/cpa.asp#;
http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/municipal-data-and-financial-management/data-bank-reports/cpa/cpa-state-match.html

If all of the states’ over 300 cities and towns adopted the CPA, the matching funds received per city would shrink accordingly, because there is still only one money “pie” to be divvied up.

I've looked at how CPA money is being spent. Only two of Middleton’s projects were for property not owned by the Town of Middleton. Hamilton is earmarking $35,000 to hire a community housing coordinator. Gloucester is spending $57,500 of Open Space money on non-Open space projects. Money designated as Affordable Housing is often spent on city Housing Authority properties, and not to increase affordable housing units. Money designated as Historical is often spent on city-owned property.

I'm voting no on 4.

Out of 143 cities and towns receiving matching funds last year, only 21 of them received 50% or greater matching.
% CPA Matched # Cities
0-19% 0
20-29% 88
30-39% 24
40-49% 10
50-59% 6
60-69%: 5
70-79%: 2
80-99%: 0
100%: 8
Source: http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/municipal-data-and-financial-management/data-bank-reports/cpa/cpa-state-match.html

Beverly, and the majority of cities, falls into the 20-29% range, so do not expect matching funds any greater than that. The state uses a convoluted calculation to decide which cities get how much money. You are ranked by population and a CPA ranking. 7 of the 10 "neighbors" listed on the Beverly CPA website receives 26% matching. Rockport gets 37%, Rowley gets 45%, and Wenham gets 49%.

Hamilton gets 26% matching, Wenham gets 49% matching. I wonder how the folks in Hamilton feel about THAT discrepancy?

For those who did not know, the matching funds come from…another surcharge, of course! Secretary of State Galvin’s “How to accept the Community Preservation Act” website states, “Communities that impose the surcharge will also receive additional monies for their special fund from a new state trust fund created by imposing a surcharge on documents recorded at the Registry of Deeds or Land Court.” (source: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elecpa/cpaidx.htm).

So the state created a tax to encourage cities and towns to create another tax.

Vote no on 4.

The CPA can only be revoked in the same manner in which it was enacted.
There are two options for enacting the CPA: by ballot question only, or by act of legislative body AND ballot question. In either case, revocation HAS to occur in the same manner in which it was enacted, which means in Beverly that the city council would first have to vote to put it on the ballot before the general public could ever be allowed to vote on it. (Source: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elecpa/cpaidx.htm#Revocation)
It is my opinion that the likelihood of the City Council voting to allow the possible removal of a new stream of income is slim, at best. We, the voters, will never be allowed to vote on revocation once this act is implemented. As the Beverly CPA website points out, the Act can be revoked, but no municipality in the Commonwealth has ever done so. Which means that once it is in place, it will be here forever.
I would prefer the act be put to the people simply as a ballot question, and leave the city council out of it.

If revoked, the city is still obligated to continue collecting the tax until all obligations are met. “…the surcharge imposed under section 3 shall remain in effect in any such city or town, with respect to unpaid taxes on past transactions and with respect to taxes due on future transactions, until all contractual obligations incurred by the city or town prior to such termination shall have been fully discharged. G. L. c. 44B, § 16(b).” (Source: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elecpa/cpaidx.htm#Revocation) If the CPA uses any funds as a portion of payment for a multi-year project, it is required to continue to collect the tax until such time as those projects are paid for.
CPA money has been used by our neighbors to bond projects, meaning they are now required to keep the CPA in place for those bond years, even if the voters wanted to remove it.
Gloucester-10 yr bond for City Hall restoration. “…CPA funding will be used to find architectural and engineering plans and to restore and rehabilitate the rapidly deteriorating elements of the building's exterior envelope, including the balance of the tower, the ventilators, the decorative cornices, the windows and the entrance porticos."

Beverly, be prepared to have your CPA money used to pay for city hall and other municipal building restoration. And supporters say the CPA is not a "tax"? Right?

How is CPA money used?

Middleton-20 yr bond to pay for debt service on Flint Public Library. “Exact amount of funding from CPA will be determined each year when debt service is paid. CPC wil vote each year to determine how much to contribute to debt service. It will always be between 25-50% of that year's total CPA revenue.”

Only two of Middleton’s 20+ projects were for property not already owned by the Town of Middleton.

Newburyport-20 yr bond to fix up City Hall. “The City Hall (1851) Project involved two major components: restoration of exterior masonry and installation of universal access features.”

Rockport-“For a mortgage and rental assistance program operated by Action, Inc., a non-profit housing corporation. Specifically, to assist… Rockport residents experiencing temporary difficulties with short term financial support.” ($640,000 Affordable Housing [in 8 separate yearly disbursements; 2009-2011 disbursements were $100,000 each year])

Hamilton spent $113,000 of Open Space money on a landfill study- “Fund a study of the existing environmental condition of the landfill area and review the potential for its reuse.”

Charle- Why don't we make contributions to the Fire Department voluntary. I have smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher. Why don't we make contributions to the schools voluntary. I don't have any kids. Why don't we make contributions to the police voluntary. I'll just buy a gun and fend for myself. Why don't we make voluntary donations to run the Interstate Highway system. I'll take the train or drive the back roads.

I don't recall anyone being upset when Rep. Jerry Parisella got a 50 K grant to fix the GAR Hall. Maybe because we're better off as a community if buildings like that are preserved. The CPA is a way for the community itself to support the things that are important to our city's quality of life.

I don't understand how you can let non-property owners vote on whether my taxes go up, and how property owners who do not live in Beverly do not have a right to say whether their taxes go up. It's just not fair.