Lawmakers debate bill giving developers new powers

I haven't bothered to read the bill, but does this mean that if I'm in the minority 20%, some 80%-owning motherf*cker could take my land? Talk like that makes me want to move to New Hampshire and lock n' load, and I'm an NPR-listening, Volvo-driving yuppie.

And aside from screwing with my private property rights, aren't people on this board often complaining about big monster projects that take on vast, block-eating proportions and have little prescribed rules about greenspace and parking and all that shite? Wouldn't this lead to more West End's? I like my development incremental and chaotic, not some master-planned, homogeneous crap. Eminent domain and special districts makes me nervous. At the very least, this sounds like a plan for Home Owners Associations on steroids, and HOA's suck ass.

Go read Death and Life of Great American Cities and then come back here and tell me if I've gone all looney-tunes in jumping to conclusions.
 
The taxes being imposed are property taxes, so the 80% tie in to property ownership is appropriate.
Click to expand...

I can own all the land in Cambridge that I want, but that still doesn't allow me to vote in Cambridge if I don't live in Cambridge. This is a long-established principle and I see no reason to depart from it now.
 
You're looking for Section 2(b), but seriously, claiming that this will somehow infringe on Democracy is way off point. Do we directly elect the IRS? Do we directly vote on every section of our tax code? Furthermore, does every single citizen have to agree with a chosen policy? No, we directly elect officials by majority rule, they then delegate authority to bureaucratic organizations who in turn hash out the details of our tax policy. Like I said earlier, this bill provides that local government and locally elected officials will still have thier hands in this. Furthermore, we are governed (at least for the most part) by majority rule, not concensus rule. I didn't vote for Bush, but I still have to (grudgingly) accept that he's president.
 
Section 2(b) says nothing whatsoever about any elections. It says the petitioners who own 80% of the land can specify who the prudential committee consists of. They don't have to live in the district or even in the municipality. The committee does not stand for periodic re-election.

This is fundamentally non-democratic. I don't understand how you can not see this.

There's a huge difference between being outvoted, and not having a vote to cast at all.
 
From Section 2(b) of Massachusetts House Bill Number 159, and I quote, "if a local improvement district is to be established, the designation by the petitioners of 5 persons that are either record owners of real estate within said development zone or designees of said owner or owners to be the initial members of the prudential committee; provided further, that initial members of the committee shall serve for a term not to exceed 5 years as specified in the petition or until replaced by members appointed as provided hereafter; provided, however, that successor members of the prudential committee shall be appointed by the city manager with the approval of the city council in the case of a city under Plan D or E forms of government, by the mayor with the approval of the city council in the case of all other cities, the town council in the case of a town with a town council form of government or the board of selectmen in the case of a town with a town meeting form of government upon the expiration of the member?s term of office for the term specified in the petition and shall serve until their successors are appointed and qualified"

And from 3(D); "upon the approval of the petition, by majority vote of the municipal governing body, or of the board of selectmen in the case of a petition in a town signed by all persons owning real estate within the proposed development zone pursuant to this chapter, and notice of such approval has been filed with the records of the clerk of the municipality, the agency, and the secretary of the commonwealth, the development zone and the local improvement district, if any, shall be deemed established and the local improvement district, if any, acting through its prudential committee, shall have all the rights and powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate this chapter, not inconsistent with the improvement plan as approved by the municipal governing body"

And from 4(a) (which seems to indicate that everyone, not just 80% has to agree with the board); " Upon the majority vote of the municipal governing body approving a
petition establishing a local improvement district, or amended improvement plan, as the
case may be, filed pursuant to section 2, or the board of selectmen in the case of a town
when a petition, or an amended improvement plan, as the case may be, is signed by all
the persons owning tax parcels within the development zone, the prudential committee,
after each member before entering upon his duties shall have taken an oath before the
clerk of the municipality to administer the duties of his office faithfully, and a record of
such oaths shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the municipality, shall, within 14
days meet and shall take the following actions: (1) elect a chairman and vice-chairman,
who shall preside at all meetings of the prudential committee in the absence of the
chairman or in the event of his inability to act or because of a conflict of interest and elect
a clerk and treasurer; and, in addition, the prudential committee shall appoint an auditor
who shall have the powers and duties set forth in sections 50 and 51 of chapter 41 of the
General Laws."
 
Last edited:
You aren't disagreeing with me at all, then. There is no requirement that the members of this committee live in the district or in the municipality. It is entirely possible for the 80% to be vacant or non-residential, while the residents of the remaining 20% have no vote and no voice. Their taxes could be raised at any time or the owners of the 80% could take the 20% by eminent domain. It's a recipe for more Charles River Parks.

Kill this bill.
 
Think about how this will work in real life. Name one Boston City Council Member who would approve the creation of a Development Zone in which one major land owner proposed substantially raising the taxes of a bunch of other people who were all against it. For that matter, name enough coucilors to actually have this pass. In Boston, that would be political suicide! And even if that one major developer got lucky, five years down the road, how would he/she be able to ensure that the City Council appointed "his/her people" to the steering committee of the development zone to insure that the taxes would stay? And mind you, he/she'd be dealing with different councilors, seeing as the others would probably have been voted out of office. So basically what we have here is the extreme possibility that a major developer with more clout and amition than we have ever seen could possibly manipulate the city council into giving him/her a 5 year window to impose a property tax to pay for infrastructure improvements. Five years doesn't even cover the length of time some projects go through the permiting process.

A democratic check/balance system is in place here
 
Then why not do this the proper, democratic way? Have the residents of the district directly elect the Prudential Committee, just like they now elect selectmen, city councilors, or town meeting members. Have a new election ever two years, for as long as the district remains in operation. If absentee property owners want to serve on the committee, they must first move into the district.

One person, one vote. Not one acre, one vote.
 
yesno.gif
 
Then why not do this the proper, democratic way? Have the residents of the district directly elect the Prudential Committee, just like they now elect selectmen, city councilors, or town meeting members.
Click to expand...

If the district is in an area governed by town meeting, then every single person in town gets to vote on the board, just like you asked for. If the district is in an area with a city or town council, then the whole city or town has already elected the council and the council gets to de facto pick the committee. Now, one might say that this method is less democratic than letting everyone involved vote, but it happens all the time. Think about the federal government; we get to vote for the President and Congress, but it is up to them to appoint the heads of the Federal Agencies. Do you consider that undemocratic? It's hardly fascist!

As for requiring residency: what if the district has no residences; what if there are no available residences for someone to move into? Also, what about where someone lives qualifies/disqualifies them? You could be great at this job and live in Toronto. Likewise, you could live in the district and be an idiot.
 
The bill says that the petitioners, not the city council or selectmen or town meeting, get to pick the initial members of the prudential committee. Elected officials get involved only later, when vacancies occur.
 
Okay, now we're getting into a proceedural/semantical argument. Sure, your right, they don't actually get to pick who serves, but they do get to approve/dissaprove of the plan for the creation of the district (the plan which includes who will be on the committee). Thus, de facto, they get to choose because they can say, "no, we don't approve until you change the people on the committe." Furthermore, after the initial 5 years, they do, literally, get the ability to choose who serves on the committee.

Ron, I hope tomorrow is as slow at work as today so that we can keep this one up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top