December 8, 2025 • 38 mins
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu and State Senator Nick Collins continue to butt heads over Wu’s tax shift plan, which would shift the property tax burden from homeowners to commercial property owners. With residential property taxes expected to rise 13% next month, Wu is urging approval from Beacon Hill. Senator Collins outlines that Wu’s plan will burden the city’s economy by putting an increased strain on commercial developers who are already struggling to fill office spaces. Senator Collins checked in with Dan to discuss.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, Dan, markets, thank you very much. As we move
into our nine o'clock hour. Also, we'll be opening up
phone lines. This is a topic that I think is
going to be hotly debated in the next few weeks
with us As Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, Nick represents
(00:27):
a good portion in Boston. How much of the city, Nick,
do you represented the state Senate?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I represent one hundred and sixty thousand people Dorchester, South Boston,
the South End, Twntown, a bit of Back Bay, a
bit of Roxbury, a little bit of downtown and the waterfront,
along with the Hot Islands.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Well, you have a big constituent, a big group of constituents,
all of whom are impacted by this. I'd like you
to explain how we get to this point where the
City of Boston is basically saying they are in a
horrific situation. Is what Mayor Wu was saying. I think
(01:10):
she's saying that she's going to have to raise property
taxes for Boston's homeowners by upwards of thirteen percent unless
somehow the state gives her the right to switch that
additional burden onto a commercial the but dragon commercial owners,
(01:32):
How did we get into this situation? This was discussed
during the campaign, but the newspapers didn't give it too much.
I mean, I know that Josh Kraft had talked about
a two percent, you know, reduction in the city's but
city's budget is now how many billion dollars?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Yeah, so it's a great question. The mayor didn't bring
us up the entire campaign, which they think it was
odd she had a proposal. Apparently there was a secret
for a year and then just cut surfaced a week ago.
So no, I think it's just an effort to distract
people here. Of the facts, you cannot raise property taxes
on any municipality more than two point five percent without
(02:20):
a vote of the people. That's Prop two and a half.
They're not required to raise property taxes across the board
up to two and a half. There is a subjective
decision of a mayor that's required to vote to the
city council. That's what's happening here. The mayor is choosing
to raise taxes on everybody. And just for the record,
(02:41):
as of today, we finally heard from the mayor's team
that they want to raise both commercial taxes and real taxes.
So this notion that her proposal is seeing a dip
in commercial taxes is just patently false. Her proposal today
(03:01):
has an increase on commercial taxes over last year. So
it's just this, you know, a shell game that I
don't think is going to work again this year. Their
proposal in front of the Senate, I'm sorry, in front
of the legislature hasn't you know, had a movement, But
we haven't heard from anybody on it until a few
days ago, and it was filed late. It was such
(03:22):
a priority. How could a bill like that be filed late?
Put that deside for a second, how we got here
wild spending with federal funding that we had one time
under ARPA, the blow of the budget, which is why
we had an eight percent increase last year on the
city level, but to circumvent Prop two and a half,
(03:44):
the people's right to vote, the proposal to shift a
burden onto commercial properties. And I don't represent downtown where
the cascade is happening the most. The waterfront's pretty stable,
but the cascade is happening downtown. But what is hidden
here is the beating that this proposal would put on
(04:06):
small businesses on main streets that don't have empty office
buildings above them that have lost value. They're either owned
by the small business owner or that small business owner
is in a triple at least where where the taxes
get passed down to they would get croked. They're already
at one hundred and seventy five percent more than the
residential burden. Mayor talks about the Watertown proposal that happened
(04:30):
a couple of years ago, comparing themselves to Watertown, wonderful place,
nothing like Boston, certainly not anything close to the tax base.
Their proposal that they asked for some changes had them
starting at sixty percent burden on commercial. I'm sorry, sixty
percent burden unresidential, forty percent burden on commercial. They asked
(04:50):
us to give them an ability to split that fifty
to fifty. Boston is already the best in the state,
which is sixty forty sixty residents. So sorry, sixty commercial
forty residential. So suggesting that you know she wants what
Watertown wants, would actually raise taxes on residential in Boston,
(05:10):
so it doesn't have a fractorate. It's a flailing exercise
because it doesn't have a chance that the proposals before
us that we had we filed early as priorities to
provide relief are advancing in the Senate. I have a
proposal along with Senator Will Brownsberger that would allow uh,
(05:31):
this is also manufactured.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Let me let me, let me make let me do
let me let me jump in here for a second,
because I think that you know this stuff so well
that I need to slow you down a little bit
so that so that so that my audience can understand it.
Because this, this will have a tremendous impact. My understanding
is that this Wednesday, the mayor intends to increase the
(05:57):
residential tax rate by seven percent. Is that a new development?
Speaker 3 (06:04):
Yes? No, that the mayor. The only person that can
raise taxes in the municipality is the mayor. The mayor
is putting forth a proposal for the vote of the
city Council to increase taxes across the board to the
maximum levee, which includes an increased tax rate on commercial
properties and an increased tax rate from last year on
residential properties. And that vote is to both thanktion the
(06:30):
new rates in the overall max levee that they're seeking,
and that has been the plan all along. I believe
that the mayor should not raise taxes to the max
levee the subjective move. You don't have to do it, okay, So.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Why do you make sure you just you use the
word that some people are not going to understand okay.
When they talk about Prop two and a half, and
I was around when it was passed, what they basically
said is I understand that you know it probably better
than me. Is that if let us say the levee
a year ago was million dollars, okay, and that was
(07:11):
the combined taxes were where one hundred million dollars. You
could then raise it from one hundred million no more
than two and a half percent, so you were capped
at raising the next year to one hundred and two
and and a half million dollars. So it's the levee
is the amount that they collect. Then the question becomes
(07:32):
who do they collect it from? Residential? Commercial? And that's
where the rubber really meets the road at this point,
how does she propose a seven percent increase in the
residential tax rate on Wednesday? That seems to me to
be hugely out of line with two and a half percent,
(07:54):
because if the levee can only be two and a
half percent.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
That's a good question. So the levey overall all the aggregates,
so every commercial property, every residential property together, Yeah, overall.
Every dime you can raise, you can only be I'll
break downars was one hundred bucks last year. There'll only
be one hundred and two dollars and fifty cents next
year yet, and so they're going to the ceiling there.
You don't have to, and you don't have to in
(08:22):
a city that for the previous administrations in the last
two decades has so much revenue. We're coming in in
the surplus because of new growth, which we have the
lowest new growth, which is new construction, new development, new business,
the lowest growth in a decade this year, which has
not prought up two and a half so you can
(08:44):
go beyond that with new business. So you're not hitting
that stealing, which is why we have what Moody's has
considered stockpiled taxpayer dollars in our surplus count, which they're
saying you shouldn't do, and then also raised his maximum
you can every year so they don't need to go
to the max levey. They're choosing to because they want to.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
But that what I'm trying to get at. If if
the number, it's my understanding. If I'm wrong here, please
correct me. That the mayor will ask the council on
Wednesday to raise the residential tax rate by seven percent.
Is that a figure? Am I mistaken on that?
Speaker 3 (09:24):
No, that's that's true.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
So so she's asking homeowners, residents who are own their
own home, to pony up an additional seven percent.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Now again that's not just here's the hidden tax. They
were still trying to pull up. This happened last year
from the same time as your recall, like this year,
we asked to release the data on valuations. Well, the
city's doing unilattery the mayor. That's unilattery with her assessor
(09:58):
not to go to the council, is increase valuations for
everyone's property, sticly residential, and that's done unilaterally. So here's
the hidden tax. You don't get a vote on that.
They can jack up the value assessed value of your home.
So at an existing tact rate, your bill goes up
with an evaluation increase. So the mayor is saying, oh, well,
(10:22):
if we don't get this tax ship which is going nowhere,
it's not even a viable option. Then your bill that
I planned all along, the increase is going to go
up generally, you know, thirteen percent with a seven percent
increase in rate. So where did that other six percent
come from? The hidden tax? The increased valuation that you
(10:46):
had no say in the matter, nor to the city council.
They haven't even received yet. They haven't even released the
property site level data. So people know and the city
council knows what the people on there to constituency's home
values are now that they're going to be taxing, you
know what the aggregate is across the city. Yeah, because
(11:09):
they're back.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
This is going to be a nightmare for Boston residents,
homeowners in Boston. Nick, let's take a break here. I'll
let people absorb some of these numbers. It's always tough
on radio to do numbers, but I think it's such
an important issue. We'll open up phone lines if you
have questions six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. I've got
(11:32):
simple questions, but if you have any questions, no one
knows this stuff better than Nick Collins, Massachusetts State Senator.
Will be back with Nick Collins and your phone call
six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three,
one ten thirty. Elections do have consequences. The mayoral election
is over. Josh Kraft did raise some of these concerns,
(11:54):
but the media, at least, I think the Globe was
not as conscientious because numbers are tough. Numbers are tough,
but the bottom line is numbers become bills, and tax
bills need to be paid. We'll be back on Nightside
after this.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
It's Night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
With me is Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins. Nick represents
a good portion of Boston and he's in the forefront
of this Boston property tax debate. Let me look at it.
Let me try to take this the set of problems apart. Nick, So,
I know that the mayor had hoped that she could
(12:40):
go up to Beacon Hill and Beacon Hill would give
her and the City of Boston permission to in effect
go by and override the limitations of Prop two and
a half.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
That yes, that is essentially the effort circumvent Prop to
a half. He's been vocal saying that she wants to
get rid of Prop two and a half, which would
automatically get rid of people's right to vote on that.
Anything over two and a half, that's just that's that's
fundamental right to vote, to try and to take away.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Sure, now, is she not saying at this point that
she intends to trim the budget by two percent?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
That's what we've heard. We'll see. But here's what this
is about. Two not just start filing taxpayer cash that
they should give back to the people. We have two
proposals that would do that. I want to get to
a little bit. Sure, but we talked about this last
year too, Dan, the death Service. This is in their
own budget. I mean, you can't make this up, like
(13:43):
after all that, after all that federal funding a billion.
Now this year again we're increasing death service thirty three
point nine million dollars, a twelve point three percent increase.
You combine the increase in residential commercial that's what you
get a twelve and a half percent increase the thirteen
(14:05):
percent increase. So when you're spending like that, not just
you know, on operating funds that people think that they're
going to services, but you're taking out thirty mortgages and
this is this thirty three this thirty three million, thirty
three nine million cab is this year and then some
(14:26):
It's not a one year payoff. These are obligations that
are gonna stadtle a generation. So that's what we're talking about.
It's not just year to year. And I think you've
heard this debate playout with some others like, this is
a problem that's bigger than just a year to year
whacked that the mayor is putting on residential property owners.
But we have a fix to that if we're smart
(14:47):
using our surplus account and we can get to that.
But that's to think about that. It's now an increase
of thirty three percent. It's it's been an increase of
one hundred and almost one hundred and fifty million dollars
over the last five years. What I don't see the
administration fifty that was one hundred and fifty increase of
death service payments. That's crazy, Nick.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
What I don't understand is this, we did not have
the Seaport district twenty years ago, and the Seaport district
is a very expensive, wealthy district. You know, restaurants, condominiums,
multimillion dollar condominiums. None of that was available when Tom
(15:29):
Menino was mayor. It was just coming online. You would
think that our budget that that that that again the
Seaport District would would be I would be additional tax
revenue coming into Boston that they couldn't spend all the
(15:50):
money that's coming in. And it's going to turn out
now that homeowners in Hyde Park and West Roxbury and
Roslindale and Georchester and Mattapan and the South End and
in Roxbury and South Boston and East Boston and Charlestown,
they're gonna they're gonna see their tax bills go up exponentially.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Here.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
It's out of control. I just don't understand how this
wasn't fully fully debated during a mayoral election that was
about about eight weeks of six or seven weeks ago.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
I totly agree, but it's to your point, like, how
does this happen when you spend at eight percent increases
and you can only take in and the aggregate two
point five. But what do you think that's gonna go?
Taking out death service? You know you have taken out
debt to the tune of increased death service. Samis the
thirty three million dollars a year. I mean, the math
doesn't add up the math. The numbers don't lie. So
(16:46):
the smoke screen political theater, you know, run around making
you know, narratives and stuff. It's irrelevant. It's about maths
and the math doesn't lie.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Okay, when we come back, I got to break here
for the bottom of it are and we can talk
about any aspect of this as you want. I'm trying
to understand, is how this how you think this is
going to play out? The mayor, I think you're pretty
confident it's not going to get any help from Beacon Hill, correct,
I mean she's up there too late, should have been
up there six months old.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Well, I say this, there are solutions that were going
to talk about legislatively that helped the city, help the mayor,
help their tax payers. But this us versus them, you know,
commercial bad guys. When their rates are going up, they said, oh,
it's a tax is going on. No, I mean there
are people downtown. Again, I don't represent who's whose values
are cascading and there therefore the value that property is plumbing,
(17:40):
but their rates are going down. Their rates are going up.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Yeah, and there's a lot of commercial property that post
COVID now is empty. Buildings in Boston. You're absolutely absolutely correct.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
On that ye about the waterfront and the sea point.
Their values aren't. They're still full. So the notion that oh,
they're getting a tax rate, no not. Their values are
going up, and so of that tax rates, they're being
attacked one hundred and seventy percent more than residential. So
that's not the issue. The issue is what happens to
small business for this proposal. They get croaked, most of
(18:15):
them will never recover, and they've said this to us.
This is why we're listening to everybody. And we're also
got some proposals we can talk about after you break
that the Senate has proposed at the beginning of session
on time as a priority because we're paying attention to
this stuff that's moving, that's going to be able to
provide relief for residents. So happy to talk about that too.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Okay, So we'll talk about some positive developments if people
have any questions. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten
thirty six one seven, nine, three ten thirty. Coming right
back on Night's side with Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
It's Night with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio with us.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
As Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, Nick, when let's let's
put some guardrails up here. Will Boston taxpayers, Boston homeowners
get their new real estate tax bills in the mail? When? When?
When are they likely going to hit their their mailbox?
Speaker 3 (19:13):
Uh? So when will they get them in the mail?
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Yeah? Yeah? When will they finally?
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Yeah? So great question. What what they should have already
be informed about is what the value their property is
going to be for their consul's vote on They're still
hiding that data, which is unbelievable. But they're supposed to
got bills in the new year that would have to
get paid by the end of the quarter. Uh And
(19:40):
so what happened last year was there was what I
came in the form of double bills by the city
in the first two quarters to make up for their
new big valuation increase. In the new big tax increase,
they doubled on pumped people. Instead of spreading it out
over the year, they tax on an annual basis January
(20:06):
first to December thirty first, and they spend on a
fiscal year basis do I first sue food thirty year.
So instead of getting wrongness leaves up and trying to
figure out a way to spread that out over the
course of time from an operational standpoint. Internally, they doubled
up on people. So that there's two proposals we have
(20:27):
in front of us that the Senate put forth. Myself,
I had put one of these bills forward, along with
Will Brounsberger, who represents their good chunk of Boston. On
the other side, they do two things. When someone's tax
bill is about to go up more than ten percent,
what's in the case of many, with the combination of
(20:48):
increased valuations and the seven percent increase in the race,
they'd be eligible to get their increased mini tapping the
shurtplus funds the stockpiled serveplus funds. Similarly utilizing the shurtplus account.
(21:09):
This other bill that I put forth would allow municipal
leaders building the mayor to issue rebates give the people
their money back. The Moodies is telling us it's stockpiled,
not me or someone else. It's an independent rating agency
(21:30):
that rates and analyze the city finances. So what they
say is, don't stockpile people's tax dollars while you're raising
to the max. You have to do something with it,
whether you're giving it back or utilizing it for the
budget operating budget, leveraging of the capital budget. Don't you
have it sit there while you're also getting, you know,
(21:50):
dowging as much as you possibly can from taxpayers. So
our proposals would both mitigate increases and give every homeowner
in Boston a rebate. The mayor is suggesting that per
tax increase would be an increase of seven hundred and
eighty seven dollars per homeowner. Last year, the city took
(22:18):
one hundred and ten million dollars out of the surplus
account to put towards investments. The public made investments. Taxpayers
made investments in new housing, affordable housing for future residents
of Boston. What we're saying is, let's use some of that.
(22:40):
Let's use ninety nine million. It's about ninety nine thousand
residents of property owners in Boston. Let's give them all
thousand dollars back of their money. As you recall, that
happened at the state level a number of years ago
when old laws similar to Prop. To two and a
half that triggered when we had a certain amount of
(23:03):
revenue came in over a threshold. They the law that
was put in place by the voters at the ballot
said you got to give that back. So that's what
we're saying it, mois your challenge a stockpile. We want
to give them the mayor and other municipalities get sorry
to tap surplus funds in a way that doesn't impact
(23:24):
the bond rating and give it back to the people.
If we're going to spend one hundred and ten million
dollars last you have taxpayer dollars on housing that may
be built for people in the future. We think the
people here who are paying taxes now deserve a break
and deserve some of their money back.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
How is it that the city of Boston can maintain
a surplus? I mean, you have the fight going on
at the state House with the Reeney Day Fund where
we have close to nine billion dollars in a rainy
day fund and the governor doesn't want to use that
for anything for some reason. Is this the equivalent of
a raw they fund in Boston the surplus or.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Yes, they don't, Yeah they don't. They don't sort of
appropriate it the same way. But yes, it's excess revenue
that they take in and if they have taken in
over the course of time, and I think you could
probably assign it to the development boom that Minino oversaw
in the latter part of his time. Uh, the boom
(24:28):
times that were here on the Mayor Walsh and you know,
there's you know again, we've had the lowest new growth
numbers in a decade this year, which is a part
of the problem. So when you're maxing going to the
max levee and you've got new growth and you get
tourism dollars coming in from meals and hotel taxes, and
(24:49):
that's great, and over time you get more than you
probably need. Now we're in a situation where those those
new growth numbers are low because of a bunch of reasons.
And I think plenty argue that some local policies are
a part of the problem for new growth. But what
we have is a dynamic where we're now seeking more
(25:10):
revenue from taxpayers that we've stockpiled their money already. He's
the same taxpayers for the most part, that have already
given us that cushion, so sizeable cushion. We're actually to
pay more to spend more. And that's the that's the
that's the Oh, it's not about that, of course, it's
(25:30):
about spending the government exists, and that's the fact of
the race.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
For what is Boston spending all this money on? I mean,
the police are are down four hundred members.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Uh, there's no, no, it's a great question. I mean,
what are you getting to see it all there? That's
a great yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
I mean it's like it's not like they're building police
stations somewhere or fire stations.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Schools, right, no closing schools. They had put Madison Park
on hold. They need a bailout from the state to
to to rebuild Madison Park. They want to spend one
hundred million dollars out of the BPS capital budget on
a private soccer stadium and concert venue at Franklin.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
Park, right, which doesn't really benefit the city.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
You saw the numbers.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Yeah, well that doesn't really benefit the city. I mean,
they spent a lot of money to cut down one
hundred and forty two trees, you know, but none of
those issues in the recently in the recent campaign, you know,
Josh Kraft worked really hard to try to make people
understand those issues, and it just sounded to me as
if the taxpayers in Boston, the homeowners in Boston were
(26:44):
asleep at the switch because the mayor carried most of
the pre wards. Small, small moment. I think people went
to sleep, no choke.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
But I also think you said numbers are mass complicated,
so there's no sound bites that make that easy. But
you asked, was it I mean, I don't know. I
know bike lanes was a big priority, and you know
we have you know, trips over the steps side of
the state and lawyer fees and all that. You know,
(27:17):
everything adds up. Well, the thing that gets me is
this debt service. These are thirty year obligations, ten twenty
thirty year obligations in increase of thirty three million. What
did we spend it on? I don't see it. People
are asking me that, like in the state provides funds
for the road repairs on the Chapter ninety. So it's like,
(27:38):
I don't see where that money is going. If there's
a benefit, tangible benefit, you'd feel, you see it taking
on the capital side, which is what the debt service
is about. Borrowing, You borrow your bond and you put
those into long term capital lessons. I don't know. I
don't see it.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
People don't nick my memory might be wrong here. I
don't think it is the last three of four winters.
We haven't had much snow in Boston, so all of
those costs that other administrations had to lay out for
plowing the streets, we haven't spent much money in Boston
on snow plowing and standing and all of that.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
So you or that hasn't been a budget buster by
any means exactly, And so you know, I figuess it's
it's hot to pin down exactly what the benefits are here.
But what we know is we have a gigantic surplus
in Boston. We spent some of it one hundred and
ten million on residents future residents of Boston. We have
(28:39):
spent that on the current residence of Boston. Our legislation
allows that to happen. We hope that it will get
support from the city and the mayor and provide those
relief to all us the taxpayers. That can still be
done even if this is what I'm saying, Even if
(28:59):
and when the mayor raises people's taxes on Wednesday, everybody
across the board, she raised it on commercial, she raised
them on residence. Even despite all that, our legislation will
be able to provide relief to residents who own homes
(29:20):
through mitigating the spikes that would come in the new year,
if if they're going to see a bump and a jump,
and the other proposal that would provide the authority to
issue rebates to all homeowners in Boston, and that's what
should happen, but give them their money back.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Is the mayor going to sign off on that? I
assume that she controls that.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Well, once they get the authority, then it's up to
the mayor to execute as executive.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
So you think that you can get that authority at
the state House for the mayor, h but then the
question the mayor.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
But for municipal leaders across the state, question why we
have support? Because this is not a go and a
loan stravet. So you buy that's what tom Anino did?
You know? Two they tried to compare themselves to Tomino?
How many to cut the budget? He had furloughs for employees,
he froze hiring, and he left the budget at two
(30:23):
percent below the two and a half two percent and
went to his colleagues and asked the legislature for a
statewide authorization for an option. That's not how it happened here.
This is we need this, This is the only possible
solution that I'm not going to talk about for a
year and then in December, I'm going to bring it up. Yeah,
(30:48):
the only solution that never got brought up here. Yeah,
but we went we were proactive, particularly after last year,
and we found legislation right away in January and we're
moving on it. We'll spect you have some action in
the next uh coming gaze to report back, and I
think it's going to be a real option for misfile
(31:09):
leaders of a ticic of Boston to provide relief. We
hope they do.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Okay, we've got to take a quick break here and
we'll be back with some phone calls. If you have
a question here, if you're if you're a Boston taxpayer, homeowner,
brace yourself. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three ten thirty. Coming back on
Nightside with Nick Collins, Massachusettstates senator represents about half the
(31:33):
city of Boston. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w BZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Joined tonight this hour by Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins.
Senator Collins represents about half of the city of Boston,
and he is predicting some shocking numbers for Boston homeowners.
Uh in the next in the next few weeks, let
me get a call with two in here. If I
(32:03):
can Phil lives in Boston. Phil, It's it's gonna get
interesting here in the next few weeks. You're all with
State Senator Nick Collins. Have you got a question of
a comment or right ahead?
Speaker 4 (32:14):
First of all, thank you mister Collins for addressing the situation.
It's unbelievable. I thought everyone's supposed to get along and
they give one happy in the state and the city begatless.
The bottom line is is Prop two and a half
and I'm want into the number of stuff, but it's
Prop too in the hospital? Does that my taxes were
not the past year or two it's stuck it in.
(32:36):
There were no big deal, but the valuation went up. Therefore,
I said, was point, what the heck it is? It
will not say maybe a hundred bucks a quarter. Now
you're telling me, is this seven and a half percent
plus the twenty percent? And is this going to continue
and continue and continue? You can't. You can't answer that question.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
But question, well, it shouldn't continue. And there's two ways
to approach it one. You absolutely have a right in
the beginning of the year to appeal, and what I
would recommend is that people do that. They appeal the
overvaluation of your home. That's the hidden tax that doesn't
even get a vote to the city council. That's just
(33:16):
e to b right out of the assessor's office. They
make the call and they make you challenge them. But
that's the laws that stands. We're looking at trying to
amend that to give people more time and to not
pay on the new uniliterally determined valuation, but the old
one while you appeal, because otherwise it's the runaway train
(33:37):
and it shouldn't be that way. And that's what we've
been seeing. Last year was a real good example. But
it is about combination. You got it of a rate
increase and then a valuation increase. Now the mayor is
saying to the public that it's a two percent on
average increasing valuation. They said the same thing last year.
That's not true. The average or the mean has outliers
(34:00):
on the book ends, on the high side, on the
low side that throw off what the real number is.
So looking at the median. That's my Boston Latin school math. Dan.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
By the way, Oh yeah, I'm oppressed. You are oppressed ahead.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
You know, medi your median number is that we'll never
to look at. So last year, for instance, while the
city saying two percent increase in valuations, my district Stealth End,
Stealth Boston, Dorchester, Rock Free, ten twelve percent increases, that's
the same. So that combined with a rate increase, that's
(34:34):
what you get your you have to built. So the
valuations whenever, they never really escalated that love like that.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
But but let me let me just jump in a
second to keep in check with you. Let me jump
in for a second. Look. If the valuations go up,
then the text rate should go down, because if all
of a sudden, the value of the home that you
know that everybody he has in order to stay within
(35:03):
that two and a half percent which is mandated, you
can't both you know, raise the valuations and also then
raise the tax rate. That's crazy. If you're gonna if
the valuation is going up, the tax rate should go down.
Am I right or wrong on that?
Speaker 1 (35:21):
Well?
Speaker 3 (35:22):
I mean you you hit on the on the on
what's happening when when you're when you think that you're
getting the sembls an increase. That sounds rough, but you
combine that with an increase in the valuation. I mean,
to Dan's point, even at the same tax rate, evaluation
increase is a tax will increase. So you shouldn't be
(35:43):
getting double whacked. And at least in one case, the
council's voting on one of them on the rate, they're
not voting on the valuation increase. And that's wrong.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Yeah, well, Phil, we'll we'll stay on top of this,
I promise.
Speaker 4 (35:59):
So I appreciate you want a good job, miss uh.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
Center.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
No.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
And the appeal process you should think about in the
new year. Yea. At some point you're gonna get a
letter on the MEI saying hey, this is what your
new value is. And if it seems like you get
a leaky roof, leaky basement, the leaky toilet and somehow
you're probably valuing up, you could think twice about about
about applying for an appeal.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
Yeah. That process your talking about is the abatement process.
And uh, it can be tough, but it can it
can be worth it, particularly if if they think, if
you think they have overvalued the how much money your
property is worth? Nick, give us what we should be
looking for. We only got about a minute left. Give
us what people should be tuned into. I don't think
(36:46):
people are tuned into this yet, but they're going to
be tuned in when they get those tax bills in
the mail. That's why I wanted to talk about it tonight.
What should they be looking for the next couple of days,
certainly what the council does on Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
Yeah, well, it's likely that the city's going to vote
the mayor's proposal to increase taxes in Boston on property
owners to the maximum they possibly can, and it will
increase the rate on commercial property owners and residential property owners.
And what we'll be doing in the legislature is moving
(37:20):
bills to provide relief from that, leveraging the city's stockpiled
Rainy Day John Surplus Fund, and that can provide relate
to those who see spiked and for those property owns
across Boston who deserve their money backed. And I think
that we've seen it happen at the state level. A
number of years ago, we saw the city spend one
(37:43):
hundred and ten million on new housing for future residents,
and I think we can do the same for existing residents,
particularly when the city is looking to range their taxes.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
All right, Nick Collins, thank you very much. If folks
want to get in touch with you, particularly constituents, what's
the easiest way for them to reach out to you.
I know you're gonna yep.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
Yeah. My office is six one seven seven to two
one one five zero. My email is at Nick dot
Collins at MA Senate dot gob perfect.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Nick, appreciate it. Keep us posted on this, okay, and
we'll we'll try to stay on top of it as
best we can. Numbers are always tough on the radio,
but I think you've explained it pretty well. I thank
you so much for joining us tonight.
Speaker 3 (38:22):
Jim Cool, we'll back take it.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Okay, thank you much. Okay, we'll take a break here,
and when we get back, we're going to talk with
Suffolk University Boston Globe poster. Suffolk University poster Dave Paley logus.
He's director of Suffolk University Political Research Center. New poll
which suggests that about a third of Massachusetts residents homeowners
(38:44):
of residents have said they have considered leaving Massachusetts in
the last year. Listen to this past hour and maybe
you under understand why coming back on Night's side right
after the ten o'clock news
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, Dan, markets, thank you very much. As we move
into our nine o'clock hour. Also, we'll be opening up
phone lines. This is a topic that I think is
going to be hotly debated in the next few weeks
with us As Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, Nick represents
(00:27):
a good portion in Boston. How much of the city, Nick,
do you represented the state Senate?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
I represent one hundred and sixty thousand people Dorchester, South Boston,
the South End, Twntown, a bit of Back Bay, a
bit of Roxbury, a little bit of downtown and the waterfront,
along with the Hot Islands.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Well, you have a big constituent, a big group of constituents,
all of whom are impacted by this. I'd like you
to explain how we get to this point where the
City of Boston is basically saying they are in a
horrific situation. Is what Mayor Wu was saying. I think
(01:10):
she's saying that she's going to have to raise property
taxes for Boston's homeowners by upwards of thirteen percent unless
somehow the state gives her the right to switch that
additional burden onto a commercial the but dragon commercial owners,
(01:32):
How did we get into this situation? This was discussed
during the campaign, but the newspapers didn't give it too much.
I mean, I know that Josh Kraft had talked about
a two percent, you know, reduction in the city's but
city's budget is now how many billion dollars?
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Yeah, so it's a great question. The mayor didn't bring
us up the entire campaign, which they think it was
odd she had a proposal. Apparently there was a secret
for a year and then just cut surfaced a week ago.
So no, I think it's just an effort to distract
people here. Of the facts, you cannot raise property taxes
on any municipality more than two point five percent without
(02:20):
a vote of the people. That's Prop two and a half.
They're not required to raise property taxes across the board
up to two and a half. There is a subjective
decision of a mayor that's required to vote to the
city council. That's what's happening here. The mayor is choosing
to raise taxes on everybody. And just for the record,
(02:41):
as of today, we finally heard from the mayor's team
that they want to raise both commercial taxes and real taxes.
So this notion that her proposal is seeing a dip
in commercial taxes is just patently false. Her proposal today
(03:01):
has an increase on commercial taxes over last year. So
it's just this, you know, a shell game that I
don't think is going to work again this year. Their
proposal in front of the Senate, I'm sorry, in front
of the legislature hasn't you know, had a movement, But
we haven't heard from anybody on it until a few
days ago, and it was filed late. It was such
(03:22):
a priority. How could a bill like that be filed late?
Put that deside for a second, how we got here
wild spending with federal funding that we had one time
under ARPA, the blow of the budget, which is why
we had an eight percent increase last year on the
city level, but to circumvent Prop two and a half,
(03:44):
the people's right to vote, the proposal to shift a
burden onto commercial properties. And I don't represent downtown where
the cascade is happening the most. The waterfront's pretty stable,
but the cascade is happening downtown. But what is hidden
here is the beating that this proposal would put on
(04:06):
small businesses on main streets that don't have empty office
buildings above them that have lost value. They're either owned
by the small business owner or that small business owner
is in a triple at least where where the taxes
get passed down to they would get croked. They're already
at one hundred and seventy five percent more than the
residential burden. Mayor talks about the Watertown proposal that happened
(04:30):
a couple of years ago, comparing themselves to Watertown, wonderful place,
nothing like Boston, certainly not anything close to the tax base.
Their proposal that they asked for some changes had them
starting at sixty percent burden on commercial. I'm sorry, sixty
percent burden unresidential, forty percent burden on commercial. They asked
(04:50):
us to give them an ability to split that fifty
to fifty. Boston is already the best in the state,
which is sixty forty sixty residents. So sorry, sixty commercial
forty residential. So suggesting that you know she wants what
Watertown wants, would actually raise taxes on residential in Boston,
(05:10):
so it doesn't have a fractorate. It's a flailing exercise
because it doesn't have a chance that the proposals before
us that we had we filed early as priorities to
provide relief are advancing in the Senate. I have a
proposal along with Senator Will Brownsberger that would allow uh,
(05:31):
this is also manufactured.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Let me let me, let me make let me do
let me let me jump in here for a second,
because I think that you know this stuff so well
that I need to slow you down a little bit
so that so that so that my audience can understand it.
Because this, this will have a tremendous impact. My understanding
is that this Wednesday, the mayor intends to increase the
(05:57):
residential tax rate by seven percent. Is that a new development?
Speaker 3 (06:04):
Yes? No, that the mayor. The only person that can
raise taxes in the municipality is the mayor. The mayor
is putting forth a proposal for the vote of the
city Council to increase taxes across the board to the
maximum levee, which includes an increased tax rate on commercial
properties and an increased tax rate from last year on
residential properties. And that vote is to both thanktion the
(06:30):
new rates in the overall max levee that they're seeking,
and that has been the plan all along. I believe
that the mayor should not raise taxes to the max
levee the subjective move. You don't have to do it, okay, So.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Why do you make sure you just you use the
word that some people are not going to understand okay.
When they talk about Prop two and a half, and
I was around when it was passed, what they basically
said is I understand that you know it probably better
than me. Is that if let us say the levee
a year ago was million dollars, okay, and that was
(07:11):
the combined taxes were where one hundred million dollars. You
could then raise it from one hundred million no more
than two and a half percent, so you were capped
at raising the next year to one hundred and two
and and a half million dollars. So it's the levee
is the amount that they collect. Then the question becomes
(07:32):
who do they collect it from? Residential? Commercial? And that's
where the rubber really meets the road at this point,
how does she propose a seven percent increase in the
residential tax rate on Wednesday? That seems to me to
be hugely out of line with two and a half percent,
(07:54):
because if the levee can only be two and a
half percent.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
That's a good question. So the levey overall all the aggregates,
so every commercial property, every residential property together, Yeah, overall.
Every dime you can raise, you can only be I'll
break downars was one hundred bucks last year. There'll only
be one hundred and two dollars and fifty cents next
year yet, and so they're going to the ceiling there.
You don't have to, and you don't have to in
(08:22):
a city that for the previous administrations in the last
two decades has so much revenue. We're coming in in
the surplus because of new growth, which we have the
lowest new growth, which is new construction, new development, new business,
the lowest growth in a decade this year, which has
not prought up two and a half so you can
(08:44):
go beyond that with new business. So you're not hitting
that stealing, which is why we have what Moody's has
considered stockpiled taxpayer dollars in our surplus count, which they're
saying you shouldn't do, and then also raised his maximum
you can every year so they don't need to go
to the max levey. They're choosing to because they want to.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
But that what I'm trying to get at. If if
the number, it's my understanding. If I'm wrong here, please
correct me. That the mayor will ask the council on
Wednesday to raise the residential tax rate by seven percent.
Is that a figure? Am I mistaken on that?
Speaker 3 (09:24):
No, that's that's true.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
So so she's asking homeowners, residents who are own their
own home, to pony up an additional seven percent.
Speaker 3 (09:37):
Now again that's not just here's the hidden tax. They
were still trying to pull up. This happened last year
from the same time as your recall, like this year,
we asked to release the data on valuations. Well, the
city's doing unilattery the mayor. That's unilattery with her assessor
(09:58):
not to go to the council, is increase valuations for
everyone's property, sticly residential, and that's done unilaterally. So here's
the hidden tax. You don't get a vote on that.
They can jack up the value assessed value of your home.
So at an existing tact rate, your bill goes up
with an evaluation increase. So the mayor is saying, oh, well,
(10:22):
if we don't get this tax ship which is going nowhere,
it's not even a viable option. Then your bill that
I planned all along, the increase is going to go
up generally, you know, thirteen percent with a seven percent
increase in rate. So where did that other six percent
come from? The hidden tax? The increased valuation that you
(10:46):
had no say in the matter, nor to the city council.
They haven't even received yet. They haven't even released the
property site level data. So people know and the city
council knows what the people on there to constituency's home
values are now that they're going to be taxing, you
know what the aggregate is across the city. Yeah, because
(11:09):
they're back.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
This is going to be a nightmare for Boston residents,
homeowners in Boston. Nick, let's take a break here. I'll
let people absorb some of these numbers. It's always tough
on radio to do numbers, but I think it's such
an important issue. We'll open up phone lines if you
have questions six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. I've got
(11:32):
simple questions, but if you have any questions, no one
knows this stuff better than Nick Collins, Massachusetts State Senator.
Will be back with Nick Collins and your phone call
six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three,
one ten thirty. Elections do have consequences. The mayoral election
is over. Josh Kraft did raise some of these concerns,
(11:54):
but the media, at least, I think the Globe was
not as conscientious because numbers are tough. Numbers are tough,
but the bottom line is numbers become bills, and tax
bills need to be paid. We'll be back on Nightside
after this.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
It's Night Side with Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
With me is Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins. Nick represents
a good portion of Boston and he's in the forefront
of this Boston property tax debate. Let me look at it.
Let me try to take this the set of problems apart. Nick, So,
I know that the mayor had hoped that she could
(12:40):
go up to Beacon Hill and Beacon Hill would give
her and the City of Boston permission to in effect
go by and override the limitations of Prop two and
a half.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
That yes, that is essentially the effort circumvent Prop to
a half. He's been vocal saying that she wants to
get rid of Prop two and a half, which would
automatically get rid of people's right to vote on that.
Anything over two and a half, that's just that's that's
fundamental right to vote, to try and to take away.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Sure, now, is she not saying at this point that
she intends to trim the budget by two percent?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
That's what we've heard. We'll see. But here's what this
is about. Two not just start filing taxpayer cash that
they should give back to the people. We have two
proposals that would do that. I want to get to
a little bit. Sure, but we talked about this last
year too, Dan, the death Service. This is in their
own budget. I mean, you can't make this up, like
(13:43):
after all that, after all that federal funding a billion.
Now this year again we're increasing death service thirty three
point nine million dollars, a twelve point three percent increase.
You combine the increase in residential commercial that's what you
get a twelve and a half percent increase the thirteen
(14:05):
percent increase. So when you're spending like that, not just
you know, on operating funds that people think that they're
going to services, but you're taking out thirty mortgages and
this is this thirty three this thirty three million, thirty
three nine million cab is this year and then some
(14:26):
It's not a one year payoff. These are obligations that
are gonna stadtle a generation. So that's what we're talking about.
It's not just year to year. And I think you've
heard this debate playout with some others like, this is
a problem that's bigger than just a year to year
whacked that the mayor is putting on residential property owners.
But we have a fix to that if we're smart
(14:47):
using our surplus account and we can get to that.
But that's to think about that. It's now an increase
of thirty three percent. It's it's been an increase of
one hundred and almost one hundred and fifty million dollars
over the last five years. What I don't see the
administration fifty that was one hundred and fifty increase of
death service payments. That's crazy, Nick.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
What I don't understand is this, we did not have
the Seaport district twenty years ago, and the Seaport district
is a very expensive, wealthy district. You know, restaurants, condominiums,
multimillion dollar condominiums. None of that was available when Tom
(15:29):
Menino was mayor. It was just coming online. You would
think that our budget that that that that again the
Seaport District would would be I would be additional tax
revenue coming into Boston that they couldn't spend all the
(15:50):
money that's coming in. And it's going to turn out
now that homeowners in Hyde Park and West Roxbury and
Roslindale and Georchester and Mattapan and the South End and
in Roxbury and South Boston and East Boston and Charlestown,
they're gonna they're gonna see their tax bills go up exponentially.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Here.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
It's out of control. I just don't understand how this
wasn't fully fully debated during a mayoral election that was
about about eight weeks of six or seven weeks ago.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
I totly agree, but it's to your point, like, how
does this happen when you spend at eight percent increases
and you can only take in and the aggregate two
point five. But what do you think that's gonna go?
Taking out death service? You know you have taken out
debt to the tune of increased death service. Samis the
thirty three million dollars a year. I mean, the math
doesn't add up the math. The numbers don't lie. So
(16:46):
the smoke screen political theater, you know, run around making
you know, narratives and stuff. It's irrelevant. It's about maths
and the math doesn't lie.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Okay, when we come back, I got to break here
for the bottom of it are and we can talk
about any aspect of this as you want. I'm trying
to understand, is how this how you think this is
going to play out? The mayor, I think you're pretty
confident it's not going to get any help from Beacon Hill, correct,
I mean she's up there too late, should have been
up there six months old.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Well, I say this, there are solutions that were going
to talk about legislatively that helped the city, help the mayor,
help their tax payers. But this us versus them, you know,
commercial bad guys. When their rates are going up, they said, oh,
it's a tax is going on. No, I mean there
are people downtown. Again, I don't represent who's whose values
are cascading and there therefore the value that property is plumbing,
(17:40):
but their rates are going down. Their rates are going up.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Yeah, and there's a lot of commercial property that post
COVID now is empty. Buildings in Boston. You're absolutely absolutely correct.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
On that ye about the waterfront and the sea point.
Their values aren't. They're still full. So the notion that oh,
they're getting a tax rate, no not. Their values are
going up, and so of that tax rates, they're being
attacked one hundred and seventy percent more than residential. So
that's not the issue. The issue is what happens to
small business for this proposal. They get croaked, most of
(18:15):
them will never recover, and they've said this to us.
This is why we're listening to everybody. And we're also
got some proposals we can talk about after you break
that the Senate has proposed at the beginning of session
on time as a priority because we're paying attention to
this stuff that's moving, that's going to be able to
provide relief for residents. So happy to talk about that too.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Okay, So we'll talk about some positive developments if people
have any questions. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten
thirty six one seven, nine, three ten thirty. Coming right
back on Night's side with Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
It's Night with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio with us.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
As Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, Nick, when let's let's
put some guardrails up here. Will Boston taxpayers, Boston homeowners
get their new real estate tax bills in the mail? When? When?
When are they likely going to hit their their mailbox?
Speaker 3 (19:13):
Uh? So when will they get them in the mail?
Speaker 2 (19:15):
Yeah? Yeah? When will they finally?
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Yeah? So great question. What what they should have already
be informed about is what the value their property is
going to be for their consul's vote on They're still
hiding that data, which is unbelievable. But they're supposed to
got bills in the new year that would have to
get paid by the end of the quarter. Uh And
(19:40):
so what happened last year was there was what I
came in the form of double bills by the city
in the first two quarters to make up for their
new big valuation increase. In the new big tax increase,
they doubled on pumped people. Instead of spreading it out
over the year, they tax on an annual basis January
(20:06):
first to December thirty first, and they spend on a
fiscal year basis do I first sue food thirty year.
So instead of getting wrongness leaves up and trying to
figure out a way to spread that out over the
course of time from an operational standpoint. Internally, they doubled
up on people. So that there's two proposals we have
(20:27):
in front of us that the Senate put forth. Myself,
I had put one of these bills forward, along with
Will Brounsberger, who represents their good chunk of Boston. On
the other side, they do two things. When someone's tax
bill is about to go up more than ten percent,
what's in the case of many, with the combination of
(20:48):
increased valuations and the seven percent increase in the race,
they'd be eligible to get their increased mini tapping the
shurtplus funds the stockpiled serveplus funds. Similarly utilizing the shurtplus account.
(21:09):
This other bill that I put forth would allow municipal
leaders building the mayor to issue rebates give the people
their money back. The Moodies is telling us it's stockpiled,
not me or someone else. It's an independent rating agency
(21:30):
that rates and analyze the city finances. So what they
say is, don't stockpile people's tax dollars while you're raising
to the max. You have to do something with it,
whether you're giving it back or utilizing it for the
budget operating budget, leveraging of the capital budget. Don't you
have it sit there while you're also getting, you know,
(21:50):
dowging as much as you possibly can from taxpayers. So
our proposals would both mitigate increases and give every homeowner
in Boston a rebate. The mayor is suggesting that per
tax increase would be an increase of seven hundred and
eighty seven dollars per homeowner. Last year, the city took
(22:18):
one hundred and ten million dollars out of the surplus
account to put towards investments. The public made investments. Taxpayers
made investments in new housing, affordable housing for future residents
of Boston. What we're saying is, let's use some of that.
(22:40):
Let's use ninety nine million. It's about ninety nine thousand
residents of property owners in Boston. Let's give them all
thousand dollars back of their money. As you recall, that
happened at the state level a number of years ago
when old laws similar to Prop. To two and a
half that triggered when we had a certain amount of
(23:03):
revenue came in over a threshold. They the law that
was put in place by the voters at the ballot
said you got to give that back. So that's what
we're saying it, mois your challenge a stockpile. We want
to give them the mayor and other municipalities get sorry
to tap surplus funds in a way that doesn't impact
(23:24):
the bond rating and give it back to the people.
If we're going to spend one hundred and ten million
dollars last you have taxpayer dollars on housing that may
be built for people in the future. We think the
people here who are paying taxes now deserve a break
and deserve some of their money back.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
How is it that the city of Boston can maintain
a surplus? I mean, you have the fight going on
at the state House with the Reeney Day Fund where
we have close to nine billion dollars in a rainy
day fund and the governor doesn't want to use that
for anything for some reason. Is this the equivalent of
a raw they fund in Boston the surplus or.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Yes, they don't, Yeah they don't. They don't sort of
appropriate it the same way. But yes, it's excess revenue
that they take in and if they have taken in
over the course of time, and I think you could
probably assign it to the development boom that Minino oversaw
in the latter part of his time. Uh, the boom
(24:28):
times that were here on the Mayor Walsh and you know,
there's you know again, we've had the lowest new growth
numbers in a decade this year, which is a part
of the problem. So when you're maxing going to the
max levee and you've got new growth and you get
tourism dollars coming in from meals and hotel taxes, and
(24:49):
that's great, and over time you get more than you
probably need. Now we're in a situation where those those
new growth numbers are low because of a bunch of reasons.
And I think plenty argue that some local policies are
a part of the problem for new growth. But what
we have is a dynamic where we're now seeking more
(25:10):
revenue from taxpayers that we've stockpiled their money already. He's
the same taxpayers for the most part, that have already
given us that cushion, so sizeable cushion. We're actually to
pay more to spend more. And that's the that's the
that's the Oh, it's not about that, of course, it's
(25:30):
about spending the government exists, and that's the fact of
the race.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
For what is Boston spending all this money on? I mean,
the police are are down four hundred members.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Uh, there's no, no, it's a great question. I mean,
what are you getting to see it all there? That's
a great yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
I mean it's like it's not like they're building police
stations somewhere or fire stations.
Speaker 3 (26:00):
Schools, right, no closing schools. They had put Madison Park
on hold. They need a bailout from the state to
to to rebuild Madison Park. They want to spend one
hundred million dollars out of the BPS capital budget on
a private soccer stadium and concert venue at Franklin.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
Park, right, which doesn't really benefit the city.
Speaker 3 (26:20):
You saw the numbers.
Speaker 2 (26:22):
Yeah, well that doesn't really benefit the city. I mean,
they spent a lot of money to cut down one
hundred and forty two trees, you know, but none of
those issues in the recently in the recent campaign, you know,
Josh Kraft worked really hard to try to make people
understand those issues, and it just sounded to me as
if the taxpayers in Boston, the homeowners in Boston were
(26:44):
asleep at the switch because the mayor carried most of
the pre wards. Small, small moment. I think people went
to sleep, no choke.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
But I also think you said numbers are mass complicated,
so there's no sound bites that make that easy. But
you asked, was it I mean, I don't know. I
know bike lanes was a big priority, and you know
we have you know, trips over the steps side of
the state and lawyer fees and all that. You know,
(27:17):
everything adds up. Well, the thing that gets me is
this debt service. These are thirty year obligations, ten twenty
thirty year obligations in increase of thirty three million. What
did we spend it on? I don't see it. People
are asking me that, like in the state provides funds
for the road repairs on the Chapter ninety. So it's like,
(27:38):
I don't see where that money is going. If there's
a benefit, tangible benefit, you'd feel, you see it taking
on the capital side, which is what the debt service
is about. Borrowing, You borrow your bond and you put
those into long term capital lessons. I don't know. I
don't see it.
Speaker 2 (27:55):
People don't nick my memory might be wrong here. I
don't think it is the last three of four winters.
We haven't had much snow in Boston, so all of
those costs that other administrations had to lay out for
plowing the streets, we haven't spent much money in Boston
on snow plowing and standing and all of that.
Speaker 3 (28:17):
So you or that hasn't been a budget buster by
any means exactly, And so you know, I figuess it's
it's hot to pin down exactly what the benefits are here.
But what we know is we have a gigantic surplus
in Boston. We spent some of it one hundred and
ten million on residents future residents of Boston. We have
(28:39):
spent that on the current residence of Boston. Our legislation
allows that to happen. We hope that it will get
support from the city and the mayor and provide those
relief to all us the taxpayers. That can still be
done even if this is what I'm saying, Even if
(28:59):
and when the mayor raises people's taxes on Wednesday, everybody
across the board, she raised it on commercial, she raised
them on residence. Even despite all that, our legislation will
be able to provide relief to residents who own homes
(29:20):
through mitigating the spikes that would come in the new year,
if if they're going to see a bump and a jump,
and the other proposal that would provide the authority to
issue rebates to all homeowners in Boston, and that's what
should happen, but give them their money back.
Speaker 2 (29:43):
Is the mayor going to sign off on that? I
assume that she controls that.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Well, once they get the authority, then it's up to
the mayor to execute as executive.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
So you think that you can get that authority at
the state House for the mayor, h but then the
question the mayor.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
But for municipal leaders across the state, question why we
have support? Because this is not a go and a
loan stravet. So you buy that's what tom Anino did?
You know? Two they tried to compare themselves to Tomino?
How many to cut the budget? He had furloughs for employees,
he froze hiring, and he left the budget at two
(30:23):
percent below the two and a half two percent and
went to his colleagues and asked the legislature for a
statewide authorization for an option. That's not how it happened here.
This is we need this, This is the only possible
solution that I'm not going to talk about for a
year and then in December, I'm going to bring it up. Yeah,
(30:48):
the only solution that never got brought up here. Yeah,
but we went we were proactive, particularly after last year,
and we found legislation right away in January and we're
moving on it. We'll spect you have some action in
the next uh coming gaze to report back, and I
think it's going to be a real option for misfile
(31:09):
leaders of a ticic of Boston to provide relief. We
hope they do.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Okay, we've got to take a quick break here and
we'll be back with some phone calls. If you have
a question here, if you're if you're a Boston taxpayer, homeowner,
brace yourself. Six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty
six one seven, nine, three ten thirty. Coming back on
Nightside with Nick Collins, Massachusettstates senator represents about half the
(31:33):
city of Boston. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w BZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
Joined tonight this hour by Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins.
Senator Collins represents about half of the city of Boston,
and he is predicting some shocking numbers for Boston homeowners.
Uh in the next in the next few weeks, let
me get a call with two in here. If I
(32:03):
can Phil lives in Boston. Phil, It's it's gonna get
interesting here in the next few weeks. You're all with
State Senator Nick Collins. Have you got a question of
a comment or right ahead?
Speaker 4 (32:14):
First of all, thank you mister Collins for addressing the situation.
It's unbelievable. I thought everyone's supposed to get along and
they give one happy in the state and the city begatless.
The bottom line is is Prop two and a half
and I'm want into the number of stuff, but it's
Prop too in the hospital? Does that my taxes were
not the past year or two it's stuck it in.
(32:36):
There were no big deal, but the valuation went up. Therefore,
I said, was point, what the heck it is? It
will not say maybe a hundred bucks a quarter. Now
you're telling me, is this seven and a half percent
plus the twenty percent? And is this going to continue
and continue and continue? You can't. You can't answer that question.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
But question, well, it shouldn't continue. And there's two ways
to approach it one. You absolutely have a right in
the beginning of the year to appeal, and what I
would recommend is that people do that. They appeal the
overvaluation of your home. That's the hidden tax that doesn't
even get a vote to the city council. That's just
(33:16):
e to b right out of the assessor's office. They
make the call and they make you challenge them. But
that's the laws that stands. We're looking at trying to
amend that to give people more time and to not
pay on the new uniliterally determined valuation, but the old
one while you appeal, because otherwise it's the runaway train
(33:37):
and it shouldn't be that way. And that's what we've
been seeing. Last year was a real good example. But
it is about combination. You got it of a rate
increase and then a valuation increase. Now the mayor is
saying to the public that it's a two percent on
average increasing valuation. They said the same thing last year.
That's not true. The average or the mean has outliers
(34:00):
on the book ends, on the high side, on the
low side that throw off what the real number is.
So looking at the median. That's my Boston Latin school math. Dan.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
By the way, Oh yeah, I'm oppressed. You are oppressed ahead.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
You know, medi your median number is that we'll never
to look at. So last year, for instance, while the
city saying two percent increase in valuations, my district Stealth End,
Stealth Boston, Dorchester, Rock Free, ten twelve percent increases, that's
the same. So that combined with a rate increase, that's
(34:34):
what you get your you have to built. So the
valuations whenever, they never really escalated that love like that.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
But but let me let me just jump in a
second to keep in check with you. Let me jump
in for a second. Look. If the valuations go up,
then the text rate should go down, because if all
of a sudden, the value of the home that you
know that everybody he has in order to stay within
(35:03):
that two and a half percent which is mandated, you
can't both you know, raise the valuations and also then
raise the tax rate. That's crazy. If you're gonna if
the valuation is going up, the tax rate should go down.
Am I right or wrong on that?
Speaker 1 (35:21):
Well?
Speaker 3 (35:22):
I mean you you hit on the on the on
what's happening when when you're when you think that you're
getting the sembls an increase. That sounds rough, but you
combine that with an increase in the valuation. I mean,
to Dan's point, even at the same tax rate, evaluation
increase is a tax will increase. So you shouldn't be
(35:43):
getting double whacked. And at least in one case, the
council's voting on one of them on the rate, they're
not voting on the valuation increase. And that's wrong.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Yeah, well, Phil, we'll we'll stay on top of this,
I promise.
Speaker 4 (35:59):
So I appreciate you want a good job, miss uh.
Speaker 2 (36:04):
Center.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
No.
Speaker 3 (36:06):
And the appeal process you should think about in the
new year. Yea. At some point you're gonna get a
letter on the MEI saying hey, this is what your
new value is. And if it seems like you get
a leaky roof, leaky basement, the leaky toilet and somehow
you're probably valuing up, you could think twice about about
about applying for an appeal.
Speaker 2 (36:25):
Yeah. That process your talking about is the abatement process.
And uh, it can be tough, but it can it
can be worth it, particularly if if they think, if
you think they have overvalued the how much money your
property is worth? Nick, give us what we should be
looking for. We only got about a minute left. Give
us what people should be tuned into. I don't think
(36:46):
people are tuned into this yet, but they're going to
be tuned in when they get those tax bills in
the mail. That's why I wanted to talk about it tonight.
What should they be looking for the next couple of days,
certainly what the council does on Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
Yeah, well, it's likely that the city's going to vote
the mayor's proposal to increase taxes in Boston on property
owners to the maximum they possibly can, and it will
increase the rate on commercial property owners and residential property owners.
And what we'll be doing in the legislature is moving
(37:20):
bills to provide relief from that, leveraging the city's stockpiled
Rainy Day John Surplus Fund, and that can provide relate
to those who see spiked and for those property owns
across Boston who deserve their money backed. And I think
that we've seen it happen at the state level. A
number of years ago, we saw the city spend one
(37:43):
hundred and ten million on new housing for future residents,
and I think we can do the same for existing residents,
particularly when the city is looking to range their taxes.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
All right, Nick Collins, thank you very much. If folks
want to get in touch with you, particularly constituents, what's
the easiest way for them to reach out to you.
I know you're gonna yep.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
Yeah. My office is six one seven seven to two
one one five zero. My email is at Nick dot
Collins at MA Senate dot gob perfect.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Nick, appreciate it. Keep us posted on this, okay, and
we'll we'll try to stay on top of it as
best we can. Numbers are always tough on the radio,
but I think you've explained it pretty well. I thank
you so much for joining us tonight.
Speaker 3 (38:22):
Jim Cool, we'll back take it.
Speaker 2 (38:24):
Okay, thank you much. Okay, we'll take a break here,
and when we get back, we're going to talk with
Suffolk University Boston Globe poster. Suffolk University poster Dave Paley logus.
He's director of Suffolk University Political Research Center. New poll
which suggests that about a third of Massachusetts residents homeowners
(38:44):
of residents have said they have considered leaving Massachusetts in
the last year. Listen to this past hour and maybe
you under understand why coming back on Night's side right
after the ten o'clock news
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com