Politics and the City: A community at odds — Question 5 has residents divided

WORCESTER — At the Hope Avenue/Webster Street roundabout Thursday morning, about half a dozen people cheered as cars and trucks honked in support of signs to vote “no” on Question 5, the Community Preservation Act.

“We can’t afford another tax on a tax,” Kathleen Roy, a neighborhood resident who had organized the event, said. “We’re all having to cut back to get through this winter. Another tax on a tax is not what we need.”

At Newton Square on Friday afternoon, it was a little less clear if the honking was for the “yes” on Question 5 sign holders, the “no” sign holders… or the general craziness of the rotary. But the half a dozen proponents for the question were not daunted.

“It’s smart legislation that focuses on important things in the community,” Ann T. Lisi said while holding a "Yes" on Question 5 sign. “It’s a modest additional surcharge for designated services. When do you otherwise get to determine what your tax money goes to?”

Worcester voters will be asked to adopt the Community Preservation Act on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The measure would add a 1.5% surcharge on residents' annual assessed property tax beginning in July 2023. The first $100,000 of residential and commercial-industrial property value will be exempt from the surcharge. Low-income families and low- to moderate-income senior citizens who own homes will also be exempt from the surcharge.

The average resident will pay $44.45 while the average commercial taxpayer will pay $604.58 if the measure is passed.

The money collected through the surcharge will go into a dedicated fund — a percentage of which is matched by the state — that could be used to finance historic preservation projects, open space acquisition and park improvements, and community housing. A committee will be appointed to oversee the use of the funds.

Divisive question

As the scenes at the rotaries show, the question is dividing the community.

Roy and her husband, Kevin, said now is not the time to add taxes to residents’ plates.

“No new taxes,” Kevin Roy said, as his wife cited the impact on inflation on everything from cable and internet services to eggs. “We already pay enough.”

Jack Woods, owner of the Thomas J. Woods Insurance Agency Inc., noted the CPA adds “another layer of cost…to the business owner.”

“They already whack me on real estate taxes, they whack me on personal property taxes on everything in the property,” Woods said. “I just feel like you get nickel-and-dimed.”

Woods said that the benefits of the CPA — affordable housing, historical preservation and open space - are “nice to have.” But he identified other things in the city such as roads and sidewalk repairs that should be prioritized. Plus, he noted that the city had American Rescue Plan Act funds that could be used for projects such as those emphasized by the CPA.

“You do things like (the CPA) in good times,” Woods said. “There are a lot of other things that I think the city needs to spend its money on first.”

Argument remains same

But Lisi and Frank Callahan said they didn’t buy the argument that now was not the time.

“It’s the same argument opponents had in 2018 — then it was that the CPA wasn’t providing enough money and we couldn’t afford it. Now it’s that we’re swimming in ARPA money and it’s not the time,” Callahan said.

Lisi agreed.

“It always feels like a hard time to pay taxes,” Lisi said. “It wasn’t the right time (for the CPA) in 2016, 2018, and 2012, why not now?”

“Economically, we now need it more than ever,” Lisi continued. “Maybe we could help somebody who’s really down and out.”

Both Lisi and Callahan also stressed the CPA as a permanent source of revenue, unlike ARPA funds.

Callahan, for instance, said the CPA was a permanent fund that would not begin to be distributed for a few years: First the ballot question must be approved, then the money collected, then the match awarded, and only then can money go to projects, he explained.

“By then the ARPA money will all be gone,” Callahan continued. “Plus the ARPA money is mostly for housing in Worcester, there is nothing for historic preservation or open space.”

Finally, Callahan noted that residents had already been paying into the CPA matching trust fund through fees at the Registry of Deeds.

“We’re missing out on millions of dollars from the CPA trust fund, and subsidizing other cities and towns” that have adopted the CPA, Callahan said. “Roughly $43 a year, I think is quite affordable for many people.”

Jenny Pacillo agreed with Callahan, calling adopting the act “a no-brainer for me.”“It seems silly to me that our money is going to different places when we could be benefitting from it too,” Pacillo said.

Meanwhile, the honking at the Newton Square Rotary continued Friday afternoon … perhaps we’ll learn who it was for on Nov. 8.

Contact Cyrus Moulton at cyrus.moulton@telegram.com. Follow him on Twitter @moultoncyrus

This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Communities in Worcester divided over Question 5