January 2, 2025 • 42 mins
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s property tax proposal, a measure aimed to temporarily shift the city’s property tax burden onto commercial real estate to prevent homeowners and landlords from seeing a spike in their tax bills in January, was defeated by the state Senate in December. How might have this proposal helped or hurt area businesses and residents? What can be done to ease some of the tax burden without bankrupting small businesses? MA State. Senator Nick Collins, who opposed the property tax proposal, joined Dan to discuss.
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray w b Z Boston's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Welcome back, everyone like to welcome back to the program.
Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, who represents Boston for the
most part, Nick Collins, welcome back to night said, how
are you.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Good evening, Dan? Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
You're very welcome. You have district represents you represent? Is
entirely within the city of Boston, or do you do
you have any any other area besides portion?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Yes? So I represent a number of the neighborhoods in Boston,
South Boston, Dorchester, the South End, Bay Village, Chinatown, a
little Back Bay, a little of Roxbury, and the Hot Islands.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Okay, So so I know that that some of the
districts can pick up a little bit of Revere or whatever.
But so you're totally.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Boston all in time, Boston.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
This thing all right, now, you have had a high profile.
I'm gonna call it a battle with Mayor Wou and
I if I if I mischaracterize it, please help me,
uh and and correct me. But a battle over the
way in which property taxes in Boston would be assessed.
(01:24):
She wanted to shift the burden towards some of the
commercial real estate in Boston. And when when you say commercial,
you're not You're talking not just about the big buildings downtown,
you also talk about a lot of the mom and
pop stores and the smaller businesses in Boston which are commercial.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Correct, that's correct.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
And and in your concern, as I understand, that was
much more with these small businesses that are trying to
survive in the city of Boston in some very difficult
economic circumstances. What got you involved in this fight because
it became a pretty high profile battle. I think you
succeeded because the mayor did not get from the state
(02:09):
House what she wanted, which was permission to recalibrate who
pays what in real estate taxes. What prompted you to
get into this fight? It was pretty high profile fight.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Sure, well, you know, anytime we make policy, it's going
to be data driven. Can't be about conjecture, can't be
based on fear and misinformation. Which was a campaign to
achieve and you know it started last February. The Boston
Policy Institute in Tefns University brought up in a study
(02:43):
how falling commercial values would affect long term how Boston finance.
The city government, and that sparked a debate, and initially
the mayor and her team just attacked the study and
said it was false information, nothing to see here, and
then abruptly shifted to you know, I guess not wasting
(03:06):
a crisis or a perceived crisis, and instead of using
the data that they were compiling to come up with
new valuations for the city, property owners went on a
campaign to tell property owners, residential property owners that they
were going to see a thirty three percent increase in
(03:27):
their property taxes unless they supported this shift. That would
have increased taxes on businesses two hundred percent. And you
mentioned the types of businesses, So the businesses downtown and
the financial district that had seen leases go away on
the advent of the pandemic unless office space being rented,
(03:49):
they were going to see a dramatic decrease in valuations
over the course of the next few years. But what
you see in the main streets are businesses that just
house retail businesses and not office buildings above and so
their value is maintained, but they are going to get
whacked at two hundred percent. Now, these are businesses who
we you know, did a lot to support during the
(04:10):
aftermath of the pandemic as well to stay alive. And
they support a lot of people, a lot of jobs
in the community. Most of the folks who own those
businesses live in the community and they have everything in there.
And so if this is going to happen, it had
to be based on data and not conjectures. So when
(04:30):
this got ramped up, just a pretty loaded proposal to
tell people, hey, if you don't get out of the
way and support this tax team, you know we're going
to blame you for raising residential propstactions thirty three percent.
And we kept asking for this valuation data that eventually
they had to submit to the Department of Revenue of
(04:51):
the state under the pains and penalties of perjury, and
so we were going to get that information eventually. We
waited and asked the city for numerous times, including over
the course of the summer, in the fall and up
and until when I tabled the bill, when it made
its way to the Senate the first time, and the
mayor are called and asked, you know, what was my
(05:12):
end game? And I said, Mayor, we want to be
reading from the same sheet of music as you. So
when we make this decision, we know what it's about.
And the refusal was still there until after it went
to the public domain that the city Assessor and the
Mayor were essentially blaming the Department of Revenue for not
(05:32):
certifiing that that data fast enough on property valuations. The
a Problem of Revenue expedited that and were able to
get us to release data which showed us exactly what
we needed to know. What was the impact going to
be to residential property owners if this property if this
(05:52):
tax proposal did not pass, or if it passed. And
the mayor said all along that even if it passed,
they were going to property taxes on Bostonians at nine
point five percent, which was the average over the last
four years. And that's even if it passed. And so
when it came to light that without the legislation passing,
(06:12):
it would be roughly the same, we realized that this
was not necessary and that the risk to the Boston
economy was too great, that the impacts to businesses, and
you know, the Department of Revenue came out with a
study in two thousand and four after Maya Menino requested
this with municipal leaders statewide. In the aftermath of the
(06:35):
dot Com boom. You know, it was a local option.
It wasn't a mandate. It said if we if weren't
such a deficit that we made needed this, we'd like
to have the option. This was a mandate. They come
hell of high water that this tax was going to
go through, whether it was needed or not. And we
got to ask ourselves as well, well, what's this all about.
(06:56):
It's not just an abstract request for revenue, because you
don't really have a revenue problem. You have a fiscal
management problem. Right now in the city, we've seen a
twenty one percent increase in the budget over three years,
just this year alone, an eight percent increase, while the
state was at a two point seven percent increase, which is,
you know, in line with inflation. But you can't expect
(07:18):
tax payers to not be impacted when we're spending hundreds
of millions of dollars on bike lane infrastructure, on the
credit card, or one hundred million dollars on white stadium
privatization and the like. And so this is really what
this issue is about. It's about spending this out of control.
If you compare it to the previous administration, where the
last four years there was an increase in debt service
(07:40):
obligations of twenty million dollars actually a little bit less.
You're already of ninety million increase in the last three years.
This is wild.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Some people might not know when you refer to debt
service what you're doing, what they're talking What they're talking
about is the interest that any government on new debts,
he pays on the money that it has borrowed. And
you know, an increase in the last three years of
(08:10):
Mayor Walsh's administration, as you said, I'm looking at the
numbers right now, went up about twenty million dollars, and
the increase in the debt service in the wo administration
for the first three years sort of an equivalent period
of time has gone up nearly one hundred million dollars from.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
And these are ten to fifteen thirty year commitments. This
isn't a one year expense. These are essential mortgages that
were at the bonds authorization. So there that was saddling
generation of Bostonians with this. For what purpose We're still
trying to figure out, but we do know that this
came along with a one billion dollar windfall from the
(08:57):
federal government that have operated in the city. So it's
not as if we were in dire straits, we will
expect to revenue. And I think that's what the point is,
that we don't have a revenue problem. They made it
clear that we don't have a revenue problem at the
city and that the requests built based not on data,
(09:19):
but on on a campaign of fear and conjecture was
that if we didn't do this, resist we're going to
see a thirty preepers an increase and taxes in the
homes and risk losing their homes. Now, the other side
is that we knew was that if it went forward,
that we were going to risk having what the do
R said twenty years ago when Marimino looked at this,
this is not put public policy. You shouldn't do this again.
(09:42):
You should look at diversifying revenues. You should also look
at doing what we didn't do this year. And so
today people got bills that double what they should be
because instead of spreading out tax bills and the increases
over four quarters, they're jamming into the first two.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
And so they let me just make sure nick I
understand this, the tax bills many Bostonians would have received
their tax bills today. Is that correct? Property owners, yes,
both commercial and residential. Let me take a pause here.
We got to take a break, and when we get back,
I think you've set out the situation as you perceive it,
(10:21):
that the administration has been spending well beyond its means
and now is in a situation where maybe there's really
no good choice. You prevented the administration from doing what
they wanted to do, which was to hit the commercial
property owners. I'm going to invite people to call in.
(10:42):
I know that whenever we talk about numbers on night side,
particularly budgets and things like that, it's tough for people
to follow. However, when you have to write that check,
make that payment as a homeowner, or as a small
business or as a big business, that's really where the
rubber meets the road. And that's what we're talking about here.
(11:03):
So if you folks out there have a question and
you'd like to join the conversation six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty six one seven, nine, three one
ten thirty. We try to explain it as clearly and
as cleanly as we can as to what it is
at stake. But the numbers to me jump off the
page and suggest that Boston has been spending in a
(11:27):
very wild fashion, and that this is going to come
home to roost here in the city, and it's going
to affect the city. And the mayor has had three
years at the head of this city, and she's about
to enter her fourth year, which will be a re
election year, and you have to wonder what sort of
politics might have been involved in some of the decisions
(11:49):
that she made. We'll back on Night's side with Massachusetts
State Senator Nick Collins, who has worked very hard, particularly
in the last month, to stop something from happening that
he feels would have had a tremendously adverse impact on
the city. Whether you agree to disagree, feel free to
join the conversation. Coming back on Night's side right after
(12:09):
these brief messas.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Now back to Dan ray Line from the Window World
Night Side Studios on WBZ the News Radio.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
My guest is Nick Collins, Massachusetts State Center. Nick, just
looking at these numbers, and again, numbers are tough to
talk about on radio, but I want to focus on
this whole question of debt service, which is interest that
the City of Boston is obligated to pay it. The
last three years of Mayor Walsh's term, the debt service
(12:44):
increased from one hundred and seventy million dollars to one
hundred and eighty nine million dollars. That's, as you said,
a little less than twenty million dollars. In that same
period of time. During the first three terms of the
mayor's first tournament office, the debt service has gone up
ninety two million dollars. That's the same period of time
(13:08):
three years, four times a greater increase in terms of
just dollar for dollar. What as you look at that,
what does that tell you?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
It tells me that we're pulling out the credit card
when we had a billion dollars in the federal government
to spend on government subsidy, whether it was for the
schools or for municipal services, and for whatever reason, in
addition to that, we took out the credit cards. It's
not spending even more aggressively in ways that are going
(13:41):
to saddle us for you know, ten, fifteen, thirty years unnecessarily.
And if we look at what the state did when
we had last year a gap in what our proposed
budget was versus the rest that came in. The governor wisely,
even though it was painful to some, made three hundred
and seventy five million dollars balance the budget to keep
(14:01):
us within a two point seven percent growth That was responsible,
while we put money away in the Rainy Gay Fund
and provide a tax relief for residents across the Como.
It requires balance and fiscal responsibility. You can't spend money
on every great idea that we think we have all
at once, and in this case, the city had a
lot of money. So to do that and to take
(14:23):
out the credit card and spend wildly like that, it
is totally irresponsible. And that's what this is tied to.
It's not just an arbitrary reason to consider a tax
reposal like this or to raise the property taxes on
our sowans. But in the end, we learned after receiving
that the certified data from the DAW, the city was
withholding that it wasn't as dramatic or remotely dramatic as
(14:48):
they thought it was going to be, and quite frankly,
it was in line within the recent the last few years.
But even raising it modestly of one percentage point, which
is what the mayor decided to do and the City
Council approved, was based on spending interests, not it wasn't
an arbitrary reason. They weren't forced to. Under the state law,
(15:11):
you can raise up to two point five percent of
the proper two and a half of property taxes all
across the city of an increase, and they don't have
to do that. They decided to because they wanted to
spend more money, and that's not always the best thing
to do. And again last year in the state budget,
we had to cut back and that's something that you
know was difficult for some programs and some external spending.
(15:34):
But you know when Mayor Neino was face with this,
he cut the budget, he furloughed employees, he paused external spending,
he put on a hiring freeze, and he made the
changes that need to be made while also asking for
some support for relief. And that was never even on
the table. No, was residential relief. This his bill is
a residential relief bill. How is it a residential relief bill?
(15:56):
If regardless, if it passes, you're going to raise taxes
nine point five percent. It's just it was the farce.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
I also want to make it clear for people, and
again talking about this, when you talk about the billion dollars,
this was the money that the federal government passed in
the in the wake of the COVID crisis, in which
money was sent from Washington back to the states and
the cities including Boston and Boston. The figure of quoted
(16:26):
is a billion dollars. And during that period of time,
the spending just continued. You mentioned, I believe that the
city has spent is that one hundred and twenty million
dollars on bike lanes? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (16:43):
The figure the camel oft Fuish though, was one hundred
and twenty one million dollars on bike lane infrastructure.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Now, I got to tell you, I know we have
a lot of bike lanes, and I know that they
have put in a lot of those stanchions, you know,
to protect the bike lanes, and I know that they
they have painted the bike lanes. But one hundred and
twenty million dollars seems to be excessive for for what
has been accomplished. Has anyone looked at that project and
(17:12):
those numbers closely? Do you feel that those numbers are
are accurate or are they?
Speaker 3 (17:19):
You know, No, it's a great it's a great point.
I mean, and you know we're talking about one you know,
depending on the time of the year, one percent to
possibly at most two percent of the populace that are
riding regularly, you know, to and from work or from
you know, the place of business or school. And so,
(17:41):
you know, it's a lot of money and a lot
of congestion, a lot of headache, and we're seeing a
lot of safety issues that are coming out of that.
For a small impact, but you know, I think it's
just a symbol of the type of spending that's going on.
And you know it for the City of Boston to
be in a position and where they think they have
to make a Laconian measure on taxes right now speaks
(18:04):
to one thing and one thing only. Let's out of
control spending.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Now. There was an article in The Herald a few
days ago about the chief financial officer in the city
who was brought into Boston from San Francisco. And in
San Francisco they have run into all sorts of problems.
I mean that they have a myriad of problems. Worse
(18:30):
than Boston. We have Mass and Cass They have the
Tenderloin district. And as bad as masson Cass is it
dwarfs in comparison to the Tenderloin district. However, San Francisco
under the chief financial officer that Mayor Woo brought into
Boston ran into some pretty serious financial problems. It wasn't,
(18:54):
from what I can understand, the greatest performance. And Ashley
Grothenberger is now the mayor's chief financial officer and according
to Joe Battenfeld, she pers presided over San Francisco's out
of control budget, which now faces fifteen percent across the
board cuts to deal with an estimated one billion dollar deficit.
(19:23):
Are we headed in that direction?
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Well, I hope not, and it's going to require you know,
accountability across the board. But what I say, it's also
a cautionary tale. If we don't get things under control,
that's what can happen, and that affects government services. And
that's not what is the case right now, but if
it continues down this path, it could be. We don't
(19:46):
want that to happen. So that's why the appropriate measures
should be taken place. And we do have a robust
rainy day fund, you know that was developed over the
course of time to the previous administrations that really you know,
built that up in the triple A bond rating that
the current administration inherited. But I think it does speak
to also a costs every tail, but what not to do.
(20:09):
The city continues to want to run the MBTA, that's
not a good idea because it costs a fortune to
do that, and that's what San Francisco decided to do,
take on their transit system, and that that takes a
ton of resources out of there, out of their budget.
So that's not a good idea. But we also look
at other places like Chicago and what they've had to do.
(20:31):
This mayor recently was a progressive mayor as well, said listen,
we're going to make cuts and some modifications, and we're
going to, you know, trim some of our budget proposal
and find some savings to suit a sixty million dollars
so we don't have to raise property taxes on bus
(20:53):
storm years. And that's what they just did.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Are you talking about what the mayor in Chicago did?
I just want to make sure I'm clear of this.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
Yes, the mayor of Chicago. So while San Francisco just
said we're going across the board fifteen percent, the mayor
of Chicago decided to proactively not after he passes budget,
but prior to pass the budget. That was delayed. Okay,
we're going to make you know, sixty to seventy million
dollars in cuts and find find find savings so we
don't have to raise property taxes on residents. So they
(21:27):
made that prudent move, so it's all doable.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Okay. My guest is a state Senator. Nick Collins represents
big swath of Boston has been in a battle with
Mayor Wu again, a battle of the budget, if you will,
fiscal battle. I know that it is not something that
is easy to talk about on the radio, but I
hope enough of you understand it. If you have a
(21:52):
question for Senator Collins, you're more than welcome if you
want to raise the concern that you have. We're now
in the year twenty twenty five, which I will remind
you is an election year for the mayor and for
the city councils. Here in Boston. The mayor stands every
four years for reelection or for election city council every
(22:13):
two years, so there will be a mayor's fight here
in Massachusetts. In Boston, I should say this year, you
have to wonder with the state of the financers that
Nick Collins is is talking about. Uh, if maybe he
(22:33):
or someone else is going to stand up and challenge
and this might become the critical issue in this campaign.
We're going to talk about that. We'll take your phone
call six one seven, two four thirty six one seven,
nine three one ten thirty. You don't have to be
a Bostonian to call in, but if you're a Bostonian,
this is something that you should be concerned about. Coming
back on night Side right after the break for the
(22:54):
nine thirty news a couple of minutes late. Apologize for that.
Be back right after the news.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
It's Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
That is a horrible story. Leave a dog with a bowl.
There are people who just should not own animals as
far as as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, we're talking
with State Senator Nick Collins about a financial problem that
he has identified. It was interesting, Senator, that you were
(23:27):
able to, I believe, convince majority of your colleagues in
the Massachusetts State Senate, mostly Democrats, not to support the
Mayor of Boston. When I first heard about this, I
thought to myself, well, you know, the Mayor of Boston
will get her way at the legislature. How were you
able to convince your colleagues most of them were also Democrats,
(23:50):
and by the way, some of them very progressive Democrats
that on this argument you had the better the better argument, Well.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
I think the important thing is, you know, we don't
make policy and policy on matters of consequence without data
to back it up. And I think there was a
feeling the whole time, and you know, there was a
lot going on in the legislature throughout the year. But
when this got its own focus that this was not
backed up by data, and when we sought the data,
(24:22):
and I particularly sought the data and the city was
unwilling to hand it over, it kind of gave us sense, hmm,
what's going on here. And then once it was released
and became clean that what the mayor and the city
officials were suggesting that this was going to be a
thirty three percent increase because of this need that in
(24:44):
when when the valuations came out, that wasn't the case.
And so, you know, the so the truth will set
you free, and the data bore out in that way,
and that's really what guided the decision, is that if
the data bore out and said, oh jeezuz, so we
got a problem here, you know, beyond belief, we have
to we have to take traumatic action that maybe way
(25:05):
we would have gone, but it wasn't the case, and
we needed to deal with the facts in our conjecture
and not hyperbole and not uh, you know, scare tactics.
And I think they, you know a lot of a
lot of them felt you know that, uh, you know,
like you had mentioned, you know, you know, they want
to support, you know, municipal leaders in their approach to
(25:29):
managing government. But when you're asking for state law to
be changed and to make dramatic change in this time
and it's not backed up by data, then it's hard
to support. And and that I think was the key part.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Before we go to phone calls, let me ask the
question right direct question. Obviously, you have had strong disagreements
with the mayor here, you've prevailed. Do you think that
you might decide to to challenge her this year?
Speaker 3 (26:00):
As I say, damn, you know, well, the city is
touting that we're the safest major city in America due
to the great work of the Boston Police and driving
down gun violence. We've seen over the last four years
ten thousand people overdose on Boston streets and over a
(26:20):
thousand people have died and that's nothing to brag about.
And it's shameful that the best that the city can
do is put out free safe injection side equipment in
vending machines across the city. So to me, that says
they've mailed it in. There's been no progress on Long Island,
and yet the Mayorage considered spending likely more than one
hundred million dollars on the taxpayer's credit card, handing over
(26:42):
a public asset at White Stadium for private use. So
I think the city needs to change course. I'm thrilled
to be back in the Senate and re elected, got
sworn in yesterday for another term, and that's where my
focus is right now. But I believe that the city
needs to change courseible pass, whether that's what the current
(27:02):
skipper or a new one remains to be seen.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Fair enough, let's go to phone call. It's gonna go
to fill in Boston. Fill you first tonight with Massachusetts
State Senator Nick Collins. Go right ahead, what's your question
of comment.
Speaker 4 (27:13):
I'm gonna vote be brother from here, but I gotta
I'm curious about twenty minutes ago, the senator mentioned the
belt the tax bills, we're gonna double they're gonna like
be paying what we're paying four year, four installments and
three installments? Is that what we're doing?
Speaker 3 (27:33):
No, No, so four and two And that's that's totally unnecessary.
It's a you know, it's for the accounting convenience of
City of Boston. You know, officials in the assessing department.
They could very easily spread that over four quarters. Right now,
if you look at the tax bill, it looks twice
as much as it should be.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
You kidding me? But how can they do yah? See
it could it could be free months, they could do that,
split it out like a a payment in a cab.
But they're not going to do that.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
They should be Yeah, they should be able to do that.
I mean, it's they tax you on a on an
annual calendar year, and they finance the city government on
a fiscal year. So they go June first of June
thirtieth and instead of taxing you, you know, each quarter
the way that you should. Of course, it's not it's
not fair. It's not convenient for residents, even though it's
(28:24):
convenient for some city officials, and they shouldn't be doing that.
But that's what is this something that they're going to have.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Is this something that has been done unilaterally or is
this something that the mayor of the city council I
agree on? How do you change that? I mean, where
I live, you pay every quarter and it's always should be.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
It's for their accounting purposes, which you know, to be
honest with it could be done differently, there should be.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Well, phil another reason question on.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
This White White stadiums as a gift to the city
from a guy. Why wasn't even guy like that entrepreneur
or something that was given to the city for the
kids to use a football and stuff like that.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
But a fall of the.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
Pot it is.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
It's a George uh George White trust fund and there's
thirty million dollars in the fund that could you know,
portion of that could go to rehab the stadium for
the use of the of the kids and should be
done without taxpayer burden instead, you know, looking at spending
one hundred million dollars for private exercise. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (29:29):
You don't know how he's freshing it is. The here
a guy gentlemen like you on the phone as unbelievable.
Thank you very much and.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
I appreciate your call. Thank you much. Gonna take very
quick break. Other calls coming up if you'd like to
try to get in six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty or six one, seven, nine three thirty. My guest,
Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins. We've talked about some fairly
heady issues numbers, and I hope you followed the conversation
because I think what he has said tonight has made
(29:56):
a great deal of sense, both from the common sense
point of view, but also from a fiscal point of
view in terms of where the city of Boston is headed,
and it impacts everyone, whether you live in the city
proper or you live anywhere in New England. Back on
Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
My guest, Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, represents a good
portion of Boston. He's talking about what he can choosed
to be profligate spending patterns I guess by the incumbent
administration and throwing caution to the wind JJ and Winchester JJ.
Next on Nightside, go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (30:42):
Sir, Okay, thank you?
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Happy?
Speaker 5 (30:44):
Yeah, So I got yeah, thank you. I have two
questions real quick because I don't live in Boston, but
I do work there. Why isn't this wasteful spending, uh,
raising catch revenue to bail out the wasteful spending. Why
isn't this the illegal to do that?
Speaker 3 (31:06):
Well, I mean, I'd say that anything that's relative to taxes,
nothing is automatic. So we hit nothing on tax has
been automatic since the King ruled in seventeen seventy five.
So a vote of the legislature or a vote of
the council takes place, and that's what took place here.
So there was a vote by the city council earlier
(31:28):
in December to set tax rates, and they vote on
a budget. So a budget approves and the tax rates set.
And you know, at the state level, we approve a
budget and if there's ever a time where we're debating taxes,
it's usually you know, sales tax, income tax. And then
(31:49):
this last term we were able to provide tax relief
across the board, from the estate tax to residential property
tax and other tax credits for consumers and employees. So
and this is as well along with capital gains tax cuts.
So you know, it's always a vote. There's nothing illegal.
(32:11):
It's a vote, and it becomes law. But you know
that's why it's also.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
It's also JJ, it's it's spending policy. You know, if
you have one mayor or one president or whatever says
I'm going to spend this, this and this. Mayor WU
obviously has made bike lanes a big priority of spending
one hundred and twenty one million dollars in bike lanes
has a lot of money. I think that money would
(32:37):
be better used in the in the schools, or or
in police were down with police protection in Boston, there's
a number of areas that are problematical. That's what a
mayor's race is all about, and people make decisions as
to who they want to put back in office. We
just saw a presidential election, and I think you know
the economics of the last few years, inflation and tax
(33:00):
is played a factor and all of that. But that's
a factor and people need to pay attention to it, JJ,
as I know you do.
Speaker 5 (33:07):
And the second question is I'd like to maybe get
your information after the show or maybe dannual give it out,
because I want to send you something and get your
thoughts on an in state gold depository or some type
of taxpayer reserve funds with gold and silver to try
of offset inflation, because this is the foundation of what's
(33:29):
going on. It's inflation infects states, and when you see.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
I don't know that states, I don't know that states
have the authority to do that. And I know that
that is a policy proposal that a lot of libertarians
like to make. But we're off the gold standard, and
I don't know that state's, particularly a state like Massachusetts,
going to go back to their own local gold standard.
But you can reach State Senator Collins at the State
(33:55):
House pretty easily, and I'm sure that if you wanted
to send him something and be happy.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
To look at it.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Okay, verry much, Thank you much. Le We go to
Steven Cambri. Steve, You're next on Night Side with Nick Collins. Happy,
happy new you you Steve.
Speaker 6 (34:10):
Uh has anyone audited or thought about auditing this one
hundred and twenty one million dollars on the bike lanes?
It sounds like there could even be Uh, I don't know,
graft corruption there in terms of who was paid, what salaries,
et cetera.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
Well, I know, I do know that what's what's strange
about the spending is that on transportation, the state provides
and the city is still sitting on seventy five million
dollars in state funding. Well, they's taking out the credit
card to spend on capital, infrastructure and transportation. So if
it doesn't make any sense, we do got to have
to get to the bottom of that. I know that
(34:52):
the City Council is going to be having some hearings, uh,
you know this beginning of this year, and what we
can look at at is what has taken place with
state funds. And you know, that's something I believe that
the auditor can look at with respect to anything that's
stay funded or federally funded. Municipalities, you know, have sort
(35:17):
of autonomy, but they also are subject to audits on
state funding and federal funding as well as everybody is
subject to the powers of the Inspector General.
Speaker 6 (35:30):
And do you know if anyone has questioned Mayor wu
on her choice of a chief financial officer who appears
to be coming from a city which is in even
more dire straits, for example, in Chicago or Boston.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Well, I don't know what conversations have been had on
the council, but I know that everyone's asking questions now
based off of how this tax debate went. And you know,
here's another figure to think about. It costs thirty thousand
dollars to go to the Boston public schools. It costs
fifteen thousand dollars to go to your mass Boston.
Speaker 6 (36:12):
You mean in terms how do you mean in terms
of you're not talking to issue.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
Yeah, the cost for a student in Boston public schools,
the cost for student full freight, the fifteen thousand dollars
that you messed Boston.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
A time by the at a time where the either
the claimed student population or the actual student population in
the Boston public schools is now well below fifty thousand.
I mean, it was a couple of decades ago you
had a school system with one hundred thousand kids in
the Boston public school system. We have lost lots and
(36:51):
lots of students through a number for a number of reasons, obviously,
and yet the cost of educating students on a per
capital basis has continued to go up in Boston. As
matter of fact, I believe, Senator that the cost per
pupil of students in the public school system in Boston
(37:15):
may even be equal to a bigger than on a
per capita basis. With new York City pays, which traditionally
had been the most expensive publications.
Speaker 3 (37:24):
We are the most expensive in the country.
Speaker 6 (37:27):
Last question, what about migrant issues in terms of Boston spending,
how has that affected the budget?
Speaker 3 (37:38):
Well, it's a good question. I think by law, all
students under eighteen get access to the schools. I think
that the way to face this challenge is the way
that we've historically faced it the best. And as to sponsorship,
the sponsorship program that's official established at the federal level
(37:59):
of through employe from through employers and through you know,
uh sponsors, individuals and families, and that's always been the
best take the burden off the government upfront on transition
and assimilation. And you know, I think something that we
should be considering going forward is providing support for those sponsors,
(38:20):
not turning everything into a big government exercise, because that
gets very expensive how to manage, and as you can see,
it's not always delivering the best outcomes. So I think
that's the way we should be looking at this going forward.
Speaker 6 (38:33):
Keep work. Please.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
By the way, Steve, let me just jump in for
one second. The financial burden of the influx of new
arrivals has cost the commonwealth about a billion dollars a
year most of the I don't know that the City
of Boston has. It has cost them a lot of
money directly. The one area that I think I was
(38:58):
concerned about was the community center in Roxbury that was
taken away from the Roxbury community for almost a year
to house so called new arrivals. But I don't know Nick,
that there is a line, a budget line in Boston's
budget that deals with capital outlays or financial outlays for
(39:20):
newly arrived immigrants.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
No, there is a sort of a federal in a
state formula on fundings in the schools.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
Yeah, but most of that money comes from the federal
to the state and then to the communities as I
understand it.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
No, that's correct, But I do think on the expense
that can be shrunk down, and I think it should
be shrunk down by going through a facto or official
sponsorship program rather than He's always been successful here in
the country, and we're a good portion of the large
portion of the new arrivals as you categorize, are of
(40:00):
the from theation community that has a significant community yere
and prior to the decoration of a state of emergency,
which I do think was necessary. In many ways was
happening that way, and that's the best in the communities,
and the supports inside the communities that have beginner with
us have asked for that to be well, locally, individually driven,
(40:21):
not for the big government exercise which which can get
our hand, which which we know it can be, and
it has.
Speaker 6 (40:28):
Thank you very much, General Steve.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
Steve, appreciate the call. Happy New Year to you, and likewise,
thank you very much, Nick. Thanks for taking this fight
on and thanks for taking the time tonight to to
explain it to people. Because when I first read about this,
I thought to myself, how is a single state senator
going to convince the legislature not to give the okay
(40:52):
to the mayor? And you did, frankly, what I thought
was impossible. So keep up the fight. The more people
we have looking at the budget and trying to make
good decisions, the better off we are. And please keep
us up the date on what's going on in the
city and what's going on in the city specifically from
(41:13):
the fiscal perspective, because I think no one knows it
better than you at this point, and I don't know
that Mayor wo would want to have it a head
to head debate with you on this, but if she would,
we could do it on night side, any night of
the week that would be convenient for both of you.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
Okay, all right, can't Thanks for having me on. Have
a great night, Happy New with you.
Speaker 2 (41:32):
Happy New Year to you as well. Masters and State
Senator Nick Collins. When we get back, we're going to
talk with an author, but an author who has also
served as an Assistant Secretary of State for the United
States of America. His name is Robert Charles. He's written
a book called Cherish America, in which he talks about
historically significant true stories of American heroism from presidents, soldiers, astronauts, athletes,
(41:58):
in a wide variety array of everyday citizens who have
done extraordinary things. And I think in the context of
what happened in New Orleans, I think it is a
great time for us to sit back and maybe cherish
this country in which all of us are so lucky
to have been born or to have come to live in.
Cherish America. Coming up with author Robert Charles right after
(42:23):
the newsbreak here at ten
It's Night Side with Dan Ray w b Z Boston's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Welcome back, everyone like to welcome back to the program.
Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, who represents Boston for the
most part, Nick Collins, welcome back to night said, how
are you.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Good evening, Dan? Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
You're very welcome. You have district represents you represent? Is
entirely within the city of Boston, or do you do
you have any any other area besides portion?
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Yes? So I represent a number of the neighborhoods in Boston,
South Boston, Dorchester, the South End, Bay Village, Chinatown, a
little Back Bay, a little of Roxbury, and the Hot Islands.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Okay, So so I know that that some of the
districts can pick up a little bit of Revere or whatever.
But so you're totally.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Boston all in time, Boston.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
This thing all right, now, you have had a high profile.
I'm gonna call it a battle with Mayor Wou and
I if I if I mischaracterize it, please help me,
uh and and correct me. But a battle over the
way in which property taxes in Boston would be assessed.
(01:24):
She wanted to shift the burden towards some of the
commercial real estate in Boston. And when when you say commercial,
you're not You're talking not just about the big buildings downtown,
you also talk about a lot of the mom and
pop stores and the smaller businesses in Boston which are commercial.
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Correct, that's correct.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
And and in your concern, as I understand, that was
much more with these small businesses that are trying to
survive in the city of Boston in some very difficult
economic circumstances. What got you involved in this fight because
it became a pretty high profile battle. I think you
succeeded because the mayor did not get from the state
(02:09):
House what she wanted, which was permission to recalibrate who
pays what in real estate taxes. What prompted you to
get into this fight? It was pretty high profile fight.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Sure, well, you know, anytime we make policy, it's going
to be data driven. Can't be about conjecture, can't be
based on fear and misinformation. Which was a campaign to
achieve and you know it started last February. The Boston
Policy Institute in Tefns University brought up in a study
(02:43):
how falling commercial values would affect long term how Boston finance.
The city government, and that sparked a debate, and initially
the mayor and her team just attacked the study and
said it was false information, nothing to see here, and
then abruptly shifted to you know, I guess not wasting
(03:06):
a crisis or a perceived crisis, and instead of using
the data that they were compiling to come up with
new valuations for the city, property owners went on a
campaign to tell property owners, residential property owners that they
were going to see a thirty three percent increase in
(03:27):
their property taxes unless they supported this shift. That would
have increased taxes on businesses two hundred percent. And you
mentioned the types of businesses, So the businesses downtown and
the financial district that had seen leases go away on
the advent of the pandemic unless office space being rented,
(03:49):
they were going to see a dramatic decrease in valuations
over the course of the next few years. But what
you see in the main streets are businesses that just
house retail businesses and not office buildings above and so
their value is maintained, but they are going to get
whacked at two hundred percent. Now, these are businesses who
we you know, did a lot to support during the
(04:10):
aftermath of the pandemic as well to stay alive. And
they support a lot of people, a lot of jobs
in the community. Most of the folks who own those
businesses live in the community and they have everything in there.
And so if this is going to happen, it had
to be based on data and not conjectures. So when
(04:30):
this got ramped up, just a pretty loaded proposal to
tell people, hey, if you don't get out of the
way and support this tax team, you know we're going
to blame you for raising residential propstactions thirty three percent.
And we kept asking for this valuation data that eventually
they had to submit to the Department of Revenue of
(04:51):
the state under the pains and penalties of perjury, and
so we were going to get that information eventually. We
waited and asked the city for numerous times, including over
the course of the summer, in the fall and up
and until when I tabled the bill, when it made
its way to the Senate the first time, and the
mayor are called and asked, you know, what was my
(05:12):
end game? And I said, Mayor, we want to be
reading from the same sheet of music as you. So
when we make this decision, we know what it's about.
And the refusal was still there until after it went
to the public domain that the city Assessor and the
Mayor were essentially blaming the Department of Revenue for not
(05:32):
certifiing that that data fast enough on property valuations. The
a Problem of Revenue expedited that and were able to
get us to release data which showed us exactly what
we needed to know. What was the impact going to
be to residential property owners if this property if this
(05:52):
tax proposal did not pass, or if it passed. And
the mayor said all along that even if it passed,
they were going to property taxes on Bostonians at nine
point five percent, which was the average over the last
four years. And that's even if it passed. And so
when it came to light that without the legislation passing,
(06:12):
it would be roughly the same, we realized that this
was not necessary and that the risk to the Boston
economy was too great, that the impacts to businesses, and
you know, the Department of Revenue came out with a
study in two thousand and four after Maya Menino requested
this with municipal leaders statewide. In the aftermath of the
(06:35):
dot Com boom. You know, it was a local option.
It wasn't a mandate. It said if we if weren't
such a deficit that we made needed this, we'd like
to have the option. This was a mandate. They come
hell of high water that this tax was going to
go through, whether it was needed or not. And we
got to ask ourselves as well, well, what's this all about.
(06:56):
It's not just an abstract request for revenue, because you
don't really have a revenue problem. You have a fiscal
management problem. Right now in the city, we've seen a
twenty one percent increase in the budget over three years,
just this year alone, an eight percent increase, while the
state was at a two point seven percent increase, which is,
you know, in line with inflation. But you can't expect
(07:18):
tax payers to not be impacted when we're spending hundreds
of millions of dollars on bike lane infrastructure, on the
credit card, or one hundred million dollars on white stadium
privatization and the like. And so this is really what
this issue is about. It's about spending this out of control.
If you compare it to the previous administration, where the
last four years there was an increase in debt service
(07:40):
obligations of twenty million dollars actually a little bit less.
You're already of ninety million increase in the last three years.
This is wild.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Some people might not know when you refer to debt
service what you're doing, what they're talking What they're talking
about is the interest that any government on new debts,
he pays on the money that it has borrowed. And
you know, an increase in the last three years of
(08:10):
Mayor Walsh's administration, as you said, I'm looking at the
numbers right now, went up about twenty million dollars, and
the increase in the debt service in the wo administration
for the first three years sort of an equivalent period
of time has gone up nearly one hundred million dollars from.
Speaker 3 (08:33):
And these are ten to fifteen thirty year commitments. This
isn't a one year expense. These are essential mortgages that
were at the bonds authorization. So there that was saddling
generation of Bostonians with this. For what purpose We're still
trying to figure out, but we do know that this
came along with a one billion dollar windfall from the
(08:57):
federal government that have operated in the city. So it's
not as if we were in dire straits, we will
expect to revenue. And I think that's what the point is,
that we don't have a revenue problem. They made it
clear that we don't have a revenue problem at the
city and that the requests built based not on data,
(09:19):
but on on a campaign of fear and conjecture was
that if we didn't do this, resist we're going to
see a thirty preepers an increase and taxes in the
homes and risk losing their homes. Now, the other side
is that we knew was that if it went forward,
that we were going to risk having what the do
R said twenty years ago when Marimino looked at this,
this is not put public policy. You shouldn't do this again.
(09:42):
You should look at diversifying revenues. You should also look
at doing what we didn't do this year. And so
today people got bills that double what they should be
because instead of spreading out tax bills and the increases
over four quarters, they're jamming into the first two.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
And so they let me just make sure nick I
understand this, the tax bills many Bostonians would have received
their tax bills today. Is that correct? Property owners, yes,
both commercial and residential. Let me take a pause here.
We got to take a break, and when we get back,
I think you've set out the situation as you perceive it,
(10:21):
that the administration has been spending well beyond its means
and now is in a situation where maybe there's really
no good choice. You prevented the administration from doing what
they wanted to do, which was to hit the commercial
property owners. I'm going to invite people to call in.
(10:42):
I know that whenever we talk about numbers on night side,
particularly budgets and things like that, it's tough for people
to follow. However, when you have to write that check,
make that payment as a homeowner, or as a small
business or as a big business, that's really where the
rubber meets the road. And that's what we're talking about here.
(11:03):
So if you folks out there have a question and
you'd like to join the conversation six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty six one seven, nine, three one
ten thirty. We try to explain it as clearly and
as cleanly as we can as to what it is
at stake. But the numbers to me jump off the
page and suggest that Boston has been spending in a
(11:27):
very wild fashion, and that this is going to come
home to roost here in the city, and it's going
to affect the city. And the mayor has had three
years at the head of this city, and she's about
to enter her fourth year, which will be a re
election year, and you have to wonder what sort of
politics might have been involved in some of the decisions
(11:49):
that she made. We'll back on Night's side with Massachusetts
State Senator Nick Collins, who has worked very hard, particularly
in the last month, to stop something from happening that
he feels would have had a tremendously adverse impact on
the city. Whether you agree to disagree, feel free to
join the conversation. Coming back on Night's side right after
(12:09):
these brief messas.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Now back to Dan ray Line from the Window World
Night Side Studios on WBZ the News Radio.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
My guest is Nick Collins, Massachusetts State Center. Nick, just
looking at these numbers, and again, numbers are tough to
talk about on radio, but I want to focus on
this whole question of debt service, which is interest that
the City of Boston is obligated to pay it. The
last three years of Mayor Walsh's term, the debt service
(12:44):
increased from one hundred and seventy million dollars to one
hundred and eighty nine million dollars. That's, as you said,
a little less than twenty million dollars. In that same
period of time. During the first three terms of the
mayor's first tournament office, the debt service has gone up
ninety two million dollars. That's the same period of time
(13:08):
three years, four times a greater increase in terms of
just dollar for dollar. What as you look at that,
what does that tell you?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
It tells me that we're pulling out the credit card
when we had a billion dollars in the federal government
to spend on government subsidy, whether it was for the
schools or for municipal services, and for whatever reason, in
addition to that, we took out the credit cards. It's
not spending even more aggressively in ways that are going
(13:41):
to saddle us for you know, ten, fifteen, thirty years unnecessarily.
And if we look at what the state did when
we had last year a gap in what our proposed
budget was versus the rest that came in. The governor wisely,
even though it was painful to some, made three hundred
and seventy five million dollars balance the budget to keep
(14:01):
us within a two point seven percent growth That was responsible,
while we put money away in the Rainy Gay Fund
and provide a tax relief for residents across the Como.
It requires balance and fiscal responsibility. You can't spend money
on every great idea that we think we have all
at once, and in this case, the city had a
lot of money. So to do that and to take
(14:23):
out the credit card and spend wildly like that, it
is totally irresponsible. And that's what this is tied to.
It's not just an arbitrary reason to consider a tax
reposal like this or to raise the property taxes on
our sowans. But in the end, we learned after receiving
that the certified data from the DAW, the city was
withholding that it wasn't as dramatic or remotely dramatic as
(14:48):
they thought it was going to be, and quite frankly,
it was in line within the recent the last few years.
But even raising it modestly of one percentage point, which
is what the mayor decided to do and the City
Council approved, was based on spending interests, not it wasn't
an arbitrary reason. They weren't forced to. Under the state law,
(15:11):
you can raise up to two point five percent of
the proper two and a half of property taxes all
across the city of an increase, and they don't have
to do that. They decided to because they wanted to
spend more money, and that's not always the best thing
to do. And again last year in the state budget,
we had to cut back and that's something that you
know was difficult for some programs and some external spending.
(15:34):
But you know when Mayor Neino was face with this,
he cut the budget, he furloughed employees, he paused external spending,
he put on a hiring freeze, and he made the
changes that need to be made while also asking for
some support for relief. And that was never even on
the table. No, was residential relief. This his bill is
a residential relief bill. How is it a residential relief bill?
(15:56):
If regardless, if it passes, you're going to raise taxes
nine point five percent. It's just it was the farce.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
I also want to make it clear for people, and
again talking about this, when you talk about the billion dollars,
this was the money that the federal government passed in
the in the wake of the COVID crisis, in which
money was sent from Washington back to the states and
the cities including Boston and Boston. The figure of quoted
(16:26):
is a billion dollars. And during that period of time,
the spending just continued. You mentioned, I believe that the
city has spent is that one hundred and twenty million
dollars on bike lanes? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (16:43):
The figure the camel oft Fuish though, was one hundred
and twenty one million dollars on bike lane infrastructure.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Now, I got to tell you, I know we have
a lot of bike lanes, and I know that they
have put in a lot of those stanchions, you know,
to protect the bike lanes, and I know that they
they have painted the bike lanes. But one hundred and
twenty million dollars seems to be excessive for for what
has been accomplished. Has anyone looked at that project and
(17:12):
those numbers closely? Do you feel that those numbers are
are accurate or are they?
Speaker 3 (17:19):
You know, No, it's a great it's a great point.
I mean, and you know we're talking about one you know,
depending on the time of the year, one percent to
possibly at most two percent of the populace that are
riding regularly, you know, to and from work or from
you know, the place of business or school. And so,
(17:41):
you know, it's a lot of money and a lot
of congestion, a lot of headache, and we're seeing a
lot of safety issues that are coming out of that.
For a small impact, but you know, I think it's
just a symbol of the type of spending that's going on.
And you know it for the City of Boston to
be in a position and where they think they have
to make a Laconian measure on taxes right now speaks
(18:04):
to one thing and one thing only. Let's out of
control spending.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Now. There was an article in The Herald a few
days ago about the chief financial officer in the city
who was brought into Boston from San Francisco. And in
San Francisco they have run into all sorts of problems.
I mean that they have a myriad of problems. Worse
(18:30):
than Boston. We have Mass and Cass They have the
Tenderloin district. And as bad as masson Cass is it
dwarfs in comparison to the Tenderloin district. However, San Francisco
under the chief financial officer that Mayor Woo brought into
Boston ran into some pretty serious financial problems. It wasn't,
(18:54):
from what I can understand, the greatest performance. And Ashley
Grothenberger is now the mayor's chief financial officer and according
to Joe Battenfeld, she pers presided over San Francisco's out
of control budget, which now faces fifteen percent across the
board cuts to deal with an estimated one billion dollar deficit.
(19:23):
Are we headed in that direction?
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Well, I hope not, and it's going to require you know,
accountability across the board. But what I say, it's also
a cautionary tale. If we don't get things under control,
that's what can happen, and that affects government services. And
that's not what is the case right now, but if
it continues down this path, it could be. We don't
(19:46):
want that to happen. So that's why the appropriate measures
should be taken place. And we do have a robust
rainy day fund, you know that was developed over the
course of time to the previous administrations that really you know,
built that up in the triple A bond rating that
the current administration inherited. But I think it does speak
to also a costs every tail, but what not to do.
(20:09):
The city continues to want to run the MBTA, that's
not a good idea because it costs a fortune to
do that, and that's what San Francisco decided to do,
take on their transit system, and that that takes a
ton of resources out of there, out of their budget.
So that's not a good idea. But we also look
at other places like Chicago and what they've had to do.
(20:31):
This mayor recently was a progressive mayor as well, said listen,
we're going to make cuts and some modifications, and we're
going to, you know, trim some of our budget proposal
and find some savings to suit a sixty million dollars
so we don't have to raise property taxes on bus
(20:53):
storm years. And that's what they just did.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Are you talking about what the mayor in Chicago did?
I just want to make sure I'm clear of this.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
Yes, the mayor of Chicago. So while San Francisco just
said we're going across the board fifteen percent, the mayor
of Chicago decided to proactively not after he passes budget,
but prior to pass the budget. That was delayed. Okay,
we're going to make you know, sixty to seventy million
dollars in cuts and find find find savings so we
don't have to raise property taxes on residents. So they
(21:27):
made that prudent move, so it's all doable.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
Okay. My guest is a state Senator. Nick Collins represents
big swath of Boston has been in a battle with
Mayor Wu again, a battle of the budget, if you will,
fiscal battle. I know that it is not something that
is easy to talk about on the radio, but I
hope enough of you understand it. If you have a
(21:52):
question for Senator Collins, you're more than welcome if you
want to raise the concern that you have. We're now
in the year twenty twenty five, which I will remind
you is an election year for the mayor and for
the city councils. Here in Boston. The mayor stands every
four years for reelection or for election city council every
(22:13):
two years, so there will be a mayor's fight here
in Massachusetts. In Boston, I should say this year, you
have to wonder with the state of the financers that
Nick Collins is is talking about. Uh, if maybe he
(22:33):
or someone else is going to stand up and challenge
and this might become the critical issue in this campaign.
We're going to talk about that. We'll take your phone
call six one seven, two four thirty six one seven,
nine three one ten thirty. You don't have to be
a Bostonian to call in, but if you're a Bostonian,
this is something that you should be concerned about. Coming
back on night Side right after the break for the
(22:54):
nine thirty news a couple of minutes late. Apologize for that.
Be back right after the news.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
It's Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
That is a horrible story. Leave a dog with a bowl.
There are people who just should not own animals as
far as as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, we're talking
with State Senator Nick Collins about a financial problem that
he has identified. It was interesting, Senator, that you were
(23:27):
able to, I believe, convince majority of your colleagues in
the Massachusetts State Senate, mostly Democrats, not to support the
Mayor of Boston. When I first heard about this, I
thought to myself, well, you know, the Mayor of Boston
will get her way at the legislature. How were you
able to convince your colleagues most of them were also Democrats,
(23:50):
and by the way, some of them very progressive Democrats
that on this argument you had the better the better argument, Well.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
I think the important thing is, you know, we don't
make policy and policy on matters of consequence without data
to back it up. And I think there was a
feeling the whole time, and you know, there was a
lot going on in the legislature throughout the year. But
when this got its own focus that this was not
backed up by data, and when we sought the data,
(24:22):
and I particularly sought the data and the city was
unwilling to hand it over, it kind of gave us sense, hmm,
what's going on here. And then once it was released
and became clean that what the mayor and the city
officials were suggesting that this was going to be a
thirty three percent increase because of this need that in
(24:44):
when when the valuations came out, that wasn't the case.
And so, you know, the so the truth will set
you free, and the data bore out in that way,
and that's really what guided the decision, is that if
the data bore out and said, oh jeezuz, so we
got a problem here, you know, beyond belief, we have
to we have to take traumatic action that maybe way
(25:05):
we would have gone, but it wasn't the case, and
we needed to deal with the facts in our conjecture
and not hyperbole and not uh, you know, scare tactics.
And I think they, you know a lot of a
lot of them felt you know that, uh, you know,
like you had mentioned, you know, you know, they want
to support, you know, municipal leaders in their approach to
(25:29):
managing government. But when you're asking for state law to
be changed and to make dramatic change in this time
and it's not backed up by data, then it's hard
to support. And and that I think was the key part.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Before we go to phone calls, let me ask the
question right direct question. Obviously, you have had strong disagreements
with the mayor here, you've prevailed. Do you think that
you might decide to to challenge her this year?
Speaker 3 (26:00):
As I say, damn, you know, well, the city is
touting that we're the safest major city in America due
to the great work of the Boston Police and driving
down gun violence. We've seen over the last four years
ten thousand people overdose on Boston streets and over a
(26:20):
thousand people have died and that's nothing to brag about.
And it's shameful that the best that the city can
do is put out free safe injection side equipment in
vending machines across the city. So to me, that says
they've mailed it in. There's been no progress on Long Island,
and yet the Mayorage considered spending likely more than one
hundred million dollars on the taxpayer's credit card, handing over
(26:42):
a public asset at White Stadium for private use. So
I think the city needs to change course. I'm thrilled
to be back in the Senate and re elected, got
sworn in yesterday for another term, and that's where my
focus is right now. But I believe that the city
needs to change courseible pass, whether that's what the current
(27:02):
skipper or a new one remains to be seen.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Fair enough, let's go to phone call. It's gonna go
to fill in Boston. Fill you first tonight with Massachusetts
State Senator Nick Collins. Go right ahead, what's your question
of comment.
Speaker 4 (27:13):
I'm gonna vote be brother from here, but I gotta
I'm curious about twenty minutes ago, the senator mentioned the
belt the tax bills, we're gonna double they're gonna like
be paying what we're paying four year, four installments and
three installments? Is that what we're doing?
Speaker 3 (27:33):
No, No, so four and two And that's that's totally unnecessary.
It's a you know, it's for the accounting convenience of
City of Boston. You know, officials in the assessing department.
They could very easily spread that over four quarters. Right now,
if you look at the tax bill, it looks twice
as much as it should be.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
You kidding me? But how can they do yah? See
it could it could be free months, they could do that,
split it out like a a payment in a cab.
But they're not going to do that.
Speaker 3 (28:02):
They should be Yeah, they should be able to do that.
I mean, it's they tax you on a on an
annual calendar year, and they finance the city government on
a fiscal year. So they go June first of June
thirtieth and instead of taxing you, you know, each quarter
the way that you should. Of course, it's not it's
not fair. It's not convenient for residents, even though it's
(28:24):
convenient for some city officials, and they shouldn't be doing that.
But that's what is this something that they're going to have.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Is this something that has been done unilaterally or is
this something that the mayor of the city council I
agree on? How do you change that? I mean, where
I live, you pay every quarter and it's always should be.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
It's for their accounting purposes, which you know, to be
honest with it could be done differently, there should be.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Well, phil another reason question on.
Speaker 4 (28:56):
This White White stadiums as a gift to the city
from a guy. Why wasn't even guy like that entrepreneur
or something that was given to the city for the
kids to use a football and stuff like that.
Speaker 3 (29:06):
But a fall of the.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
Pot it is.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
It's a George uh George White trust fund and there's
thirty million dollars in the fund that could you know,
portion of that could go to rehab the stadium for
the use of the of the kids and should be
done without taxpayer burden instead, you know, looking at spending
one hundred million dollars for private exercise. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (29:29):
You don't know how he's freshing it is. The here
a guy gentlemen like you on the phone as unbelievable.
Thank you very much and.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
I appreciate your call. Thank you much. Gonna take very
quick break. Other calls coming up if you'd like to
try to get in six one, seven, two, five, four,
ten thirty or six one, seven, nine three thirty. My guest,
Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins. We've talked about some fairly
heady issues numbers, and I hope you followed the conversation
because I think what he has said tonight has made
(29:56):
a great deal of sense, both from the common sense
point of view, but also from a fiscal point of
view in terms of where the city of Boston is headed,
and it impacts everyone, whether you live in the city
proper or you live anywhere in New England. Back on
Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
My guest, Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, represents a good
portion of Boston. He's talking about what he can choosed
to be profligate spending patterns I guess by the incumbent
administration and throwing caution to the wind JJ and Winchester JJ.
Next on Nightside, go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (30:42):
Sir, Okay, thank you?
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Happy?
Speaker 5 (30:44):
Yeah, So I got yeah, thank you. I have two
questions real quick because I don't live in Boston, but
I do work there. Why isn't this wasteful spending, uh,
raising catch revenue to bail out the wasteful spending. Why
isn't this the illegal to do that?
Speaker 3 (31:06):
Well, I mean, I'd say that anything that's relative to taxes,
nothing is automatic. So we hit nothing on tax has
been automatic since the King ruled in seventeen seventy five.
So a vote of the legislature or a vote of
the council takes place, and that's what took place here.
So there was a vote by the city council earlier
(31:28):
in December to set tax rates, and they vote on
a budget. So a budget approves and the tax rates set.
And you know, at the state level, we approve a
budget and if there's ever a time where we're debating taxes,
it's usually you know, sales tax, income tax. And then
(31:49):
this last term we were able to provide tax relief
across the board, from the estate tax to residential property
tax and other tax credits for consumers and employees. So
and this is as well along with capital gains tax cuts.
So you know, it's always a vote. There's nothing illegal.
(32:11):
It's a vote, and it becomes law. But you know
that's why it's also.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
It's also JJ, it's it's spending policy. You know, if
you have one mayor or one president or whatever says
I'm going to spend this, this and this. Mayor WU
obviously has made bike lanes a big priority of spending
one hundred and twenty one million dollars in bike lanes
has a lot of money. I think that money would
(32:37):
be better used in the in the schools, or or
in police were down with police protection in Boston, there's
a number of areas that are problematical. That's what a
mayor's race is all about, and people make decisions as
to who they want to put back in office. We
just saw a presidential election, and I think you know
the economics of the last few years, inflation and tax
(33:00):
is played a factor and all of that. But that's
a factor and people need to pay attention to it, JJ,
as I know you do.
Speaker 5 (33:07):
And the second question is I'd like to maybe get
your information after the show or maybe dannual give it out,
because I want to send you something and get your
thoughts on an in state gold depository or some type
of taxpayer reserve funds with gold and silver to try
of offset inflation, because this is the foundation of what's
(33:29):
going on. It's inflation infects states, and when you see.
Speaker 2 (33:34):
I don't know that states, I don't know that states
have the authority to do that. And I know that
that is a policy proposal that a lot of libertarians
like to make. But we're off the gold standard, and
I don't know that state's, particularly a state like Massachusetts,
going to go back to their own local gold standard.
But you can reach State Senator Collins at the State
(33:55):
House pretty easily, and I'm sure that if you wanted
to send him something and be happy.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
To look at it.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Okay, verry much, Thank you much. Le We go to
Steven Cambri. Steve, You're next on Night Side with Nick Collins. Happy,
happy new you you Steve.
Speaker 6 (34:10):
Uh has anyone audited or thought about auditing this one
hundred and twenty one million dollars on the bike lanes?
It sounds like there could even be Uh, I don't know,
graft corruption there in terms of who was paid, what salaries,
et cetera.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
Well, I know, I do know that what's what's strange
about the spending is that on transportation, the state provides
and the city is still sitting on seventy five million
dollars in state funding. Well, they's taking out the credit
card to spend on capital, infrastructure and transportation. So if
it doesn't make any sense, we do got to have
to get to the bottom of that. I know that
(34:52):
the City Council is going to be having some hearings, uh,
you know this beginning of this year, and what we
can look at at is what has taken place with
state funds. And you know, that's something I believe that
the auditor can look at with respect to anything that's
stay funded or federally funded. Municipalities, you know, have sort
(35:17):
of autonomy, but they also are subject to audits on
state funding and federal funding as well as everybody is
subject to the powers of the Inspector General.
Speaker 6 (35:30):
And do you know if anyone has questioned Mayor wu
on her choice of a chief financial officer who appears
to be coming from a city which is in even
more dire straits, for example, in Chicago or Boston.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Well, I don't know what conversations have been had on
the council, but I know that everyone's asking questions now
based off of how this tax debate went. And you know,
here's another figure to think about. It costs thirty thousand
dollars to go to the Boston public schools. It costs
fifteen thousand dollars to go to your mass Boston.
Speaker 6 (36:12):
You mean in terms how do you mean in terms
of you're not talking to issue.
Speaker 3 (36:17):
Yeah, the cost for a student in Boston public schools,
the cost for student full freight, the fifteen thousand dollars
that you messed Boston.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
A time by the at a time where the either
the claimed student population or the actual student population in
the Boston public schools is now well below fifty thousand.
I mean, it was a couple of decades ago you
had a school system with one hundred thousand kids in
the Boston public school system. We have lost lots and
(36:51):
lots of students through a number for a number of reasons, obviously,
and yet the cost of educating students on a per
capital basis has continued to go up in Boston. As
matter of fact, I believe, Senator that the cost per
pupil of students in the public school system in Boston
(37:15):
may even be equal to a bigger than on a
per capita basis. With new York City pays, which traditionally
had been the most expensive publications.
Speaker 3 (37:24):
We are the most expensive in the country.
Speaker 6 (37:27):
Last question, what about migrant issues in terms of Boston spending,
how has that affected the budget?
Speaker 3 (37:38):
Well, it's a good question. I think by law, all
students under eighteen get access to the schools. I think
that the way to face this challenge is the way
that we've historically faced it the best. And as to sponsorship,
the sponsorship program that's official established at the federal level
(37:59):
of through employe from through employers and through you know,
uh sponsors, individuals and families, and that's always been the
best take the burden off the government upfront on transition
and assimilation. And you know, I think something that we
should be considering going forward is providing support for those sponsors,
(38:20):
not turning everything into a big government exercise, because that
gets very expensive how to manage, and as you can see,
it's not always delivering the best outcomes. So I think
that's the way we should be looking at this going forward.
Speaker 6 (38:33):
Keep work. Please.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
By the way, Steve, let me just jump in for
one second. The financial burden of the influx of new
arrivals has cost the commonwealth about a billion dollars a
year most of the I don't know that the City
of Boston has. It has cost them a lot of
money directly. The one area that I think I was
(38:58):
concerned about was the community center in Roxbury that was
taken away from the Roxbury community for almost a year
to house so called new arrivals. But I don't know Nick,
that there is a line, a budget line in Boston's
budget that deals with capital outlays or financial outlays for
(39:20):
newly arrived immigrants.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
No, there is a sort of a federal in a
state formula on fundings in the schools.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
Yeah, but most of that money comes from the federal
to the state and then to the communities as I
understand it.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
No, that's correct, But I do think on the expense
that can be shrunk down, and I think it should
be shrunk down by going through a facto or official
sponsorship program rather than He's always been successful here in
the country, and we're a good portion of the large
portion of the new arrivals as you categorize, are of
(40:00):
the from theation community that has a significant community yere
and prior to the decoration of a state of emergency,
which I do think was necessary. In many ways was
happening that way, and that's the best in the communities,
and the supports inside the communities that have beginner with
us have asked for that to be well, locally, individually driven,
(40:21):
not for the big government exercise which which can get
our hand, which which we know it can be, and
it has.
Speaker 6 (40:28):
Thank you very much, General Steve.
Speaker 2 (40:30):
Steve, appreciate the call. Happy New Year to you, and likewise,
thank you very much, Nick. Thanks for taking this fight
on and thanks for taking the time tonight to to
explain it to people. Because when I first read about this,
I thought to myself, how is a single state senator
going to convince the legislature not to give the okay
(40:52):
to the mayor? And you did, frankly, what I thought
was impossible. So keep up the fight. The more people
we have looking at the budget and trying to make
good decisions, the better off we are. And please keep
us up the date on what's going on in the
city and what's going on in the city specifically from
(41:13):
the fiscal perspective, because I think no one knows it
better than you at this point, and I don't know
that Mayor wo would want to have it a head
to head debate with you on this, but if she would,
we could do it on night side, any night of
the week that would be convenient for both of you.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
Okay, all right, can't Thanks for having me on. Have
a great night, Happy New with you.
Speaker 2 (41:32):
Happy New Year to you as well. Masters and State
Senator Nick Collins. When we get back, we're going to
talk with an author, but an author who has also
served as an Assistant Secretary of State for the United
States of America. His name is Robert Charles. He's written
a book called Cherish America, in which he talks about
historically significant true stories of American heroism from presidents, soldiers, astronauts, athletes,
(41:58):
in a wide variety array of everyday citizens who have
done extraordinary things. And I think in the context of
what happened in New Orleans, I think it is a
great time for us to sit back and maybe cherish
this country in which all of us are so lucky
to have been born or to have come to live in.
Cherish America. Coming up with author Robert Charles right after
(42:23):
the newsbreak here at ten
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.
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!