General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[stick n move]

Yea... lol.

That can absolutely be a viable solution and so can North Station DMU’s as a stopgap measure because we all know its going to take decades to get multiple new lines expanded. Its not the best solution, but sometimes the one you can get is the best. Anyways there 100% is a way the funds could be allocated. You do the tax, they go to the state, then the state allocates funds to the T and other transit projects around Massachusetts. The state could do like a half cent “state projects of immediate high impact fund allocation” tax or something. Im not convinced otherwise at all and dont care to read all of that other nonsense and frankly would like to hear other peoples perspectives, opinions, and ideas on transit.

 

[statler]

THe only problem with the way our system is set up (and I think this might be what F-Line was getting to) is that mass transit projects tend to be heavily weighted toward the eastern part of the state (which makes sense because that where most of the people are, etc..) but the funding is required to come from the entire state and the way our system is set up, western legislators still have a say in that.

So basically, the entire system needs to be changed somehow (essentially creating a regional taxation body, via constitutional amendment) and that is really, really hard to do.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I think is the general sentiment trying to be conveyed is, "There should be a tax increase with the proceeds earmarked for transit expansion via whatever political process is required."

Well...we did have 3 consecutive Speakers take a perp walk, so there is that.


But seriously, "No revenue before reform" DeLeo is 'the' impediment here. He won't so much as bring forward a bill to reassign the Big Dig debt service off the T's back, let alone any progressive scheme to index expansion to taxation. Regional taxation included, since Eastern MA could/would have to be fairly weighted. But any which way the buck starts there...wirh an autocrat who feels no pressure from anyone to give a crap.

 

[ceo]

Sales taxes are a terrible way to do this anyway, as they're about the most regressive form of taxation in existence. What we really need is to amend the state constitution to permit a graduated income tax. Unfortunately that got tried sometime in the 90s and it went down in flames.

 

[stick n move]

THe only problem with the way our system is set up (and I think this might be what F-Line was getting to) is that mass transit projects tend to be heavily weighted toward the eastern part of the state (which makes sense because that where most of the people are, etc..) but the funding is required to come from the entire state and the way our system is set up, western legislators still have a say in that.

So basically, the entire system needs to be changed somehow (essentially creating a regional taxation body, via constitutional amendment) and that is really, really hard to do.

I think if anything thats even more a reason for a tax like this. As it is now Boston gets most of whatever state/federal funding we can get because there isnt much and the projects we need to do are very expensive. This could open up an opportunity where there is a state fund for high impact projects. If you had a system where there are legally binding percentages every city in the state is entitled to that could be great.

The reality is Boston does need much more money because the projects are very expensive especially being on the ocean needing tunnels, rail, etc. That being said a few million dollars could do wonders for bike lanes and bus lanes in Worcester. Id love to see Worcester/Springfield benefit from this as well, it would be good for the state overall. Also electrifying the commuter rail benefits the entire state.

When I see all of the expansion projects we need and how none of them are funded and for now theyre just visions, then I see both LA and Seattle are currently expanding their metro’s ENORMOUSLY, doubling their systems, instead of looking at all the reasons why we cant do that, I look at why we can. Where theres a will theres a way and a guarintee if the mayor, governor, voters etc got behind this we could make it happen. This is happening and most importantly working right now in the US.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I think if anything thats even more a reason for a tax like this. As it is now Boston gets most of whatever state/federal funding we can get because there isnt much and the projects we need to do are very expensive. This could open up an opportunity where there is a state fund for high impact projects. If you had a system where there are legally binding percentages every city in the state is entitled to that could be great.

The reality is Boston does need much more money because the projects are very expensive especially being on the ocean needing tunnels, rail, etc. That being said a few million dollars could do wonders for bike lanes and bus lanes in Worcester. Id love to see Worcester/Springfield benefit from this as well, it would be good for the state overall. Also electrifying the commuter rail benefits the entire state.

When I see all of the expansion projects we need and how none of them are funded and for now theyre just visions, then I see both LA and Seattle are currently expanding their metro’s ENORMOUSLY, doubling their systems, instead of looking at all the reasons why we cant do that, I look at why we can. Where theres a will theres a way and a guarintee if the mayor, governor, voters etc got behind this we could make it happen. This is happening and most importantly working right now in the US.

We...can't...do...an...LA...and...Seattle...because...it's...unconstitutional...in...Mass.

^This^ shouldn't have to sound like such a broken record, but these spurious comparisons keep getting dredged up again and again and again as if one's own personal intensity of belief can somehow make them so. That's not how state constitutions work. Power of the purse resides only with the MA state House of Representatives.

• That means self-funding voter referendums like "Measure M" are verboten here. There will never ever be a funding path like L.A. or Seattle-Tacoma. The most a voter referendum can do here is bindingly affirm/deny or non-bindingly advise a Legislative spending action. We're simply not going to do it the West Coast way. This is a dead horse.

• That means a district-initiated tax levy for funding expansion is verboten here. There will never be a funding path like MARTA is pursuing initiating new taxes in its district to expand. The most that can be done here is to pass a House bill levying new taxes graded within the MBTA district (all or part), RTA district, MassHighway district, or county borders impacted by the project. All Reps from every corner of the state would have to cast a vote on it, but if the measure is popular within its transit constituency and the taxes are fairly assessed towards the project area and away from utterly unrelated areas it's unlikely Western MA would put up a fight against Eastern MA knowing they'll need their own favors from the East on some other bill.

Progressive taxation to targeted districts: possible. Doing it--or further adjusting it after doing it--without a vote from the entire Legislature: impossible. It's always going to be a little unwieldy to have to fish for statewide votes, but if the systemic brokenness at the Speaker's position were solved (a very not-transpo problem permeating all local issues) the project pipeline could get moving with a little more structural equity.

​

The House is the terms of engagement for any of this. That's where to put laser-like focus...not wishing for the umpteenth time that if only there were a magic wand we could "Measure M" our way out the starting gates. This isn't about lack of will; it literally is about constitutional vs. not-constitutional.

 

[George_Apley]

Well...we did have 3 consecutive Speakers take a perp walk, so there is that.


But seriously, "No revenue before reform" DeLeo is 'the' impediment here. He won't so much as bring forward a bill to reassign the Big Dig debt service off the T's back, let alone any progressive scheme to index expansion to taxation. Regional taxation included, since Eastern MA could/would have to be fairly weighted. But any which way the buck starts there...wirh an autocrat who feels no pressure from anyone to give a crap.

This x1000. Until the leadership changes in the House, the insular conservative wing of the state party will prevent major changes. Another thing to keep in mind is that *if* progressives take over the Democratic Party in both houses of the legislature, the GOP could find themselves reaping the rewards if there's a "tax revolt" against whatever gas/congestion/carbon regime is imposed.

 

[stevebikes]

Sales taxes are a terrible way to do this anyway, as they're about the most regressive form of taxation in existence. What we really need is to amend the state constitution to permit a graduated income tax. Unfortunately that got tried sometime in the 90s and it went down in flames.

You could get a progressive effect and increase revenue by raising the income tax paired with increasing the personal exemption and cutting the sales tax. No need to change the constitution.

 

[stick n move]

We...can't...do...an...LA...and...Seattle...because...it's...unconstitutional...in...Mass.

^This^ shouldn't have to sound like such a broken record, but these spurious comparisons keep getting dredged up again and again and again as if one's own personal intensity of belief can somehow make them so. That's not how state constitutions work. Power of the purse resides only with the MA state House of Representatives.

• That means self-funding voter referendums like "Measure M" are verboten here. There will never ever be a funding path like L.A. or Seattle-Tacoma. The most a voter referendum can do here is bindingly affirm/deny or non-bindingly advise a Legislative spending action. We're simply not going to do it the West Coast way. This is a dead horse.

• That means a district-initiated tax levy for funding expansion is verboten here. There will never be a funding path like MARTA is pursuing initiating new taxes in its district to expand. The most that can be done here is to pass a House bill levying new taxes graded within the MBTA district (all or part), RTA district, MassHighway district, or county borders impacted by the project. All Reps from every corner of the state would have to cast a vote on it, but if the measure is popular within its transit constituency and the taxes are fairly assessed towards the project area and away from utterly unrelated areas it's unlikely Western MA would put up a fight against Eastern MA knowing they'll need their own favors from the East on some other bill.

Progressive taxation to targeted districts: possible. Doing it--or further adjusting it after doing it--without a vote from the entire Legislature: impossible. It's always going to be a little unwieldy to have to fish for statewide votes, but if the systemic brokenness at the Speaker's position were solved (a very not-transpo problem permeating all local issues) the project pipeline could get moving with a little more structural equity.

​

The House is the terms of engagement for any of this. That's where to put laser-like focus...not wishing for the umpteenth time that if only there were a magic wand we could "Measure M" our way out the starting gates. This isn't about lack of will; it literally is about constitutional vs. not-constitutional.

So how do we change the constitution? These are things written by people and can be changed by people. Sometimes things are written that work great at the time but then become outdated and thats why in most cases this is planned for and amendments can be made. How do we make an amendment to something that is handicapping us to where needed additions are still long shots like red-blue? Just today I wasnt even looking for it but came across Dallas’ DART system mentioning it was funded by a 1 cent tax. It seems like thats the solution everywhere so it seems crazy that we cannot do this.

Im just asking a question here because I dont know the answer. So if you know how we make amendments here Im curious to know. Im trying to be civil there is no attack in this response whatsoever so I dont need a dick answer back please. Im just asking a question here and if you or someone else knows the answer thats great, it would be appreciated, because as I said Im not familiar with how we would go about amending this.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

I was digging through some MBTA archives and came across this 2005 project page: https://web.archive.org/web/20050204181224/http://www.mbta.com/projects_underway/pip.asp You know what's incredible about it? Not a single one of those projects has been completed yet... In fact most of them (except GLX and SCR which are finally in construction) have been shelved permanently...

 

[bigeman312]

So how do we change the constitution? These are things written by people and can be changed by people. Sometimes things are written that work great at the time but then become outdated and thats why in most cases this is planned for and amendments can be made. How do we make an amendment to something that is handicapping us to where needed additions are still long shots like red-blue? Just today I wasnt even looking for it but came across Dallas’ DART system mentioning it was funded by a 1 cent tax. It seems like thats the solution everywhere so it seems crazy that we cannot do this.

Im just asking a question here because I dont know the answer. So if you know how we make amendments here Im curious to know. Im trying to be civil there is no attack in this response whatsoever so I dont need a dick answer back please. Im just asking a question here and if you or someone else knows the answer thats great, it would be appreciated, because as I said Im not familiar with how we would go about amending this.

Amending state constitutions

The process of amending the Massachusetts Constitution is governed by Article XLVIII, Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, which is itself the 48th amendment to the state's constitution.

Article 48 allows the constitution to be amended through indirect initiative amendments.

...

In Massachusetts, if enough signatures are submitted for an initiated constitutional amendment, the initiative first goes to the legislature where it must garner approval in two successive legislative sessions from one-quarter of state senators and representatives voting together in a joint session. Massachusetts is the only state to have such a requirement for initiated constitutional amendments.

...

The Massachusetts Constitution can also be changed through a constitutional convention and subsequent ratification from the voters.

There have been four constitutional conventions in Massachusetts:

1. From 1779–80. This led to the adoption of the Massachusetts Constitution, which is the oldest state constitution continuously in effect.
2. From 1820–21. This convention yielded the Articles of Amendment, 1-9.
3. 1853. This convention led to a proposal for an entirely new constitution and seven proposed amendments. They were submitted to a vote of the people, and they all lost.
4. 1917–19. This constitution proposed 22 amendments and a revised draft of the existing constitution. Voters approved all these proposals.

 

[stick n move]

So in other words, it is in fact, possible.

Thats really all Im getting at. It seems as though its going to take many different things and maybe some clever workarounds to get there in this state. What do you guys see as the best option towards getting the funding needed? We know federal funds are usually the majority, but other states are doing it on their own. How do you see MA going about this in a way that is legal? We cant sit idle as other regions expand drastically.

Boston was just ranked the worst traffic in the nation https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/02/12/boston-worst-rush-hour-traffic/amp/. This is borderline an emergency and some drastic measures may need to be taken. Im not “wishing to wave a magic wand” Im saying what are the options here? Laws can be changed if they are actually hindering a region... to the point where you now have the worst traffic in the US. I dont know the answer, but I do that there is one. We just need to put a plan together for how were going to tackle this. I wasnt aware of the constitution blocking us from doing similar things to LA, Seattle, Dallas, and even if an amendment could happen that may not be the answer. There is an answer though, there always is. The fact is year after year these extentions to our transit lines dont happen and our traffic is now to the point where it will start having a negative affect on the economy. There needs to be movement on these now.

Two things that come to mind: Someone in another thread said you can take out bonds then pay them back with congestion tolls. Maybe that can be one piece of the puzzle idk. Also MA is close to legalizing sports betting. Mississippi “By state law, a percentage of sports betting revenue (and other revenues) are to be placed in a special fund for the Department of Transportation”.https://www.google.com/amp/s/sportshandle.com/how-states-are-spending-their-sports-betting-tax-revenue/amp/ I read for many states the revenue isnt huge about 25 million annually eventually reaching 100 million, but maybe a combination of many different things will be how we need to do it, again who knows. It seems possible. It seems like its going to take a combination of things to get there.

 

[Coyote137]

Getting rid of Bob "lazy shithead" DeLeo is going to happen sooner than a constitutional amendment, and I don't have a whole lot of confidence in that either. But it was nice to see some people in the party starting to stand up to him recently.

 

[stick n move]

What are some reasonable options that we have here that could be used to get the ball rolling on some of these bigger projects but not quite as big as nsrl for example?

Also the glx, silver line to Chelsea completion, massive infrastructure upgrades after the snowpocalypse debacle, green line signal priority, and new Red, Orange, Green trains is a pretty great start. Amtraks new tilting Aveila Liberty trains are delivering in 2021 that will be able to go up to 180mph and will run on the northeast corridor. They will be upgrading track and signaling to go with this. This is a welcome addition too. This along with the recently upgraded commuter rail locomotives is great as well. These are all much needed, but long overdue. That being said we need much more than this to ease the spiraling out of control traffic problem. I cant even imagine had we still had toll booths what itd be like, but again this was a welcomed upgrade as well. These are really bandaids though were going to need real expansion to take place or were going to suffer from ungodly congested roadways.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So in other words, it is in fact, possible.

Thats really all Im getting at. It seems as though its going to take many different things and maybe some clever workarounds to get there in this state. What do you guys see as the best option towards getting the funding needed? We know federal funds are usually the majority, but other states are doing it on their own. How do you see MA going about this in a way that is legal? We cant sit idle as other regions expand drastically.

Boston was just ranked the worst traffic in the nation https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/02/12/boston-worst-rush-hour-traffic/amp/. This is borderline an emergency and some drastic measures may need to be taken. Im not “wishing to wave a magic wand” Im saying what are the options here? Laws can be changed if they are actually hindering a region... to the point where you now have the worst traffic in the US. I dont know the answer, but I do that there is one. We just need to put a plan together for how were going to tackle this. I wasnt aware of the constitution blocking us from doing similar things to LA, Seattle, Dallas, and even if an amendment could happen that may not be the answer. There is an answer though, there always is. The fact is year after year these extentions to our transit lines dont happen and our traffic is now to the point where it will start having a negative affect on the economy. There needs to be movement on these now.

Two things that come to mind: Someone in another thread said you can take out bonds then pay them back with congestion tolls. Maybe that can be one piece of the puzzle idk. Also MA is close to legalizing sports betting. Mississippi “By state law, a percentage of sports betting revenue (and other revenues) are to be placed in a special fund for the Department of Transportation”.https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports...pending-their-sports-betting-tax-revenue/amp/ I read for many states the revenue isnt huge about 25 million annually eventually reaching 100 million, but maybe a combination of many different things will be how we need to do it, again who knows. It seems possible. It seems like its going to take a combination of things to get there.

*Theoretically* possible, but read bigeman's post. The MA constitution has not been amended since 1918 and there have only been 4 constitutional conventions (albeit with multiple amendments under consideration each time) in the last 240 years...one of which--1853--had every proposal rejected for no change whatsoever. It is impossibly hard to line up enough support to trigger the constitutional convention process at all, which is why the only times it's ever been done it's been a rollup of anywhere from half-dozen to nearly two-dozen amendments and/or major major wording changes to the Articles of Government. Scarcity of changes to that document is seen as a virtue, not a bug to be fixed.

In all practical sense, it is not going to be possible to tweak taxation or power-of-purse as a one-issue amendment. Take the biggest public works project you can imagine that would be used for...and it's still WAY too small against the balance of 240 years of history of this constitution. We've got a lot of problems, but the general functioning of government in MA is not at some crucial historical crossroads that would give momentum to the sort of major reboot with multiple fundamentals-changing amendments necessary to make it to a constitutional convention.

As stated previously, Legislative action can install progressive taxation localized to a public services district or project area. And a ballot initiative floated to those affected municipalities or counties can approve/reject such bill that proposes such targeted revenues, or preemptively advise the Legislature to approve/reject such a bill under consideration but not yet passed. That's all constitutionally kosher. Since it is possible to progressively fundraise so long as the Legislature initiates the bill to make it possible, there isn't a structural constitutional crisis to be addressed and thus an amendment floated to change the power of the purse has near absolute-zero chance of gaining traction.


While having the Legislature involved does necessitate an extra rubber stamp, constitutionally it is seen as a check against reckless spending proposals. And California--land of "Measure M"--would be Exhibit A used for why the risk-averse MA constitution is more fail-safe. Biggest story out of Cali this week is the Governor's cancellation of full-build CAHSR, and the radioactive fallout therein. CAHSR was cobbled together through a series of ballot initiatives that made funding assumptions that could not be backed up and essentially relied on fed funding to bail the project out. More or less like the pre-reboot GLX combined with the NY/NJ ARC Tunnel mashed together on a grand scale. The postmortems being circulated this week finger the lack of checks-and-balances in the ballot initiatives as fatal flaws in how the project was put together, and state that any re-try (probably after Gavin Newsome is termed-out) will have to do lots of work to fortify the legislative oversight.

So just because someone's pet project is getting lukewarm reception in the MA House because the MA House is currently...uh, lukewarm...doesn't mean our system of government is garbage. And just because there's enough frustration with the House for a fair amount of low-level grumbling that our system of government might well be garbage...doesn't mean there's more than a drop in the bucket's momentum to stage our first constitutional convention in 101 years.


It pretty much is what people are saying on this thread: DeLeo is the garbage, and we've had enough Speakers manipulate power into a de facto autocracy that the Leadership-Membership exchange is pretty well broken. But that's a rules problem inside the House, not a constitutional problem with the very structure of the House. DeLeo's not getting any younger, and he has MUCH more money to be making in the private sector trading off the revolving door. Unlike Finneran and DiMasi, he's burned through a few protegés and doesn't have a steady heir apparent to continue the lockdown on power. Abolishing the Speaker term limits sticks in enough voters' craw that it'll definitely be a campaign issue in whatever term he retires. And it only takes a pissed off "throw the bums out!" electorate one year (perhaps emboldened by the stench of scandal) to bust up the lockstep toadying. The membership can change the rules on the Speaker's power any time they want; they just need to be spooked into doing it.

Spooking them into keeping their own leadership from withholding beneficial revenue & spending bills...while currently a very frustrating pursuit...is still about a million times easier than amending the constitution. That's how it's going to happen: cut off the fish's rotten head and self-vote some protection in the chamber rules so the Reps are allowed to do their elected jobs and can again held accountable for the results. That's it.

 

[RandomWalk]

Minor correction: The state constitution has been amended more recently than 1918. I believe the most recent amendment stripped incarcerated felons of the right to vote in 2000.

 

[stick n move]

*Theoretically* possible, but read bigeman's post. The MA constitution has not been amended since 1918 and there have only been 4 constitutional conventions (albeit with multiple amendments under consideration each time) in the last 240 years...one of which--1853--had every proposal rejected for no change whatsoever. It is impossibly hard to line up enough support to trigger the constitutional convention process at all, which is why the only times it's ever been done it's been a rollup of anywhere from half-dozen to nearly two-dozen amendments and/or major major wording changes to the Articles of Government. Scarcity of changes to that document is seen as a virtue, not a bug to be fixed.

In all practical sense, it is not going to be possible to tweak taxation or power-of-purse as a one-issue amendment. Take the biggest public works project you can imagine that would be used for...and it's still WAY too small against the balance of 240 years of history of this constitution. We've got a lot of problems, but the general functioning of government in MA is not at some crucial historical crossroads that would give momentum to the sort of major reboot with multiple fundamentals-changing amendments necessary to make it to a constitutional convention.

As stated previously, Legislative action can install progressive taxation localized to a public services district or project area. And a ballot initiative floated to those affected municipalities or counties can approve/reject such bill that proposes such targeted revenues, or preemptively advise the Legislature to approve/reject such a bill under consideration but not yet passed. That's all constitutionally kosher. Since it is possible to progressively fundraise so long as the Legislature initiates the bill to make it possible, there isn't a structural constitutional crisis to be addressed and thus an amendment floated to change the power of the purse has near absolute-zero chance of gaining traction.


While having the Legislature involved does necessitate an extra rubber stamp, constitutionally it is seen as a check against reckless spending proposals. And California--land of "Measure M"--would be Exhibit A used for why the risk-averse MA constitution is more fail-safe. Biggest story out of Cali this week is the Governor's cancellation of full-build CAHSR, and the radioactive fallout therein. CAHSR was cobbled together through a series of ballot initiatives that made funding assumptions that could not be backed up and essentially relied on fed funding to bail the project out. More or less like the pre-reboot GLX combined with the NY/NJ ARC Tunnel mashed together on a grand scale. The postmortems being circulated this week finger the lack of checks-and-balances in the ballot initiatives as fatal flaws in how the project was put together, and state that any re-try (probably after Gavin Newsome is termed-out) will have to do lots of work to fortify the legislative oversight.

So just because someone's pet project is getting lukewarm reception in the MA House because the MA House is currently...uh, lukewarm...doesn't mean our system of government is garbage. And just because there's enough frustration with the House for a fair amount of low-level grumbling that our system of government might well be garbage...doesn't mean there's more than a drop in the bucket's momentum to stage our first constitutional convention in 101 years.


It pretty much is what people are saying on this thread: DeLeo is the garbage, and we've had enough Speakers manipulate power into a de facto autocracy that the Leadership-Membership exchange is pretty well broken. But that's a rules problem inside the House, not a constitutional problem with the very structure of the House. DeLeo's not getting any younger, and he has MUCH more money to be making in the private sector trading off the revolving door. Unlike Finneran and DiMasi, he's burned through a few protegés and doesn't have a steady heir apparent to continue the lockdown on power. Abolishing the Speaker term limits sticks in enough voters' craw that it'll definitely be a campaign issue in whatever term he retires. And it only takes a pissed off "throw the bums out!" electorate one year (perhaps emboldened by the stench of scandal) to bust up the lockstep toadying. The membership can change the rules on the Speaker's power any time they want; they just need to be spooked into doing it.

Spooking them into keeping their own leadership from withholding beneficial revenue & spending bills...while currently a very frustrating pursuit...is still about a million times easier than amending the constitution. That's how it's going to happen: cut off the fish's rotten head and self-vote some protection in the chamber rules so the Reps are allowed to do their elected jobs and can again held accountable for the results. That's it.

Yup. Let me explain what I was saying... So “technically” it is possible but thats probably not the answer right now. (It or something similar may well be at some point if congestion reaches apocalyptic levels to the point the city can no longer reasonably function at all and it erodes into a borderline emergency situation, which gauging by being voted worst in country may well be approaching), but for now it seems as though its going to take a combination of things. Things that are somehow able to tip toe thru the exorbitant amounts of beaurocracy and centuries deep red tape to create some semblance of a “plan”.

So what are they? Is it really just “wait it out”...

 

[George_Apley]

Yup. Let me explain what I was saying... So “technically” it is possible but thats probably not the answer right now. (It or something similar may well be at some point if congestion reaches apocalyptic levels to the point the city can no longer reasonably function at all and it erodes into a borderline emergency situation, which gauging by being voted worst in country may well be approaching), but for now it seems as though its going to take a combination of things. Things that are somehow able to tip toe thru the exorbitant amounts of beaurocracy and centuries deep red tape to create some semblance of a “plan”.

So what are they? Is it really just “wait it out”...

No, it's on-the-ground advocacy and support for current and new pols who will push your goals. But that's not sexy so people don't like to do it.

 

[Arlington]

Sorry, I'm utterly lost. Is all this "(un)Constitutional" stuff trying to do something that the current DIF law cannot?

Massachusetts 'special acronym* is "DIF" (for District Improvement Financing") for what everyone else in the USA calls Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

Here's a whole whitepaper prepared for Somerville on the topic:
http://somervillecityma.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=8019

 First, the city must promise to use the capital provided by the lenders for the specific infrastructure project.
 Second, it must agree to pay back the loan principal and interest (debt service) from a fund, held separately from the city’s other budget accounts.
 Third, the fund must be created by segregating the taxes and fees from the district, which exceed the amount paid in the “base year” before the infrastructure was installed.
 Fourth, in any year when there is insufficient money coming into the fund to cover the debt service, the city must appropriate money from its general fund to make up the shortfall.

Seems agnostic on what the fees & taxes are. Could be anything: congestion fees, parking fees, utility fees, or property tax?

Isn't DIF, such as Quincy used for "Quincy Center Downtown" and Worcester used for "Worcester City Square" good enough?

And indeed, didn't the state *require* a contribution to GLX that was roughly equivalent to what DIF would generate? (whether they actually used the mechanism was a separate question).

So even if the State can't directly tax localities to make 'em pay (if that's what this is about) it could certainly run the GLX play again: require the cities to contribute $x toward MBTA capital projects, and let the cities figure out if that comes from general funds, general borrowing, or DIF? And then whether the "District" in question generates its revenues through user fees, property tax, or a congestion charge?



* Mass is always insists on being weird by one letter. RMV/DMV, OUI/DUI, and now DIF/TIF.

 

[Proposition Joe]

I've never heard of any constitutional issues getting in the way of the proposed regional ballot initiative bills up on the hill. I've heard of Prop 2 1/2 questions about value capture, but nothing for the regional initiatives.