All Politics is Local/ Sept. 28-Oct. 4

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Using Google to Plan Harvard Street’s Future

Lately I’ve been visiting nearby retail areas via Google Streets — the app that enables you to take a visual tour of streetscapes past as well as present. It’s a useful tool, given Brookline’s focus on the future of Harvard Street.

In November, Town Meeting faces a vote on a form-based zoning plan, which is intended to encourage existing one-story commercial lots and blocks on Harvard Street to give way to multi-story buildings adding housing on second stories and above.

With that vote in mind, my Google Streets explorations have led to some conclusions regarding the mix of housing above/ stores below as a factor in the user-friendliness, neighborhood impacts and economic vitality of retail blocks.

Consider these examples:

1. Newbury Street

Newbury Street in the Back Bay is indisputably a lively area sought out by locals and tourists alike for the joys of shopping, dining and strolling. As such, it is also a successful example of the combination of housing above/ retail below. Here’s a typical block:

A class project by architecture students at MIT captured the next image, noting that the buildings on this block were originally residential on all levels; later, renovations converted the lower levels to commercial space. Clearly, the combination of retail below, topped by 3-4 floors (or more) of housing “works” for Newbury Street.

But what about the differences between Newbury Street and Harvard Street? There are several. Significantly, those Newbury blocks have alleyways like this one (behind the building to the left in the first photo).

Alleyways meet needs such as parking, trash storage and disposal, and delivery access.

Equally significant, they create space between the Newbury block and it’s rear neighbors. By contrast, one of the concerns of Harvard Street rezoning is rear setbacks: how much distance from adjacent properties is sufficient to allow for privacy, light and views?

Another difference: Newbury Street is one way, with less road space given to cars. It also lacks a bike lane. The tradeoff is generous allowance for curbside parking on both sides of the street. Equally ample are the sidewalk and patio spaces, leaving room for tree plantings. This, combined with the stoop setbacks of many buildings, creates an open air feeling as you stroll.

2. Washington Street, Brighton Center

The feeling is quite different when the advantages of Newbury Street are absent. This block of Washington Street in Brighton Center makes the point:

The combined effect of narrow sidewalks, no trees, and multi-story residential-over-retail buildings dwarfs and crowds pedestrians, while cutting off visibility of storefronts to passing cars. Two-way car lanes are wider. The combined car and bike lanes make pavement the dominant theme, and threaten to strand pedestrians who dare to cross at midblock.

3. Washington Street, Newton

Demolition and rebuilding can add housing to a commercial street, but multi-story residential-over-retail complexes aren’t guaranteed to enliven the streetscape.

Washington Street in Newton presents many challenges. The lengthy stretch between Newton Corner and West Newton is hemmed in by the Turnpike, while the active side of the street is divided between commercial and non-commercial uses, with one significant pocket dominated by a suburban-style shopping experience (generous parking in front, stores at back).

The Walnut Street corner offered, to the north, a beloved restaurant, Karoun, that thrived for 40 years but closed in 2017. The entire block was then developed into 140 apartments, including 21 affordable and 14 middle-income. The result, including street level retail space, was an architectural refresh — nonetheless, the resulting streetscape can best be described as monotonous, given the repetitious (x3, hence “Trio”) building components. Judge for yourself:

4. Improving on Single Story Retail

Not far from the Trio development in Newton is a retail block that demonstrates how even modest single-story strips can contribute to improved streetscapes. This is on Walnut Street:

Widened, repaved sidewalks, planters and window boxes, historically appropriate lamp posts, a bench, awnings, sculpted trim surrounding unique, non-generic signage — all the small details combining to good effect in an otherwise basic building that is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.

Come November, Town Meeting Members have the future of Harvard Street in their hands.

All Politics is Local/ Sept. 20-27

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

The Pierce Demolition Predicament

Town and School officials face a consequential decision about the next steps in the Pierce School project. Put simply, the decision requires weighing these unknowns and risks:

• Would early demolition of the existing Pierce School (1970s building) yield information about what lies beneath the building that would materially improve the final design of the new school — possibly avoiding costly “change orders” during construction?

• Alternatively, does recent construction cost inflation (as well as lessons learned from the Brookline High project) signal that demolition of Pierce in the absence of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) carries significant financial risk?

To state the obvious: if officials decide in favor of demolition first/ Guaranteed Maximum Price later, there is no turning back.

If the GMP significantly exceeds the already-approved borrowing of $212 million for the project (partly state reimburseable), two scenarios are possible:

1. Absorb the Guaranteed Maximum Price through cutbacks in the project — in effect delivering less than was promised when voters approved borrowing.

2. Go back to the ballot and Town Meeting for an increase in the budget for the project and the excluded debt (repaid via a further bump in property taxes).

If early demolition is approved, the goal would be “substantial completion” of the new Pierce School by Oct. 29 of 2027.

If holding out for a Guaranteed Maximum Price is approved, then the project will be delayed accordingly, according to the School Committee’s consultant on the project.

School Committee Questions

Helen Charlupski is the School Committee’s most senior member. She plays a major part in meetings of the Pierce Building Committee. She also monitors the Town’s Building Commission, which will meet Oct. 10 to discuss the Pierce options further (for a third time) and, likely, make a decision.

Here is some back and forth from last week’s School Committee meeting, prompted by Helen Charlupski’s report on the Pierce options:

David Pearlman (chair): Would the bidding process (for construction) be completed prior to full demolition?

Charlupski: No.

Pearlman: I’m just a bit concerned about demolishing a building before we have bids.

Charlupski: That’s exactly what the Building Commission talked about and there will be a letter — the project manager is putting it together with the contractor — of why this is necessary. It will save us money in the long run to have demolition done first.

Steven Ehrenberg — I understand what you’re saying but it’s also a potential risk, isn’t it?

Charlupski — Well, it is and it isn’t. It’s not a building we want to keep the kids in, and we do have the old Lincoln School… We know we have money to build a new school and we will keep within that budget.

Pearlman — How can you really know that, though, if we don’t have the bidding completed prior to demolition? How do we know it’s within budget?

Charlupski — The benefit risk is in our favor to take the building down, see what’s there, and during that process have the architect do the design that takes into account whatever needs to happen.

Building Commission seeks more info

The Building Commission has twice postponed voting on the Pierce “demolish first/ price later” approach, opting instead, to seek a full explanation, in writing, from the project consultant (Left Field) as to their recommendation. That information is now promised for the Oct. 10 meeting.

At the Sept. 12 meeting, Commission Chair George Cole offered this comment:

“As I explained last meeting, we proceeded with early release packages for the high school, and we were in a situation where we had released a lot of work without knowing the final cost. The final cost came in above budget, and we were kind of stuck.”

All Politics is Local/ Special Edition

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

18 Approved Projects,

1325 Units of Housing

Brookline government is working full tilt to come up with rezoning plans aimed at increasing housing production to meet a state mandate. What seems to go ignored is that, waiting in the wings is a wave of some 1325 units of housing construction already planned and approved.

Well before the legislature imposed the mandate of the MBTA Communities Act, the 18 projects shown in the table below were conceived, reviewed, and given the go-ahead by our planning and zoning officials — with the expectation that they will come online before 2027 at the latest.

(The italicized date under each represents certificate of occupancy. I cite the data for 3-bedroom units because those are key to attracting families. HV= Hancock Village. ROSB= Residences of South Brookline.)

The next wave of added housing units

The total of units in the pipeline is 1325. That’s a lot of new construction. The number of 3-bedroom units is 154 — potentially impacting school enrollments.

• In a few cases — such as the Brookline Housing Authority development on Marion Street — some new units replace demolished units. Most of the unit numbers under the photos represent a net gain in housing.

• Ten of the planned developments are so-called Chapter 40B projects, within which at least 20% of the units are set aside for income-qualified tenants (or owners).

• Ten of the developments are in the Harvard Street/Coolidge Corner area. Three are tied to Hancock Village. Two are on Boylston Street west of Reservoir Road.

‘Safe Harbor’ Comes and Goes

My inspiration for tallying all the approved-but-not-yet-built projects is a spreadsheet that Planning Director Kara Brewton recently shared during a meeting with the Housing Advisory Board.

• The purpose of the spreadsheet is to track recently approved housing including subsidized units, in order to anticipate any periods when subsidized units fall below 10% of the Town’s total housing.

• Should the so-called Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) number fall below 10%, Brookline loses its “safe harbor” status.

• Brookline’s loss of safe harbor status permits developers, under Chapt. 40B, to exceed local density limits by seeking “comprehensive permits” from the state — effectively short-circuiting Brookline’s zoning authority.

Here are the numbers from Kara Brewton’s spreadsheet that point to the upcoming three-month period (Sept. - Nov.) when Brookline will lose safe harbor status by falling below the 10% SHI threshhold.

(The above percentages assume the 2020 Census count of 27,742 housing units. Kara Brewton’s explanation of the factors that cause the count of Brookline’s SHI units to fluctuate over time is on this video, beginning at 1:44:22.)

Sneak Preview in Chestnut Hill

With the Town’s approaching loss of safe harbor status, a new Chapt. 40B proposal debuted just two weeks ago for a 96-unit development off Hammond Street in Chestnut Hill — in the block bordered by Sheafe Street and Heath Street.

Ahead: How Many 40B Applications?

Kara Brewton’s overview of Brookline’s temporary change of Chapt. 40B eligibility status ended with this estimate of what’s ahead:

“So we're likely going to get three or four, maybe even six new 40B applications this fall… That's the way these things roll when we pop back under that ten percent.”

Worth Noting

The timing of the temporary '“safe harbor” lapse coincides with the approach of controversial Town Meeting votes aimed at rezoning Harvard Street and/or loosening the Town’s zoning in multi-family districts in North Brookline.

Debate among Town Meeting Members as to Brookline’s path to compliance with state housing production mandates is already fraught — and perhaps will intensify in the days ahead.

All Politics is Local: June 30 - July 7

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Is Brookline Done With Looking Up?

I’m taking a risk by asking a question that lately hasn’t been on the table for discussion in Brookline: Are we done with tall buildings?

And, yes, I’m aware that the hotel and residences planned for the Waldo Durgin site will be tall — as will 83 Longwood and the building planned for the Neena’s (lighting store) site adjacent to Trader Joe’s.

The above building plans were hatched prior to Covid 19. Ground-breakings haven’t yet been scheduled — meanwhile, Greater Boston is in a period of malaise for large construction projects.

Recently, nothing of the scale of the above high-rises has been added to the pipeline for review by Brookline planners. What’s also notable is that projects such as the above — tall by Brookline standards — are modest compared to the height limits set for projects in nearby Somerville and Cambridge.

Consider the example of a building attracting much attention — and some controversy — in Somerville. This is what “transit-oriented development” looks like in that nearby city.

The development is known as USQ (Union Square). The tower building offers 450 housing units, of which 90 are “permanently affordable across three income tiers.” The developer, US2, will contribute $1.5 million to the city’s affordable housing trust.

Opinion is divided as to whether Somerville got a good deal by combining massive height and scale with required affordable housing minimums. Defenders of the tower argue that 90 affordable units is a big number, and that the total of 450 units added to supply will also benefit affordability in the long run. Critics focus on the luxury pricing of many of the market rate units (rents of $5,000+) and the hundreds of parking spaces included in the combined lab/office/retail/housing complex bringing more cars to the area.

US2 isn’t done with major development in Somerville. Here is a model (massing only) of their proposed lab/retail complex in the city’s Brickbottom neighborhood.

The only comparable proposal experienced in Brookline is Bulfinch Companies’ vision of lab development at 10 Brookline Place (site currently occupied by Dana-Farber offices). Early models aroused opposition from some Brookline Village neighbors. Late in 2022, the work of the 10 Brookline Place Study Committee was suspended “In the absence of an imminent project and given the uncertainty of any redevelopment project timeline due to the long-term lease of 10 Brookline Place’s current tenant.”

Cambridge’s Ambitious Affordable Housing Overlay

Cambridge’s City Council is divided into two factions — both offering ambitious expansions of the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay, but with differences as to maximum heights.

One faction proposes allowing 100-percent-affordable buildings to rise to 25 stories in some of the city’s squares (Harvard, Central, etc.), while allowed heights would increase to nine stories where the limit currently is six, and up to 13 stories where the limit currently is seven.

The other faction on the Council countered with a proposal to allow 100-percent-affordable buildings to rise to 12 stories along the city’s main corridors (such as parts of Mass. Ave.) and to 15 stories in the squares.

The result of the maneuvering on the Council suggests that a final vote on the matter will be delayed until the fall — perhaps postponing the issue until after the city’s next municipal election.

(Cambridge Day is an excellent source for coverage of this story. Each report has a convenient “next” and “previous” tab so that you can follow all of the coverage over several weeks, if you wish.)

Meanwhile, in Brookline …

In 2022, Town Meeting approved a measure creating an Affordable Housing Overlay study. The town’s Housing Advisory Board responded by designating an Affordable Housing Overlay Subcommittee. They are hard at work — including learning from the AHO processes in Cambridge and Somerville. You will find minutes of their meetings here and a recent Power Point overview of zoning’s impact on housing patterns here.

Will the end result of their work have an impact on allowable building heights under Brookline’s zoning code? It’s too soon to tell. (But it’s never too soon to stay informed.)

All Politics is Local: June 23 - June 30

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Our Underappreciated Building Commission

With no business to conduct, but just to stay informed, I observed the most recent meeting of the town’s Building Commission. I don’t know anyone else who can make that claim.

Other than the commissioners themselves and the various parties behind items on the agenda, that’s how it usually is. The Building Commission toils in obscurity, despite being arguably one of the most important and productive public bodies in the Town.

No one gets appointed to the Building Commission on a whim. The members — all top professionals in their fields — include an architect, a real estate developer, a business attorney, a builder, and an engineer.

The commission meets monthly (plus added special meetings) in order to oversee all of the Building Department’s major construction projects. In 2022 alone, that meant keeping tabs on:

• exterior improvements to Fire Station 4, the Larz Anderson comfort station, the public safety building, the main library, and Soule recreation center;

• finishing touches to the new 22 Tappan building, Tappan gym and STEM wing of the high school, as well as Cypress playground;

• year two of construction of the new Driscoll School;

• schematic design of the proposed new Pierce School;

• the launch of planned renovations (and one demolition/new building) at the town’s fire stations.

This is an unprecedented scale of construction for the Commission to monitor and approve — amounting to more than $500 million worth of projects.

Adding to the Commission’s burdens, they have lost — or will lose — several mainstays of the Building Department who have been trusted partners over dozens of projects. Ray Masak left a year ago as the high school construction was winding down. Matt Gillis, who has been keeping an eye on the Driscoll project, bid farewell at last week’s Commission meeting. (He’s been hired as Director of Finance for the Natick Public Schools.) Building Dept. Project Manager Tony Guigli called Gillis “a big loss to the town” — and then reminded the Commission that he himself is dialing back to half time. Which led to this back and forth:

Guigli (referring to the need to incorporate geothermal heat and cooling to the fire stations): “The problem is, things are not getting less complicated —they’re getting more complicated.”

Commissioner George Cole: “And we just added a very complicated $215 million project to our docket.”

Commissioner Janet Fierman: “And the more poorly staffed we are the more complicated it gets. And the more expensive it gets. That’s the reality.”

Driscoll Deadline: A Moving Target

Speaking of “the more complicated it gets,” there’s the new Driscoll School rising on Washington Street. Hopes have been abandoned for doors to open at the start of the new school year in September. The revised deadline is early October — and even that seems shaky. Witness these comments from the Building Commission meeting:

Commissioner George Cole: “I walked the job last week and I was deeply disturbed by what I saw. I walk a lot of construction projects… Why isn’t roof flashing done? On every facade there are little bits and pieces of every window incomplete. It just shows a total lack of coordination and sequencing. That exterior should be done. You should be starting to clean up that site. And it’s a mess. And on the inside little bits and pieces of every room are incomplete. I was really dismayed. There is a ton of work to be done over the next three months.”

Commissioner Nathan Peck: “I’d echo that. Every elevation had hundreds of parts and pieces missing.”

The meeting got off to an uncomfortable start when Nathan Burnham of Gilbane (the Driscoll building contractor) informed the Commission that both Gilbane’s General Superintendent on the Driscoll job and the Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Superintendent had departed to take jobs elsewhere.

Commissioner Janet Fierman: “We’re on our third superintendent. The staff turnover is not good for the job. It’s not good for the town. And it’s not good for getting it done… I don’t want to be told that we should be paying more money for an extended schedule because our construction manager has staffing problems.”

Commissioner George Cole: “Is this typical of a Gilbane job?”

Burnham (Gilbane): “I’d consider it unprecedented. I’ve never been involved in a project that had this happen.”

Commissioner Fierman: “Is it happening on other jobs?”

Burnham: “That’s a great and important question… It certainly is a challenging project… My general reaction is the last three years in the construction business have been quite stressful. People are burnt out. They’re looking for other opportunities that perhaps present better life-work balance.”

The Problem With Ceilings

As the meeting unfolded, it emerged that delayed completion of ceilings after “ceiling-related changes” contributed to slowdown of the Driscoll project, cascading to all the other work that hinges on inspection of completed ceilings.

Adam Keane (from Leftfield/ Owner’s Project Manager): “The reflective ceiling plans in this building are random… We have ceilings that are on different planes… They’re ACT clouds that change planes — almost undulate down the hall. They’re very complicated, very precise. It took a while to coordinate them.”

Commissioner Fierman: “What I hear loud and clear is that it is the belief of the contractor, the architect, and the project manager that the job must have another ten days… That’s reality. What I’m not willing to do is for the town to incur any additional cost. Because it’s not the owner’s (the town’s) cost.”

Jim Rogers (from Leftfield/ Owner’s Project Manager): “In theory, I can get close to no cost change (for an extension to 10/6 for project completion)… 10/6 works for the best orderly move-in possible for the schools.”

Fierman then made the same pitch (that there should be no additional cost to the town from the Driscoll delay) to the representative of the architect.

His response: “I hear you loud and clear. We’ll take it back to the boys, and we’ll talk about it.”

Judge for yourself if “in theory” and “we’ll talk about it” are cost-saving commitments the town can put money on. And stay tuned to meetings of the Building Commission. They know their business.

All Politics is Local: June 16 - June 23

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Is ‘Course Deleveling’ the Way Forward for BHS?

At their meeting on June 8, members of the School Committee offered praise and a send-off bouquet to the committee’s ‘22-’23 student representative, Alice MacGarvie Thompson, a graduating senior at BHS.

She began with findings from an admittedly random survey that drew 56 responses from classmates. The survey tested their views on the courses they had taken while at BHS — either at the “standard” level, or at higher levels (“honors” and “advanced placement.”)

Note: the terms represent the level of difficulty of courses, and are presumed to correlate with the perceived ability/ achievement of those placed at each level.

How is the sorting of eighth graders into “leveled” classes in 9th grade determined? Alice cited several factors based on her survey:

• teacher recommendations;

• interest in the class;

• “how much work the class would be;”

• parent opinion;

• perceived impact on college acceptance.

The result of Alice’s research as well as research by student journalists at The Cypress, BHS’s student newspaper, leaves little doubt as to the racial disparity resulting from ‘leveling’ placements decided by educators, students and parents.

Among eighth graders who will enter BHS in 2023:

• only 6% of black 8th graders were recommended for advanced geometry;

• 30% were recommended for honors geometry;

• while 64% were recommended for standard geometry. 

The contrast with other demographic groups was made obvious in a chart included in Alice’s presentation (modified here for greater readability):

Ethnic/Racial Disparity In 9th Grade Math Levels

Alice summed up the message of the data:

“Black students are more likely to be placed in standard courses, while white students tend to be placed in honors and AP courses. In effect, leveling segregates BHS… If you were in the halls, you'd be shocked at how segregated BHS is because of this.”

The presentation led to a back-and-forth between the School Committee’s Mariah Nobrega and PSB Superintendent Linus Guillory:

Mariah Nobrega:

“I find this very troubling. These kids haven't even set foot in the high school. The data's right there. What are we doing to correct this before it sets a whole trajectory in place?”

(Once “leveled,” students tend to stay on the same track through all four grades at BHS.)

Dr. Guillory:

“Last year we took a look at this through course recommendations (by educators), and I believe this is where this is coming from. There's a whole body of work that has to interrupt these patterns; also, having parents understand what their roles and responsibilities are — not just to accept these (course) recommendations if they have concerns about them.”

“We've done some work to understand the bias in this, but also we're not going to just accept this and let it slide…

“I think what’s most striking is that students are performing well in math, but then are being referred to lower or standard classes. So those realities do exist.”

Mariah Nobrega:

“I don't want to let this go… There needs to be some sort of intervention here immediately… If this is what we get, then maybe the default is everyone goes into honors unless they are explicitly bumped up or bumped down… This doesn't work for me and it doesn't work for kids or anyone else in this room.”

Student Has The Last Word

The above exchange unfolded in the middle of Alice Thompson’s presentation. She eventually resumed her talk, explaining that pilot efforts at “deleveling” certain of the 9th grade courses are underway, but the path to extending the pilot to 10th grade and beyond remains uncertain. She summed up:

“I think we're avoiding the inherent issue here. Sorting students into these different levels and categories isn't really working. You can't tweak a policy or system that was designed to reproduce inequities, no matter how many programs you add or changes you make or bias trainings you do.

“I don't think leveling is good for BHS. I don't think it's good for any students. I don't think it's a good education policy to be constantly sorting students by perceived smartness and capability.”

Newton Confronts AP Exam Questions

Deleveling of Brookline High School courses, if that is the way forward, will not happen overnight, nor without questions being raised as to the impact on students competing for admission to top-ranked colleges.

That much seems to be the message of recent discussions of the school committee in Newton.

The results of an analysis of a study of “Advanced Placement Enrollment, Participation, and Exam Performance” were presented at a meeting on May 22. The study was undertaken to determine the impact of years of efforts to address past disparities by fostering enrollment in AP and other advanced courses that is “more representative of Newton’s student community.”

You can view slides from the presentation to the School Committee here, or read coverage by FigCityNews.com here.

The meeting replay is available on NewTV.

One of the outcomes pointed to by the study is that Newton’s AP scores at the highest level have declined somewhat in recent years. Here is a comparison of AP test outcomes, showing the percentage of students who achieved in the upper range of AP scoring (3-5 on a scale of 5):

Although Newton has experienced a decrease in students scoring at the highest levels on the AP exam, and an increase in students scoring at lower levels, the Newton study points out that expanded access to rigorous courses “has been shown to improve postsecondary outcomes for students regardless of exam score.”

All Politics is Local: June 9 - June 16

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

How Higher Real Estate Taxes Impact Condo Owners

Last week’s “Tale of Three Houses” looked at the trend in real estate taxes through examples of three houses chosen at random from the latest Town Assessor list of real estate sales. For two of the houses, the eight-year increase in taxes (2015-2023) was 51-52 percent, while the third house saw taxes increase 32 percent.

One reader sent me the suggestion: Why not take a similar look at taxes on condos?

Hence the information that follows. The methodology was much the same, except that this time my source was the Assessor’s spreadsheet of the most recent year of condo sales. Condos significantly outpace single family homes in the number sold each year. For that reason, and because there is also greater variation in the pricing and taxing of condos, I chose to go with a representative group of ten condo sales (vs. the three single family homes profiled last week).

The highest price on the Assessor’s list of 550+ sales is a luxury condo on Seaver Street that went for 8.1 million dollars. The least expensive is a 300 sq. ft. unit on Beacon Street that went for $350,000.

To come up with my list of ten, I chose randomly (spaced 50 apart on the list, starting at 25th from the top) from high, middle and low price ranges. Here is the result, ranked from highest tax paid to lowest tax paid. The right hand column shows the percentage increase in tax bills over the eight year period.

Some observations:

• Condos that are comparable in their sales prices sometimes are comparable in the assessed real estate taxes, but not always. Note several examples on the list of condos that rank higher than others in sales prices, but lower in taxes.

• There is a wide range in the eight-year tax increase impacts, from a low of 22% to a high of 101%.

• Despite the greater variability, nonetheless the average increase in condominium taxes over the eight year period (56%) is the same as the average single family (sf) home tax increase in that same period. (FY15 = $13,610 av. sf tax; FY23 = $21,322 av. sf tax. Increase over eight years = 56.6%.)

Clearing Up A Misconception

The number one misconception among reader responses to last week’s newsletter has to do with the cause of increased real estate taxes. Several readers pointed out that property values have also increased in the 50+ percent range over the 2018-2023 period, which they argued explains the 50+ percent average tax increases.

But it doesn’t.

Town Meeting Member Stanley Spiegel made the point very clearly in a Facebook discussion prompted by the “Tale of Three Houses”:

“If everyone’s assessed value were to double, everyone’s tax bill would rise by only 2.5 percent. If everyone’s assessed value were to drop by half, everyone’s tax bill would also rise by 2.5 present. That’s how Proposition 2.5 works.”

He’s referring to the state law that caps increases in tax levies at 2.5% annually regardless of increases in overall assessed values of real estate.

Now Do the Math

In raising awareness of the eight-year increase in real estate taxes, my purpose has been to broaden our future conversations when it comes to Prop 2 1/2 overrides and debt exclusions.

The assumption that owners of high-value properties should have no problem shouldering annual property tax increases in excess of 2.5% ignores the “ability to pay” factor — which is tied to incomes, not “wealth” derived from hot real estate markets.

However, it is also true, as some readers pointed out, that the eight year/ 56% increase in taxes is only partly due to overrides and debt exclusions. A portion of that 56% would be experienced regardless of ballot questions, because of the allowed 2.5% annual increase. Here’s a chart that shows the difference between recent tax increases allowable under Prop 2 1/2, versus the tax increases attributable to overrides and debt exclusions:

Conclusion: Over the past five years, the increase in real estate taxes due to overrides and debt exclusions has been greater than the allowable 2.5% increase by a multiple of 2.6 ($79 million vs. $30 million).

Inflation and Taxes: A Reader Responds

I’m grateful to Fred Perry of Precinct 3 for responding to the “Tale of Three Houses” by adding this context:

Forty-five percent (the average tax increase since 2015 on the three houses) sounds like a big number, BUT eight years is a long time.  The Consumer Price Index part of it applies both to income as well as to costs, and REAL income over any period of time exceeds inflation by a small amount. That is why the population as a whole is generally richer over time.

Bottom line is that for the population as a whole, taxes going up at a rate equal to the rate of inflation + 1.6% is going to net out as something close to a break-even situation: Real Estate taxes went up but income went up by a similar percentage. 

Where this is not so true and where there is therefore a squeeze on the taxpayer is if he is on the low-income end, where real wages have failed to keep up with inflation for years. That’s probably not the guy with the $2 million house, it is the renter, who sees rent increases passed on to him by the owner. 

The renter is more likely to be low income while the owner of the rental unit tends to be a higher income type whose income has risen faster than inflation. So there are winners and losers but 45 percent is not the number to look at. The number to look at is how the change compares to real income for the effected parties. 

I weep not for the guy who has a large asset which is not ‘liquid’ because he can solve that problem a lot of ways with financial advice. But the guy whose rent went up and who has the usual assets of those guys on the trash truck, he or she may be stretched.

All Politics is Local: June 2 - June 9

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

I went looking for a microcosm that would help to explain the close margin of the May 2 vote on the Pierce School project. I may have found it in the Assessors’ latest table of property sales.

You can check out the table yourself at the Assessors’ page on the town website. That’s where you will find this spreadsheet. It lists 204 property sales from 2021/2022. Roughly two-thirds of the properties are single family. The others are two- and three-family. The sales prices range from $540,000 for a house on Franklin Court to $10,800,000 for a property on Woodland Road.

The average price of the 204 sales comes to $2,502,740. With that in mind, I focused on the sales that fell between $2,400,000 and $2,600,000. From that subgroup, I chose three properties that seemed representative of the list as a whole. Here they are, with some added information comparing the property taxes of today to the taxes paid by the owner in 2015, eight years ago.

The average tax increase since 2015 on the above three properties is 45%.

Information about the demographics of the prior owners of the properties is available on the Street List of Persons kept by the Town Clerk. One of the owners was age 90+ and passed away prior to the sale of the property. Another was age 80+ and the third was age 75+.

Holding onto one’s house after retirement is a widespread situation in Brookline. So is living on an income that is “fixed” (limited to personal savings and pension or Social Security).

The pressure on elderly homeowners to keep up with the cost of living is such that the Assessors are currently reviewing guidelines that would enable a qualifying few to get tax breaks under a plan initiated by the Town’s Committee on Elderly Tax Relief.

The funds available for the program are limited. Inevitably, the number of participants will have to be small if the relief is to make an impact in individual situations. Or the grants will have to be small if the number of applicants is above expectations.

Surveying the demographics and income profiles of Brookline’s homeowning population would be useful in the event of future tax overrides and debt exclusions.

That the “No” vote on Pierce was highest in homeowner precincts is a fact. The trend of 45% increases in taxes over eight years, combined with data on fixed-income households, might help to explain why.

Note: The above analysis makes no assumptions as to how the owners of the above properties (past and current) might have voted on the Pierce question — or if they voted. The only assumption is that taxpayer sentiment plays a part in decision-making for and against overrides and debt exclusions. Evidence of ability to pay has traditionally been one of the questions investigated when Override Study Committees are appointed prior to ballot questions enabling increased taxes. No such committee was appointed prior to the vote on Pierce.

2022 Annual Report: A Selective Reading

The Brookline Annual Report for 2022 arrived just in time for our Town Meeting, which continues this week. Printed copies are scarce compared to prior years. Fortunately, a pdf version is available on the Town website.

It’s well worthy skimming — and perhaps reading in full, depending on your level of interest in the machinery that makes Town Hall hum.

I did my own random reading this past week, and gleaned these Top 20 Annual Report Factoids:

1. Brookline has a Fence Viewer, Inspector of Animals, Keeper of the Lock-Up, Local Moth Superintendent, and a Right to Know Coordinator. Who knew? (See p. 8.) The Inspector of Animals and Local Moth Superintendent are one and the same person.

2. The year produced a bumper crop of top staff who are new to Brookline: Chas Carey, Charles Young, Tyler Belisle-Toler, Lincoln Heinman, Joseph Callanan, Sigalle Reiss, and Amanda Hirst. Pop quiz: identify the positions they occupy. (Answers on p. 12.)

3. Chas Carey is Brookline’s fifth Town Administrator since 1943. Can you name the others? (p. 21)

4. Vital Statistics: Marriage intentions — 294. Marriages — 278. Births — 470. Deaths — 290. Licensed Dogs — 2,377. I went back ten years to track the births/deaths trend over time.

5. Voter turnout was 17.9% for the Town Election (redistricting year), 27.8% for the State Primary (including Vitolo vs. Fernandez), and 51.8% for the State Final (Healey vs. Diehl and Congressional contests). (p. 28-29)

6. Registered Democrats number 18,403. Republicans, 1,764. Unenrolled (“independent”), 20,539. The ten-year trend shows gradual erosion of (D) and (R) party registrants, while Unenrolleds have taken the lead.

7. The Police and Fire sections of the annual report (p. 34-51) are by far the most data-rich. See for yourself the records as to crimes, arrests, interrogations, warrants served, and more. There’s even a table of all the calls to the animal control division.

8. Despite their notoriety, turkeys cause fewer complaints than bats, coyotes and dogs. (p. 43)

9. Motor vehicles were involved in 37 crashes with bikes and 33 crashes with pedestrians. By far the most motor vehicle crashes were with other motor vehicles: 1,076. (p. 44)

10. 4,432 of the 9,074 calls to the Fire Department were for medical emergencies. Firefighters extinguished 22 structure fires in commercial and mercantile occupancies, multifamily homes, high-rise buildings, and single-family homes. (p. 47)

11. The Building Department’s activities included reviewing, permitting and inspecting over 250 tents and 50 bleachers for the U.S. Open Golf Tournament.

12. In total, there are 91 buildings (approximately 2.9 million sq. ft. of space) serving Town and School departments. (p. 53)

13. The BrookOnLine tool for direct reporting of potholes and the like generated 5,596 notifications, with these trends: Potholes (+180%), Unshoveled Sidewalks (+114%), Trash/Recycling (+49.3%), Parks/Playgrounds (- 23.1%), and Grafitti (- 23.6%)

14. The least reported problems were 44 abandoned bikes and 64 broken parking meters. (p. 60)

15. During PRIDE month, over 21 crosswalks and one sidewalk were painted in the colors of the diversity PRIDE flag.

16. The Transportation Department manages over 485 off-street overnight parking spaces in 11 locations, and issues 860 daytime parking permits to school teachers and staff, and issues 319 hangtags for use by local business employees in Brookline Village and Coolidge Corner.

17. The Highway Dept. disposed of 1393 tons of leaves and 5005 tons of street sweeping debris.

18. Sidewalk replacement in 2022 was minimal due to lack of staffing — a mere 14 cubic yards of concrete. The goal is to place 500-800 yards of concrete sidewalk per season.

19. The Parks and Open Space division manages 500 acres of public open space, on over 120 sites comprised of 38 parks and playgrounds, three sanctuaries, ten public school grounds, the land around 15 public buildings, five public parking areas, two cemeteries, over 60 traffic circles, islands, and open space, and over 50,000 trees including 12,000 public street trees.

20. A total of 1300 residents and 191 non-residents enrolled in the Green Dog off-leash program at 14 Green Dog sites.

I’ve worked my way through a mere half of the full 2022 Annual Report. There’s much more to be learned. Check out the report.

All Politics is Local: May 26 - June 2

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

One School Committee meeting, two big issues

If the folks at the newly-launched www.brookline.news want a tip on local coverage from a veteran of the vanished weekly newspaper trade, here it is: for starters, sit in on meetings of the Select Board and School Committee. The proceedings can be long and tedious, but now and then news happens in plain sight.

As an example, there’s the May 18 meeting of the School Committee. What played out during the public comment portion was newsworthy on two fronts: the threat of gun violence, and a double-barrelled warning of labor unrest.

I’ve transcribed key segments of presentations made to the nine members of the School Committee, who listened respectfully, but didn’t respond because that’s the governing policy for “items not on the agenda” arising during public comment.

1. Gun Violence

The first two speakers were students speaking openly about trauma caused by a recent incident at the high school.

I’m using just their first names. Zoe, a senior, spoke first. This is a partial transcript:

Zoe —

“On May 3rd at 8:20 in the morning, a student at BHS brought a BB gun to school and showed it off to their friends. At 10:45, the administration was notified of a possible firearm in the school and the student was searched. After the student fled the premises local police were notified and the student was arrested on Davis Avenue. Students and families were notified about the specifics at 6:38 p.m. through a mass email.

“Gun violence runs rampant in this country and we believe our school is ill equipped to deal with this issue. Even though the weapon was presumed to be an actual gun, there was no lockdown and the Brookline Police Department was not called until after the student fled school grounds.

“I believe that this response was insufficient and that undue fear was spread due to poor communication on behalf of the administration. I was in the middle of science class when I heard an ambiguous announcement over the loudspeaker stating that an incident had occurred. Confused, I asked what happened and my peer whispered over to me: ‘a gun.’ My heart dropped. I frantically texted my brother who is a freshman, asking if he was okay. I truly felt scared for him and myself.

“Even after it was revealed to be a BB gun, I felt uneasy. I don’t feel safe going to school and neither does much of the student body.

“We live in a reality where, in addition to school work, students have to learn how to survive. During class, my 14-year-old brother thinks about how he would jump onto a ledge from his fourth floor classroom to escape if there was a shooter. A school made of glass may look pretty but when it’s the only barrier between you and an armed invader.pretty is not enough. The school is currently failing at its most important job – keeping us safe.”

Chloe, also a senior, then spoke:

Chloe —

“We would like the School Committee to recognize the severity of this issue. One action would be to ensure the administration issues school ID’s to students that unlock doors.

“Currently Brookline High School is completely open, and most doors are unlocked throughout the day. This makes it easy for anybody to enter the building undetected. At the beginning of the school year we were promised school ID’s and locked doors, but never received either. We want the schools to follow through on their promises and to take this critical step to keeping our school safe.

“The open campus policy for students can co-exist with measures that keep those inside the buildings safe…

“Another course of action would be for the School Committee to ensure that the Restorative Justice policy is followed and more preventive measures are taken. We are especially interested in taking a restorative approach in ensuring that students who are struggling are given the proper resources.

“When school shootings occur in the U.S., people talk about the warning signs. In most incidents, including this one, there are warning signs. But the administration does not take them seriously. From Tik Tok trends about School Shooting Day and fights right inside our halls, these signs are brushed aside.

“Warnings signs like these need to be taken seriously by the administration. And students who harm or threaten to harm others in school should be given the help they need. And the school must ensure that they cannot harm anyone else.

“This is not about the student who brought a BB gun to school. This is about the overall safety of students and the lack of preventative measures taken by the administration. I worry about what happens if someone brings a real gun to school with the intention to cause harm.

“Just because we live in Brookline does not mean we are exempt from real world problems. The over 2,000 students who roam these halls plus the teachers, coaches and administrators would all feel safer if we had a comprehensive course of action to protect our community.”

Footnote to the above:

Whether in schools or wherever people gather, the threat of gun violence isn’t just a public safety issue. It also impacts the Town’s ability to balance budgets. The Select Board will soon present to Town Meeting labor contracts negotiated with public safety unions (Police and Fire). The Fire contract contains an added sum of several hundreds of thousands of dollars for so-called Active Shooter/Hostile Event (ASHER) training. You can read more about ASHER training in this release from MA Office of Public Safety. From the release: “FBI data indicates that the US has experienced over 370 active shooter incidents in the last twenty years. These incidents have resulted in nearly 3,000 casualties, claiming the lives of 1,100 victims, including the death of approximately 100 members of law enforcement.”

Note: An earlier version of the above paragraphed incorrectly referenced the cost of the ASHER part of the contract with Firefighters. The final figures for both ASHER and the total contract cost will be presented for approval by Town Meeting.

2. Labor Unrest

The greater part of the public comment period was dominated by a sometimes raucous parade of presentations by members of the Brookline Educators’ Union (BEU).

Although voters on May 2 approved an additional $6.98 million to fund school operations, the unionized teachers highlighted complaints stemming from budget tightening in FY24. World Language teachers took turns reading a jointly-signed letter:

“Currently, too many K-8 World Language Program educators are given excessively high student loads and untenable scheduling involving erratic teaching locations, no limit to the number of grade levels taught, and no limit to the number of sections. Furthermore they’re typically excluded from team meetings due to scheduling.

“In 2015, the Brookline voters approved a tax hike to speciically support the K-8 World Language program, whereas today, these dedicated educators face precarious employment and are frequently threatened with layoffs. Over the past five years, more than a dozen K-8 World Language educators — over half in the program — have left the Brookline School District.

“The BEU sees this as a failure on the part of the District to support important programs with the racially and ethnically diverse staff that promotes respect for diverse cultures and knowledge about the world beyond the Town borders.

“Allowing further weakening of the K-8 World Language program would be a devastating blow to Brookline’s attempt to be a more culturally responsive school district for students and staff alike.

“For these reasons, the BEU is asking for immediate action on the part of the School Committee to reach an agreement that protects the K-8 World Language program.”

Other issues cited by the teachers:

• an ARPA-funded premium pay policy that rewarded some teachers, but left out others, who taught during COVID;

• also, “poverty wages” for paraprofessionals;

• and then there was this argument that the recent $6.8 million override fell short in the view of literacy and math specialists:

Hillary Rosenzweig, math specialist at Lincoln (30+ years Brookline educator) —

“Despite the override, pre-determined significant cuts are being made within the literacy and math specialist departments. Our parent community needs to be aware of the deliberate choice to underfund literacy and math and not include us in the override.

“As math specialists, we are direct student-facing supports. We work with students who have challenges making effective math progress. We work with students to build their identity, agency and success with math, and to minimize the need for special education referral and evaluations.

“At Lincoln, we will drop from two fulltime specialists to one and a half. I am a .5 at Lincoln and .5 at another school now. This will be the lowest level of supports in 15 years — at a Title 1 school with some of the most at risk students.

“With a single uninformed decision, top leaders in our district have made a huge, detrimental mistake that will have large reprecussions for our students… The neediest students will be receiving substantially less services — ultimately, closing doors and opportunities.”

To experience the full flavor of the BEU’s message to the school committee, sample their impromptu union fight song led by incoming BEU President Justin Brown. It begins at 1:16:25 of the video.

Outgoing BEU President Jessica Shubow told me later that the May 18 showcase of BEU demands won’t be their last. Fasten your seat belts.

Looking Back at the May 2 Election

The incomparable Tom Elwertoski has a website where you can check out many visualizations of the results of the Tuesday, May 2 election. For example, take this one (showing highest turnout in precincts 6 and 16, and lowest in 4 and 2):

And there’s this map, showing a clear geographic divide between precincts heavily FOR and AGAINST Question 1, the Pierce debt exclusion. You can check out all the visualizations at Tom’s “About Brookline” website.

All Politics is Local: May 19 - May 26

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Explaining the FY24 Budget in Seven Charts

It’s that time of year when, in the days before everything went digital, two documents would land with a thud (or thud, thud) on the doorstep of every one of the Town’s 250+ Town Meeting Members.

The first is the so-called Combined Reports on the articles in the Town Meeting Warrant, including Warrant Article 7, the FY24 budget. The second is the Financial Plan — a department by department, account by account, line item by line item detailing of the FY24 Budget, including both the operating departments and the immediate and long range expenditures on our buildings, roads, and all other basic infrastructure.

Both documents are intimidating and mystifying, even to those who have combed through them for many years. Should you wish to experience them yourself, you will find the Combined Reports here, and the FY24 Financial Plan here. Be warned: the Combined Reports numbers 294 pages, and the Financial Plan numbers 487 pages.

No one ever said serving as a volunteer Town Meeting Member would be easy.

In hopes of recapping the FY24 budget in terms that even I can understand, I’ve converted the essentials to seven charts. (You won’t find these anywhere in the documents themselves.) Here are the charts, with explanations for each.

1.

It helps to keep in mind that the operations of the Town and Public Schools provide us with the same basic services year after year: education, public safety, recreation, enrichment, transportation and essentials such as clean water and sanitation. The cost of all this is divided between “people” and “things.” The budget is roughly 80% people and 20% things. The people part is “operations.” The “things” part is supplies and minor and major infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc.).

And that’s the story behind Chart #1 (above). For the most part, the Big Ticket Items don’t change much. School operations consume the biggest part, followed by Town operations, followed by the benefits accrued by employees (pensions and retiree health care). Then comes paying off the debt accrued for “things” such as school projects. Then comes routine maintenance of all the infrastructure already in place.

Those 5 “big ticket” items consume 95% of the FY24 budget.

To the extent that the Schools share of the pie grows faster than the pie as a whole, the Town share will shrink. And vice versa. The same rule applies to other shares of the pie. Which brings us to Chart #2.

2.

Over the past ten years, both the Schools share and the Town share of total expenditures have decreased slightly. (Relative to the Town share, the School share has decreased less.) The Benefits share has stayed the same. Infrastructure has grown, but is still the smallest share. However, the “winner” in the budgetary pie-eating contest is the Cost of Borrowing — paying down interest and debt on major construction projects (mostly school buildings).

To put it in the simplest of terms: Big Borrowings have Big Impacts on budgets. Which is why fiscal policies are adopted with the goal of spreading the impact evenly over decades. One of those policies (I’m told it dates back to 2004) is to define a “ceiling” for borrowings based on the impact on taxpayers. Which brings us to Chart # 3.

3.

If you scroll to page 368 of the FY24 Financial Plan you will find a footnote summarizing several fiscal policies of the Town, including these two:

Both policies were observed consistently until FY17. However, as you can see in the chart, things then changed dramatically, with the result that the Town debt per capita is now nearly 3x the “shall not exceed” ceiling in the Town’s fiscal policies.

To date, this departure from fiscal policies has not hindered the Town from maintaining its AAA bond rating, which helps to keep borrowing costs in check. Is the policy unrealistic? Or is the spike in borrowing a cause for concern? Neither question is addressed in the FY24 Financial Plan.

However, the pressure from debt repayments will continue to be felt in tax bills in the years ahead — and that much is clear from Chart #4.

4.

Given the amount of debt that will be required to finance future capital projects, Brookline is fortunate that the State-mandated 2.5% cap on increases in the annual tax levy comes with a “safety valve.” The Prop 2 1/2 law allows for both “budget overrides” and “debt exclusions” — both of which Brookline voters okayed in the May 2 election (Questions 1 and 2a on the ballot).

Which leads to Chart #5.

5.

One of the consistent features of Brookline’s budgets is that they are always “under the strain of Prop 2 1/2” (as people like to say), but revenues from property taxes actually increase by something like double the 2.5% “cap.” (In the FY24 budget, the increase in the property tax levy is actually 5.5%). This is a result of three factors:

1. “new growth” in the tax base, which tends to average the equivalent of 1+% of the levy;

2. the cumulative impact of Prop 2 1/2 overrides,

3. the temporary impact of paying down debt exclusions.

Finally, no overview of budget basics would be complete without mentioning the impact of increases in the number of personnel on Town and School payrolls.

6. and 7.

The next two charts are based on numbers which you have to dig for in both the Town and School budgets. (And I’m still not certain of the School Dept. numbers because of inconsistencies in how they are tracked from year to year.)

The message is: during the FY19-FY24 period, when both Town and School operations were dramatically impacted by COVID, Town payrolls (Full Time Equivalent/ “FTE” positions) increased, while School payrolls decreased.

Just as future budgets will be under pressure from the unprecedented spike in the Town’s long range debt, so too will they be under pressure due to demands to add to payrolls. The School Committee has ambitions to expand Pre-K (BEEP) enrollments and spread the program to all eight elementary schools. Town Meeting has recently faced calls to increase services in the areas of language access and housing stability.

Adding payroll positions has implications for health care and pension costs, both of which have been growing faster than operating budgets in recent years.

The final lesson of this session of “budgeting for beginners” is: Pay attention. Budget math is hard on those who ignore it.

All Politics is Local: May 12 - May 19

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Election Results (From an Interested Observer)

I’m in the peculiar position of being a news source for insight into the recent Town Election in which I was also part of the story.

On the one hand, I wish I could leave it to others to do the job. On the other hand, with the exception of www.Brookline.news (I urge you to subscribe) no one is doing it — at least not visibly. As an experiment, do a simple Google search right now: VanScoyoc + Brookline. Or Reamer + Brookline. Or Paul Warren + Brookline. If your results match mine (as of Sunday, 5/14) you will find no reporting of the results of the annual election in Brookline — a not insignificant community at the heart of Greater Boston, and in the top 5% of Massachusetts municipalities by population.

Not a word about the hotly contested Select Board race that could, potentially, have resulted in turnover of two of the five seats on the board. Not a word (with the exception of Brookline Patch) about the very visible townwide split between “Yes” and “No” forces over a proposed $212 million new school project, and the historically narrow 51.2% - 48.7% vote in favor of “Yes.

Given the above realities, please indulge me in this insider’s report on significant results of the election just past.

(For those who wish to do your own number crunching, here is the link to the spreadsheet of results on the Town website.)

The Select Board contest featured significant “bullet voting.”

(Definition: in a three-person contest, “bullet” voters would cast a vote for only one candidate, not two, thus increasing the total vote count of the favored candidate without increasing the vote count of either of the other candidates. The following attempt to measure the extent of bullet voting departs from my newsletter content, based on critiques of readers.)

Take note of these spreadsheet results for Precinct 1:

• 578 ballots were cast (“TOTAL” at the bottom). If two votes were cast on each ballot, a total of 1156 votes would be counted.

• However, the combined vote total of the three candidates (plus one write-in) is 899. Therefore, the number of votes cast is 257 short (1156-899) of the number of votes possible.

• If the shortfall of votes is explained by voters marking their ballots for just one of two possible winners, then the share of P1 ballots marked with just one (“bullet”) vote is 44%. (257 / 578 = 0.4446).

• Smaller percentages of so-called “bullet” voting are possible, depending on the number of voters who skipped the Select Board contest entirely (thus leaving two possible votes “blank”). A simple way of looking at this is: If all of the blanks were the result of voters skipping the Select Board contest entirely, than none of the 257 “blanks” are “bullets.” However, if none of the “blanks” are attributable to voters skipping the contest, then all of the “blanks” are “bullets.” The true number of bullets is unknowable, but likely somewhere in between those two possibilities.

To take this speculation even further, perhaps it is useful to check the other contests on the ballot to see if there is a clear example of a contest that was skipped entirely by voters. One such measure is Question 1 (the Pierce debt exclusion). Because it was simple “Yes” or “No”, there can be no question that “blanks” = unmarked ballots: a true measure of the number of voters choosing to skip that contest. By that measure, only 226 of 12538 voters (226 / 12538 = 1.8%) “blanked” the Q.1 contest.

More election observations.

My thanks to Tom Elwertowski for the magic of the graphic below showing the relative strength of the major “slate” groups, as measured by the success of their endorsed candidates in Town Meeting contests to fill 5 vacant seats in each precinct plus some scattered vacancies. (PAX is listed separately because their endorsements frequently overlapped other groups’.)

In general, Brookline for Everyone improved on their Town Meeting representation, while Brookline By Design failed to match their success record of 2022, when all 15 Town Meeting seats were up for grabs. Brookline for Everyone’s gains were most significant in precincts 13 and 5.

Another way of looking at the contest of the various slate groups is this visualization, also by Tom Elwertowski, with the color code married to the precinct map.

Finally, there was the contest over Question 1: the authorization of borrowing (“debt exclusion”) for the plan to demolish and replace the Pierce School.

The “Yes” vote prevailed, but by a historically low margin for a successful school debt exclusion. Past debt exclusion votes have ranged from a low of 58.8% “Yes” to a high of 80.8% “Yes,” with 6 out of 7 of the votes passing by margins of 60% or higher.

The next test, in ten days, will be the Town Meeting debate and vote on the $212 million appropriation (the cost of the project as approved by the MA School Building Authority).

All Politics is Local: May 1 - May 8

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Election Eve Observations: Turnout and Debt

As a candidate — and, perhaps, as a second-term Select person — two things are on my mind this election eve: How many voters will cast ballots? And what’s their comfort level with debt?

I’ll explain that second question further on. Let’s start with turnout. There are clear patterns to voter behavior in Brookline:

• We show up for local elections least of all, but improve during State and Congressional elections, and do best of all during Presidential elections.

• We show up for competitive contests but stay home when none are on the ballot.

• Turnout in local elections improves when override and/or debt exclusions are on the ballot.

These three factors explain the radical fluctuations in turnout in election contests since 2015, as graphed here:

• The three lowest-turnout elections (stunningly, a mere 6%-8% of voters) coincide with ballots offering no questions and no competitive races at the top (twice in Town elections, once in a State primary).

• The three highest turnout elections (67%-76%) include two Presidential contests and one State ballot with contested races for Governor (Baker-Gonzalez) and Senate (Warren-Diehl).

• The highest-turnout local elections coincide with ballot questions for budget overrides and/or debt exclusions (2015, 2018, 2019).

• Absent such questions, voter turnout for contested local elections falls in the range of 16%-19%. Override/debt exclusion questions push the turnout an additional 10% or so.

• Absent contests or ballot questions, the only Annual Town Election with turnout in double digits was 2022 — a redistricting year featuring contests for 255 Town Meeting seats across 17 precincts.

Based on the above factors — and with no other data to steer by — my best guess as to turnout in the May 2 election is that it will surpass 20% but fall short of the 30% peak in 2015. For the sake of argument, let’s assume it matches the 26% turnout of 2019. In that event, given the latest number for registered voters (40,934), the predicted turnout would be 10,642 voters.

Thus, to prevail on Ballot Question 1 (Pierce School excluded debt), this means “Yes” and “No” sides must aspire to claim 5322 votes (50% of 10,642 + 1).

The battle continues until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 2 at 8 p.m., when polls close and all the votes are counted.

My best advice: whichever side you favor, VOTE. (As the sign says, IT IS YOUR CIVIC DUTY.)

Why I’m Thinking About Debt

As I said at the outset, municipal debt is on my mind lately. One reason is that, last Tuesday, we on the Select Board heard a presentation that included future debt numbers. Here is the table that was referenced, showing Brookline’s debt (almost entirely from tax cap-excluded borrowings for school projects, including Pierce, if approved by voters) mounting to $708,200,000 by FY25 (next year).

That number prompted me to do some checking to see if Brookline stands out among cities and towns for the amount of our municipal/school debt per capita. As it turns out, in cities and towns with populations of 10,000 or higher, Brookline is in the Top Ten for debt per capita. (We are #7 in the state.)

These are FY22 numbers from the MA Department of Revenue’s Municipal Finance Dashboard. (FY22 is the most recent year for which comparison to other municipalities is possible.)

For FY22, among the municipalities on the above list, we are #2 when the measure is debt service (annual debt and interest payments) as a percentage of our annual budget.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that Brookline voters will reject adding further to the Town’s debt. That’s because Brookline also ranks very high (#4 in the state) among all municipalities as measured by income per capita.

Summing up: Brookline’s per capita income might be predictive of a high tolerance for taking on municipal and school debt. But Brookline’s projected debt in FY25, once Pierce is added, might push Brookline even higher among the Top Ten debt-heavy municipalities, thereby testing the limit of voters’ debt tolerance. We’ll understand that better when we read the election results on Wednesday.

All Politics is Local: April 21-28

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Contrarian questions at an election forum

If there is a Brookline group that has earned the right to be labeled “contrarian,” it is the Republican Town Committee.

By latest count, registered Republicans in the town number 1,795, as against 18,189 Democrats and 19,428 Independents (some of whom, it has been argued, are “closet Republicans”).

Given their minority status, leave it to the Republicans to pose some unexpected questions to the three Select Board candidates, including yours truly, who spoke to the GOP group gathered last night in the Police Dept. community room.

Perhaps the most unexpected question was this: “Does Brookline have or should it have its own census? Why?”

incomplete, as you can tell from the phrase “Seventeen Years of Age and Over” in smaller type under the title. The list is kept as a resource for registering voters (hence the age threshold) who must produce evidence of residence in the town.

This is where the question of whether Brookline would benefit from a more complete census gets complicated.

What is one to do if the official US census count shows an upward trend in population, while the Street List of Persons shows a downward trend? Can the difference simply be attributed to fluctuations across age demographics? Does the difference call for closer examination of the accuracy of the count(s)?

Here is data from five-year intervals, based on Brookline Annual Reports of the Board of Registrars:

Judging by the count of “persons,” the population trend is down over the past 20 years. However, here is an important caveat. The graphic above begins in 2001 for a reason. The prior year’s count departed significantly from the count for the following years, so I discounted it. For the record, in 2000, the “persons” count was 48,814 (8,000+ lower than 2001) while the registered voters count was 35,192 (more consistent with and slightly higher than the year that followed).

By the way, I stopped short of reporting the counts for years 2020-2022 because there’s no telling what the impact of Covid was. The 2021 Annual Report fails to include a total number for registered voters. However, and this is significant, the number of “persons” in the Street Listing book matches the reported “census” in the Annual Report of the Registrars (46,087).

Bottom line: No, Brookline does not have its own census, and none of the current candidates for Select Board believe such a project is advisable. However, we clearly need to get a better handle on the usefulness of the Street Listing of Persons as a “census” tool — beginning with testing its accuracy as compared to the US census.

I have a completely different set of questions when it comes to the latest official US Census. I will address those questions next week. Here’s a tease: Given the common (and accurate) complaint that Brookline falls short in adding significantly to housing units given Greater Boston’s affordable housing shortage, what are we to make of the fact that Brookline’s U.S.-certified population has been growing, while populations of neighboring municipalities have been shrinking? The chart below is just one such example. I will offer more next week.

All Politics is Local: April 14-21

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Deciding Pierce: A Debate

The May 2 ballot (voting begins 4/22) will feature several ballot questions. Question 1 asks voters to say “Yes” or “No” to borrowing funds ($172-$174 million) necessary to demolish and rebuild the 1974 Pierce School (upper photo), while rehabbing the adjacent historic Pierce Primary (lower photo).

This second week’s submissions are testimonials from those with first-hand experience of Pierce — favorable and unfavorable. In keeping with the rotating order, this week’s essays begin with the group opposing Q.1, followed by the group favoring Q.1.

No on Question 1

Testimonials Submitted by SpendSmartBrookline.org

​Why We Love Pierce

“The Pierce School was designed for children - for their social, curious, and explorative disposition…

”When I look back on my childhood, my experience at Pierce was a delight. I'm speaking of the experience of the spaces - that complex of fascinating rooms, open lofts, ramps, bridges, catwalks, narrow doors, atriums, nooks and secret spaces. To always have something interesting to look at was absolute joy for me as a child.

”The carbon footprint and embodied energy of demolition and replacement is always far higher than that of preservation and adaptive re-use, whatever the claims of LEED certification or zero-carbon.”
— Andrew Gould, ‘93

“There are a lot of cool secret spaces at Pierce.

“I look forward to the last day of school countdown in the library and I like reading on the comfy chairs there. My favorite parts of the day are lunch, gym, and recess, where I play basketball at the Pierce Park courts.”
— Oscar, Grade 5

“Our 4 kids went through Pierce in the 1980's. Each of them wants the building renovated, not demolished. Back then it was at 3 channels (sections). Maintenance was not deferred; it didn’t look shabby. The open plan was for grades 2 to 4. Older kids had discrete classrooms. Full use of the historic building should increase capacity. I agree access is important. But it was dealt with then.”
— John Bassett, Precinct 6 TMM

“Proponents of demolition attack the design of the school, but many kids who attended Pierce in the 80s and 90s flourished there. After querying many former Pierce families in my neighborhood, I found no dissenters. Everyone loved the layout and Pierce compared favorably on educational outcomes.

”Please don’t base your decision on the belief that Pierce is educationally bad for kids. This is a false premise.”
— Carol Macbain, 14-year Pierce Parent, former PSB ESL specialist

“I like walking across The Bridge to recess. I like walking to school with my brother and walking with my friends to the park and to each other’s houses in the Pierce neighborhood to play.”
— Jonah, Grade 3

“The building, with its complexity of spaces and systems, is itself an education, more mentally stimulating, at any age, than the double-loaded corridors we build for children today. This is recognized by the community, which has expressed affection for the ‘uniqueness of Pierce’, and asked to ‘keep Pierce’s unique identity’”
— Elton Elperin, David King - Preservationists

Yes on Question 1

Testimonials Submitted by YesForBrookline.com

​As members of the Pierce community, we want to communicate the urgency of a new building. The conditions of Pierce School are totally unacceptable, and it is inequitable to further delay renovation.

Join us in voting YES on Question 1 on May 2 to build a modern, safe, accessible, appropriately-sized pre-K - 8 school that accommodates all students.

Let’s give kids in the densest part of Brookline an equal education that is not shortchanged by lost instruction time, inaccessibility, overcrowding, crumbling infrastructure, and desire to cut corners by maintaining a failed experiment in educational design.

Read excerpts of our community’s experiences:

“As principal from 1999-2016, the community thrived despite the terrible conditions of the building(s). …The parents back then greeted me in my first year with the need to create a Building Committee to advocate for Pierce's renovation. Now some 24 years later, it is about time to give this vibrant school community the building renovation it so desperately needs and deserves!”
— Pipier Smith-Mumford, Former Principal of Pierce School

“Grades 3, 4, and 5 learn in an open space with no walls. In theory, this seems innovative …. In reality, learning in my classroom is disrupted upwards of 10-15 times a day due to transitions, loud activities in other classrooms, or students walking through my learning space to use the bathroom.”
— Pierce 3rd Grade Teacher

"Tate is profoundly deaf and uses cochlear implants to help her to hear. However, we’ve been told by the Brookline special education team that the current state of Pierce School will make it impossible for Tate to attend there.”
— Kendall Gould, Pierce parent

“I've seen mice, rats, squirrels, and birds - there were 3 mice that ran over my feet when I entered a bathroom.”
— Pierce 8th grader

“My husband and I chose to live in Brookline because we believe in the quality of its schools. However, the Pierce school does not provide an equitable learning environment”
— Lisamarie Sears, BEEP PTO Co-Chair and Pierce Parent

“I have to access three different buildings, and on some days every period takes me to a different building. I rush between classes and forgo speaking to my teachers after class to be on time for my next class. [On rainy days] I have to run through the rain and [sit] in wet clothes all day…A new building can help middle school kids to stay focused on schoolwork.”
— Pierce 8th Grader

What’s Missing From the ARPA Decision

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

On Tuesday, the Select Board made a major decision on year two of funding for local projects under the American Rescue Plan Act.

In all, $16.7 million will be allocated. Groups such as Brookline Community Development Corporation, Brookline Asian American Family Network, Brookline Teen Center, and Black N Brown Club, Inc., to name just a few, will get access to needed resources to continue valuable services, or to prove the value of new programs.

The spreadsheet of recommendations as to how the $16.7 million will be shared is here.

And yet, I worry that events are outpacing our ability to test what could well be the future of meaningful assistance to the neediest in our community. The recognition of that future was evident in a recent webinar hosted by the Brookline Community Foundation. I urge everyone to take time to visit (or revisit) BCF’s video of the event.

Summing up, the BCF webinar highlighted a growing realization that cash assistance programs often prove to be the most effective supports for vulnerable populations — especially when combined with sustained, long-term investments in housing, mental health care, and affordable childcare, driven by collaborations among community agencies and local government.

The New York Times recently covered the trend.

The ARPA screening committee was limited to reviewing applications that were submitted. There was little to choose from in the realm of direct cash assistance proposals.

Federal windfalls of $40 million (over three years) are unlikely to come our way again in the near future. For all the good that will come from the locally funded initiatives winning approval, we may someday look back on the ARPA opportunity as one that was not fully realized.

All Politics is Local: April 7-14

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Many Measures of Density

A worthwhile exercise these days is measuring parts of Brookline against a standard of a minimum gross density of 15 units of housing per acre. That number is not chosen arbitrarily. It’s the basis of the new state mandate aimed at increasing production of multi-unit housing under the so-called MBTA Communities Act (MBTA-CA).

According to the latest census, Brookline has 28,274 housing units, or 4,188 housing units per square mile. which translates to 6.5 units per acre — so you can see that the town as a whole would have to more than double our number of housing units if the MBTA-CA standard was spread across the entire map.* But it applies specifically to zones near public transportation, so that points to North Brookline and Brookline Village.

Planning Director Kara Brewton recently gave an interesting presentation to the Boylston Street Corridor Study Committee. She isolated several mapped locations and measured them for density of housing units. You can view the video of the meeting with Kara’s presentation here.

Here’s a screenshot from her presentation, showing (in gray) areas such as the Town Hall campus and Emerson Park with minimal or no housing, while a property such as Brook House (crimson) is packed with units at a density of >60 units per acre.

The average density for the mapped area as a whole is 13 units per acre — just shy of the MBTA-CA standard.

By contrast, the map below covers areas adjacent to the Brookline Hills T stop. The blue visible in the lower left corner is the Brookline Reservoir. The white near the center is Cypress Field. The gray slices are commercial properties. The commercial properties and properties such as schools are included in the total acreage against which the density of housing is measured. The density of this Brookline Hills mapped area is 7.7 housing units per acre — roughly half the MBTA-CA required 15.

On the other hand, portions of the above map, such as the densely packed condos (in crimson) across Cypress Street from the BHS Tappan building are >60 units per acre. More examples from Kara’s slides:

The “Benefitness Block” with densities ranging from 50 units per acre to 115 units per acre:

The “Madris Block” (below) at the corner of Cypress and Boylston, with a density of 60 units per acre:

Brookline is only beginning to figure out what applying the 15 units/acre standard as envisioned through form-based upzoning will mean to the future of the Harvard Street Corridor.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) marks another step in the Planning Department’s efforts to more fully engage stakeholders as collaborators in mapping out what MBTA compliance will mean to the Harvard Street Corridor.

But why stop at Harvard Street?

“Compliance beyond Harvard Street” is on the agenda. Tune in next week for a follow up report.

More information on the MBTA-CA Compliance Options Workshop can be found here.

A useful resource for data on Brookline housing is here.

*Footnote: (The Census counts 3,017,901 housing units in Massachusetts, which yields a units/acre of 0.45 for the state as a whole.)

All Politics is Local: Mar. 31 - April 7

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Clock is Ticking on ARPA Spending

ARPA is the American Rescue Plan Act. For local governments, it is the most impactful of the federal government’s responses to the COVID blow to the economy, and thus local revenues and government services.

ARPA funds can be a blessing for a local community organization that ‘wins” in the bidding for a share of some $40 million in ARPA funds awarded to Brookline.

But it carries a heavy burden.

Brookline’s approach to allocating ARPA funds is unusual among municipalities. The greater emphasis was put on a process of soliciting applications from community-based organizations, while the smaller portion of ARPA funds was assigned to Town departmental needs.

A meeting of the Audit Committee earlier this week brought to light the significant challenge that Brookline faces in processing and monitoring community-based organizations awarded ARPA funds in “round one” (2022), and similarly for “round two” (current year, with screening of applications not yet completed).

Summing up the challenge:

• Modifying government compliance procedures to apply to community based organizations has been slow.

• But the clock keeps ticking on the limited window of time within which the funds must be spent.

These comments (emphasis mine) by Auditor Jim Powers (below) are from the video of the recent Audit Committee meeting.

“With the ARPA, you can spend a portion of it on governmental services — they’re allowing communities just to spend it on anything they want to. However, for the next $22 million, you need to comply with their 483-page law that talks about each one of the expenditure categories. You have to make sure that what you’re spending the money on fits one of their expenditure categories, and then there’s an additional compliance supplement.

(Powers goes on to cite a hypothetical case of an audit finding that expenditures by an ARPA grant recipient didn’t meet federal requirements.)

“We would come up with what’s called a ‘Question Cost,’ meaning that we audited this and we don’t believe you are in compliance with the grant requirements, and then the report would be sent to the Treasury, they would review that, they would then contact the City, and you would then be working that out with them.

“The deadline for spending the money is 12/31/24… Operating expenses have to appear in the period you are going through — that you don’t get an extension for.”

(Added explanation by Deputy Administrator Melissa Goff:)

“We do quarterly reporting to the federal government around projects (under ARPA). As to each of the agreements with each of the entities that receive awards, there’s a schedule in the agreements that talks about the rate of spending and the expectation for when the final spending will be done, and we’re operating under the 2024 deadline.

“We anticipate there might be a Round 3 because we’ll likely have to do some clawbacks for projects that are not meeting the milestones and spending in the timeframe that we need them to. And the likely Round 3 would be for Town-specific (government) projects.”

The bottom line: For Brookline’s community-based organizations that have been successful in winning ARPA funding (in some cases, in amounts exceeding $1 million), the hardest part of their responsibility lies ahead:

• spending the funds in the short period of time leading up to the 12/31/24 deadline,

• while at the same time complying with every condition of agreements that are complex and closely monitored by the federal government.

Success will reap rewards for many of the Town’s most vulnerable populations. Failure could entangle the organizations and Town Hall in laborious negotiations with the U.S. Treasury over “clawbacks.”

Stay tuned. Here’s wishing all well in rising to the occasion.

Information on Brookline’s ARPA program.

The “second round slate” of ARPA grant applications.

Link to videos of ARPA Screening Committee meetings.

*Federal government ARPA guidelines provide for the Town, at its discretion, to extend the period of spending of ARPA funds by so-called “sub-recipients” (local community grantees) to 12/31/26, for projects ongoing but not completed by 12/31/24.

All Politics is Local: Mar. 23 - Mar. 31

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

What’s Missing From the Override Ballot

I’m puzzled by one aspect of the Town and School proposed tax hikes (“overrides” of the 2.5% cap on local tax levies) that voters will face on May 2: When and why did we abandon the practice of appointing a study committee to fully examine tax hike questions prior to putting them on ballots?

To fully appreciate the careful study that went into past override considerations, go back to the last such study in 2017.

The resulting report covers 122 pages. This is from an opening paragraph: “The recommendation shall detail the amount of any override, its allocation and for how long its intended support until consideration of the next tax override.” I put that last phrase in bold, because I’m unaware of any attempt to forecast how much time will pass before the 2023 override gives way to the next override. Don’t voters wish to know that?

Here are some more useful goals of the 2017 report:

• examination of costs associated with school enrollment growth;

• “implementation of the efficiencies and best practices identified by prior override study and efficiency committees;”

• “benchmark Town and School programs, expenditures and revenues with comparable municipalities;”

• “compile data that shows the impact that increased taxes and fees will have on taxpayer and residents.”

It’s worth noting that the 2018 override (which the 2017 report anticipated) came after a 29% increase in school enrollment spanning 12 years — pushing total enrollment to 7,417 systemwide (approx. 200 more than current).

Other notable findings of the 2017 report:

• School and Town operations were being run efficiently, without programmatic expansion (emphasis mine). By contrast, Brookline’s municipal budget has increased by 14 positions since 2019. The FY24 Public Schools budget shows employment of 1271 FTE serving an enrollment of 7,134; whereas the FY18 budget called for employment of 1211 FTE serving an enrollment of 7,417.

• In 2017, largely due to the need to serve the needs of a growing school population, municipal budgets were stretched in order to provide more for schools.

• “The practical result of these adjustments has for the last decade been to shift financial resources to the School Department from the Town that during ‘normal’ times would have been used to fund investments via the municipal budget.”

Interesting fact: in 2017, after a period of municipal budget shrinkage and school budget growth, the expenditure division between the two was 34% / 24% in favor of schools

FY17 EXPENDITURES

Six years later, in FY23 (above) the School expenditure advantage continued, roughly in the same proportion (32% / 21%). However, both Municipal and School shares declined due to the dramatic growth in so-called “non-departmental” — which is budget-speak for Pensions/ Retiree Health and Debt payments.

Finally, there’s one other area of study in the 2017 report which has received no examination in advance of the 2023 override ballot. The 2017 study committee took great care to measure the likely impact of a tax increase on taxpayers and rent payers in various income groups. The result was captured in tables such as that below — context that is lacking for the much larger cumulative overrides and debt exclusion that voters will face in 2023. (But there’s still time to do that homework.)

All Politics is Local: Mar. 16 - Mar. 23

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Mind the Gaps, Structural and Otherwise

It’s been a week since the FY24 Budget was presented to the Select Board. Today, I confess, I remain hung up on the very first bullet point: “Continued structural gap between municipal revenues and expenses.”

The key word is “structural.” What is the distinction between a “structural” gap and a plain vanilla “gap”? I went searching for examples of common usage of “structural gap.” Most often, the explanation is something like “a gap that continues year after year.” The context in which a budget gap is referred to as “structural'“ often suggests it is one over which you have no control. If your only choice is to raise revenues, is that what makes the gap “structural”? If that’s the case, what happened to the choice to control spending?

Here’s an example from a household budget. In this household, the thermostat is set at a comfortable 68 degrees. Incomes keep up with the inflation in utility bills. But then that balance is disturbed by one of these three scenarios:

• Scenario #1: You decide you’d be more comfortable if you heated to 70 degrees.

• Scenario #2: You leave the thermostat at 68, but there’s a spike in fuel/electricity prices.

• Scenario #3, a severe winter taxes your heating system.

All three scenarios result in a '“gap,” but is #1, which resulted from choice, “structural” in the same sense as #2 and #3, which stem from external events outside your control?

Does a similar range of scenarios apply to budget gaps that arise in municipal operations?

Below is an example of an entire decade (2008-2018) with lots of fluctuations department by department, but virtually no change overall in the number of “full time equivalent” (FTE) positions on the Town payroll.

During the period covered by the above table, Town and School budgets got help from two overrides — one in 2009 and the other in 2016. In both instances, I imagine, the argument was made that the overrides were necessary to close structural gaps. Still, despite minimal growth in payrolls, the “structural gap” made a comeback in 2019, necessitating a third override:

Brookline Budget Overrides 1995-2019

Now we’ve arrived at the FY24 budget, and yet another decision on an override. However, there’s a difference compared to the three prior overrides. This time, the override arrives after a period of payroll expansions — 14 positions added since 2019. The table below shows the parts of the budget that have benefited the most from added positions, and those that have benefited the least.

Compared to the decade that preceded FY19, are the expenses driving the latest override “structural,” or more accurately described as “expansionary”?

A budget that keeps a lid on positions even while inflation drives up labor costs and all other costs is not the same as a budget that is preceded by a period of low inflation, coinciding with sudden growth in payrolls (granted, through a combination of factors including COVID).

Bottom line: given the Prop. 2 1/2 tax levy cap imposed on the Town, and given the historic trend of settlements of Town employee contracts in the range of 3-4% (annualized), override budgets funding added positions would seem to be self-negating.

Overrides such as Brookline adopted in past years haven’t kept up with the budget-devouring fixed costs of pensions and health care, as well as debt. Witness the trend of the most recent six years:

And here’s the projected trend five years into the future:

A final note, despite my questioning of structural budget gaps in Town budgets, I have no skepticism when it comes to the infrastructural gaps. Road and sidewalk repaving and repair is one example of a need that is chronically underfunded. Resiliency against climate change is a future need that we have barely begun to fund. To learn more, check out these reports:

Pavement Management Report

Urban Forest Climate Resiliency Master Plan

From Brookline Urban Forest Climate Resiliency Master Plan

All Politics is Local: Mar. 10 - Mar. 17

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Bond Rating Holds Steady. So Why Am I Nervous?

Brookline just scored another triple-A rating on the Town’s credit worthiness. The excellent rating means that the Town will get favorable interest rates on upcoming borrowings. Unfortunately, the change in overall conditions of the bond markets means the interest rate will likely be 5+ percent, whereas a year ago the Town was able to borrow in the low 2+ percent range.

All those at Town Hall who contributed to the success of the credit evaluation should take a bow for a job well done.

Nonetheless.

It’s not news that the Town’s history of solid report cards from bond rating agencies comes despite some chronic fiscal weaknesses. Here’s how the Brookline Financial Advisory Committee (BFAC) put it in their 2020 report:

• “The Town of Brookline faces significant financial challenges:

• “Expense growth unsustainably exceeds revenues.

• “Planned and recently commenced capital projects raise our projected outstanding debt by $550-$700 million, requiring additional debt exclusions.

• “ ‘Rainy day’ reserve fund is more than $4 million below the amount required by the Town's own policies.

• “Economic pressures imperil our AAA bond rating, which reflects our overall financial strength and allows us to borrow at lower interest rates.”

With the BFAC concerns in mind, this week I took a look at more recent data on Brookline’s fiscal health. My source for all of the tables on the report card below is the very useful municipal dashboard of the Division of Local Services under the MA Department of Revenue. Here’s my Brookline report card, divided into several categories, and using comparisons to neighboring communities. The opinions (“Average,” etc.) are my own invention:

Should I Be Nervous?

As a Select Board member, I can’t help having concerns when I look at data such as the above. The picture that is painted is of a high-spending municipality with a tax base that is weak on revenue production with one exception: our very high residential property values, which sustain high average taxes. Warning flags are flying when it comes to increasingly high levels of borrowing, and high spending to reduce unfunded liabilities such as pensions. Meanwhile, we don’t get help where we need it from State Aid, which lately can’t even keep up with the mandated 2.5% allowable growth in local property taxes. But, don’t take my word for it. Read the preface to our latest Moody’s report. Yes, we get their highest rating. But the cautionary note gives this Select Board member pause.

What Moody’s Says

The Moody’s bond rating service issued this Credit Opinion on Brookline in February of 2022. The summary page offers these bullet points:

All Politics is Local: Mar. 3 - Mar. 10

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Learning From Failure

By instinct, we respond to failure by looking away. But, now and then it pays to revisit initiatives that failed spectacularly. One such example arose this week because of a coincidence of timing. Ken Liss noted in his “This Week in Brookline History” newsletter that March 2 of 1969 marked the groundbreaking of that era’s Hearthstone Plaza — surviving today as 10 Brookline Place, the Village office complex occupied by Jimmy Fund/Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Stone touted the pedestrian overpass (upper photo) as his company’s gift to Brookline — a convenience that would forever link the north and south sides of Boylston Street while sparing pedestrians the danger of dodging the multiple lanes of cars on Route 9.

The pedestrian overpass was a failure. It gradually fell out of use, then decay set in, followed by closure and more decay, before it was finally demolished. The reasons were debated this week when followers of the Brookline Townwide Discussion page on Facebook reacted to my posting of the overpass photo first circulated by Ken. Highlights of reader comments:

Footnote to the above: Clement Stone had a sideline as a self-help promoter. He titled his autobiography The Success System That Never Fails. His Brookline legacy, the abandoned pedestrian overpass, underscores Stone’s hubris. The dream of peaceful coexistence with the highway that cuts through Brookline might inspire future pedestrian bridge proposals. If they start from the premise that it is the pedestrians who are the problem because they get in the way of the cars, perhaps they deserve to fail.

All Politics is Local: Feb. 24 - Mar. 3

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Eggs, Inflation and Taxes

There’s much to be learned from the recent national conversation about the price of eggs. Even at higher prices, eggs remain a relatively cheap source of protein. Still, the surge in prices brought home the risks of inflation, not just to the economy, but also to political futures — witness President Biden’s approval ratings.

At the local government level, the challenge isn’t the price of eggs. But there is an inflationary trend in costs, which is obvious from a look at Brookline’s property tax levies over a 20-year period.

Compare the gap between the last two bars to the previous gaps. If you detect a spike in the rate of increase, you are a good reader of charts. Here’s the trend based on 5-year intervals of local tax levy increases.

It is counter-intuitive to think of local property taxes as being subject to upward pressure with occasional spikes. We long ago internalized the notion that there is a 2.5% cap imposed by state mandate (“Prop 2 1/2”). However, Prop 2 1/2 allows for voter-approved overrides, as well as so-called “exemptions” for borrowing to cover the extraordinary costs of building projects, such as schools — as happened recently with our Ridley, BHS and Driscoll projects.

The net result of the overrides and exemptions (and additional measures such as the voter-approved Community Preservation Act) is that the 2 1/2 percent cap, which gets blamed for structural gaps in our local budgets, fails to reflect the true rate of increase in Brookline’s tax levy.

A better measure — although imperfect — is to look at the trend in property tax bills. Those bills are paid by owners of large commercial properties, as well as by condo owners, and also by single family homeowners. Consistent data over time is not easy to obtain as to commercial and condo tax payments. However, the state Department of Local Services keeps close track of property taxes on single family homes. For example:

From the state data, as well as local archives, such as this 2008 report of an override study committee, it is possible to extract this comparison:

Average (Mean) Single Family Property Taxes in Brookline

2008: $10,807

2023: $21,322

Taking the above numbers, and using a savings calculator to determine the annualized rate of increase, yields this result.

From 2008-2023, Brookline’s average single family tax bill increased at an annual rate of 4.6%.

That’s a far cry from the 2 1/2% cap. At such a rate, taxes will double every 15 years — just as Brookline’s overall tax levy doubled between 2008 ($136 million) and 2023 ($281 million).

On the other hand, 4.6% tax inflation is not as bad as headline inflation in consumer prices (6.41%) which has caused such public outcry. On the other, other hand, it’s above the 2% inflation rate that economists at the Fed consider “safe.”

That’s something to ponder while you enjoy your breakfast of eggs (60% inflation in 2022).

Historical Footnote:

2008 and Today

I came across the following observation (emphasis mine) about Brookline’s persistent budgetary gap (revenues short of spending) in the very useful 2008 Override Study Committee report.

It is important to understand why this structural deficit exists. A simple answer is that costs are growing faster than revenues. This is not because revenues have fallen. On the contrary, operating revenues (property taxes, local receipts, and state aid) have grown at an annual nominal rate of 4.6% since 1994. Over that same period, the Northeast Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased at a rate of only 2.7%. Thus, Brookline has grown its real revenues by 1.9% a year, 70% faster than the rate of inflation. Brookline’s revenues have more than kept up in real terms; our annual town budget actually has nearly 28% more dollars in real terms than it had in 1994. The structural deficit problem lies entirely with the cost side, approximately three-fourths of which is personnel expenses. Total spending on personnel is growing faster than the town’s revenue growth.

Who would have thought that the nominal rate of revenue growth (4.6%) was the same in 2008 and today?

Preview of the 2023 Override Questions

There was an excellent preview of the 2023 Override Questions last Tuesday, during a joint meeting of the Select Board and Advisory Committee. Town Administrator Chas Carey highlighted the townside budgetary needs. The Brookline Public Schools’ needs were presented by Superintendent Linus Guillory.

The presentations begin at 13:12 of this video.

Slides are also available for review.

Town slides here.

School slides here.

All Politics is Local: Feb. 15-22

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Reversing Climate Change Measure By Measure

As his city’s mayor in the 1980’s, Ed Koch habitually asked New Yorkers, "How'm I doin'?" In an era when all governments, from Town Hall to international summits, are under the imperative to reverse global warming, that question — “How are we doing?” — needs to be addressed yearly, monthly, weekly and daily.

But when it comes to reversing decades of reliance on oil, gas and coal to fuel heating and transportation systems, as well as the manufacturing on which our economy depends, what are the key measures of progress? How can governments be held to them?

On a small scale, Brookline experienced a test of progress during the recent cold snap of Feb. 3-4. With temperatures dipping to -10°, homeowners who recently replaced gas and oil-fired heat and hot water systems anxiously monitored the effectiveness of their electrically-powered heat pumps. Results such as these were shared randomly on the Town Meeting Member email listserv:

• “We have relatively new heat pumps in our home (installed 2019). When we had them installed, they were said to perform well down to -5°. I was a bit skeptical. But they handled last night's -10°.”

• “Heat pumps often have back-up resistance heat. My whole-house heat pump has one and has always worked fine in very cold weather.”

• “My 110-year-old house is heated entirely by heat pumps. We've got decent attic and basement insulation; the walls are hit-or-miss… We're doing just fine. There was a period this morning when the house was warm but couldn't quite get warmer…”

• “Performance is fine. I’ll let you all know if my February bill hits $1000 as it well may. How do we help people who can’t possibly afford that?”

• “My own geothermal unit worked perfectly well. It is drawing from the aquifer where the temperature is a consistent ~50ish, so the outside temperature makes no difference.”

• “My daughter’s heat pumps could NOT keep up with the frigid temperatures (even though the units were set for maximum heating) and she and her kids saw 55 degree temperatures at best. They crossed the street and stayed the rest of the day in our home, which has both heat pumps and gas-heated forced hot-water radiators and was much more comfortable.”

Overall, experiences such as those above validate that heat pumps, with improvements, can eventually replace fossil-fuel-based systems house-by-house. But what about large-scale buildings or on whole streets? And what about the challenge of scaling up to cover entire communities? An instructive anecdote from the email listserv:

• “The other night we had the annual meeting of our condo association… One of my neighbors reported that it would be impossible to convert to heat pumps, because the electric infrastructure on our street is too weak for the additional demand. Indeed, that is why the number of washer-dryer installations in units is strictly limited… Improving the grid is an important topic if we want to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.”

How Will Brookline Measure Progress?

If there is a message in the above experiences, it is that we can’t meet ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals without agreeing on key measures — and reporting progress early and often.

If you go looking for such measures on the Town of Brookline website, or in the annual report, or in the annual budget presented to Town Meeting, will you find them? My experience is mixed — we could definitely do better.

To take one example, below is some useful data that exists currently on the Town website — but not on a page dedicated to measuring progress in achieving climate goals. The data can be found, if you go looking, in a link on the Building Department page:

Monitoring numbers such as the above will be essential to the Town’s future sustainability efforts. To take just one example, note how the recent numbers for energy use at two comparably-sized schools — Ridley and Baker — compare. First, gas use, where Baker is significantly higher, as you would expect, given Ridley’s upgrade to heat pumps:

A mirror image of the above comparison occurs where electricity usage is concerned. The Ridley upgrade to heat pumps is evident in the higher electricity use:

If Brookline is to lead by example in addressing the climate emergency, then frequent, highly visible monitoring and reporting of municipal energy sourcing and use is essential. How else will we know if we are making progress towards the day when we are truly fossil fuel free?

All Politics is Local: Feb. 8-18

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

MBTA Communities Act Puts Home Rule to Test

State-imposed pressure on Brookline to increase the Town’s housing density is setting up a showdown at the November 2023 Town Meeting. The end result could determine whether “local home rule” is more illusion than reality where zoning is concerned.

“Local home rule” is at the heart of the balance of authority between Beacon Hill and our own locally-elected Town Meeting. Zoning is, essentially, the means by which we determine land use. It governs our balance of residential, commercial and industrial activity, as well as building heights and density and design — which, in turn, impacts population density, traffic, public safety and economic vitality.

Should final decisions on all of the above rest with Town Meeting or Beacon Hill? In practice, until recent years, Town Meetings, including Brookline’s, have exercised greater control over zoning. But that balance has been shifting. In the interest of creating more housing, some of it meeting affordability guidelines, State laws — such as Chapter 40B — have substituted State for local authority over development of housing.

In 2021, the Governor and Legislature tilted the balance of authority over local zoning further by adding another Chapter 40B-like housing initiative to the equation. It is the MBTA Communities Act (MBTACA). Here is how the website of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) describes the MBTA Communities Act:

This new law requires that an MBTA community shall have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria set forth in the statute:

• Minimum gross density of 15 units per acre

• Located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable

• No age restrictions and suitable for families with children

On one side of the coming Town Meeting battle will be supporters of a Planning Department initiative to comply with the state’s MBTACA by meeting the required 2023 deadline for submitting a plan. The key would be a “form-based zoning” pilot — aimed at the entire length of Harvard Street — to enable the addition of 1700 units of housing to one of Brookline’s core commercial arteries.

Opposing the state-driven initiative will be advocates for a community-based process to create a new “Brookline 2040” Comprehensive Plan, only now getting started. They argue that zoning changes driven by the MBTACA amount to an end run around homegrown comprehensive planning — at risk of driving commercial rents up, and small businesses out of the Harvard corridor, among other negative impacts.

A question hanging over both sides has to do with the margin that will be required for Town Meeting to endorse a zoning-based reimagining of Harvard Street’s residential/commercial mix and population density. Will it be a 2/3 vote (traditional for zoning changes) or a simple majority (1/2 + 1) of Town Meeting Members, as prescribed for housing-only upzonings under the state’s Housing Choice Act?

The surprising answer could be: “It (the vote margin) doesn’t matter.” That’s because, as far as the State is concerned, there’s only one right answer under the MBTA Act mandate (“Yes”).

The State intends to compel the “Yes” vote by cutting off hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to municipalities that vote “No.” Housing authorities in those communities would face a 10.6% cut in a key component of their state funding.

Michael Alperin, executive director of the Brookline Housing Authority, testified to the Select Board that non-compliance with the MBTACA would put at risk $225,000 in needed funds for BHA units “that we struggle to make ends meet and have been operating at a loss.”

The withholding of BHA funds would be annual for as many years as the Town’s non-compliance continues.

Carrots, Sticks, and Elusive Local Autonomy

At Tuesday’s Select Board meeting, Rep. Tommy Vitolo referred to the decision facing Brookline Town Meeting in November as a choice between compliance with zoning changes under the imperative of the MBTACA — or non-compliance, which would be met with “the appropriate loss of carrots or infliction of sticks… if our (local) legislature won’t do it (vote yes at Town Meeting) then we will be failing to comply.”

Do the “sticks” in the hand of the State pose the threat of loss of local autonomy in matters of land use (zoning)? Or is this further proof that “local home rule” has never been what the phrase implies. That seems to be the message of an excellent study, “Dispelling The Myth of Home Rule.” Here is a relevant paragraph:

(State law) places significant limits on the independent local autonomy often associated with the term “home rule.” The Zoning Act authorizes local action, but it contains restrictions on the exercise of municipal power. The Regional Planning Law not only mandates the accommodation of affordable housing, but it does so without empowering localities to construct affordable housing on their own terms or enabling them to preserve affordable housing once it has been built…

Another relevant quote comes from the Zoning Reform Working Group of the American Planning Association:

Although technically a ‘home rule’ state, the statutes that govern planning and land use regulation are so restrictive to local authority as to make home rule more an illusion than a reality in Massachusetts.

Town Meeting Members Have Their Say On Harvard Street’s Future

The MBTA Communities Act — requiring that Brookline create a public transit-oriented zone within which multi-unit housing can be added “by right” (without special permits) — has spawned a debate over the future of Harvard Street. The Planning Department’s proposed “form-based zoning” pilot would address the MBTA Act by enabling 1700 added units of housing between Station Street and Verndale Street. The debate between Town Meeting Members on their listserv has been vigorous. (Members identified by Precinct.)

Precinct 17 (against Harvard St. pilot) —

“The pre-selection of Harvard Street by the Planning Department is pre-empting any public dialogue or community engagement around where we might wish to see change and growth in Brookline and what impacts we need to be prepared for from that growth or how or if we wish to comply with the MBTA Guidelines. To my way of thinking, by funding this project, the decision of how and where to change has already been made before we even begin our planning process and any public involvement will be window dressing of the worst kind.”

Precinct 8 (for Harvard St. pilot) —

“There is, in my opinion, a great deal of misinformation being shared. The law requires that multifamily housing must be allowed by right, and that the zoning cannot restrict use by unit size or only to a certain population (e.g. the elderly). Neither of these say that developers cannot choose to build buildings with such units -- just that the town cannot require or restrict zoning to only such units, which is a common strategy to exclude families. The state legislature had very solid reasons for passing this law -- the state needs more housing in order to increase supply to accommodate demand, and following classic economics, lower prices.”

Precinct 13 (against) —

“If the Town is going to engage a ‘consultant’ to ‘study’ zoning along Harvard Street, I would certainly hope that the study's specifications would include the complete impact upon the Town's finances resulting from the potential added school costs that are nowhere near offset by any incremental tax revenue.”

Precinct 5 (for) —

“The MBTA Communities initiative is designed to encourage cities and towns to increase housing supply, particularly multifamily, near transit. Increasing supply, and the range of housing options to meet a range of needs, is widely accepted as the best way to address the affordability crisis. Thus the required zoning allowing 15 units per acre by right.”

Precinct 7 (against) —

“If I wanted to live in Cambridge or Somerville then I would have moved there.The thought of what is being proposed makes me shudder.I am just sick of people who don’t even live in this area deciding what is best for us.”

Precinct 5 (for) —

“We have an incredibly competent planning department that presented A LOT of information, innovation, and energy last Tuesday to make our compliance with this mandate work. Nobody wants to allow developers to wipe out small businesses and storefronts. No one. Stating that somehow all of those businesses along Harvard will be gone is quite over the top, as is the notion that there will be 10,000 new students for our public school system. We all need to take a breath… and then let's all work together to make the best possible outcome happen.”

Precinct 17 (against) —

“To put 3 or 2 stories above a single story or 2-story commercial building requires the demolition of the commercial building and the eviction (typically non-renewal of the leases) of the commercial tenants.  Those commercial tenants will not shut down temporarily and wait  years to reopen in the same location.  Some will surely give up and go out of business, abandoning years of effort and hope.  Others may be able to relocate elsewhere but probably not in Brookline which will have a reduction in commercial spaces.  Will they be replaced by other commercial tenants?  That depends on many unknowns, including can Brookline persuade the state to modify its rules?”

All Politics is Local: Feb. 3-13

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Good Questions Foster Good Government

An example of the usefulness of asking good questions occurred last week with the release of the so-called Town/School split of anticipated FY24 revenues.

(An explanation of how the split is calculated is offered on p. 13 of the FY24 School Budget.)

Here’s a recap of three relevant numbers:

Total FY24 Revenues (budgeted) = $358 million

Town Share (Police, Fire, DPW, Buildings, Park-Rec, Public Health, Libraries etc. combined) = $87.7 million

School Share (PSB operating budget for BEEP/pre-K program + eight K-8 schools + BHS) = $131.9 million

The release of the numbers prompted the usual questions:

• Is the split a fair allocation of increased revenues from Prop 2 1/2 and new growth in the tax base?

• Are Town and School operations sustainable without layoffs at anticipated levels of funding?

• Will an override be necessary in order to, in effect, level-fund Town and School operations? How much?

HERE’S THE QUESTION that didn’t surface, even though it begs to be asked:

If revenues total $358 million, why is a mere $219.6 million available for combined School and Town operations? ($219.6 million = $87.7 million/town + $131.9 million/ school.)

Another way of looking at this is by calculating the amount of revenues NOT available for Town and/or School operations.

That number is $138.4 million. Yes, it is larger than the Town’s departmental operations budget by 58% and larger than the Schools’ operating budget by 5%.

So, what are the drivers of this “Other” component of our annual budget that is significantly larger than Town operations and slightly larger than School operations?

Here are the Big 4 “Other” components from the FY24 budget:

Benefits (Health Care and Pensions) = $80.5 million

Debt Service = $36.3 million

Capital Improvements (major Infrastructure projects) = $8.9 million

County, MBTA, Etc. Assessments = $9.7 million

The bad news is that the biggest of the “Other” costs of local government (Benefits and Debt Service) are projected to increase at a rate more than twice what’s allowed under the state-imposed levy limit on local revenues (Prop 2 1/2).

Projected Increase in Costs FY24-FY28

Benefits = 6.9% annually (average)

Debt = 11.5% annually (average)

Now You Have Some Context for the Coming Ballot Questions

I offer the above for a reason. The Select Board will soon decide on the framing of an Override question to be placed on the May 2 ballot. In addition, there will be a Pierce School project Debt Exclusion question.

• The override question would add a sum (town and school amounts in the $5 million - $10 million range are being discussed) to be added to our annual tax levy, by increasing the base on which we can increase tax levies another 2.5% year by year.

• The debt exclusion would add a debt-repayment sum to our annual tax levy for the lifetime of the repayment — estimated at $12.8 million per year given a Pierce demolition and rebuild costing $190 million. (See p. 9 of the linked long range financial plan.)

As it happens, the MA Division of Local Services now provides a data tool that tracks the history of overrides and debt exclusions for all 351 Massachusetts cities and towns. This week, I downloaded the following Brookline information from the DLS website:

Sources of above charts: Debt exclusions . Overrides.

Conclusion: in analyzing budgets it pays to ask good questions. And in analyzing the impact of overrides and debt exclusions on taxes, it pays to keep track of the total over time. Little nibbles eventually add up to big bites.

Footnote to the Debt Exclusion Table

The State Division of Local Services inexplicably omits the 2019 election from its data tables on Brookline’s history of Debt Exclusions for school projects. As it happens, 2019 is the rare year in which Brookline voters rejected a debt exclusion for a new building project. Question 1 was defeated by a vote of 5171-4303. The result was that a ninth K-8 school, which would have replaced the Baldwin School in South Brookline at a cost of $82.9 million, was never built. The enrollment surge which prompted the 9th school proposal subsequently abated during Covid.

(It’s late to be doing so, but the Town Clerk’s office might want to correct the omission of the 2019 vote in the State DLS records.)

All Politics is Local: Jan. 23-Feb. 3

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Analyzing Budgets Requires Making Comparisons

Parents of children are often advised not to compare. Example: “Comparison is the thief of joy.” So, given their in loco parentis role, perhaps it should come as no surprise that school systems resist comparisons.

Case in point: The School Committee and the Advisory Committee were recently at odds over the Advisory Committee’s proposal (Warrant Article 37) for an outside audit of the School Department’s annual budget. Town Meeting sided with the School Committee, resulting in a yes/no vote of 59-178 on Article 37.

For reasons of process, I was one of those who voted “No” on Article 37. Nonetheless, I share the Advisory Committee’s concern that the annual budget produced by the School Department is incomplete and requires further analysis.

In short, the FY24 Public Schools Budget fails to make comparisons. And, without comparisons, the numbers are just numbers. They don’t answer questions such as:

• What did the Brookline schools spend per pupil in a given year vs. prior years?

• In years when per pupil spending has been rising, how has Brookline’s higher spending compared vs. neighboring communities’?

• Over time, how has Brookline’s rate of increase in school spending compared with our rate of increase in revenues?

It’s possible to answer the above questions for recent years (but not yet FY23 or FY24) by turning to the data dashboard maintained by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). For the ‘21-’22 school year and immediate prior years, here’s what the dashboard shows:

1. During the period of Covid-induced enrollment decline (when school population fell from 7800 to 6800), persistent Brookline Public Schools payroll expenses resulted in a 20% increase in per pupil expenditures from FY20-FY21..

It’s worth noting that the above per pupil increase in spending, once “baked in,” became the floor for the FY23 and FY24 budgets. To date, enrollments have rebounded by some 300 students — but lag their peak by some 700 students.

2. Brookline’s hike in per pupil costs exceeded that in neighboring communities, and was double the State average.

3. Over the past decade, the annual increase in local revenues allocated to the Public Schools has averaged +4.58%. During that same period, net enrollments were flat (7112 in 2013 vs. projected 7200 in 2023) after peaking in 2020 then dropping sharply during Covid. The cumulative increase in the budget over the decade FY13 to FY23 was +51% (increasing to $125,098,883 from $82,780,770). Here are the numbers:

By comparison to the 51% increase in the school budget over the above decade, the budget for municipal departments increased by 30% (from $64,857,909 in FY13 to $84,507,852 in FY23).

The Advisory Committee lost the vote over Article 37, but they still have work to do where the school budget — and Town budget — are concerned. Analysis of trends is essential. And comparisons are a good place to start — regardless of what we learned as parents.

All Politics is Local: Jan. 17-27

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

The Density/Destiny Connection

The year 2023 began with a new round of headlines about housing production:

Whether in Boston or Brookline, several themes characterize discussions of housing production:

• a persistent gap between robust growth in jobs and anemic growth in new housing is to blame for high housing prices;

• the gap undermines Greater Boston’s economic health;

• the challenge is regional and needs to be addressed with town-by-town production goals and shared responsibility for meeting them;

• if towns lag in housing production, the State should step in to stimulate and, if necessary, force compliance with housing goals.

Against this consensus view that Massachusetts faces an inevitable future of housing shortage, occasional headlines seem to point in the opposite direction. For example:

It doesn’t seem to matter that deaths outpace births, more people are leaving than arriving, and the latest head count shows a population drop. Prognosticators remain firm in their warning of a worsening housing shortage.

But can the housing crisis chorus agree on how many units Brookline needs to add to fulfill its housing production obligation?

Consistent numbers are hard to come by. Here are three examples of hypothetical Brookline housing production goals:

1. 12,000+ housing units by 2030? Source: the “Metro Mayors Coalition.” It’s likely you haven’t heard of this group, even though Brookline’s former Town Administrator joined 14 other mayors and town managers in signing the coalition’s housing pledge. A 2018 update from MAPC (Metropolitan Area Planning Council) pegs the 15-community goal at 185,000 units of added housing by 2030. If the goal were divided equally among the 15 communities, Brookline’s share would be 12,333 units of housing over the next 7 years.

2. 4,000 units by 2040? Check out this Boston Globe profile of Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, “the housing leader Massachusetts needs.” The article references an estimate by housing experts that Massachusetts needs to produce 400,000 housing units by 2040. Given that Brookline’s population is roughly 1/100 of the state’s, a crude estimate of the Town’s share of production would be 4,000 units.

3. 1700 added units on Harvard Street (Station Street to Verndale Street)? Source: a recent Brookline Planning Dept. presentation envisioning Harvard Street as a compliance zone (3A district) under the “MBTA Communities Act.”

The MBTA Communities Act rule of thumb for housing density is an interesting one. The basics are very well described in Amy Dain’s excellent series in Commonwealth Magazine. The act posits “15 dwelling units per acre” as the appropriate 1/2-mile radius density around MBTA stops and stations. Dain offers this useful explanation:

To represent what parcel-level densities of 15-units-per-acre look like, I could show photos of 15 townhouses on a one-acre lot, or a triple decker apartment building on a 1/5-acre lot, or a 30-unit condo building on a two-acre lot, or a 150-unit apartment complex on a 10-acre parcel.

Prediction: 2023 will see a surge in prescriptions for added housing density in towns such as Brookline, but not necessarily an equal surge in housing production. Perhaps one reason for the disconnect is that the pressure for added density will be driven by State and regional authorities, putting at risk local autonomy over planning. Where population density is concerned, Brookline and other communities may face a test of control over their own destiny.

Select Board Chair’s Parting Words

These past five and a half years have been a wild ride for the Town. We’ve seen it all together: legalization of marijuana, the hiring of nearly every single department head, including our Town Administrator, redistricting, a global pandemic, and the hardest challenge of them all, scooters. Serving on the Select Board and as the Board’s Chair has been a great honor.

I want to thank my fellow Board members, both past and present. You have been great colleagues, partners, and friends, and I am a better person and leader because I had the privilege to work with you all. 

I want to thank Town staff. I am so proud to work for an organization that has attracted such talent. The community relies on you all every single day and you continue to deliver excellent results.

I want to thank our community. You all have supported me, a girl who was not born here, didn’t go to school here, doesn’t have kids in the schools, and doesn’t own property. My resume may not look like the leaders before me, but thankfully, this Town supports leaders who look out for the best interests of the Town, even when that leads our leaders to take controversial or initially unpopular positions, something I have been accused of more than once during my tenure on the Select Board. 

“Our Town is too complex, too demanding too much for its executive branch, to be headed by five unpaid, part-time volunteers.” — outgoing Select Board chair Heather Hamilton

 With those principles in mind, I want to leave you all with one final thought. Brookline’s municipal government is broken. Our Town is too complex, too demanding, too much for its executive branch, to be headed by five unpaid, part-time volunteers.  This is not a slight against volunteerism or the noble women and men who served on the Select Board before and with me. This job just cannot be done well part-time. One cannot oversee hundreds of millions of dollars in budgets and hundreds of employees in only a few hours per week. For too long, we have asked unpaid volunteers to dedicate dozens of hours each month; that is not feasible for residents with significant professional or familial obligations. Public service should not be a path to prosperity; it also should not be a path to pauperism. 

Brookline deserves full-time, democratically elected leadership. We deserve elected leadership who pour their full energy into making Brookline the municipal paragon it should be. Because that Brookline is worth the investment.

I encourage readers to offer views — positive or negative — on content of this newsletter. Email jvanscoyoc0@gmail.com.

Please share “All Politics Is Local” content with friends and encourage them to sign up at Good Government for Brookline.

All Politics is Local: Jan. 7-17

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

One Meeting, Three Demolitions, Much Work

Brookline’s built environment continues to change, demolition by demolition. The process can be dramatic or — as with some knockdowns on Thursday’s Planning Board agenda — incremental.

Demolition plans for three properties of two units or less will be reviewed. The demolitions will have visual and environmental impacts, while adding minimally (a net of just one unit) to local housing. Here are the proposals:

To appreciate the work done by Brookline’s Planning Board, Board of Appeals, and Preservation Commission in processing demolition requests such as those above, consider these data:

Official Meeting Agendas (Planning/ Appeals/ Preservation) Incorporating Above Properties:

85 Naples Rd. – 19

269 Lee St. – 9

55 Green St. – 17

That’s a lot of volunteer time (board/ commission members) as well as a considerable workload for staff (Department of Planning and Community Development). Here are examples of staff reports that were produced:

55 Green St. (starting on p. 42)

55 Green St. (demolition report)

269 Lee St. (starting on p. 5)

85 Naples Rd.

85 Naples Road — Construction Impact on Trees at 89 Naples Rd.

To give you an idea of the detail involved in measuring demolition impacts, here are two paragraphs lifted from a tree consultant’s report evaluating 85 Naples Rd. construction impacts on trees at 89 Naples Rd. (Explanation: “CRZ” refers to Critical Root Zone and “TPZ” refers to Tree Protection Zone.)

Spoiler alert: Skip the next paragraph if you intend to read the 29-page tree impact report in full.

The consultant concludes, “Failure to implement the recommended tree protection plan will most likely result in tree mortality of the trees at 89 Naples Road, with potential loss of value totalling $43,800.”

So, What’s My Point?

Tree protection is important. So is design review that elevates the value of neighborhood context. So is adding housing units when that’s an option.

All of these values, and others, are incorporated in the day-to-day work of our local government volunteers and paid departmental staff in a process that often takes place out of view, with little or no attention from the public — and currently no reporters keeping track.

My recommendation to elected officials (including yours truly):

When it comes to floating ideas which require Town Hall to assume new responsibilities, a dose of humility is in order.

Appreciation of the work already being done would be a good place to start.

Let’s make humility a New Year’s Resolution, if we can keep it.

Real Estate Speculations

Now that demolition of a distinctive multi-unit complex at 2 Claflin Rd. has been proposed, several Town Meeting Members would like to know what’s on the mind of the owner.

Why do I say “distinctive”? Because I’m aware of few surviving early 20th Century complexes with style and flair to match this:

Quoting from the Preservation Commission report on the building:

• “The building is associated with one or more significant historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the town or Commonwealth; and

• “The building is historically or architecturally significant in terms of its period, style, method of construction, or its association with a significant architect or builder, either by itself or as part of a group of buildings.”

A document that gives a more colorful description of 2 Claflin Rd./174-178 Winthrop Rd. was shared with the Preservation Commission:

“A Journey to Venice”

“Winthrop Court seems to be modeled on the simplest vernacular architecture of Venice as seen in James Whistler and John Singer Sargent’s watercolors. The building is set into the slope of Addison Hill and rises four stories. The construction is sturdy brick covered with a buff stucco veneer. Italian style eaves tiled in rich rosy terracotta crown an entablature graced with a repeating series of carved brackets or modillions…

“…All of the apartments have generous, wide sash windows ideally situated to catch breezes from both the east and west, and to allow residents to enjoy sunlight for much of the day in every season. With its 10 foot ceilings, cross-ventilation, and steam heating system, the Winthrop villa has wise lessons to teach us about healthy, sustainable building design.”

Town Meeting Concerns

On their email listserv, Town Meeting Members registered these comments and concerns regarding the proposed demolition:

Precinct 17 —

“This is unprecedented in my memory. Does this mean the value of super-luxury real estate is such that it pays to destroy an entire 22-unit building? Will we witness the displacement of 22 renter households?”

Precinct 17 —

“It’s almost obvious that this will be replaced with fewer and larger multimillion dollar condo units. Sorry to mention it, but the zoning changes that reduce on-site parking facilitate targeting and demolishing older multifamily rental buildings… Developers pocket the savings and increase their bottom lines. Thus is the road to hell paved with both good intentions.”

Precinct 5 —

“A demolition representative of the other end of the spectrum is across from Downes Field at 29-31 Highland Road. It is one of a row of modest 3-family homes built in 1960; each unit about 1,000 square feet, just about right for a small family. This was the first home I bought in 1969. "Last August, it was sold for $1.45 million. Then demolished. What will replace it?”

Edith Pearlman: An Appreciation

The obituaries for Edith Pearlman, who died recently at age 86, only begin to capture the story of her late-career rise from “relative publishing obscurity” to the status of “instant if belated literary star at the age of 74” (quoting the New York Times).

Edith’s brief but unforgettable stint as a contributor to the Brookline Chronicle Citizen will forever be a treasured memory from my decade as a local newspaper editor.

Her columns appeared under the heading “A Walker in the Town” (her idea, as I recall). To this day, I get asked about them. Some, but not all, are haphazardly preserved in stacks of newspapers in my basement. I can’t part with them. Here is an excerpt from “Answered Prayers,” a piece she wrote in October of 1977:

… Another frequent prayer: more cafes. Now we have a new one. The Cafe Shalom on Pleasant Street is not as worldly as Papillon — no Danish furniture, no Haydn over the speaker, no whipped cream on the coffee — but is a convenient place to have a knish with a colleague. A gourmet acquaintance of the Walker raves over the kosher pizza. Cafe Shalom has that increasing rarity, a counter. A counter is itself an answer to the prayer of the person who is feeling tired and unsociable. You don't have to wait for a waiter nor serve yourself in a self-service line; you can sit all alone and mutter at your newspaper, and only the counterman knows.

The column concluded:

… Only a few more things are needed to make Brookline blissful for the Walker: a little boutique of discount Givenchy, a little law banning the private car.

Amen. Edith Pearlman was an editor’s Answered Prayer.

All Politics is Local: Dec. 15-18

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Will There Be an Earthshot for Sustainable Buildings?

Much as many of us enjoyed last week’s visit to Boston of the Prince and Princess of Wales and their celebrity entourage, the substance of the occasion was somewhat lost in the frenzy.

The five 2022 Earthshot Prizes* awarded in Boston touch on key aspects of the global sustainability crisis. They are summarized in a sidebar at the end of this column. However, given the state of affairs in our local built environment (shortage of housing combined with abandoned office buildings), Prince William and Princess Catherine might want to add a sixth challenge to the list.

The impact of buildings on global warming is worthy of “Earthshot” levels of innovation and investment. Here’s a modest proposal based on two premises:

1. “Father Knows Best.” In this case, the royal father is King Charles, known to be near-fanatical about the potential for adaptive reuses of traditional buildings as a tool of both architectural preservation and sustainable building.

2. Brookline Shows the Way. Our town has a history of adaptive reuses of buildings.

To cite just a few examples:

Town Meeting Tackles Wasteful Demolitions

Adaptive reuse has its origins as a post-urban renewal era tool of architectural preservation and community revival.

Today, given efforts to slow global warming by reducing carbon emissions, there’s new attention to adaptive reuse because of its “green” sustainability benefits. Witness the remarks of former Select Board member Nancy Heller to Town Meeting (1:10:00 on the video) as she spoke in favor of a two-year pause for developers who apply to demolish existing housing.

“Demolitions have a negative effect on efforts to combat climate change. Carl Elefante says the greenest building is the one that already exists… The Sierra Club points out we’re recycling Coke cans, we’re recycling beer bottles, why are we tearing viable buildings down? Restore Oregon.org analyzed the climate impact from an embodied carbon perspective. They found that renovating, instead of tearing down, a 1500 square foot older home saved 126 metric tons of carbon, the equivalent of keeping 93 cars off the road.”

Some Definitions

What is “embodied carbon”? This definition is from the writings of Carl Elefante:

Buildings represent enormous investments in energy, material, and financial resources and yet thousands of viable buildings are destroyed every year in the name of progress. The scale of such wastefulness is even more troubling as the world confronts climate change and the need for rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Buildings cause global warming by consuming non-renewable energy for heating, cooling, lighting, and equipment (operational emissions) and also from building product manufacturing and construction (embodied emissions). For many buildings, embodied emissions are equivalent to two decades or more of operational emissions.

Who is Carl Elefante? He rose to prominence in 2007 after writing “The greenest building is one that is already built” in the journal of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In 2018, as president of the American Institute of Architects, he had these reflections:

​Ideas about existing buildings are evolving. Like water and energy, existing buildings are a resource to be used purposefully and managed.

Existing buildings are a resource for growth. Every city and town in the nation has dozens, hundreds, even thousands of abandoned and partially occupied buildings. Simply occupying every floor of every existing building would absorb years of demand for growth and revitalize countless neighborhoods. Renewing existing buildings is the smartest smart-growth strategy.

Existing buildings are also a resource for learning about life before buildings were addicted to fossil fuels, and cities and towns were addicted to automobiles in the name of progress.

For the next generation of architects, embracing the opportunities and challenges of existing buildings is the elephant in the room. How long before our profession notices?

*Earthshot Prizes: Five Challenges

Summing up: Should William and Kate ever return to Boston for another Earthshot Prize ceremony, here’s hoping Sustainable Buildings will be added to their list of climate challenges, of which these five were spotlighted last week at the MGM Music Hall. Here is a recap:

1. Food Production. Award to Kheyti, an Indian startup, for their Greenhouse-in-a-Box, an inexpensive, simple covering for small-acreage farming that reduces water and pesticide use during periods of heat and drought while increasing crop yields.

2. Air Pollution. Award to Mukuru Clean Stoves. Conceived as a replacement for charcoal burning stoves in the slums of Nairobi, Mukuru stoves burn a processed biomass. Stove and fuel are less costly while reducing pollution by 70-90 percent over traditional cooking.

3. Dying Oceans. Award to Queensland (Australia) Indigenous Women Rangers Network for training over 60 women to protect coastal ecosystems in the area of the Great Barrier Reef.

4. Forever Plastics in the Waste Stream. Award to London-based start-up Notpla, innovators of a seaweed-and-plant-based alternative to plastic — entirely biodegradable and useable for food containers, as well as in the cosmetic and fashion industries.

5. Greenhouse Gases. Award to 44.01, an Oman-based company named after the molecular weight of carbon dioxide. 44.01 developed a technique for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere by mineralising it in peridotite, an abundant rock in several parts of the globe.

More information on the 2022 Earthshot Prize Winners here.

All Politics is Local: Nov. 23-30

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Will Brookline Revisit How Reading is Taught?

The most substantive discussions of public education don’t necessarily occur at School Committee meetings.

That was decidedly the case last Sunday night, when a parent/teacher group, the Brookline Literacy Coalition, hosted a free-wheeling discussion prompted by research into the prevalent method of teaching reading, not just in Brookline, but in school systems nationwide.

The research isn’t new. It has been accumulating since the 1990’s. But attention to it sky-rocketed as a result of a popular podcast. American Public Media, producers of the podcast, describe Sold a Story as “an exposé of how educators came to believe in something that isn't true and are now reckoning with the consequences — children harmed, money wasted, an education system upended.”

There’s a local connection. Emily Hanford, the journalist behind Sold a Story, is a graduate of Lincoln School and Brookline High. She has won several awards for her reporting on the unscientific underpinnings of popular reading curricula going back to 2019, when Hard Words won the public service award from the Education Writers Association.

To those who have the time, my advice is to listen to all six episodes of Sold a Story. Here’s an episode-by-episode summary:

1. Prompted in part by at-home learning during Covid, many parents are waking up to the reality that their children can’t read at grade level.

2. Since the 1970’s, the teaching of reading has been dominated by the methods of theorist Marie Clay, despite research dating to the 1990’s proving that Clay’s theory on how children acquire reading skills was wrong.

3. Despite advances in reading science, backers of Marie Clay’s “cueing” theory pushed back.

4. Lucy Calkins, a disciple of Marie Clay’s reading strategies, incoporated them into a series of books and curriculum platforms that came to dominate American pedagogy.

5. The popularity of instructional methods promoted by Lucy Calkins, despite being debunked, gained backing from a powerful publisher, Heinemann, which makes millions in profits from promoting the curricula to school systems.

6. After conceding she had overlooked important advances in the science of reading, Lucy Calkins revised her materials. But the “Fountas & Pinnell reading levels” curricula, based on earlier and flawed teachings of Calkins, remain embedded in public schools (including Brookline’s) in many states.

What I Learned From the Literacy Coalition Meeting

Sunday night’s meeting was a revelation. It attracted some three dozen participants — parents, teachers, and two School Committee members (Steve Ehrenberg and Suzanne Federspiel). To encourage everyone to speak freely, without fear of consequence, no recording was kept, so there is no video link to provide.

The result was frank talk and some admissions that might come as a surprise.

• Twice during the meeting, individual teachers acknowledged they don’t use the School Department’s favored curriculum because, in their experience, it is the wrong way to teach reading.

• One participant told of an encounter with an aspiring reading specialist being trained at Lesley College, concerned that job openings favor instructors who teach according to Fountas and Pinnell methods. (Dr. Irene Fountas holds the “Marie M. Clay Endowed Chair in Early Literacy” at Lesley.)

• Brookline is not alone in confronting decisions about reading curricula. Witness this recent meeting of the Newton School Committee where representatives of the Special Education Parent Advisory Committee thanked the Mayor for an ARPA grant to evaluate reading curricula. Here’s how one parent characterized the Fountas and Pinnell curricula: “not evidence based, does not follow the science of reading, lacks aspects of cultural sensitivity and does not insure equity for our most vulnerable students, especially those with learning disabilities.” Comments by parents begin at 0:7:00 of this video.

Rejecting Failed Methods: NYC example

One of the first initiatives taken by New York City Mayor Eric Adams was to support phonics-based reading instruction in the public schools. He did so with support of Schools Chancellor David Banks, who argued that the education department’s previous reading curriculum has not worked.

The Literacy Coalition’s letter to the School Committee

Literacy Coalition leaders spoke during the public comment portion of the 11/21 School Committee meeting — delivering this letter stating their concerns:

​To the Brookline School Committee:

Literacy is related to everything we all care about for the students in our schools, including social-emotional health, academic achievement, and life opportunities. We are particularly concerned about longstanding methods, materials, and practices that create conditions for inequity and large disparities in outcomes.

We will be blunt. Some children are not dependent on school to teach them to read. But a significant number are. When children are not learning to read in school, many families in Brookline have the resources to at least try to teach them at home and/or hire outside help. We are not talking about enrichment or pushing their kids to sky-high competitive achievement. We are talking about foundational skills that should be taught to all kids in school.

This evening, we want to request two things from you. First, please listen to a new 6-episode podcast series from American Public Media called Sold a Story. It provides important background about a set of ideas and practices that have informed and continue to inform literacy teaching in Brookline, and that actually make learning to read much harder for some children. It will help you understand the needs and challenges up ahead for Brookline.

We are encouraged to hear that, in compliance with state law, our schools have started implementing a well-validated early literacy assessment in Kindergarten through Grade 2. We hope this is a step in the direction of a preventative, rather than a wait-to-fail model.

And this brings us to our next request: Please, eliminate the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System at all grade levels. Do not wait to conduct a review. It is not an evidence-based assessment, it is misleading and time-wasting. There is evidence that it is unreliable in identifying kids who need help, and identifying what they need, and inaccurate in measuring progress. It can easily be replaced with a quick, freely available measure alongside skill assessments when needed, and teacher-led formative assessments. A level does not describe a student’s strengths or needs and does not meaningfully guide teaching. Eliminating the BAS will also facilitate clear communication with parents instead of an alphabet soup of meaningless ‘levels’.

We understand change can be hard. We urge you to make sure that the leadership of the district is informed and well-prepared to lead on this issue. To emphasize a point from the podcast, “This shouldn’t be about what adults want, but about what kids need.” Thank you.

Sincerely,
Miriam Fein
Ola Ozernov-Palchik
Benjamin Kelley

Affordable Housing: A Reader Responds

The debate over paths towards adding to Brookline’s supply of affordable housing continues with this latest reader comment:

From Precinct 6 —

The “new luxury units are bad for housing costs” meme is common but has it exactly backwards. Adding units at any price point helps free up supply at all price points below it.

The demand for housing is such that folks move up, freeing space in the next tier down; a study in Finland (where public records are much more comprehensive than elsewhere) showed this working explicitly. See https://www.fullstackeconomics.com/p/how-luxury-apartment-buildings-help-low-income-renters.

We need more units, and any increase at any level helps.

All Politics is Local: Nov. 13-20

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Tax-Rich State Needs Lesson in Sharing

Years ago, there was a popular book with the title, “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.” I recommend that our State leaders read it.

At the top of the list of lessons learned is: “Share everything.”

A frustration of serving in elected office at the local level is the reality that dollars from Town-collected property taxes are capped, while income taxes, which the State collects, grow with the economy.

Nonetheless, the State fails to make up the difference by adequately sharing growth revenues at the local level.

The rich-poor gap between State and Local revenues was evident in two events this fall:

1. Thanks to voter approval of a 4% surtax (Question 1) on incomes of the wealthy ($1 million+), the State will experience a booster shot of new revenues for transportation and education. The amount of those dollars that will be shared at the local level will be determined by the legislature and governor. However, the trend is clear — and not in local government’s favor. In the past 5 years, state revenue as a share of local budgets has declined.

2. Even while the State stands to capture added taxes from multi-millionaires, its revenues in FY22 were so extraordinary that refunds were triggered. More than $2.9 billion will be returned to the state’s taxpayers, many of them in the upper brackets. No such bonanza is available to cities and towns, some of which face a choice between labor strife or taxpayer exhaustion because of revenue shortfalls.

Here’s a chart showing that the increase in State revenues since FY17 has been double the increase in Brookline’s revenues.

Yes, the State offers local aid to assist communities with services, primarily education, but the year-to-year increases in aid significantly lag the State’s revenue growth. The State could and should do more.

The ‘Ability to Pay’ Gap

The pace of revenue growth isn’t the only State-Local gap.

There’s also a gap when it comes to matching taxes to ability to pay.

Brookline faces one of its periodic reckonings with budget shortfalls tied to our 2.5%-capped property tax growth and government costs that are inflating in the 4% range.

Talks are underway between Town Hall and the Public Schools. An override proposal, if agreed upon, could well be $10 million or more — and on the same ballot as a debt exclusion (tax levy increase outside the 2.5% cap) for a $150 million Pierce School project.

Ability of property taxpayers in 2023 to shoulder the added burden of an override and a Pierce School debt exclusion isn’t guaranteed, especially for those on fixed incomes. But no such doubt exists where the State’s income-based taxes are concerned.

A possible indicator that some residential property owners are feeling the strain would be an increase in unpaid taxes. Two years of a spike in delinquent taxes doesn’t make a trend. But this next chart showing outstanding taxes nearly doubling since 2019 is worth watching.

Auditor Bump Tells It Like It Is

Suzanne Bump can look back with pride on her accomplishments as State Auditor.

She risked unpopularity with the Legislature with a report she issued in October. The report identified a shortfall of $1.2 billion between State-mandated programs imposed on local governments, and the dollars to fund them.

Bump’s message to the Legislature was blunt: “The solution … is to prioritize funding of (the mandated programs). It is a simple solution, but it may require some hard choices.”

One shortfall highlighted in Bump’s report is the local burden of $448 million to fund school transportation programs.

The Massachusetts Municipal Association added this note to Bump’s report: “Support from the state continues to decline as a percentage of local budgets, reflecting a growing reliance on the property tax, which is capped by Proposition 2½.”

This chart shows the decline of State Aid as a contributor to Brookline’s total spending.

All Politics is Local: Nov. 5-12

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Income Gaps, Housing Prices and Affordability

Recent issues of this newsletter have focused on Prop 2 1/2 override proposals headed to the Brookline ballot, as well as the possible impacts on tax bills, rents and housing affordability. Here’s how one reader responded:

“The bottom line is that I am being taxed out of Brookline… I would like to see more frugality and better attempts not to tax the struggling middle…

“The real issue is the income gap. In reaction to the 1929 depression, the top federal income tax tier from 1936-1980 was at least 70% and sometimes 90%. This had a great leveling effect. Both New Deal and Great Society programs were built on high tax rates on the wealthy. Reagan cut taxes and Clinton failed to restore the top tiers. Today everyone expects New Deal and Great Society benefits, but the rich get to keep the tax dollars these programs were premised on. (Republicans thought lowering taxes would force program cancellation. The programs weren't cut and the middle class pays the price.)

”Affordable (subsidized) housing is not the answer. Keeping excessive money out of the hands of those who keep bidding up the price is the answer. It worked 1936-1980.”

The reader provided links to various charts illustrating the “Gilded Age” dimensions of current income gaps. Here’s one:

Here’s another:

The ​just-released 2022 Greater Boston Housing Report Card put out by the Boston Foundation contains this key finding:

“Our region has failed to build sufficient housing for a couple of decades running. Production has increased somewhat in recent years, but it remains below what is needed for a healthy market. A subset of largely urban communities are leading these production increases, while higher-income suburbs continue to contribute less new housing to help meet our regional needs.”

Indeed, Brookline lags significantly behind more-urban Boston and Cambridge as a contributor to housing supply:

The 2022 Report Card finds Greater Boston housing markets to be unhealthy by several measures:

• not enough new supply to meet growing demand in a post-Covid rebounding economy;

• almost half of renters cost burdened (rate of increase in incomes not keeping pace with increases in rents);

• lower-income households hit hardest by the gap between housing cost increases and income increases.

What’s Missing From the Report Card

The Housing Report Card falls short in one important respect. It lacks analysis of how wealth gaps influence the type of housing that seemingly dominates the new production visible in Boston and surrounding cities and towns.

One example of the prevalent housing trend is rising on the edge of Brookline and Brighton, at the corner of Washington Street and Corey Road. Construction activity has been relentless on the complex known as “The Brookliner.” To whom are the units being marketed? This pitch tells the story:

The Brookliner has not yet listed prices, but a comparable development (“Pierce Boston” on Boylston Street in the Fenway) advertises studios and one-bedrooms starting at $4000 and two-bedrooms starting at $6700. Such rents are at the high end of the market. The 2022 Housing Report Card cites $2800 as the average rent for an apartment in the Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area. (Based on overall rents, regardless of unit size, as tracked by Zillow.)

The pipeline is full of projects similar to The Brookliner coming to Allston and Brighton. Here are six chosen at random from the many listed on the website of the Boston Planning and Development Agency.

The City of Boston has inclusionary programs requiring developers to set aside affordable units in developments such as the above. However, those programs will never close the gap between the existing housing market and the goal of affordable housing for all.

For example, take 76 Ashford St., Allston (top left, above). The project will include 218 market rate units and 36 (14.2% of the total) at so-called AMI levels ranging from 40-70% of “Area Median Income.”

If 40 percent of current renters are cost burdened at current rent levels, according to the 2022 Housing Report Card, the gap can’t be closed when only 14% of new housing units are affordable through developer subsidies. The math just doesn’t add up.

Suggestion to writers of the 2023 Housing Report Card: Reset the discussion. Focus on what’s being built in Boston, and who’s buying/renting those shiny new units. Consider the possibility that the housing crisis is equal parts shortage of supply and disproportionate incomes fueling prices.

All Politics is Local: Oct. 24-31

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

‘Yes’ on Question 5, But Fix the Broken Process

There’s a “Yes On Question 5” sign on our lawn. That said, I worry that the proposed $65 million tax-financed debt increase made it to the Nov. 8 ballot while many voters have been in the dark as to what it’s all about.

Last Friday, to their great credit, the Brookline League of Women Voters featured Fire Chief John Sullivan’s overview of the need for extensive fire station renovations, as well as the escalating costs, which were at $21.5 million just two years ago.

His presentation was met with reactions such as these from those attending:

Resident of Brookline for 21 Years —

“This was an unbelievable presentation and shocking about the conditions… I would really appreciate an opportunity for residents to tour the facilities and see for themselves.”

Owner of Several Older Properties —

“I am shocked the fire stations have been allowed to stay at this level — that the stations won’t pass inspections for those electrical panels... Why are we not doing maintenance on a more routine level?… I’m also worried about the impact on the taxpayer, because my tax bill has already doubled in the last five years, and we can’t keep going to the homeowner to pay more and more.”

To elaborate further on existing conditions, Chief Sullivan called on one of the veteran female firefighters.

Firefighter Patricia Cripe —

“I was at Station 7 — the oldest one. I had to use the public bathroom. I moved to Station 1 where I was ill for two years. The ‘condo’ (women’s quarters) was above a staircase to the mechanics room. It created a chimney effect, so I breathed in the products of combustion during the day. The HVAC didn’t work, so I froze in the winter and sweltered in the summer. I chose not to have children — I was not comfortable having kids knowing that I could not breastfeed… We have a medic who is fighting for her life. She has cancer — three organs are affected.”

Keep in mind revelations such as the above were being shared with an audience of just a few dozen people. The election is now two weeks away, and thousands of ballots have already been cast thanks to early voting.

The low profile of the fire stations ballot question was evident from reactions on the Town Meeting Member listserv (a forum of some of the Town’s most politically-aware activists):

Precinct 16 —

“Has there been discussion of what renovations/improvements could be accomplished without a debt exclusion (that is, with tax increases within the prop 2 1/2 limits)?”

Precinct 5 —

“I have never doubted the need for the projects. I have just found the paucity of information about something so important to be unusual… The ask for debt exclusion is $65 million.”

Precinct 1 —

“Are there any TMMs on the listserv with the financial expertise to estimate Question 5’s likely percentage increase in real estate taxes?”

Precinct 9 —

“Question 5 -- on the ballot’s reverse side -- is hugely unknown to most Brookliners, especially without a local paper; and wasn’t in the Secretary of State’s mailed 2022 Information For Voters.”

Missing Steps in the Process

Chief Sullivan himself acknowledges that the $65 million tax increase (Q. 5 debt exclusion) for the fire stations found its way to the Nov. 8 ballot by a route that skipped some crucial steps.

In September, Chief Sullivan wrote the following in this document:

“An appalling lack of foresight and planning have forced the Town to take exigent action to address these serious health issues without deferral. As such, this plan has not followed a traditional project development path. Traditionally, funding is secured for feasibility and design studies prior to being moved to implementation in the CIP; however, urgency has compelled a more direct path to action.”

But the “urgency” didn’t arise overnight. The first of the evaluations of fire station conditions, complete with recommended renovations and cost estimates, was published three years ago, in November of 2019. The report by Garcia, Galuska & DeSousa, Inc contained detailed, station by station estimates of the required upgrades, including code compliance, contamination cleanup, and gender-equitable bathroom facilities.

The bottom line of the renovations project, at the time of the November 2019 report, was $21.5 million.

Fire station project costs (not including the recent $15 million bump-up attributed to “net zero” and other) were driven significantly higher from 2019-2022 by the change in Station 5 status from basic renovations to full-blown demolition and rebuild. Here are the numbers:

It Didn’t Have to Be This Way

As Chief Sullivan himself recognized, there is a better way to approach projects such as Brookline’s $65 million fire station renovations/replacement. In recent years, Boston, Cambridge, Newton, Needham, Somerville, and Dedham embarked on fire station upgrades, including gender-equity accommodations.

The approach of neighboring communities was deliberative and step by step. From the FAQ (something Brookline lacks), here’s Needham’s description of the process that yielded the Town two fire station reconstructions:

How did we get to this stage of the project?

Both stations have been included in the numerous facility master plans that have been developed over the past two decades. The November 2, 2015 and February 10, 2016 Special Town Meetings and the 2017 Annual Town Meeting approved a total of $390,000 in funding for feasibility and schematic design leading to the reconstruction of the Public Safety Building and Fire Station #2. The October 2, 2017 Special Town Meeting appropriated $3.75 million for the design phase of the project.

The contrast between Brookline’s rushed, “urgent” process (by-passing Town Meeting in the early stages), and the step by step approach taken in neighboring communities raises questions:

• Should Brookline have studied the possibility of selling off an existing fire station property, while moving the company to a new choice of location at an available site?

• Are any of the historic Brookline stations candidates for adaptive-use private development? (Such as Wellesley’s fire station converted to affordable housing.)

• Are grant monies available to assist in covering costs? (See Middletown, CT.)

• Will significant federal dollars be available in coming years?

• Compared to other towns, is Brookline getting maximum “bang for the buck”?

But What About That Lawn Sign?

Given the above questions, how do I explain that “Yes On Question 5” lawn sign? Two reasons:

1. The vote on Question 5 will authorize a $65 million tax-financed debt increase to cover fire station projects. But that’s not the end of the story. The projects, and the borrowing, will be phased in, station by station. There is still time for the plans to be improved upon.

2. Firefighters like Patricia Cripe deserve better from the Town of Brookline. We lost valuable time that should have been used for more deliberative planning of the fire station projects. Yes, Chief Sullivan is playing catch-up, but he has the right priorities. The health and safety of firefighters shouldn’t be compromised.

All Politics is Local: Oct. 15-22

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Debt (Mostly for School Projects) and Higher Taxes

In last week’s newsletter, I began a series of three reports aimed at offering a “Do It Yourself” kit for understanding benefits and costs of Town projects that will require substantial tax hikes if approved by voters:

• upgrades to all five fire stations, including replacement of the Babcock Street station;

• a demolition and replacement of the existing Pierce School (dating to 1973), and gut rehab of the adjacent Pierce Primary (dating to 1855/1910).

The proposed Fire Station projects hinge on voter approval of a debt exclusion enabling the Town to borrow roughly $65 million outside the 2.5% levy cap imposed by state law (“Prop. 2 1/2”). The fire station borrowing will be Question 5 on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The Pierce projects (both buildings) will require voter approval of a debt exclusion for roughly $155 million to be added to tax bills. That question will be on the ballot in the Annual Election in May of 2023.

(Part 1 of this series, in theOct. 7-14 newsletter below, reviewed the Override/ Debt Exclusion process and the case made by advocates for the Pierce and fire station projects.)

The accumulated borrowing for both projects, if approved by voters would add some $220 million in “exempt debt” to a substantial amount (approx. $340 million) already impacting taxes.

Thus the headline equating debt “mostly for school projects” with higher taxes. Let’s deal with that in two parts:

1. The evidence that taxes have taken a steep upturn of late.

2. The link to a comparable upturn in debt exclusions, mostly for school projects.

1.

Charting Recent Tax Upturns

Given the grab bag of tax shifts and breaks, there is nothing simple about forecasting property tax bills. However, we can count on this much: Prop. 2 1/2 sets the baseline annual tax levy increase at 2.5%. Putting aside revaluations of properties across neighborhoods, that should mean homeowner tax bill increases, on average, of 2.5%.

This useful report from 2015 points out that the average Brookline homeowner tax bill for that year was $13,610. The chart below shows how a 2.5% rate of annual increase in that tax bill (red line) would compound over time. For comparison purposes, I used Brookline Assessors records to track actual fluctuations (blue line) of an Eliot Street single family house taxed in 2015 at $13,490 — just below the average.

What the chart shows:

• Over 7 years (2015-2022) a simple, 2.5% compounded increase in annual taxes would add $2600 to 2015’s average single family tax bill of $13,610.

• However, using the actual house from Eliot Street taxed at $13,490 in 2015, real property taxes actually increased by $4122 during those same 7 years — in other words, $1500+ in added taxes. This occurred despite a dip in the house’s valuation between 2018-2020.

To test this observation further, I used Brookline Assessor records to track the Single Family taxation trend based on randomly chosen properties at the low, middle, and high end of pricing.

Here are results from North Brookline:

And here are results from South Brookline:

The annual tax bill increases in the above two charts range from a low (Russett Road) of 3.3% to a high (Windsor Road) of 8.9% — at which rate taxes would double in just eight years.

2.

Connecting Debt Exclusions and Tax Escalations

The sharp upward turn in taxes from 2019-2022 coincides with sharply increased debt and interest payments resulting from hundreds of millions of dollars of voter-approved debt exclusions, almost entirely for school projects.

On page 10 of this document you will find the table below, showing the various FY19-FY22 voter-approved debt exclusions, and the impact on debt and interest payments — climbing from $3.4 million to $14.9 million in just three years — layered on top of local tax bills.

Debt Service Costs Due to Debt Exclusion Votes, FY19-22

Pushing Brookline’s Exempt Debt to $1/2 Billion+

I recently came across a paragraph in the FY16 Financial Plan that puts Brookline’s extraordinary recent borrowing in perspective. Here’s the paragraph (from page 13):

In Brookline, one project is funded with exempt debt: the High School Renovation ($43.8 million).

Yes, in 2016, the Town was carrying just a single debt-exempted project (mostly paid off, with final installment due in FY20). Furthermore, the trend in exempt debt had actually fallen to single-digit millions:

By comparison, check out these numbers — in the hundreds of millions — from the forecast of Exempt Debt over the next five fiscal years, assuming voters approve the debt exclusions for the fire stations, Pierce School, and some other anticipated projects.

• Debt exclusions require approval by voters through ballot questions.

• Voters need to be informed of the need for borrowings as well as the impact on tax bills. (There is also an indirect impact on rents.)

• Past years featured information through Override Study Committee reports and/or newspaper coverage. Neither is available to voters in the face of the upcoming fire stations and Pierce votes.

• Inform yourself. As part of that process, watch for the unveiling of a Town website tool enabling calculation of the impact of upcoming votes on individual tax bills. Stay tuned.

Next Week: Part 3 of my DIY ballot question prep kit.

Saying “no” to debt exclusions is always an option for voters. But a “no” vote, of itself, won’t make the needs of the Pierce School or the Fire Department go away. Informed voters need to weigh the result of NOT approving projects such as the $155 million Pierce proposal and the $65 million fire stations project. Are there less expensive approaches that can get the job done? That will be the focus of next week’s newsletter.

All Politics is Local: Oct. 7-14

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

A Do-It-Yourself Model for Evaluating Tax Hike Plans

In the months ahead, you’ll hear much discussion of plans to put various local tax hike proposals on the November 2022 and May 2023 election ballots:

• November 2022: A “debt exclusion” for the estimated $65 million cost (through borrowing) of improvements to five of Brookline’s fire stations, including demolition and rebuild of the Babcock Street station.

• May 2023: A Proposition 2 1/2 “override” to cover shortfalls in the FY23 and future budgets for Town and School operations. A low-ball estimate of the override tax increase in FY23 would be $5-10 million. More ambitious proposals floated on the Town Meeting Member listserv include “at least $30 million” (unlikely?).

• Also in May: A debt exclusion for the estimated $155 million cost, through borrowing, of demolition and replacement of the 1970’s vintage Pierce School on School Street and gut renovation of the adjacent historic Pierce Primary, next to Town Hall.

It’s important to understand the difference between the two options (overrides and debt exclusions). For example, overrides increase taxes forever (the 2.5% cap becomes a 2.5%-plus cap). Debt exclusions increase the cap for the lifetime of the borrowing (often, 20 years). There are other differences as well. For those who wish to study overrides and debt exclusions further:

Here is a detailed explanation.

And here is a video. (With apologies for ad.)

But a key thing to understand is: Whether override (May) or debt exclusion (November and May), both forms of the ballot question amount to self-imposed increases of local property taxes. As such, they call for voters to be informed as to:

1. The need to raise taxes to pay for capital projects or close budget gaps, (And the potential benefits.)

2. The impact on those whose tax bills (and likely rents) will increase as a result.

3. The alternatives. Can overrides/debt exclusions be avoided by cost savings, revenue enhancements, and/or less costly approaches to capital projects.

Which leads to this question: How can voters be fully informed?

Override Study Committees: Learning From the Past

In past years, when budgetary stress required tax increases to be decided by voters via ballot questions, Override Study Committees were formed. The most recent was in 2014. The report that many regard as the gold standard for override committees was this one in 2008.

There isn’t going to be an Override Study Committee this time around. However, the work done by past committees, 2008 especially, offers some guideposts. Think of them as “Essential Information to Consider When Overrides/Debt Exclusions Are on the Ballot.”

In short, with a nod to that 2008 report, here’s my Do-It-Yourself Override Study Guide:

• Evaluate the Town’s long-range financial and demographic projections.

• Weigh potential efficiencies and best practices in town and school operations.

• Determine impacts, including operating and capital, of any recommended expansion of facilities or alternatives.

• Compare Brookline’s per capita costs of services and capital debt to other towns and cities.

• What is the Town’s bonding capacity?

• What is Town/taxpayer capacity for an increased tax burden?

• Analyze the impact of possible voter rejection of proposed overides/debt exclusions.

Next Week: DIY Override Study/ Tax Impacts

As noted above, need is just one of three elements of a Do It Yourself Override Study. There is also the question of tax (taxpayer) impact, as well as the question of alternatives. I’ll continue with this DIY Override Study guide next week, with a discussion of tax impacts of the planned debt exclusions and overrides. Stay tuned.

All Politics is Local/ Sept. 28-Oct. 4

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Using Google to Plan Harvard Street’s Future

Lately I’ve been visiting nearby retail areas via Google Streets — the app that enables you to take a visual tour of streetscapes past as well as present. It’s a useful tool, given Brookline’s focus on the future of Harvard Street.

In November, Town Meeting faces a vote on a form-based zoning plan, which is intended to encourage existing one-story commercial lots and blocks on Harvard Street to give way to multi-story buildings adding housing on second stories and above.

With that vote in mind, my Google Streets explorations have led to some conclusions regarding the mix of housing above/ stores below as a factor in the user-friendliness, neighborhood impacts and economic vitality of retail blocks.

Consider these examples:

1. Newbury Street

Newbury Street in the Back Bay is indisputably a lively area sought out by locals and tourists alike for the joys of shopping, dining and strolling. As such, it is also a successful example of the combination of housing above/ retail below. Here’s a typical block:

A class project by architecture students at MIT captured the next image, noting that the buildings on this block were originally residential on all levels; later, renovations converted the lower levels to commercial space. Clearly, the combination of retail below, topped by 3-4 floors (or more) of housing “works” for Newbury Street.

But what about the differences between Newbury Street and Harvard Street? There are several. Significantly, those Newbury blocks have alleyways like this one (behind the building to the left in the first photo).

Alleyways meet needs such as parking, trash storage and disposal, and delivery access.

Equally significant, they create space between the Newbury block and it’s rear neighbors. By contrast, one of the concerns of Harvard Street rezoning is rear setbacks: how much distance from adjacent properties is sufficient to allow for privacy, light and views?

Another difference: Newbury Street is one way, with less road space given to cars. It also lacks a bike lane. The tradeoff is generous allowance for curbside parking on both sides of the street. Equally ample are the sidewalk and patio spaces, leaving room for tree plantings. This, combined with the stoop setbacks of many buildings, creates an open air feeling as you stroll.

2. Washington Street, Brighton Center

The feeling is quite different when the advantages of Newbury Street are absent. This block of Washington Street in Brighton Center makes the point:

The combined effect of narrow sidewalks, no trees, and multi-story residential-over-retail buildings dwarfs and crowds pedestrians, while cutting off visibility of storefronts to passing cars. Two-way car lanes are wider. The combined car and bike lanes make pavement the dominant theme, and threaten to strand pedestrians who dare to cross at midblock.

3. Washington Street, Newton

Demolition and rebuilding can add housing to a commercial street, but multi-story residential-over-retail complexes aren’t guaranteed to enliven the streetscape.

Washington Street in Newton presents many challenges. The lengthy stretch between Newton Corner and West Newton is hemmed in by the Turnpike, while the active side of the street is divided between commercial and non-commercial uses, with one significant pocket dominated by a suburban-style shopping experience (generous parking in front, stores at back).

The Walnut Street corner offered, to the north, a beloved restaurant, Karoun, that thrived for 40 years but closed in 2017. The entire block was then developed into 140 apartments, including 21 affordable and 14 middle-income. The result, including street level retail space, was an architectural refresh — nonetheless, the resulting streetscape can best be described as monotonous, given the repetitious (x3, hence “Trio”) building components. Judge for yourself:

4. Improving on Single Story Retail

Not far from the Trio development in Newton is a retail block that demonstrates how even modest single-story strips can contribute to improved streetscapes. This is on Walnut Street:

Widened, repaved sidewalks, planters and window boxes, historically appropriate lamp posts, a bench, awnings, sculpted trim surrounding unique, non-generic signage — all the small details combining to good effect in an otherwise basic building that is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.

Come November, Town Meeting Members have the future of Harvard Street in their hands.

All Politics is Local/ Sept. 20-27

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

The Pierce Demolition Predicament

Town and School officials face a consequential decision about the next steps in the Pierce School project. Put simply, the decision requires weighing these unknowns and risks:

• Would early demolition of the existing Pierce School (1970s building) yield information about what lies beneath the building that would materially improve the final design of the new school — possibly avoiding costly “change orders” during construction?

• Alternatively, does recent construction cost inflation (as well as lessons learned from the Brookline High project) signal that demolition of Pierce in the absence of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) carries significant financial risk?

To state the obvious: if officials decide in favor of demolition first/ Guaranteed Maximum Price later, there is no turning back.

If the GMP significantly exceeds the already-approved borrowing of $212 million for the project (partly state reimburseable), two scenarios are possible:

1. Absorb the Guaranteed Maximum Price through cutbacks in the project — in effect delivering less than was promised when voters approved borrowing.

2. Go back to the ballot and Town Meeting for an increase in the budget for the project and the excluded debt (repaid via a further bump in property taxes).

If early demolition is approved, the goal would be “substantial completion” of the new Pierce School by Oct. 29 of 2027.

If holding out for a Guaranteed Maximum Price is approved, then the project will be delayed accordingly, according to the School Committee’s consultant on the project.

School Committee Questions

Helen Charlupski is the School Committee’s most senior member. She plays a major part in meetings of the Pierce Building Committee. She also monitors the Town’s Building Commission, which will meet Oct. 10 to discuss the Pierce options further (for a third time) and, likely, make a decision.

Here is some back and forth from last week’s School Committee meeting, prompted by Helen Charlupski’s report on the Pierce options:

David Pearlman (chair): Would the bidding process (for construction) be completed prior to full demolition?

Charlupski: No.

Pearlman: I’m just a bit concerned about demolishing a building before we have bids.

Charlupski: That’s exactly what the Building Commission talked about and there will be a letter — the project manager is putting it together with the contractor — of why this is necessary. It will save us money in the long run to have demolition done first.

Steven Ehrenberg — I understand what you’re saying but it’s also a potential risk, isn’t it?

Charlupski — Well, it is and it isn’t. It’s not a building we want to keep the kids in, and we do have the old Lincoln School… We know we have money to build a new school and we will keep within that budget.

Pearlman — How can you really know that, though, if we don’t have the bidding completed prior to demolition? How do we know it’s within budget?

Charlupski — The benefit risk is in our favor to take the building down, see what’s there, and during that process have the architect do the design that takes into account whatever needs to happen.

Building Commission seeks more info

The Building Commission has twice postponed voting on the Pierce “demolish first/ price later” approach, opting instead, to seek a full explanation, in writing, from the project consultant (Left Field) as to their recommendation. That information is now promised for the Oct. 10 meeting.

At the Sept. 12 meeting, Commission Chair George Cole offered this comment:

“As I explained last meeting, we proceeded with early release packages for the high school, and we were in a situation where we had released a lot of work without knowing the final cost. The final cost came in above budget, and we were kind of stuck.”

All Politics is Local/ Special Edition

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

18 Approved Projects,

1325 Units of Housing

Brookline government is working full tilt to come up with rezoning plans aimed at increasing housing production to meet a state mandate. What seems to go ignored is that, waiting in the wings is a wave of some 1325 units of housing construction already planned and approved.

Well before the legislature imposed the mandate of the MBTA Communities Act, the 18 projects shown in the table below were conceived, reviewed, and given the go-ahead by our planning and zoning officials — with the expectation that they will come online before 2027 at the latest.

(The italicized date under each represents certificate of occupancy. I cite the data for 3-bedroom units because those are key to attracting families. HV= Hancock Village. ROSB= Residences of South Brookline.)

The next wave of added housing units

The total of units in the pipeline is 1325. That’s a lot of new construction. The number of 3-bedroom units is 154 — potentially impacting school enrollments.

• In a few cases — such as the Brookline Housing Authority development on Marion Street — some new units replace demolished units. Most of the unit numbers under the photos represent a net gain in housing.

• Ten of the planned developments are so-called Chapter 40B projects, within which at least 20% of the units are set aside for income-qualified tenants (or owners).

• Ten of the developments are in the Harvard Street/Coolidge Corner area. Three are tied to Hancock Village. Two are on Boylston Street west of Reservoir Road.

‘Safe Harbor’ Comes and Goes

My inspiration for tallying all the approved-but-not-yet-built projects is a spreadsheet that Planning Director Kara Brewton recently shared during a meeting with the Housing Advisory Board.

• The purpose of the spreadsheet is to track recently approved housing including subsidized units, in order to anticipate any periods when subsidized units fall below 10% of the Town’s total housing.

• Should the so-called Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) number fall below 10%, Brookline loses its “safe harbor” status.

• Brookline’s loss of safe harbor status permits developers, under Chapt. 40B, to exceed local density limits by seeking “comprehensive permits” from the state — effectively short-circuiting Brookline’s zoning authority.

Here are the numbers from Kara Brewton’s spreadsheet that point to the upcoming three-month period (Sept. - Nov.) when Brookline will lose safe harbor status by falling below the 10% SHI threshhold.

(The above percentages assume the 2020 Census count of 27,742 housing units. Kara Brewton’s explanation of the factors that cause the count of Brookline’s SHI units to fluctuate over time is on this video, beginning at 1:44:22.)

Sneak Preview in Chestnut Hill

With the Town’s approaching loss of safe harbor status, a new Chapt. 40B proposal debuted just two weeks ago for a 96-unit development off Hammond Street in Chestnut Hill — in the block bordered by Sheafe Street and Heath Street.

Ahead: How Many 40B Applications?

Kara Brewton’s overview of Brookline’s temporary change of Chapt. 40B eligibility status ended with this estimate of what’s ahead:

“So we're likely going to get three or four, maybe even six new 40B applications this fall… That's the way these things roll when we pop back under that ten percent.”

Worth Noting

The timing of the temporary '“safe harbor” lapse coincides with the approach of controversial Town Meeting votes aimed at rezoning Harvard Street and/or loosening the Town’s zoning in multi-family districts in North Brookline.

Debate among Town Meeting Members as to Brookline’s path to compliance with state housing production mandates is already fraught — and perhaps will intensify in the days ahead.

All Politics is Local: June 30 - July 7

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Is Brookline Done With Looking Up?

I’m taking a risk by asking a question that lately hasn’t been on the table for discussion in Brookline: Are we done with tall buildings?

And, yes, I’m aware that the hotel and residences planned for the Waldo Durgin site will be tall — as will 83 Longwood and the building planned for the Neena’s (lighting store) site adjacent to Trader Joe’s.

The above building plans were hatched prior to Covid 19. Ground-breakings haven’t yet been scheduled — meanwhile, Greater Boston is in a period of malaise for large construction projects.

Recently, nothing of the scale of the above high-rises has been added to the pipeline for review by Brookline planners. What’s also notable is that projects such as the above — tall by Brookline standards — are modest compared to the height limits set for projects in nearby Somerville and Cambridge.

Consider the example of a building attracting much attention — and some controversy — in Somerville. This is what “transit-oriented development” looks like in that nearby city.

The development is known as USQ (Union Square). The tower building offers 450 housing units, of which 90 are “permanently affordable across three income tiers.” The developer, US2, will contribute $1.5 million to the city’s affordable housing trust.

Opinion is divided as to whether Somerville got a good deal by combining massive height and scale with required affordable housing minimums. Defenders of the tower argue that 90 affordable units is a big number, and that the total of 450 units added to supply will also benefit affordability in the long run. Critics focus on the luxury pricing of many of the market rate units (rents of $5,000+) and the hundreds of parking spaces included in the combined lab/office/retail/housing complex bringing more cars to the area.

US2 isn’t done with major development in Somerville. Here is a model (massing only) of their proposed lab/retail complex in the city’s Brickbottom neighborhood.

The only comparable proposal experienced in Brookline is Bulfinch Companies’ vision of lab development at 10 Brookline Place (site currently occupied by Dana-Farber offices). Early models aroused opposition from some Brookline Village neighbors. Late in 2022, the work of the 10 Brookline Place Study Committee was suspended “In the absence of an imminent project and given the uncertainty of any redevelopment project timeline due to the long-term lease of 10 Brookline Place’s current tenant.”

Cambridge’s Ambitious Affordable Housing Overlay

Cambridge’s City Council is divided into two factions — both offering ambitious expansions of the City’s Affordable Housing Overlay, but with differences as to maximum heights.

One faction proposes allowing 100-percent-affordable buildings to rise to 25 stories in some of the city’s squares (Harvard, Central, etc.), while allowed heights would increase to nine stories where the limit currently is six, and up to 13 stories where the limit currently is seven.

The other faction on the Council countered with a proposal to allow 100-percent-affordable buildings to rise to 12 stories along the city’s main corridors (such as parts of Mass. Ave.) and to 15 stories in the squares.

The result of the maneuvering on the Council suggests that a final vote on the matter will be delayed until the fall — perhaps postponing the issue until after the city’s next municipal election.

(Cambridge Day is an excellent source for coverage of this story. Each report has a convenient “next” and “previous” tab so that you can follow all of the coverage over several weeks, if you wish.)

Meanwhile, in Brookline …

In 2022, Town Meeting approved a measure creating an Affordable Housing Overlay study. The town’s Housing Advisory Board responded by designating an Affordable Housing Overlay Subcommittee. They are hard at work — including learning from the AHO processes in Cambridge and Somerville. You will find minutes of their meetings here and a recent Power Point overview of zoning’s impact on housing patterns here.

Will the end result of their work have an impact on allowable building heights under Brookline’s zoning code? It’s too soon to tell. (But it’s never too soon to stay informed.)

All Politics is Local: June 23 - June 30

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Our Underappreciated Building Commission

With no business to conduct, but just to stay informed, I observed the most recent meeting of the town’s Building Commission. I don’t know anyone else who can make that claim.

Other than the commissioners themselves and the various parties behind items on the agenda, that’s how it usually is. The Building Commission toils in obscurity, despite being arguably one of the most important and productive public bodies in the Town.

No one gets appointed to the Building Commission on a whim. The members — all top professionals in their fields — include an architect, a real estate developer, a business attorney, a builder, and an engineer.

The commission meets monthly (plus added special meetings) in order to oversee all of the Building Department’s major construction projects. In 2022 alone, that meant keeping tabs on:

• exterior improvements to Fire Station 4, the Larz Anderson comfort station, the public safety building, the main library, and Soule recreation center;

• finishing touches to the new 22 Tappan building, Tappan gym and STEM wing of the high school, as well as Cypress playground;

• year two of construction of the new Driscoll School;

• schematic design of the proposed new Pierce School;

• the launch of planned renovations (and one demolition/new building) at the town’s fire stations.

This is an unprecedented scale of construction for the Commission to monitor and approve — amounting to more than $500 million worth of projects.

Adding to the Commission’s burdens, they have lost — or will lose — several mainstays of the Building Department who have been trusted partners over dozens of projects. Ray Masak left a year ago as the high school construction was winding down. Matt Gillis, who has been keeping an eye on the Driscoll project, bid farewell at last week’s Commission meeting. (He’s been hired as Director of Finance for the Natick Public Schools.) Building Dept. Project Manager Tony Guigli called Gillis “a big loss to the town” — and then reminded the Commission that he himself is dialing back to half time. Which led to this back and forth:

Guigli (referring to the need to incorporate geothermal heat and cooling to the fire stations): “The problem is, things are not getting less complicated —they’re getting more complicated.”

Commissioner George Cole: “And we just added a very complicated $215 million project to our docket.”

Commissioner Janet Fierman: “And the more poorly staffed we are the more complicated it gets. And the more expensive it gets. That’s the reality.”

Driscoll Deadline: A Moving Target

Speaking of “the more complicated it gets,” there’s the new Driscoll School rising on Washington Street. Hopes have been abandoned for doors to open at the start of the new school year in September. The revised deadline is early October — and even that seems shaky. Witness these comments from the Building Commission meeting:

Commissioner George Cole: “I walked the job last week and I was deeply disturbed by what I saw. I walk a lot of construction projects… Why isn’t roof flashing done? On every facade there are little bits and pieces of every window incomplete. It just shows a total lack of coordination and sequencing. That exterior should be done. You should be starting to clean up that site. And it’s a mess. And on the inside little bits and pieces of every room are incomplete. I was really dismayed. There is a ton of work to be done over the next three months.”

Commissioner Nathan Peck: “I’d echo that. Every elevation had hundreds of parts and pieces missing.”

The meeting got off to an uncomfortable start when Nathan Burnham of Gilbane (the Driscoll building contractor) informed the Commission that both Gilbane’s General Superintendent on the Driscoll job and the Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing Superintendent had departed to take jobs elsewhere.

Commissioner Janet Fierman: “We’re on our third superintendent. The staff turnover is not good for the job. It’s not good for the town. And it’s not good for getting it done… I don’t want to be told that we should be paying more money for an extended schedule because our construction manager has staffing problems.”

Commissioner George Cole: “Is this typical of a Gilbane job?”

Burnham (Gilbane): “I’d consider it unprecedented. I’ve never been involved in a project that had this happen.”

Commissioner Fierman: “Is it happening on other jobs?”

Burnham: “That’s a great and important question… It certainly is a challenging project… My general reaction is the last three years in the construction business have been quite stressful. People are burnt out. They’re looking for other opportunities that perhaps present better life-work balance.”

The Problem With Ceilings

As the meeting unfolded, it emerged that delayed completion of ceilings after “ceiling-related changes” contributed to slowdown of the Driscoll project, cascading to all the other work that hinges on inspection of completed ceilings.

Adam Keane (from Leftfield/ Owner’s Project Manager): “The reflective ceiling plans in this building are random… We have ceilings that are on different planes… They’re ACT clouds that change planes — almost undulate down the hall. They’re very complicated, very precise. It took a while to coordinate them.”

Commissioner Fierman: “What I hear loud and clear is that it is the belief of the contractor, the architect, and the project manager that the job must have another ten days… That’s reality. What I’m not willing to do is for the town to incur any additional cost. Because it’s not the owner’s (the town’s) cost.”

Jim Rogers (from Leftfield/ Owner’s Project Manager): “In theory, I can get close to no cost change (for an extension to 10/6 for project completion)… 10/6 works for the best orderly move-in possible for the schools.”

Fierman then made the same pitch (that there should be no additional cost to the town from the Driscoll delay) to the representative of the architect.

His response: “I hear you loud and clear. We’ll take it back to the boys, and we’ll talk about it.”

Judge for yourself if “in theory” and “we’ll talk about it” are cost-saving commitments the town can put money on. And stay tuned to meetings of the Building Commission. They know their business.

All Politics is Local: June 16 - June 23

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Is ‘Course Deleveling’ the Way Forward for BHS?

At their meeting on June 8, members of the School Committee offered praise and a send-off bouquet to the committee’s ‘22-’23 student representative, Alice MacGarvie Thompson, a graduating senior at BHS.

She began with findings from an admittedly random survey that drew 56 responses from classmates. The survey tested their views on the courses they had taken while at BHS — either at the “standard” level, or at higher levels (“honors” and “advanced placement.”)

Note: the terms represent the level of difficulty of courses, and are presumed to correlate with the perceived ability/ achievement of those placed at each level.

How is the sorting of eighth graders into “leveled” classes in 9th grade determined? Alice cited several factors based on her survey:

• teacher recommendations;

• interest in the class;

• “how much work the class would be;”

• parent opinion;

• perceived impact on college acceptance.

The result of Alice’s research as well as research by student journalists at The Cypress, BHS’s student newspaper, leaves little doubt as to the racial disparity resulting from ‘leveling’ placements decided by educators, students and parents.

Among eighth graders who will enter BHS in 2023:

• only 6% of black 8th graders were recommended for advanced geometry;

• 30% were recommended for honors geometry;

• while 64% were recommended for standard geometry. 

The contrast with other demographic groups was made obvious in a chart included in Alice’s presentation (modified here for greater readability):

Ethnic/Racial Disparity In 9th Grade Math Levels

Alice summed up the message of the data:

“Black students are more likely to be placed in standard courses, while white students tend to be placed in honors and AP courses. In effect, leveling segregates BHS… If you were in the halls, you'd be shocked at how segregated BHS is because of this.”

The presentation led to a back-and-forth between the School Committee’s Mariah Nobrega and PSB Superintendent Linus Guillory:

Mariah Nobrega:

“I find this very troubling. These kids haven't even set foot in the high school. The data's right there. What are we doing to correct this before it sets a whole trajectory in place?”

(Once “leveled,” students tend to stay on the same track through all four grades at BHS.)

Dr. Guillory:

“Last year we took a look at this through course recommendations (by educators), and I believe this is where this is coming from. There's a whole body of work that has to interrupt these patterns; also, having parents understand what their roles and responsibilities are — not just to accept these (course) recommendations if they have concerns about them.”

“We've done some work to understand the bias in this, but also we're not going to just accept this and let it slide…

“I think what’s most striking is that students are performing well in math, but then are being referred to lower or standard classes. So those realities do exist.”

Mariah Nobrega:

“I don't want to let this go… There needs to be some sort of intervention here immediately… If this is what we get, then maybe the default is everyone goes into honors unless they are explicitly bumped up or bumped down… This doesn't work for me and it doesn't work for kids or anyone else in this room.”

Student Has The Last Word

The above exchange unfolded in the middle of Alice Thompson’s presentation. She eventually resumed her talk, explaining that pilot efforts at “deleveling” certain of the 9th grade courses are underway, but the path to extending the pilot to 10th grade and beyond remains uncertain. She summed up:

“I think we're avoiding the inherent issue here. Sorting students into these different levels and categories isn't really working. You can't tweak a policy or system that was designed to reproduce inequities, no matter how many programs you add or changes you make or bias trainings you do.

“I don't think leveling is good for BHS. I don't think it's good for any students. I don't think it's a good education policy to be constantly sorting students by perceived smartness and capability.”

Newton Confronts AP Exam Questions

Deleveling of Brookline High School courses, if that is the way forward, will not happen overnight, nor without questions being raised as to the impact on students competing for admission to top-ranked colleges.

That much seems to be the message of recent discussions of the school committee in Newton.

The results of an analysis of a study of “Advanced Placement Enrollment, Participation, and Exam Performance” were presented at a meeting on May 22. The study was undertaken to determine the impact of years of efforts to address past disparities by fostering enrollment in AP and other advanced courses that is “more representative of Newton’s student community.”

You can view slides from the presentation to the School Committee here, or read coverage by FigCityNews.com here.

The meeting replay is available on NewTV.

One of the outcomes pointed to by the study is that Newton’s AP scores at the highest level have declined somewhat in recent years. Here is a comparison of AP test outcomes, showing the percentage of students who achieved in the upper range of AP scoring (3-5 on a scale of 5):

Although Newton has experienced a decrease in students scoring at the highest levels on the AP exam, and an increase in students scoring at lower levels, the Newton study points out that expanded access to rigorous courses “has been shown to improve postsecondary outcomes for students regardless of exam score.”

All Politics is Local: June 9 - June 16

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

How Higher Real Estate Taxes Impact Condo Owners

Last week’s “Tale of Three Houses” looked at the trend in real estate taxes through examples of three houses chosen at random from the latest Town Assessor list of real estate sales. For two of the houses, the eight-year increase in taxes (2015-2023) was 51-52 percent, while the third house saw taxes increase 32 percent.

One reader sent me the suggestion: Why not take a similar look at taxes on condos?

Hence the information that follows. The methodology was much the same, except that this time my source was the Assessor’s spreadsheet of the most recent year of condo sales. Condos significantly outpace single family homes in the number sold each year. For that reason, and because there is also greater variation in the pricing and taxing of condos, I chose to go with a representative group of ten condo sales (vs. the three single family homes profiled last week).

The highest price on the Assessor’s list of 550+ sales is a luxury condo on Seaver Street that went for 8.1 million dollars. The least expensive is a 300 sq. ft. unit on Beacon Street that went for $350,000.

To come up with my list of ten, I chose randomly (spaced 50 apart on the list, starting at 25th from the top) from high, middle and low price ranges. Here is the result, ranked from highest tax paid to lowest tax paid. The right hand column shows the percentage increase in tax bills over the eight year period.

Some observations:

• Condos that are comparable in their sales prices sometimes are comparable in the assessed real estate taxes, but not always. Note several examples on the list of condos that rank higher than others in sales prices, but lower in taxes.

• There is a wide range in the eight-year tax increase impacts, from a low of 22% to a high of 101%.

• Despite the greater variability, nonetheless the average increase in condominium taxes over the eight year period (56%) is the same as the average single family (sf) home tax increase in that same period. (FY15 = $13,610 av. sf tax; FY23 = $21,322 av. sf tax. Increase over eight years = 56.6%.)

Clearing Up A Misconception

The number one misconception among reader responses to last week’s newsletter has to do with the cause of increased real estate taxes. Several readers pointed out that property values have also increased in the 50+ percent range over the 2018-2023 period, which they argued explains the 50+ percent average tax increases.

But it doesn’t.

Town Meeting Member Stanley Spiegel made the point very clearly in a Facebook discussion prompted by the “Tale of Three Houses”:

“If everyone’s assessed value were to double, everyone’s tax bill would rise by only 2.5 percent. If everyone’s assessed value were to drop by half, everyone’s tax bill would also rise by 2.5 present. That’s how Proposition 2.5 works.”

He’s referring to the state law that caps increases in tax levies at 2.5% annually regardless of increases in overall assessed values of real estate.

Now Do the Math

In raising awareness of the eight-year increase in real estate taxes, my purpose has been to broaden our future conversations when it comes to Prop 2 1/2 overrides and debt exclusions.

The assumption that owners of high-value properties should have no problem shouldering annual property tax increases in excess of 2.5% ignores the “ability to pay” factor — which is tied to incomes, not “wealth” derived from hot real estate markets.

However, it is also true, as some readers pointed out, that the eight year/ 56% increase in taxes is only partly due to overrides and debt exclusions. A portion of that 56% would be experienced regardless of ballot questions, because of the allowed 2.5% annual increase. Here’s a chart that shows the difference between recent tax increases allowable under Prop 2 1/2, versus the tax increases attributable to overrides and debt exclusions:

Conclusion: Over the past five years, the increase in real estate taxes due to overrides and debt exclusions has been greater than the allowable 2.5% increase by a multiple of 2.6 ($79 million vs. $30 million).

Inflation and Taxes: A Reader Responds

I’m grateful to Fred Perry of Precinct 3 for responding to the “Tale of Three Houses” by adding this context:

Forty-five percent (the average tax increase since 2015 on the three houses) sounds like a big number, BUT eight years is a long time.  The Consumer Price Index part of it applies both to income as well as to costs, and REAL income over any period of time exceeds inflation by a small amount. That is why the population as a whole is generally richer over time.

Bottom line is that for the population as a whole, taxes going up at a rate equal to the rate of inflation + 1.6% is going to net out as something close to a break-even situation: Real Estate taxes went up but income went up by a similar percentage. 

Where this is not so true and where there is therefore a squeeze on the taxpayer is if he is on the low-income end, where real wages have failed to keep up with inflation for years. That’s probably not the guy with the $2 million house, it is the renter, who sees rent increases passed on to him by the owner. 

The renter is more likely to be low income while the owner of the rental unit tends to be a higher income type whose income has risen faster than inflation. So there are winners and losers but 45 percent is not the number to look at. The number to look at is how the change compares to real income for the effected parties. 

I weep not for the guy who has a large asset which is not ‘liquid’ because he can solve that problem a lot of ways with financial advice. But the guy whose rent went up and who has the usual assets of those guys on the trash truck, he or she may be stretched.

All Politics is Local: June 2 - June 9

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

I went looking for a microcosm that would help to explain the close margin of the May 2 vote on the Pierce School project. I may have found it in the Assessors’ latest table of property sales.

You can check out the table yourself at the Assessors’ page on the town website. That’s where you will find this spreadsheet. It lists 204 property sales from 2021/2022. Roughly two-thirds of the properties are single family. The others are two- and three-family. The sales prices range from $540,000 for a house on Franklin Court to $10,800,000 for a property on Woodland Road.

The average price of the 204 sales comes to $2,502,740. With that in mind, I focused on the sales that fell between $2,400,000 and $2,600,000. From that subgroup, I chose three properties that seemed representative of the list as a whole. Here they are, with some added information comparing the property taxes of today to the taxes paid by the owner in 2015, eight years ago.

The average tax increase since 2015 on the above three properties is 45%.

Information about the demographics of the prior owners of the properties is available on the Street List of Persons kept by the Town Clerk. One of the owners was age 90+ and passed away prior to the sale of the property. Another was age 80+ and the third was age 75+.

Holding onto one’s house after retirement is a widespread situation in Brookline. So is living on an income that is “fixed” (limited to personal savings and pension or Social Security).

The pressure on elderly homeowners to keep up with the cost of living is such that the Assessors are currently reviewing guidelines that would enable a qualifying few to get tax breaks under a plan initiated by the Town’s Committee on Elderly Tax Relief.

The funds available for the program are limited. Inevitably, the number of participants will have to be small if the relief is to make an impact in individual situations. Or the grants will have to be small if the number of applicants is above expectations.

Surveying the demographics and income profiles of Brookline’s homeowning population would be useful in the event of future tax overrides and debt exclusions.

That the “No” vote on Pierce was highest in homeowner precincts is a fact. The trend of 45% increases in taxes over eight years, combined with data on fixed-income households, might help to explain why.

Note: The above analysis makes no assumptions as to how the owners of the above properties (past and current) might have voted on the Pierce question — or if they voted. The only assumption is that taxpayer sentiment plays a part in decision-making for and against overrides and debt exclusions. Evidence of ability to pay has traditionally been one of the questions investigated when Override Study Committees are appointed prior to ballot questions enabling increased taxes. No such committee was appointed prior to the vote on Pierce.

2022 Annual Report: A Selective Reading

The Brookline Annual Report for 2022 arrived just in time for our Town Meeting, which continues this week. Printed copies are scarce compared to prior years. Fortunately, a pdf version is available on the Town website.

It’s well worthy skimming — and perhaps reading in full, depending on your level of interest in the machinery that makes Town Hall hum.

I did my own random reading this past week, and gleaned these Top 20 Annual Report Factoids:

1. Brookline has a Fence Viewer, Inspector of Animals, Keeper of the Lock-Up, Local Moth Superintendent, and a Right to Know Coordinator. Who knew? (See p. 8.) The Inspector of Animals and Local Moth Superintendent are one and the same person.

2. The year produced a bumper crop of top staff who are new to Brookline: Chas Carey, Charles Young, Tyler Belisle-Toler, Lincoln Heinman, Joseph Callanan, Sigalle Reiss, and Amanda Hirst. Pop quiz: identify the positions they occupy. (Answers on p. 12.)

3. Chas Carey is Brookline’s fifth Town Administrator since 1943. Can you name the others? (p. 21)

4. Vital Statistics: Marriage intentions — 294. Marriages — 278. Births — 470. Deaths — 290. Licensed Dogs — 2,377. I went back ten years to track the births/deaths trend over time.

5. Voter turnout was 17.9% for the Town Election (redistricting year), 27.8% for the State Primary (including Vitolo vs. Fernandez), and 51.8% for the State Final (Healey vs. Diehl and Congressional contests). (p. 28-29)

6. Registered Democrats number 18,403. Republicans, 1,764. Unenrolled (“independent”), 20,539. The ten-year trend shows gradual erosion of (D) and (R) party registrants, while Unenrolleds have taken the lead.

7. The Police and Fire sections of the annual report (p. 34-51) are by far the most data-rich. See for yourself the records as to crimes, arrests, interrogations, warrants served, and more. There’s even a table of all the calls to the animal control division.

8. Despite their notoriety, turkeys cause fewer complaints than bats, coyotes and dogs. (p. 43)

9. Motor vehicles were involved in 37 crashes with bikes and 33 crashes with pedestrians. By far the most motor vehicle crashes were with other motor vehicles: 1,076. (p. 44)

10. 4,432 of the 9,074 calls to the Fire Department were for medical emergencies. Firefighters extinguished 22 structure fires in commercial and mercantile occupancies, multifamily homes, high-rise buildings, and single-family homes. (p. 47)

11. The Building Department’s activities included reviewing, permitting and inspecting over 250 tents and 50 bleachers for the U.S. Open Golf Tournament.

12. In total, there are 91 buildings (approximately 2.9 million sq. ft. of space) serving Town and School departments. (p. 53)

13. The BrookOnLine tool for direct reporting of potholes and the like generated 5,596 notifications, with these trends: Potholes (+180%), Unshoveled Sidewalks (+114%), Trash/Recycling (+49.3%), Parks/Playgrounds (- 23.1%), and Grafitti (- 23.6%)

14. The least reported problems were 44 abandoned bikes and 64 broken parking meters. (p. 60)

15. During PRIDE month, over 21 crosswalks and one sidewalk were painted in the colors of the diversity PRIDE flag.

16. The Transportation Department manages over 485 off-street overnight parking spaces in 11 locations, and issues 860 daytime parking permits to school teachers and staff, and issues 319 hangtags for use by local business employees in Brookline Village and Coolidge Corner.

17. The Highway Dept. disposed of 1393 tons of leaves and 5005 tons of street sweeping debris.

18. Sidewalk replacement in 2022 was minimal due to lack of staffing — a mere 14 cubic yards of concrete. The goal is to place 500-800 yards of concrete sidewalk per season.

19. The Parks and Open Space division manages 500 acres of public open space, on over 120 sites comprised of 38 parks and playgrounds, three sanctuaries, ten public school grounds, the land around 15 public buildings, five public parking areas, two cemeteries, over 60 traffic circles, islands, and open space, and over 50,000 trees including 12,000 public street trees.

20. A total of 1300 residents and 191 non-residents enrolled in the Green Dog off-leash program at 14 Green Dog sites.

I’ve worked my way through a mere half of the full 2022 Annual Report. There’s much more to be learned. Check out the report.

All Politics is Local: May 26 - June 2

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

One School Committee meeting, two big issues

If the folks at the newly-launched www.brookline.news want a tip on local coverage from a veteran of the vanished weekly newspaper trade, here it is: for starters, sit in on meetings of the Select Board and School Committee. The proceedings can be long and tedious, but now and then news happens in plain sight.

As an example, there’s the May 18 meeting of the School Committee. What played out during the public comment portion was newsworthy on two fronts: the threat of gun violence, and a double-barrelled warning of labor unrest.

I’ve transcribed key segments of presentations made to the nine members of the School Committee, who listened respectfully, but didn’t respond because that’s the governing policy for “items not on the agenda” arising during public comment.

1. Gun Violence

The first two speakers were students speaking openly about trauma caused by a recent incident at the high school.

I’m using just their first names. Zoe, a senior, spoke first. This is a partial transcript:

Zoe —

“On May 3rd at 8:20 in the morning, a student at BHS brought a BB gun to school and showed it off to their friends. At 10:45, the administration was notified of a possible firearm in the school and the student was searched. After the student fled the premises local police were notified and the student was arrested on Davis Avenue. Students and families were notified about the specifics at 6:38 p.m. through a mass email.

“Gun violence runs rampant in this country and we believe our school is ill equipped to deal with this issue. Even though the weapon was presumed to be an actual gun, there was no lockdown and the Brookline Police Department was not called until after the student fled school grounds.

“I believe that this response was insufficient and that undue fear was spread due to poor communication on behalf of the administration. I was in the middle of science class when I heard an ambiguous announcement over the loudspeaker stating that an incident had occurred. Confused, I asked what happened and my peer whispered over to me: ‘a gun.’ My heart dropped. I frantically texted my brother who is a freshman, asking if he was okay. I truly felt scared for him and myself.

“Even after it was revealed to be a BB gun, I felt uneasy. I don’t feel safe going to school and neither does much of the student body.

“We live in a reality where, in addition to school work, students have to learn how to survive. During class, my 14-year-old brother thinks about how he would jump onto a ledge from his fourth floor classroom to escape if there was a shooter. A school made of glass may look pretty but when it’s the only barrier between you and an armed invader.pretty is not enough. The school is currently failing at its most important job – keeping us safe.”

Chloe, also a senior, then spoke:

Chloe —

“We would like the School Committee to recognize the severity of this issue. One action would be to ensure the administration issues school ID’s to students that unlock doors.

“Currently Brookline High School is completely open, and most doors are unlocked throughout the day. This makes it easy for anybody to enter the building undetected. At the beginning of the school year we were promised school ID’s and locked doors, but never received either. We want the schools to follow through on their promises and to take this critical step to keeping our school safe.

“The open campus policy for students can co-exist with measures that keep those inside the buildings safe…

“Another course of action would be for the School Committee to ensure that the Restorative Justice policy is followed and more preventive measures are taken. We are especially interested in taking a restorative approach in ensuring that students who are struggling are given the proper resources.

“When school shootings occur in the U.S., people talk about the warning signs. In most incidents, including this one, there are warning signs. But the administration does not take them seriously. From Tik Tok trends about School Shooting Day and fights right inside our halls, these signs are brushed aside.

“Warnings signs like these need to be taken seriously by the administration. And students who harm or threaten to harm others in school should be given the help they need. And the school must ensure that they cannot harm anyone else.

“This is not about the student who brought a BB gun to school. This is about the overall safety of students and the lack of preventative measures taken by the administration. I worry about what happens if someone brings a real gun to school with the intention to cause harm.

“Just because we live in Brookline does not mean we are exempt from real world problems. The over 2,000 students who roam these halls plus the teachers, coaches and administrators would all feel safer if we had a comprehensive course of action to protect our community.”

Footnote to the above:

Whether in schools or wherever people gather, the threat of gun violence isn’t just a public safety issue. It also impacts the Town’s ability to balance budgets. The Select Board will soon present to Town Meeting labor contracts negotiated with public safety unions (Police and Fire). The Fire contract contains an added sum of several hundreds of thousands of dollars for so-called Active Shooter/Hostile Event (ASHER) training. You can read more about ASHER training in this release from MA Office of Public Safety. From the release: “FBI data indicates that the US has experienced over 370 active shooter incidents in the last twenty years. These incidents have resulted in nearly 3,000 casualties, claiming the lives of 1,100 victims, including the death of approximately 100 members of law enforcement.”

Note: An earlier version of the above paragraphed incorrectly referenced the cost of the ASHER part of the contract with Firefighters. The final figures for both ASHER and the total contract cost will be presented for approval by Town Meeting.

2. Labor Unrest

The greater part of the public comment period was dominated by a sometimes raucous parade of presentations by members of the Brookline Educators’ Union (BEU).

Although voters on May 2 approved an additional $6.98 million to fund school operations, the unionized teachers highlighted complaints stemming from budget tightening in FY24. World Language teachers took turns reading a jointly-signed letter:

“Currently, too many K-8 World Language Program educators are given excessively high student loads and untenable scheduling involving erratic teaching locations, no limit to the number of grade levels taught, and no limit to the number of sections. Furthermore they’re typically excluded from team meetings due to scheduling.

“In 2015, the Brookline voters approved a tax hike to speciically support the K-8 World Language program, whereas today, these dedicated educators face precarious employment and are frequently threatened with layoffs. Over the past five years, more than a dozen K-8 World Language educators — over half in the program — have left the Brookline School District.

“The BEU sees this as a failure on the part of the District to support important programs with the racially and ethnically diverse staff that promotes respect for diverse cultures and knowledge about the world beyond the Town borders.

“Allowing further weakening of the K-8 World Language program would be a devastating blow to Brookline’s attempt to be a more culturally responsive school district for students and staff alike.

“For these reasons, the BEU is asking for immediate action on the part of the School Committee to reach an agreement that protects the K-8 World Language program.”

Other issues cited by the teachers:

• an ARPA-funded premium pay policy that rewarded some teachers, but left out others, who taught during COVID;

• also, “poverty wages” for paraprofessionals;

• and then there was this argument that the recent $6.8 million override fell short in the view of literacy and math specialists:

Hillary Rosenzweig, math specialist at Lincoln (30+ years Brookline educator) —

“Despite the override, pre-determined significant cuts are being made within the literacy and math specialist departments. Our parent community needs to be aware of the deliberate choice to underfund literacy and math and not include us in the override.

“As math specialists, we are direct student-facing supports. We work with students who have challenges making effective math progress. We work with students to build their identity, agency and success with math, and to minimize the need for special education referral and evaluations.

“At Lincoln, we will drop from two fulltime specialists to one and a half. I am a .5 at Lincoln and .5 at another school now. This will be the lowest level of supports in 15 years — at a Title 1 school with some of the most at risk students.

“With a single uninformed decision, top leaders in our district have made a huge, detrimental mistake that will have large reprecussions for our students… The neediest students will be receiving substantially less services — ultimately, closing doors and opportunities.”

To experience the full flavor of the BEU’s message to the school committee, sample their impromptu union fight song led by incoming BEU President Justin Brown. It begins at 1:16:25 of the video.

Outgoing BEU President Jessica Shubow told me later that the May 18 showcase of BEU demands won’t be their last. Fasten your seat belts.

Looking Back at the May 2 Election

The incomparable Tom Elwertoski has a website where you can check out many visualizations of the results of the Tuesday, May 2 election. For example, take this one (showing highest turnout in precincts 6 and 16, and lowest in 4 and 2):

And there’s this map, showing a clear geographic divide between precincts heavily FOR and AGAINST Question 1, the Pierce debt exclusion. You can check out all the visualizations at Tom’s “About Brookline” website.

All Politics is Local: May 19 - May 26

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Explaining the FY24 Budget in Seven Charts

It’s that time of year when, in the days before everything went digital, two documents would land with a thud (or thud, thud) on the doorstep of every one of the Town’s 250+ Town Meeting Members.

The first is the so-called Combined Reports on the articles in the Town Meeting Warrant, including Warrant Article 7, the FY24 budget. The second is the Financial Plan — a department by department, account by account, line item by line item detailing of the FY24 Budget, including both the operating departments and the immediate and long range expenditures on our buildings, roads, and all other basic infrastructure.

Both documents are intimidating and mystifying, even to those who have combed through them for many years. Should you wish to experience them yourself, you will find the Combined Reports here, and the FY24 Financial Plan here. Be warned: the Combined Reports numbers 294 pages, and the Financial Plan numbers 487 pages.

No one ever said serving as a volunteer Town Meeting Member would be easy.

In hopes of recapping the FY24 budget in terms that even I can understand, I’ve converted the essentials to seven charts. (You won’t find these anywhere in the documents themselves.) Here are the charts, with explanations for each.

1.

It helps to keep in mind that the operations of the Town and Public Schools provide us with the same basic services year after year: education, public safety, recreation, enrichment, transportation and essentials such as clean water and sanitation. The cost of all this is divided between “people” and “things.” The budget is roughly 80% people and 20% things. The people part is “operations.” The “things” part is supplies and minor and major infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc.).

And that’s the story behind Chart #1 (above). For the most part, the Big Ticket Items don’t change much. School operations consume the biggest part, followed by Town operations, followed by the benefits accrued by employees (pensions and retiree health care). Then comes paying off the debt accrued for “things” such as school projects. Then comes routine maintenance of all the infrastructure already in place.

Those 5 “big ticket” items consume 95% of the FY24 budget.

To the extent that the Schools share of the pie grows faster than the pie as a whole, the Town share will shrink. And vice versa. The same rule applies to other shares of the pie. Which brings us to Chart #2.

2.

Over the past ten years, both the Schools share and the Town share of total expenditures have decreased slightly. (Relative to the Town share, the School share has decreased less.) The Benefits share has stayed the same. Infrastructure has grown, but is still the smallest share. However, the “winner” in the budgetary pie-eating contest is the Cost of Borrowing — paying down interest and debt on major construction projects (mostly school buildings).

To put it in the simplest of terms: Big Borrowings have Big Impacts on budgets. Which is why fiscal policies are adopted with the goal of spreading the impact evenly over decades. One of those policies (I’m told it dates back to 2004) is to define a “ceiling” for borrowings based on the impact on taxpayers. Which brings us to Chart # 3.

3.

If you scroll to page 368 of the FY24 Financial Plan you will find a footnote summarizing several fiscal policies of the Town, including these two:

Both policies were observed consistently until FY17. However, as you can see in the chart, things then changed dramatically, with the result that the Town debt per capita is now nearly 3x the “shall not exceed” ceiling in the Town’s fiscal policies.

To date, this departure from fiscal policies has not hindered the Town from maintaining its AAA bond rating, which helps to keep borrowing costs in check. Is the policy unrealistic? Or is the spike in borrowing a cause for concern? Neither question is addressed in the FY24 Financial Plan.

However, the pressure from debt repayments will continue to be felt in tax bills in the years ahead — and that much is clear from Chart #4.

4.

Given the amount of debt that will be required to finance future capital projects, Brookline is fortunate that the State-mandated 2.5% cap on increases in the annual tax levy comes with a “safety valve.” The Prop 2 1/2 law allows for both “budget overrides” and “debt exclusions” — both of which Brookline voters okayed in the May 2 election (Questions 1 and 2a on the ballot).

Which leads to Chart #5.

5.

One of the consistent features of Brookline’s budgets is that they are always “under the strain of Prop 2 1/2” (as people like to say), but revenues from property taxes actually increase by something like double the 2.5% “cap.” (In the FY24 budget, the increase in the property tax levy is actually 5.5%). This is a result of three factors:

1. “new growth” in the tax base, which tends to average the equivalent of 1+% of the levy;

2. the cumulative impact of Prop 2 1/2 overrides,

3. the temporary impact of paying down debt exclusions.

Finally, no overview of budget basics would be complete without mentioning the impact of increases in the number of personnel on Town and School payrolls.

6. and 7.

The next two charts are based on numbers which you have to dig for in both the Town and School budgets. (And I’m still not certain of the School Dept. numbers because of inconsistencies in how they are tracked from year to year.)

The message is: during the FY19-FY24 period, when both Town and School operations were dramatically impacted by COVID, Town payrolls (Full Time Equivalent/ “FTE” positions) increased, while School payrolls decreased.

Just as future budgets will be under pressure from the unprecedented spike in the Town’s long range debt, so too will they be under pressure due to demands to add to payrolls. The School Committee has ambitions to expand Pre-K (BEEP) enrollments and spread the program to all eight elementary schools. Town Meeting has recently faced calls to increase services in the areas of language access and housing stability.

Adding payroll positions has implications for health care and pension costs, both of which have been growing faster than operating budgets in recent years.

The final lesson of this session of “budgeting for beginners” is: Pay attention. Budget math is hard on those who ignore it.

All Politics is Local: May 12 - May 19

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Election Results (From an Interested Observer)

I’m in the peculiar position of being a news source for insight into the recent Town Election in which I was also part of the story.

On the one hand, I wish I could leave it to others to do the job. On the other hand, with the exception of www.Brookline.news (I urge you to subscribe) no one is doing it — at least not visibly. As an experiment, do a simple Google search right now: VanScoyoc + Brookline. Or Reamer + Brookline. Or Paul Warren + Brookline. If your results match mine (as of Sunday, 5/14) you will find no reporting of the results of the annual election in Brookline — a not insignificant community at the heart of Greater Boston, and in the top 5% of Massachusetts municipalities by population.

Not a word about the hotly contested Select Board race that could, potentially, have resulted in turnover of two of the five seats on the board. Not a word (with the exception of Brookline Patch) about the very visible townwide split between “Yes” and “No” forces over a proposed $212 million new school project, and the historically narrow 51.2% - 48.7% vote in favor of “Yes.

Given the above realities, please indulge me in this insider’s report on significant results of the election just past.

(For those who wish to do your own number crunching, here is the link to the spreadsheet of results on the Town website.)

The Select Board contest featured significant “bullet voting.”

(Definition: in a three-person contest, “bullet” voters would cast a vote for only one candidate, not two, thus increasing the total vote count of the favored candidate without increasing the vote count of either of the other candidates. The following attempt to measure the extent of bullet voting departs from my newsletter content, based on critiques of readers.)

Take note of these spreadsheet results for Precinct 1:

• 578 ballots were cast (“TOTAL” at the bottom). If two votes were cast on each ballot, a total of 1156 votes would be counted.

• However, the combined vote total of the three candidates (plus one write-in) is 899. Therefore, the number of votes cast is 257 short (1156-899) of the number of votes possible.

• If the shortfall of votes is explained by voters marking their ballots for just one of two possible winners, then the share of P1 ballots marked with just one (“bullet”) vote is 44%. (257 / 578 = 0.4446).

• Smaller percentages of so-called “bullet” voting are possible, depending on the number of voters who skipped the Select Board contest entirely (thus leaving two possible votes “blank”). A simple way of looking at this is: If all of the blanks were the result of voters skipping the Select Board contest entirely, than none of the 257 “blanks” are “bullets.” However, if none of the “blanks” are attributable to voters skipping the contest, then all of the “blanks” are “bullets.” The true number of bullets is unknowable, but likely somewhere in between those two possibilities.

To take this speculation even further, perhaps it is useful to check the other contests on the ballot to see if there is a clear example of a contest that was skipped entirely by voters. One such measure is Question 1 (the Pierce debt exclusion). Because it was simple “Yes” or “No”, there can be no question that “blanks” = unmarked ballots: a true measure of the number of voters choosing to skip that contest. By that measure, only 226 of 12538 voters (226 / 12538 = 1.8%) “blanked” the Q.1 contest.

More election observations.

My thanks to Tom Elwertowski for the magic of the graphic below showing the relative strength of the major “slate” groups, as measured by the success of their endorsed candidates in Town Meeting contests to fill 5 vacant seats in each precinct plus some scattered vacancies. (PAX is listed separately because their endorsements frequently overlapped other groups’.)

In general, Brookline for Everyone improved on their Town Meeting representation, while Brookline By Design failed to match their success record of 2022, when all 15 Town Meeting seats were up for grabs. Brookline for Everyone’s gains were most significant in precincts 13 and 5.

Another way of looking at the contest of the various slate groups is this visualization, also by Tom Elwertowski, with the color code married to the precinct map.

Finally, there was the contest over Question 1: the authorization of borrowing (“debt exclusion”) for the plan to demolish and replace the Pierce School.

The “Yes” vote prevailed, but by a historically low margin for a successful school debt exclusion. Past debt exclusion votes have ranged from a low of 58.8% “Yes” to a high of 80.8% “Yes,” with 6 out of 7 of the votes passing by margins of 60% or higher.

The next test, in ten days, will be the Town Meeting debate and vote on the $212 million appropriation (the cost of the project as approved by the MA School Building Authority).

All Politics is Local: May 1 - May 8

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Election Eve Observations: Turnout and Debt

As a candidate — and, perhaps, as a second-term Select person — two things are on my mind this election eve: How many voters will cast ballots? And what’s their comfort level with debt?

I’ll explain that second question further on. Let’s start with turnout. There are clear patterns to voter behavior in Brookline:

• We show up for local elections least of all, but improve during State and Congressional elections, and do best of all during Presidential elections.

• We show up for competitive contests but stay home when none are on the ballot.

• Turnout in local elections improves when override and/or debt exclusions are on the ballot.

These three factors explain the radical fluctuations in turnout in election contests since 2015, as graphed here:

• The three lowest-turnout elections (stunningly, a mere 6%-8% of voters) coincide with ballots offering no questions and no competitive races at the top (twice in Town elections, once in a State primary).

• The three highest turnout elections (67%-76%) include two Presidential contests and one State ballot with contested races for Governor (Baker-Gonzalez) and Senate (Warren-Diehl).

• The highest-turnout local elections coincide with ballot questions for budget overrides and/or debt exclusions (2015, 2018, 2019).

• Absent such questions, voter turnout for contested local elections falls in the range of 16%-19%. Override/debt exclusion questions push the turnout an additional 10% or so.

• Absent contests or ballot questions, the only Annual Town Election with turnout in double digits was 2022 — a redistricting year featuring contests for 255 Town Meeting seats across 17 precincts.

Based on the above factors — and with no other data to steer by — my best guess as to turnout in the May 2 election is that it will surpass 20% but fall short of the 30% peak in 2015. For the sake of argument, let’s assume it matches the 26% turnout of 2019. In that event, given the latest number for registered voters (40,934), the predicted turnout would be 10,642 voters.

Thus, to prevail on Ballot Question 1 (Pierce School excluded debt), this means “Yes” and “No” sides must aspire to claim 5322 votes (50% of 10,642 + 1).

The battle continues until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 2 at 8 p.m., when polls close and all the votes are counted.

My best advice: whichever side you favor, VOTE. (As the sign says, IT IS YOUR CIVIC DUTY.)

Why I’m Thinking About Debt

As I said at the outset, municipal debt is on my mind lately. One reason is that, last Tuesday, we on the Select Board heard a presentation that included future debt numbers. Here is the table that was referenced, showing Brookline’s debt (almost entirely from tax cap-excluded borrowings for school projects, including Pierce, if approved by voters) mounting to $708,200,000 by FY25 (next year).

That number prompted me to do some checking to see if Brookline stands out among cities and towns for the amount of our municipal/school debt per capita. As it turns out, in cities and towns with populations of 10,000 or higher, Brookline is in the Top Ten for debt per capita. (We are #7 in the state.)

These are FY22 numbers from the MA Department of Revenue’s Municipal Finance Dashboard. (FY22 is the most recent year for which comparison to other municipalities is possible.)

For FY22, among the municipalities on the above list, we are #2 when the measure is debt service (annual debt and interest payments) as a percentage of our annual budget.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that Brookline voters will reject adding further to the Town’s debt. That’s because Brookline also ranks very high (#4 in the state) among all municipalities as measured by income per capita.

Summing up: Brookline’s per capita income might be predictive of a high tolerance for taking on municipal and school debt. But Brookline’s projected debt in FY25, once Pierce is added, might push Brookline even higher among the Top Ten debt-heavy municipalities, thereby testing the limit of voters’ debt tolerance. We’ll understand that better when we read the election results on Wednesday.

All Politics is Local: April 21-28

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Contrarian questions at an election forum

If there is a Brookline group that has earned the right to be labeled “contrarian,” it is the Republican Town Committee.

By latest count, registered Republicans in the town number 1,795, as against 18,189 Democrats and 19,428 Independents (some of whom, it has been argued, are “closet Republicans”).

Given their minority status, leave it to the Republicans to pose some unexpected questions to the three Select Board candidates, including yours truly, who spoke to the GOP group gathered last night in the Police Dept. community room.

Perhaps the most unexpected question was this: “Does Brookline have or should it have its own census? Why?”

incomplete, as you can tell from the phrase “Seventeen Years of Age and Over” in smaller type under the title. The list is kept as a resource for registering voters (hence the age threshold) who must produce evidence of residence in the town.

This is where the question of whether Brookline would benefit from a more complete census gets complicated.

What is one to do if the official US census count shows an upward trend in population, while the Street List of Persons shows a downward trend? Can the difference simply be attributed to fluctuations across age demographics? Does the difference call for closer examination of the accuracy of the count(s)?

Here is data from five-year intervals, based on Brookline Annual Reports of the Board of Registrars:

Judging by the count of “persons,” the population trend is down over the past 20 years. However, here is an important caveat. The graphic above begins in 2001 for a reason. The prior year’s count departed significantly from the count for the following years, so I discounted it. For the record, in 2000, the “persons” count was 48,814 (8,000+ lower than 2001) while the registered voters count was 35,192 (more consistent with and slightly higher than the year that followed).

By the way, I stopped short of reporting the counts for years 2020-2022 because there’s no telling what the impact of Covid was. The 2021 Annual Report fails to include a total number for registered voters. However, and this is significant, the number of “persons” in the Street Listing book matches the reported “census” in the Annual Report of the Registrars (46,087).

Bottom line: No, Brookline does not have its own census, and none of the current candidates for Select Board believe such a project is advisable. However, we clearly need to get a better handle on the usefulness of the Street Listing of Persons as a “census” tool — beginning with testing its accuracy as compared to the US census.

I have a completely different set of questions when it comes to the latest official US Census. I will address those questions next week. Here’s a tease: Given the common (and accurate) complaint that Brookline falls short in adding significantly to housing units given Greater Boston’s affordable housing shortage, what are we to make of the fact that Brookline’s U.S.-certified population has been growing, while populations of neighboring municipalities have been shrinking? The chart below is just one such example. I will offer more next week.

All Politics is Local: April 14-21

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Deciding Pierce: A Debate

The May 2 ballot (voting begins 4/22) will feature several ballot questions. Question 1 asks voters to say “Yes” or “No” to borrowing funds ($172-$174 million) necessary to demolish and rebuild the 1974 Pierce School (upper photo), while rehabbing the adjacent historic Pierce Primary (lower photo).

This second week’s submissions are testimonials from those with first-hand experience of Pierce — favorable and unfavorable. In keeping with the rotating order, this week’s essays begin with the group opposing Q.1, followed by the group favoring Q.1.

No on Question 1

Testimonials Submitted by SpendSmartBrookline.org

​Why We Love Pierce

“The Pierce School was designed for children - for their social, curious, and explorative disposition…

”When I look back on my childhood, my experience at Pierce was a delight. I'm speaking of the experience of the spaces - that complex of fascinating rooms, open lofts, ramps, bridges, catwalks, narrow doors, atriums, nooks and secret spaces. To always have something interesting to look at was absolute joy for me as a child.

”The carbon footprint and embodied energy of demolition and replacement is always far higher than that of preservation and adaptive re-use, whatever the claims of LEED certification or zero-carbon.”
— Andrew Gould, ‘93

“There are a lot of cool secret spaces at Pierce.

“I look forward to the last day of school countdown in the library and I like reading on the comfy chairs there. My favorite parts of the day are lunch, gym, and recess, where I play basketball at the Pierce Park courts.”
— Oscar, Grade 5

“Our 4 kids went through Pierce in the 1980's. Each of them wants the building renovated, not demolished. Back then it was at 3 channels (sections). Maintenance was not deferred; it didn’t look shabby. The open plan was for grades 2 to 4. Older kids had discrete classrooms. Full use of the historic building should increase capacity. I agree access is important. But it was dealt with then.”
— John Bassett, Precinct 6 TMM

“Proponents of demolition attack the design of the school, but many kids who attended Pierce in the 80s and 90s flourished there. After querying many former Pierce families in my neighborhood, I found no dissenters. Everyone loved the layout and Pierce compared favorably on educational outcomes.

”Please don’t base your decision on the belief that Pierce is educationally bad for kids. This is a false premise.”
— Carol Macbain, 14-year Pierce Parent, former PSB ESL specialist

“I like walking across The Bridge to recess. I like walking to school with my brother and walking with my friends to the park and to each other’s houses in the Pierce neighborhood to play.”
— Jonah, Grade 3

“The building, with its complexity of spaces and systems, is itself an education, more mentally stimulating, at any age, than the double-loaded corridors we build for children today. This is recognized by the community, which has expressed affection for the ‘uniqueness of Pierce’, and asked to ‘keep Pierce’s unique identity’”
— Elton Elperin, David King - Preservationists

Yes on Question 1

Testimonials Submitted by YesForBrookline.com

​As members of the Pierce community, we want to communicate the urgency of a new building. The conditions of Pierce School are totally unacceptable, and it is inequitable to further delay renovation.

Join us in voting YES on Question 1 on May 2 to build a modern, safe, accessible, appropriately-sized pre-K - 8 school that accommodates all students.

Let’s give kids in the densest part of Brookline an equal education that is not shortchanged by lost instruction time, inaccessibility, overcrowding, crumbling infrastructure, and desire to cut corners by maintaining a failed experiment in educational design.

Read excerpts of our community’s experiences:

“As principal from 1999-2016, the community thrived despite the terrible conditions of the building(s). …The parents back then greeted me in my first year with the need to create a Building Committee to advocate for Pierce's renovation. Now some 24 years later, it is about time to give this vibrant school community the building renovation it so desperately needs and deserves!”
— Pipier Smith-Mumford, Former Principal of Pierce School

“Grades 3, 4, and 5 learn in an open space with no walls. In theory, this seems innovative …. In reality, learning in my classroom is disrupted upwards of 10-15 times a day due to transitions, loud activities in other classrooms, or students walking through my learning space to use the bathroom.”
— Pierce 3rd Grade Teacher

"Tate is profoundly deaf and uses cochlear implants to help her to hear. However, we’ve been told by the Brookline special education team that the current state of Pierce School will make it impossible for Tate to attend there.”
— Kendall Gould, Pierce parent

“I've seen mice, rats, squirrels, and birds - there were 3 mice that ran over my feet when I entered a bathroom.”
— Pierce 8th grader

“My husband and I chose to live in Brookline because we believe in the quality of its schools. However, the Pierce school does not provide an equitable learning environment”
— Lisamarie Sears, BEEP PTO Co-Chair and Pierce Parent

“I have to access three different buildings, and on some days every period takes me to a different building. I rush between classes and forgo speaking to my teachers after class to be on time for my next class. [On rainy days] I have to run through the rain and [sit] in wet clothes all day…A new building can help middle school kids to stay focused on schoolwork.”
— Pierce 8th Grader

What’s Missing From the ARPA Decision

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

On Tuesday, the Select Board made a major decision on year two of funding for local projects under the American Rescue Plan Act.

In all, $16.7 million will be allocated. Groups such as Brookline Community Development Corporation, Brookline Asian American Family Network, Brookline Teen Center, and Black N Brown Club, Inc., to name just a few, will get access to needed resources to continue valuable services, or to prove the value of new programs.

The spreadsheet of recommendations as to how the $16.7 million will be shared is here.

And yet, I worry that events are outpacing our ability to test what could well be the future of meaningful assistance to the neediest in our community. The recognition of that future was evident in a recent webinar hosted by the Brookline Community Foundation. I urge everyone to take time to visit (or revisit) BCF’s video of the event.

Summing up, the BCF webinar highlighted a growing realization that cash assistance programs often prove to be the most effective supports for vulnerable populations — especially when combined with sustained, long-term investments in housing, mental health care, and affordable childcare, driven by collaborations among community agencies and local government.

The New York Times recently covered the trend.

The ARPA screening committee was limited to reviewing applications that were submitted. There was little to choose from in the realm of direct cash assistance proposals.

Federal windfalls of $40 million (over three years) are unlikely to come our way again in the near future. For all the good that will come from the locally funded initiatives winning approval, we may someday look back on the ARPA opportunity as one that was not fully realized.

All Politics is Local: April 7-14

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Many Measures of Density

A worthwhile exercise these days is measuring parts of Brookline against a standard of a minimum gross density of 15 units of housing per acre. That number is not chosen arbitrarily. It’s the basis of the new state mandate aimed at increasing production of multi-unit housing under the so-called MBTA Communities Act (MBTA-CA).

According to the latest census, Brookline has 28,274 housing units, or 4,188 housing units per square mile. which translates to 6.5 units per acre — so you can see that the town as a whole would have to more than double our number of housing units if the MBTA-CA standard was spread across the entire map.* But it applies specifically to zones near public transportation, so that points to North Brookline and Brookline Village.

Planning Director Kara Brewton recently gave an interesting presentation to the Boylston Street Corridor Study Committee. She isolated several mapped locations and measured them for density of housing units. You can view the video of the meeting with Kara’s presentation here.

Here’s a screenshot from her presentation, showing (in gray) areas such as the Town Hall campus and Emerson Park with minimal or no housing, while a property such as Brook House (crimson) is packed with units at a density of >60 units per acre.

The average density for the mapped area as a whole is 13 units per acre — just shy of the MBTA-CA standard.

By contrast, the map below covers areas adjacent to the Brookline Hills T stop. The blue visible in the lower left corner is the Brookline Reservoir. The white near the center is Cypress Field. The gray slices are commercial properties. The commercial properties and properties such as schools are included in the total acreage against which the density of housing is measured. The density of this Brookline Hills mapped area is 7.7 housing units per acre — roughly half the MBTA-CA required 15.

On the other hand, portions of the above map, such as the densely packed condos (in crimson) across Cypress Street from the BHS Tappan building are >60 units per acre. More examples from Kara’s slides:

The “Benefitness Block” with densities ranging from 50 units per acre to 115 units per acre:

The “Madris Block” (below) at the corner of Cypress and Boylston, with a density of 60 units per acre:

Brookline is only beginning to figure out what applying the 15 units/acre standard as envisioned through form-based upzoning will mean to the future of the Harvard Street Corridor.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) marks another step in the Planning Department’s efforts to more fully engage stakeholders as collaborators in mapping out what MBTA compliance will mean to the Harvard Street Corridor.

But why stop at Harvard Street?

“Compliance beyond Harvard Street” is on the agenda. Tune in next week for a follow up report.

More information on the MBTA-CA Compliance Options Workshop can be found here.

A useful resource for data on Brookline housing is here.

*Footnote: (The Census counts 3,017,901 housing units in Massachusetts, which yields a units/acre of 0.45 for the state as a whole.)

All Politics is Local: Mar. 31 - April 7

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Clock is Ticking on ARPA Spending

ARPA is the American Rescue Plan Act. For local governments, it is the most impactful of the federal government’s responses to the COVID blow to the economy, and thus local revenues and government services.

ARPA funds can be a blessing for a local community organization that ‘wins” in the bidding for a share of some $40 million in ARPA funds awarded to Brookline.

But it carries a heavy burden.

Brookline’s approach to allocating ARPA funds is unusual among municipalities. The greater emphasis was put on a process of soliciting applications from community-based organizations, while the smaller portion of ARPA funds was assigned to Town departmental needs.

A meeting of the Audit Committee earlier this week brought to light the significant challenge that Brookline faces in processing and monitoring community-based organizations awarded ARPA funds in “round one” (2022), and similarly for “round two” (current year, with screening of applications not yet completed).

Summing up the challenge:

• Modifying government compliance procedures to apply to community based organizations has been slow.

• But the clock keeps ticking on the limited window of time within which the funds must be spent.

These comments (emphasis mine) by Auditor Jim Powers (below) are from the video of the recent Audit Committee meeting.

“With the ARPA, you can spend a portion of it on governmental services — they’re allowing communities just to spend it on anything they want to. However, for the next $22 million, you need to comply with their 483-page law that talks about each one of the expenditure categories. You have to make sure that what you’re spending the money on fits one of their expenditure categories, and then there’s an additional compliance supplement.

(Powers goes on to cite a hypothetical case of an audit finding that expenditures by an ARPA grant recipient didn’t meet federal requirements.)

“We would come up with what’s called a ‘Question Cost,’ meaning that we audited this and we don’t believe you are in compliance with the grant requirements, and then the report would be sent to the Treasury, they would review that, they would then contact the City, and you would then be working that out with them.

“The deadline for spending the money is 12/31/24… Operating expenses have to appear in the period you are going through — that you don’t get an extension for.”

(Added explanation by Deputy Administrator Melissa Goff:)

“We do quarterly reporting to the federal government around projects (under ARPA). As to each of the agreements with each of the entities that receive awards, there’s a schedule in the agreements that talks about the rate of spending and the expectation for when the final spending will be done, and we’re operating under the 2024 deadline.

“We anticipate there might be a Round 3 because we’ll likely have to do some clawbacks for projects that are not meeting the milestones and spending in the timeframe that we need them to. And the likely Round 3 would be for Town-specific (government) projects.”

The bottom line: For Brookline’s community-based organizations that have been successful in winning ARPA funding (in some cases, in amounts exceeding $1 million), the hardest part of their responsibility lies ahead:

• spending the funds in the short period of time leading up to the 12/31/24 deadline,

• while at the same time complying with every condition of agreements that are complex and closely monitored by the federal government.

Success will reap rewards for many of the Town’s most vulnerable populations. Failure could entangle the organizations and Town Hall in laborious negotiations with the U.S. Treasury over “clawbacks.”

Stay tuned. Here’s wishing all well in rising to the occasion.

Information on Brookline’s ARPA program.

The “second round slate” of ARPA grant applications.

Link to videos of ARPA Screening Committee meetings.

*Federal government ARPA guidelines provide for the Town, at its discretion, to extend the period of spending of ARPA funds by so-called “sub-recipients” (local community grantees) to 12/31/26, for projects ongoing but not completed by 12/31/24.

All Politics is Local: Mar. 23 - Mar. 31

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

What’s Missing From the Override Ballot

I’m puzzled by one aspect of the Town and School proposed tax hikes (“overrides” of the 2.5% cap on local tax levies) that voters will face on May 2: When and why did we abandon the practice of appointing a study committee to fully examine tax hike questions prior to putting them on ballots?

To fully appreciate the careful study that went into past override considerations, go back to the last such study in 2017.

The resulting report covers 122 pages. This is from an opening paragraph: “The recommendation shall detail the amount of any override, its allocation and for how long its intended support until consideration of the next tax override.” I put that last phrase in bold, because I’m unaware of any attempt to forecast how much time will pass before the 2023 override gives way to the next override. Don’t voters wish to know that?

Here are some more useful goals of the 2017 report:

• examination of costs associated with school enrollment growth;

• “implementation of the efficiencies and best practices identified by prior override study and efficiency committees;”

• “benchmark Town and School programs, expenditures and revenues with comparable municipalities;”

• “compile data that shows the impact that increased taxes and fees will have on taxpayer and residents.”

It’s worth noting that the 2018 override (which the 2017 report anticipated) came after a 29% increase in school enrollment spanning 12 years — pushing total enrollment to 7,417 systemwide (approx. 200 more than current).

Other notable findings of the 2017 report:

• School and Town operations were being run efficiently, without programmatic expansion (emphasis mine). By contrast, Brookline’s municipal budget has increased by 14 positions since 2019. The FY24 Public Schools budget shows employment of 1271 FTE serving an enrollment of 7,134; whereas the FY18 budget called for employment of 1211 FTE serving an enrollment of 7,417.

• In 2017, largely due to the need to serve the needs of a growing school population, municipal budgets were stretched in order to provide more for schools.

• “The practical result of these adjustments has for the last decade been to shift financial resources to the School Department from the Town that during ‘normal’ times would have been used to fund investments via the municipal budget.”

Interesting fact: in 2017, after a period of municipal budget shrinkage and school budget growth, the expenditure division between the two was 34% / 24% in favor of schools

FY17 EXPENDITURES

Six years later, in FY23 (above) the School expenditure advantage continued, roughly in the same proportion (32% / 21%). However, both Municipal and School shares declined due to the dramatic growth in so-called “non-departmental” — which is budget-speak for Pensions/ Retiree Health and Debt payments.

Finally, there’s one other area of study in the 2017 report which has received no examination in advance of the 2023 override ballot. The 2017 study committee took great care to measure the likely impact of a tax increase on taxpayers and rent payers in various income groups. The result was captured in tables such as that below — context that is lacking for the much larger cumulative overrides and debt exclusion that voters will face in 2023. (But there’s still time to do that homework.)

All Politics is Local: Mar. 16 - Mar. 23

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Mind the Gaps, Structural and Otherwise

It’s been a week since the FY24 Budget was presented to the Select Board. Today, I confess, I remain hung up on the very first bullet point: “Continued structural gap between municipal revenues and expenses.”

The key word is “structural.” What is the distinction between a “structural” gap and a plain vanilla “gap”? I went searching for examples of common usage of “structural gap.” Most often, the explanation is something like “a gap that continues year after year.” The context in which a budget gap is referred to as “structural'“ often suggests it is one over which you have no control. If your only choice is to raise revenues, is that what makes the gap “structural”? If that’s the case, what happened to the choice to control spending?

Here’s an example from a household budget. In this household, the thermostat is set at a comfortable 68 degrees. Incomes keep up with the inflation in utility bills. But then that balance is disturbed by one of these three scenarios:

• Scenario #1: You decide you’d be more comfortable if you heated to 70 degrees.

• Scenario #2: You leave the thermostat at 68, but there’s a spike in fuel/electricity prices.

• Scenario #3, a severe winter taxes your heating system.

All three scenarios result in a '“gap,” but is #1, which resulted from choice, “structural” in the same sense as #2 and #3, which stem from external events outside your control?

Does a similar range of scenarios apply to budget gaps that arise in municipal operations?

Below is an example of an entire decade (2008-2018) with lots of fluctuations department by department, but virtually no change overall in the number of “full time equivalent” (FTE) positions on the Town payroll.

During the period covered by the above table, Town and School budgets got help from two overrides — one in 2009 and the other in 2016. In both instances, I imagine, the argument was made that the overrides were necessary to close structural gaps. Still, despite minimal growth in payrolls, the “structural gap” made a comeback in 2019, necessitating a third override:

Brookline Budget Overrides 1995-2019

Now we’ve arrived at the FY24 budget, and yet another decision on an override. However, there’s a difference compared to the three prior overrides. This time, the override arrives after a period of payroll expansions — 14 positions added since 2019. The table below shows the parts of the budget that have benefited the most from added positions, and those that have benefited the least.

Compared to the decade that preceded FY19, are the expenses driving the latest override “structural,” or more accurately described as “expansionary”?

A budget that keeps a lid on positions even while inflation drives up labor costs and all other costs is not the same as a budget that is preceded by a period of low inflation, coinciding with sudden growth in payrolls (granted, through a combination of factors including COVID).

Bottom line: given the Prop. 2 1/2 tax levy cap imposed on the Town, and given the historic trend of settlements of Town employee contracts in the range of 3-4% (annualized), override budgets funding added positions would seem to be self-negating.

Overrides such as Brookline adopted in past years haven’t kept up with the budget-devouring fixed costs of pensions and health care, as well as debt. Witness the trend of the most recent six years:

And here’s the projected trend five years into the future:

A final note, despite my questioning of structural budget gaps in Town budgets, I have no skepticism when it comes to the infrastructural gaps. Road and sidewalk repaving and repair is one example of a need that is chronically underfunded. Resiliency against climate change is a future need that we have barely begun to fund. To learn more, check out these reports:

Pavement Management Report

Urban Forest Climate Resiliency Master Plan

From Brookline Urban Forest Climate Resiliency Master Plan

All Politics is Local: Mar. 10 - Mar. 17

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Bond Rating Holds Steady. So Why Am I Nervous?

Brookline just scored another triple-A rating on the Town’s credit worthiness. The excellent rating means that the Town will get favorable interest rates on upcoming borrowings. Unfortunately, the change in overall conditions of the bond markets means the interest rate will likely be 5+ percent, whereas a year ago the Town was able to borrow in the low 2+ percent range.

All those at Town Hall who contributed to the success of the credit evaluation should take a bow for a job well done.

Nonetheless.

It’s not news that the Town’s history of solid report cards from bond rating agencies comes despite some chronic fiscal weaknesses. Here’s how the Brookline Financial Advisory Committee (BFAC) put it in their 2020 report:

• “The Town of Brookline faces significant financial challenges:

• “Expense growth unsustainably exceeds revenues.

• “Planned and recently commenced capital projects raise our projected outstanding debt by $550-$700 million, requiring additional debt exclusions.

• “ ‘Rainy day’ reserve fund is more than $4 million below the amount required by the Town's own policies.

• “Economic pressures imperil our AAA bond rating, which reflects our overall financial strength and allows us to borrow at lower interest rates.”

With the BFAC concerns in mind, this week I took a look at more recent data on Brookline’s fiscal health. My source for all of the tables on the report card below is the very useful municipal dashboard of the Division of Local Services under the MA Department of Revenue. Here’s my Brookline report card, divided into several categories, and using comparisons to neighboring communities. The opinions (“Average,” etc.) are my own invention:

Should I Be Nervous?

As a Select Board member, I can’t help having concerns when I look at data such as the above. The picture that is painted is of a high-spending municipality with a tax base that is weak on revenue production with one exception: our very high residential property values, which sustain high average taxes. Warning flags are flying when it comes to increasingly high levels of borrowing, and high spending to reduce unfunded liabilities such as pensions. Meanwhile, we don’t get help where we need it from State Aid, which lately can’t even keep up with the mandated 2.5% allowable growth in local property taxes. But, don’t take my word for it. Read the preface to our latest Moody’s report. Yes, we get their highest rating. But the cautionary note gives this Select Board member pause.

What Moody’s Says

The Moody’s bond rating service issued this Credit Opinion on Brookline in February of 2022. The summary page offers these bullet points:

All Politics is Local: Mar. 3 - Mar. 10

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Learning From Failure

By instinct, we respond to failure by looking away. But, now and then it pays to revisit initiatives that failed spectacularly. One such example arose this week because of a coincidence of timing. Ken Liss noted in his “This Week in Brookline History” newsletter that March 2 of 1969 marked the groundbreaking of that era’s Hearthstone Plaza — surviving today as 10 Brookline Place, the Village office complex occupied by Jimmy Fund/Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Stone touted the pedestrian overpass (upper photo) as his company’s gift to Brookline — a convenience that would forever link the north and south sides of Boylston Street while sparing pedestrians the danger of dodging the multiple lanes of cars on Route 9.

The pedestrian overpass was a failure. It gradually fell out of use, then decay set in, followed by closure and more decay, before it was finally demolished. The reasons were debated this week when followers of the Brookline Townwide Discussion page on Facebook reacted to my posting of the overpass photo first circulated by Ken. Highlights of reader comments:

Footnote to the above: Clement Stone had a sideline as a self-help promoter. He titled his autobiography The Success System That Never Fails. His Brookline legacy, the abandoned pedestrian overpass, underscores Stone’s hubris. The dream of peaceful coexistence with the highway that cuts through Brookline might inspire future pedestrian bridge proposals. If they start from the premise that it is the pedestrians who are the problem because they get in the way of the cars, perhaps they deserve to fail.

All Politics is Local: Feb. 24 - Mar. 3

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Eggs, Inflation and Taxes

There’s much to be learned from the recent national conversation about the price of eggs. Even at higher prices, eggs remain a relatively cheap source of protein. Still, the surge in prices brought home the risks of inflation, not just to the economy, but also to political futures — witness President Biden’s approval ratings.

At the local government level, the challenge isn’t the price of eggs. But there is an inflationary trend in costs, which is obvious from a look at Brookline’s property tax levies over a 20-year period.

Compare the gap between the last two bars to the previous gaps. If you detect a spike in the rate of increase, you are a good reader of charts. Here’s the trend based on 5-year intervals of local tax levy increases.

It is counter-intuitive to think of local property taxes as being subject to upward pressure with occasional spikes. We long ago internalized the notion that there is a 2.5% cap imposed by state mandate (“Prop 2 1/2”). However, Prop 2 1/2 allows for voter-approved overrides, as well as so-called “exemptions” for borrowing to cover the extraordinary costs of building projects, such as schools — as happened recently with our Ridley, BHS and Driscoll projects.

The net result of the overrides and exemptions (and additional measures such as the voter-approved Community Preservation Act) is that the 2 1/2 percent cap, which gets blamed for structural gaps in our local budgets, fails to reflect the true rate of increase in Brookline’s tax levy.

A better measure — although imperfect — is to look at the trend in property tax bills. Those bills are paid by owners of large commercial properties, as well as by condo owners, and also by single family homeowners. Consistent data over time is not easy to obtain as to commercial and condo tax payments. However, the state Department of Local Services keeps close track of property taxes on single family homes. For example:

From the state data, as well as local archives, such as this 2008 report of an override study committee, it is possible to extract this comparison:

Average (Mean) Single Family Property Taxes in Brookline

2008: $10,807

2023: $21,322

Taking the above numbers, and using a savings calculator to determine the annualized rate of increase, yields this result.

From 2008-2023, Brookline’s average single family tax bill increased at an annual rate of 4.6%.

That’s a far cry from the 2 1/2% cap. At such a rate, taxes will double every 15 years — just as Brookline’s overall tax levy doubled between 2008 ($136 million) and 2023 ($281 million).

On the other hand, 4.6% tax inflation is not as bad as headline inflation in consumer prices (6.41%) which has caused such public outcry. On the other, other hand, it’s above the 2% inflation rate that economists at the Fed consider “safe.”

That’s something to ponder while you enjoy your breakfast of eggs (60% inflation in 2022).

Historical Footnote:

2008 and Today

I came across the following observation (emphasis mine) about Brookline’s persistent budgetary gap (revenues short of spending) in the very useful 2008 Override Study Committee report.

It is important to understand why this structural deficit exists. A simple answer is that costs are growing faster than revenues. This is not because revenues have fallen. On the contrary, operating revenues (property taxes, local receipts, and state aid) have grown at an annual nominal rate of 4.6% since 1994. Over that same period, the Northeast Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) has increased at a rate of only 2.7%. Thus, Brookline has grown its real revenues by 1.9% a year, 70% faster than the rate of inflation. Brookline’s revenues have more than kept up in real terms; our annual town budget actually has nearly 28% more dollars in real terms than it had in 1994. The structural deficit problem lies entirely with the cost side, approximately three-fourths of which is personnel expenses. Total spending on personnel is growing faster than the town’s revenue growth.

Who would have thought that the nominal rate of revenue growth (4.6%) was the same in 2008 and today?

Preview of the 2023 Override Questions

There was an excellent preview of the 2023 Override Questions last Tuesday, during a joint meeting of the Select Board and Advisory Committee. Town Administrator Chas Carey highlighted the townside budgetary needs. The Brookline Public Schools’ needs were presented by Superintendent Linus Guillory.

The presentations begin at 13:12 of this video.

Slides are also available for review.

Town slides here.

School slides here.

All Politics is Local: Feb. 15-22

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Reversing Climate Change Measure By Measure

As his city’s mayor in the 1980’s, Ed Koch habitually asked New Yorkers, "How'm I doin'?" In an era when all governments, from Town Hall to international summits, are under the imperative to reverse global warming, that question — “How are we doing?” — needs to be addressed yearly, monthly, weekly and daily.

But when it comes to reversing decades of reliance on oil, gas and coal to fuel heating and transportation systems, as well as the manufacturing on which our economy depends, what are the key measures of progress? How can governments be held to them?

On a small scale, Brookline experienced a test of progress during the recent cold snap of Feb. 3-4. With temperatures dipping to -10°, homeowners who recently replaced gas and oil-fired heat and hot water systems anxiously monitored the effectiveness of their electrically-powered heat pumps. Results such as these were shared randomly on the Town Meeting Member email listserv:

• “We have relatively new heat pumps in our home (installed 2019). When we had them installed, they were said to perform well down to -5°. I was a bit skeptical. But they handled last night's -10°.”

• “Heat pumps often have back-up resistance heat. My whole-house heat pump has one and has always worked fine in very cold weather.”

• “My 110-year-old house is heated entirely by heat pumps. We've got decent attic and basement insulation; the walls are hit-or-miss… We're doing just fine. There was a period this morning when the house was warm but couldn't quite get warmer…”

• “Performance is fine. I’ll let you all know if my February bill hits $1000 as it well may. How do we help people who can’t possibly afford that?”

• “My own geothermal unit worked perfectly well. It is drawing from the aquifer where the temperature is a consistent ~50ish, so the outside temperature makes no difference.”

• “My daughter’s heat pumps could NOT keep up with the frigid temperatures (even though the units were set for maximum heating) and she and her kids saw 55 degree temperatures at best. They crossed the street and stayed the rest of the day in our home, which has both heat pumps and gas-heated forced hot-water radiators and was much more comfortable.”

Overall, experiences such as those above validate that heat pumps, with improvements, can eventually replace fossil-fuel-based systems house-by-house. But what about large-scale buildings or on whole streets? And what about the challenge of scaling up to cover entire communities? An instructive anecdote from the email listserv:

• “The other night we had the annual meeting of our condo association… One of my neighbors reported that it would be impossible to convert to heat pumps, because the electric infrastructure on our street is too weak for the additional demand. Indeed, that is why the number of washer-dryer installations in units is strictly limited… Improving the grid is an important topic if we want to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.”

How Will Brookline Measure Progress?

If there is a message in the above experiences, it is that we can’t meet ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals without agreeing on key measures — and reporting progress early and often.

If you go looking for such measures on the Town of Brookline website, or in the annual report, or in the annual budget presented to Town Meeting, will you find them? My experience is mixed — we could definitely do better.

To take one example, below is some useful data that exists currently on the Town website — but not on a page dedicated to measuring progress in achieving climate goals. The data can be found, if you go looking, in a link on the Building Department page:

Monitoring numbers such as the above will be essential to the Town’s future sustainability efforts. To take just one example, note how the recent numbers for energy use at two comparably-sized schools — Ridley and Baker — compare. First, gas use, where Baker is significantly higher, as you would expect, given Ridley’s upgrade to heat pumps:

A mirror image of the above comparison occurs where electricity usage is concerned. The Ridley upgrade to heat pumps is evident in the higher electricity use:

If Brookline is to lead by example in addressing the climate emergency, then frequent, highly visible monitoring and reporting of municipal energy sourcing and use is essential. How else will we know if we are making progress towards the day when we are truly fossil fuel free?

All Politics is Local: Feb. 8-18

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

MBTA Communities Act Puts Home Rule to Test

State-imposed pressure on Brookline to increase the Town’s housing density is setting up a showdown at the November 2023 Town Meeting. The end result could determine whether “local home rule” is more illusion than reality where zoning is concerned.

“Local home rule” is at the heart of the balance of authority between Beacon Hill and our own locally-elected Town Meeting. Zoning is, essentially, the means by which we determine land use. It governs our balance of residential, commercial and industrial activity, as well as building heights and density and design — which, in turn, impacts population density, traffic, public safety and economic vitality.

Should final decisions on all of the above rest with Town Meeting or Beacon Hill? In practice, until recent years, Town Meetings, including Brookline’s, have exercised greater control over zoning. But that balance has been shifting. In the interest of creating more housing, some of it meeting affordability guidelines, State laws — such as Chapter 40B — have substituted State for local authority over development of housing.

In 2021, the Governor and Legislature tilted the balance of authority over local zoning further by adding another Chapter 40B-like housing initiative to the equation. It is the MBTA Communities Act (MBTACA). Here is how the website of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) describes the MBTA Communities Act:

This new law requires that an MBTA community shall have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria set forth in the statute:

• Minimum gross density of 15 units per acre

• Located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable

• No age restrictions and suitable for families with children

On one side of the coming Town Meeting battle will be supporters of a Planning Department initiative to comply with the state’s MBTACA by meeting the required 2023 deadline for submitting a plan. The key would be a “form-based zoning” pilot — aimed at the entire length of Harvard Street — to enable the addition of 1700 units of housing to one of Brookline’s core commercial arteries.

Opposing the state-driven initiative will be advocates for a community-based process to create a new “Brookline 2040” Comprehensive Plan, only now getting started. They argue that zoning changes driven by the MBTACA amount to an end run around homegrown comprehensive planning — at risk of driving commercial rents up, and small businesses out of the Harvard corridor, among other negative impacts.

A question hanging over both sides has to do with the margin that will be required for Town Meeting to endorse a zoning-based reimagining of Harvard Street’s residential/commercial mix and population density. Will it be a 2/3 vote (traditional for zoning changes) or a simple majority (1/2 + 1) of Town Meeting Members, as prescribed for housing-only upzonings under the state’s Housing Choice Act?

The surprising answer could be: “It (the vote margin) doesn’t matter.” That’s because, as far as the State is concerned, there’s only one right answer under the MBTA Act mandate (“Yes”).

The State intends to compel the “Yes” vote by cutting off hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to municipalities that vote “No.” Housing authorities in those communities would face a 10.6% cut in a key component of their state funding.

Michael Alperin, executive director of the Brookline Housing Authority, testified to the Select Board that non-compliance with the MBTACA would put at risk $225,000 in needed funds for BHA units “that we struggle to make ends meet and have been operating at a loss.”

The withholding of BHA funds would be annual for as many years as the Town’s non-compliance continues.

Carrots, Sticks, and Elusive Local Autonomy

At Tuesday’s Select Board meeting, Rep. Tommy Vitolo referred to the decision facing Brookline Town Meeting in November as a choice between compliance with zoning changes under the imperative of the MBTACA — or non-compliance, which would be met with “the appropriate loss of carrots or infliction of sticks… if our (local) legislature won’t do it (vote yes at Town Meeting) then we will be failing to comply.”

Do the “sticks” in the hand of the State pose the threat of loss of local autonomy in matters of land use (zoning)? Or is this further proof that “local home rule” has never been what the phrase implies. That seems to be the message of an excellent study, “Dispelling The Myth of Home Rule.” Here is a relevant paragraph:

(State law) places significant limits on the independent local autonomy often associated with the term “home rule.” The Zoning Act authorizes local action, but it contains restrictions on the exercise of municipal power. The Regional Planning Law not only mandates the accommodation of affordable housing, but it does so without empowering localities to construct affordable housing on their own terms or enabling them to preserve affordable housing once it has been built…

Another relevant quote comes from the Zoning Reform Working Group of the American Planning Association:

Although technically a ‘home rule’ state, the statutes that govern planning and land use regulation are so restrictive to local authority as to make home rule more an illusion than a reality in Massachusetts.

Town Meeting Members Have Their Say On Harvard Street’s Future

The MBTA Communities Act — requiring that Brookline create a public transit-oriented zone within which multi-unit housing can be added “by right” (without special permits) — has spawned a debate over the future of Harvard Street. The Planning Department’s proposed “form-based zoning” pilot would address the MBTA Act by enabling 1700 added units of housing between Station Street and Verndale Street. The debate between Town Meeting Members on their listserv has been vigorous. (Members identified by Precinct.)

Precinct 17 (against Harvard St. pilot) —

“The pre-selection of Harvard Street by the Planning Department is pre-empting any public dialogue or community engagement around where we might wish to see change and growth in Brookline and what impacts we need to be prepared for from that growth or how or if we wish to comply with the MBTA Guidelines. To my way of thinking, by funding this project, the decision of how and where to change has already been made before we even begin our planning process and any public involvement will be window dressing of the worst kind.”

Precinct 8 (for Harvard St. pilot) —

“There is, in my opinion, a great deal of misinformation being shared. The law requires that multifamily housing must be allowed by right, and that the zoning cannot restrict use by unit size or only to a certain population (e.g. the elderly). Neither of these say that developers cannot choose to build buildings with such units -- just that the town cannot require or restrict zoning to only such units, which is a common strategy to exclude families. The state legislature had very solid reasons for passing this law -- the state needs more housing in order to increase supply to accommodate demand, and following classic economics, lower prices.”

Precinct 13 (against) —

“If the Town is going to engage a ‘consultant’ to ‘study’ zoning along Harvard Street, I would certainly hope that the study's specifications would include the complete impact upon the Town's finances resulting from the potential added school costs that are nowhere near offset by any incremental tax revenue.”

Precinct 5 (for) —

“The MBTA Communities initiative is designed to encourage cities and towns to increase housing supply, particularly multifamily, near transit. Increasing supply, and the range of housing options to meet a range of needs, is widely accepted as the best way to address the affordability crisis. Thus the required zoning allowing 15 units per acre by right.”

Precinct 7 (against) —

“If I wanted to live in Cambridge or Somerville then I would have moved there.The thought of what is being proposed makes me shudder.I am just sick of people who don’t even live in this area deciding what is best for us.”

Precinct 5 (for) —

“We have an incredibly competent planning department that presented A LOT of information, innovation, and energy last Tuesday to make our compliance with this mandate work. Nobody wants to allow developers to wipe out small businesses and storefronts. No one. Stating that somehow all of those businesses along Harvard will be gone is quite over the top, as is the notion that there will be 10,000 new students for our public school system. We all need to take a breath… and then let's all work together to make the best possible outcome happen.”

Precinct 17 (against) —

“To put 3 or 2 stories above a single story or 2-story commercial building requires the demolition of the commercial building and the eviction (typically non-renewal of the leases) of the commercial tenants.  Those commercial tenants will not shut down temporarily and wait  years to reopen in the same location.  Some will surely give up and go out of business, abandoning years of effort and hope.  Others may be able to relocate elsewhere but probably not in Brookline which will have a reduction in commercial spaces.  Will they be replaced by other commercial tenants?  That depends on many unknowns, including can Brookline persuade the state to modify its rules?”

All Politics is Local: Feb. 3-13

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Good Questions Foster Good Government

An example of the usefulness of asking good questions occurred last week with the release of the so-called Town/School split of anticipated FY24 revenues.

(An explanation of how the split is calculated is offered on p. 13 of the FY24 School Budget.)

Here’s a recap of three relevant numbers:

Total FY24 Revenues (budgeted) = $358 million

Town Share (Police, Fire, DPW, Buildings, Park-Rec, Public Health, Libraries etc. combined) = $87.7 million

School Share (PSB operating budget for BEEP/pre-K program + eight K-8 schools + BHS) = $131.9 million

The release of the numbers prompted the usual questions:

• Is the split a fair allocation of increased revenues from Prop 2 1/2 and new growth in the tax base?

• Are Town and School operations sustainable without layoffs at anticipated levels of funding?

• Will an override be necessary in order to, in effect, level-fund Town and School operations? How much?

HERE’S THE QUESTION that didn’t surface, even though it begs to be asked:

If revenues total $358 million, why is a mere $219.6 million available for combined School and Town operations? ($219.6 million = $87.7 million/town + $131.9 million/ school.)

Another way of looking at this is by calculating the amount of revenues NOT available for Town and/or School operations.

That number is $138.4 million. Yes, it is larger than the Town’s departmental operations budget by 58% and larger than the Schools’ operating budget by 5%.

So, what are the drivers of this “Other” component of our annual budget that is significantly larger than Town operations and slightly larger than School operations?

Here are the Big 4 “Other” components from the FY24 budget:

Benefits (Health Care and Pensions) = $80.5 million

Debt Service = $36.3 million

Capital Improvements (major Infrastructure projects) = $8.9 million

County, MBTA, Etc. Assessments = $9.7 million

The bad news is that the biggest of the “Other” costs of local government (Benefits and Debt Service) are projected to increase at a rate more than twice what’s allowed under the state-imposed levy limit on local revenues (Prop 2 1/2).

Projected Increase in Costs FY24-FY28

Benefits = 6.9% annually (average)

Debt = 11.5% annually (average)

Now You Have Some Context for the Coming Ballot Questions

I offer the above for a reason. The Select Board will soon decide on the framing of an Override question to be placed on the May 2 ballot. In addition, there will be a Pierce School project Debt Exclusion question.

• The override question would add a sum (town and school amounts in the $5 million - $10 million range are being discussed) to be added to our annual tax levy, by increasing the base on which we can increase tax levies another 2.5% year by year.

• The debt exclusion would add a debt-repayment sum to our annual tax levy for the lifetime of the repayment — estimated at $12.8 million per year given a Pierce demolition and rebuild costing $190 million. (See p. 9 of the linked long range financial plan.)

As it happens, the MA Division of Local Services now provides a data tool that tracks the history of overrides and debt exclusions for all 351 Massachusetts cities and towns. This week, I downloaded the following Brookline information from the DLS website:

Sources of above charts: Debt exclusions . Overrides.

Conclusion: in analyzing budgets it pays to ask good questions. And in analyzing the impact of overrides and debt exclusions on taxes, it pays to keep track of the total over time. Little nibbles eventually add up to big bites.

Footnote to the Debt Exclusion Table

The State Division of Local Services inexplicably omits the 2019 election from its data tables on Brookline’s history of Debt Exclusions for school projects. As it happens, 2019 is the rare year in which Brookline voters rejected a debt exclusion for a new building project. Question 1 was defeated by a vote of 5171-4303. The result was that a ninth K-8 school, which would have replaced the Baldwin School in South Brookline at a cost of $82.9 million, was never built. The enrollment surge which prompted the 9th school proposal subsequently abated during Covid.

(It’s late to be doing so, but the Town Clerk’s office might want to correct the omission of the 2019 vote in the State DLS records.)

All Politics is Local: Jan. 23-Feb. 3

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Analyzing Budgets Requires Making Comparisons

Parents of children are often advised not to compare. Example: “Comparison is the thief of joy.” So, given their in loco parentis role, perhaps it should come as no surprise that school systems resist comparisons.

Case in point: The School Committee and the Advisory Committee were recently at odds over the Advisory Committee’s proposal (Warrant Article 37) for an outside audit of the School Department’s annual budget. Town Meeting sided with the School Committee, resulting in a yes/no vote of 59-178 on Article 37.

For reasons of process, I was one of those who voted “No” on Article 37. Nonetheless, I share the Advisory Committee’s concern that the annual budget produced by the School Department is incomplete and requires further analysis.

In short, the FY24 Public Schools Budget fails to make comparisons. And, without comparisons, the numbers are just numbers. They don’t answer questions such as:

• What did the Brookline schools spend per pupil in a given year vs. prior years?

• In years when per pupil spending has been rising, how has Brookline’s higher spending compared vs. neighboring communities’?

• Over time, how has Brookline’s rate of increase in school spending compared with our rate of increase in revenues?

It’s possible to answer the above questions for recent years (but not yet FY23 or FY24) by turning to the data dashboard maintained by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). For the ‘21-’22 school year and immediate prior years, here’s what the dashboard shows:

1. During the period of Covid-induced enrollment decline (when school population fell from 7800 to 6800), persistent Brookline Public Schools payroll expenses resulted in a 20% increase in per pupil expenditures from FY20-FY21..

It’s worth noting that the above per pupil increase in spending, once “baked in,” became the floor for the FY23 and FY24 budgets. To date, enrollments have rebounded by some 300 students — but lag their peak by some 700 students.

2. Brookline’s hike in per pupil costs exceeded that in neighboring communities, and was double the State average.

3. Over the past decade, the annual increase in local revenues allocated to the Public Schools has averaged +4.58%. During that same period, net enrollments were flat (7112 in 2013 vs. projected 7200 in 2023) after peaking in 2020 then dropping sharply during Covid. The cumulative increase in the budget over the decade FY13 to FY23 was +51% (increasing to $125,098,883 from $82,780,770). Here are the numbers:

By comparison to the 51% increase in the school budget over the above decade, the budget for municipal departments increased by 30% (from $64,857,909 in FY13 to $84,507,852 in FY23).

The Advisory Committee lost the vote over Article 37, but they still have work to do where the school budget — and Town budget — are concerned. Analysis of trends is essential. And comparisons are a good place to start — regardless of what we learned as parents.

All Politics is Local: Jan. 17-27

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

The Density/Destiny Connection

The year 2023 began with a new round of headlines about housing production:

Whether in Boston or Brookline, several themes characterize discussions of housing production:

• a persistent gap between robust growth in jobs and anemic growth in new housing is to blame for high housing prices;

• the gap undermines Greater Boston’s economic health;

• the challenge is regional and needs to be addressed with town-by-town production goals and shared responsibility for meeting them;

• if towns lag in housing production, the State should step in to stimulate and, if necessary, force compliance with housing goals.

Against this consensus view that Massachusetts faces an inevitable future of housing shortage, occasional headlines seem to point in the opposite direction. For example:

It doesn’t seem to matter that deaths outpace births, more people are leaving than arriving, and the latest head count shows a population drop. Prognosticators remain firm in their warning of a worsening housing shortage.

But can the housing crisis chorus agree on how many units Brookline needs to add to fulfill its housing production obligation?

Consistent numbers are hard to come by. Here are three examples of hypothetical Brookline housing production goals:

1. 12,000+ housing units by 2030? Source: the “Metro Mayors Coalition.” It’s likely you haven’t heard of this group, even though Brookline’s former Town Administrator joined 14 other mayors and town managers in signing the coalition’s housing pledge. A 2018 update from MAPC (Metropolitan Area Planning Council) pegs the 15-community goal at 185,000 units of added housing by 2030. If the goal were divided equally among the 15 communities, Brookline’s share would be 12,333 units of housing over the next 7 years.

2. 4,000 units by 2040? Check out this Boston Globe profile of Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll, “the housing leader Massachusetts needs.” The article references an estimate by housing experts that Massachusetts needs to produce 400,000 housing units by 2040. Given that Brookline’s population is roughly 1/100 of the state’s, a crude estimate of the Town’s share of production would be 4,000 units.

3. 1700 added units on Harvard Street (Station Street to Verndale Street)? Source: a recent Brookline Planning Dept. presentation envisioning Harvard Street as a compliance zone (3A district) under the “MBTA Communities Act.”

The MBTA Communities Act rule of thumb for housing density is an interesting one. The basics are very well described in Amy Dain’s excellent series in Commonwealth Magazine. The act posits “15 dwelling units per acre” as the appropriate 1/2-mile radius density around MBTA stops and stations. Dain offers this useful explanation:

To represent what parcel-level densities of 15-units-per-acre look like, I could show photos of 15 townhouses on a one-acre lot, or a triple decker apartment building on a 1/5-acre lot, or a 30-unit condo building on a two-acre lot, or a 150-unit apartment complex on a 10-acre parcel.

Prediction: 2023 will see a surge in prescriptions for added housing density in towns such as Brookline, but not necessarily an equal surge in housing production. Perhaps one reason for the disconnect is that the pressure for added density will be driven by State and regional authorities, putting at risk local autonomy over planning. Where population density is concerned, Brookline and other communities may face a test of control over their own destiny.

Select Board Chair’s Parting Words

These past five and a half years have been a wild ride for the Town. We’ve seen it all together: legalization of marijuana, the hiring of nearly every single department head, including our Town Administrator, redistricting, a global pandemic, and the hardest challenge of them all, scooters. Serving on the Select Board and as the Board’s Chair has been a great honor.

I want to thank my fellow Board members, both past and present. You have been great colleagues, partners, and friends, and I am a better person and leader because I had the privilege to work with you all. 

I want to thank Town staff. I am so proud to work for an organization that has attracted such talent. The community relies on you all every single day and you continue to deliver excellent results.

I want to thank our community. You all have supported me, a girl who was not born here, didn’t go to school here, doesn’t have kids in the schools, and doesn’t own property. My resume may not look like the leaders before me, but thankfully, this Town supports leaders who look out for the best interests of the Town, even when that leads our leaders to take controversial or initially unpopular positions, something I have been accused of more than once during my tenure on the Select Board. 

“Our Town is too complex, too demanding too much for its executive branch, to be headed by five unpaid, part-time volunteers.” — outgoing Select Board chair Heather Hamilton

 With those principles in mind, I want to leave you all with one final thought. Brookline’s municipal government is broken. Our Town is too complex, too demanding, too much for its executive branch, to be headed by five unpaid, part-time volunteers.  This is not a slight against volunteerism or the noble women and men who served on the Select Board before and with me. This job just cannot be done well part-time. One cannot oversee hundreds of millions of dollars in budgets and hundreds of employees in only a few hours per week. For too long, we have asked unpaid volunteers to dedicate dozens of hours each month; that is not feasible for residents with significant professional or familial obligations. Public service should not be a path to prosperity; it also should not be a path to pauperism. 

Brookline deserves full-time, democratically elected leadership. We deserve elected leadership who pour their full energy into making Brookline the municipal paragon it should be. Because that Brookline is worth the investment.

I encourage readers to offer views — positive or negative — on content of this newsletter. Email jvanscoyoc0@gmail.com.

Please share “All Politics Is Local” content with friends and encourage them to sign up at Good Government for Brookline.

All Politics is Local: Jan. 7-17

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

One Meeting, Three Demolitions, Much Work

Brookline’s built environment continues to change, demolition by demolition. The process can be dramatic or — as with some knockdowns on Thursday’s Planning Board agenda — incremental.

Demolition plans for three properties of two units or less will be reviewed. The demolitions will have visual and environmental impacts, while adding minimally (a net of just one unit) to local housing. Here are the proposals:

To appreciate the work done by Brookline’s Planning Board, Board of Appeals, and Preservation Commission in processing demolition requests such as those above, consider these data:

Official Meeting Agendas (Planning/ Appeals/ Preservation) Incorporating Above Properties:

85 Naples Rd. – 19

269 Lee St. – 9

55 Green St. – 17

That’s a lot of volunteer time (board/ commission members) as well as a considerable workload for staff (Department of Planning and Community Development). Here are examples of staff reports that were produced:

55 Green St. (starting on p. 42)

55 Green St. (demolition report)

269 Lee St. (starting on p. 5)

85 Naples Rd.

85 Naples Road — Construction Impact on Trees at 89 Naples Rd.

To give you an idea of the detail involved in measuring demolition impacts, here are two paragraphs lifted from a tree consultant’s report evaluating 85 Naples Rd. construction impacts on trees at 89 Naples Rd. (Explanation: “CRZ” refers to Critical Root Zone and “TPZ” refers to Tree Protection Zone.)

Spoiler alert: Skip the next paragraph if you intend to read the 29-page tree impact report in full.

The consultant concludes, “Failure to implement the recommended tree protection plan will most likely result in tree mortality of the trees at 89 Naples Road, with potential loss of value totalling $43,800.”

So, What’s My Point?

Tree protection is important. So is design review that elevates the value of neighborhood context. So is adding housing units when that’s an option.

All of these values, and others, are incorporated in the day-to-day work of our local government volunteers and paid departmental staff in a process that often takes place out of view, with little or no attention from the public — and currently no reporters keeping track.

My recommendation to elected officials (including yours truly):

When it comes to floating ideas which require Town Hall to assume new responsibilities, a dose of humility is in order.

Appreciation of the work already being done would be a good place to start.

Let’s make humility a New Year’s Resolution, if we can keep it.

Real Estate Speculations

Now that demolition of a distinctive multi-unit complex at 2 Claflin Rd. has been proposed, several Town Meeting Members would like to know what’s on the mind of the owner.

Why do I say “distinctive”? Because I’m aware of few surviving early 20th Century complexes with style and flair to match this:

Quoting from the Preservation Commission report on the building:

• “The building is associated with one or more significant historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the town or Commonwealth; and

• “The building is historically or architecturally significant in terms of its period, style, method of construction, or its association with a significant architect or builder, either by itself or as part of a group of buildings.”

A document that gives a more colorful description of 2 Claflin Rd./174-178 Winthrop Rd. was shared with the Preservation Commission:

“A Journey to Venice”

“Winthrop Court seems to be modeled on the simplest vernacular architecture of Venice as seen in James Whistler and John Singer Sargent’s watercolors. The building is set into the slope of Addison Hill and rises four stories. The construction is sturdy brick covered with a buff stucco veneer. Italian style eaves tiled in rich rosy terracotta crown an entablature graced with a repeating series of carved brackets or modillions…

“…All of the apartments have generous, wide sash windows ideally situated to catch breezes from both the east and west, and to allow residents to enjoy sunlight for much of the day in every season. With its 10 foot ceilings, cross-ventilation, and steam heating system, the Winthrop villa has wise lessons to teach us about healthy, sustainable building design.”

Town Meeting Concerns

On their email listserv, Town Meeting Members registered these comments and concerns regarding the proposed demolition:

Precinct 17 —

“This is unprecedented in my memory. Does this mean the value of super-luxury real estate is such that it pays to destroy an entire 22-unit building? Will we witness the displacement of 22 renter households?”

Precinct 17 —

“It’s almost obvious that this will be replaced with fewer and larger multimillion dollar condo units. Sorry to mention it, but the zoning changes that reduce on-site parking facilitate targeting and demolishing older multifamily rental buildings… Developers pocket the savings and increase their bottom lines. Thus is the road to hell paved with both good intentions.”

Precinct 5 —

“A demolition representative of the other end of the spectrum is across from Downes Field at 29-31 Highland Road. It is one of a row of modest 3-family homes built in 1960; each unit about 1,000 square feet, just about right for a small family. This was the first home I bought in 1969. "Last August, it was sold for $1.45 million. Then demolished. What will replace it?”

Edith Pearlman: An Appreciation

The obituaries for Edith Pearlman, who died recently at age 86, only begin to capture the story of her late-career rise from “relative publishing obscurity” to the status of “instant if belated literary star at the age of 74” (quoting the New York Times).

Edith’s brief but unforgettable stint as a contributor to the Brookline Chronicle Citizen will forever be a treasured memory from my decade as a local newspaper editor.

Her columns appeared under the heading “A Walker in the Town” (her idea, as I recall). To this day, I get asked about them. Some, but not all, are haphazardly preserved in stacks of newspapers in my basement. I can’t part with them. Here is an excerpt from “Answered Prayers,” a piece she wrote in October of 1977:

… Another frequent prayer: more cafes. Now we have a new one. The Cafe Shalom on Pleasant Street is not as worldly as Papillon — no Danish furniture, no Haydn over the speaker, no whipped cream on the coffee — but is a convenient place to have a knish with a colleague. A gourmet acquaintance of the Walker raves over the kosher pizza. Cafe Shalom has that increasing rarity, a counter. A counter is itself an answer to the prayer of the person who is feeling tired and unsociable. You don't have to wait for a waiter nor serve yourself in a self-service line; you can sit all alone and mutter at your newspaper, and only the counterman knows.

The column concluded:

… Only a few more things are needed to make Brookline blissful for the Walker: a little boutique of discount Givenchy, a little law banning the private car.

Amen. Edith Pearlman was an editor’s Answered Prayer.

All Politics is Local: Dec. 15-18

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Will There Be an Earthshot for Sustainable Buildings?

Much as many of us enjoyed last week’s visit to Boston of the Prince and Princess of Wales and their celebrity entourage, the substance of the occasion was somewhat lost in the frenzy.

The five 2022 Earthshot Prizes* awarded in Boston touch on key aspects of the global sustainability crisis. They are summarized in a sidebar at the end of this column. However, given the state of affairs in our local built environment (shortage of housing combined with abandoned office buildings), Prince William and Princess Catherine might want to add a sixth challenge to the list.

The impact of buildings on global warming is worthy of “Earthshot” levels of innovation and investment. Here’s a modest proposal based on two premises:

1. “Father Knows Best.” In this case, the royal father is King Charles, known to be near-fanatical about the potential for adaptive reuses of traditional buildings as a tool of both architectural preservation and sustainable building.

2. Brookline Shows the Way. Our town has a history of adaptive reuses of buildings.

To cite just a few examples:

Town Meeting Tackles Wasteful Demolitions

Adaptive reuse has its origins as a post-urban renewal era tool of architectural preservation and community revival.

Today, given efforts to slow global warming by reducing carbon emissions, there’s new attention to adaptive reuse because of its “green” sustainability benefits. Witness the remarks of former Select Board member Nancy Heller to Town Meeting (1:10:00 on the video) as she spoke in favor of a two-year pause for developers who apply to demolish existing housing.

“Demolitions have a negative effect on efforts to combat climate change. Carl Elefante says the greenest building is the one that already exists… The Sierra Club points out we’re recycling Coke cans, we’re recycling beer bottles, why are we tearing viable buildings down? Restore Oregon.org analyzed the climate impact from an embodied carbon perspective. They found that renovating, instead of tearing down, a 1500 square foot older home saved 126 metric tons of carbon, the equivalent of keeping 93 cars off the road.”

Some Definitions

What is “embodied carbon”? This definition is from the writings of Carl Elefante:

Buildings represent enormous investments in energy, material, and financial resources and yet thousands of viable buildings are destroyed every year in the name of progress. The scale of such wastefulness is even more troubling as the world confronts climate change and the need for rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Buildings cause global warming by consuming non-renewable energy for heating, cooling, lighting, and equipment (operational emissions) and also from building product manufacturing and construction (embodied emissions). For many buildings, embodied emissions are equivalent to two decades or more of operational emissions.

Who is Carl Elefante? He rose to prominence in 2007 after writing “The greenest building is one that is already built” in the journal of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In 2018, as president of the American Institute of Architects, he had these reflections:

​Ideas about existing buildings are evolving. Like water and energy, existing buildings are a resource to be used purposefully and managed.

Existing buildings are a resource for growth. Every city and town in the nation has dozens, hundreds, even thousands of abandoned and partially occupied buildings. Simply occupying every floor of every existing building would absorb years of demand for growth and revitalize countless neighborhoods. Renewing existing buildings is the smartest smart-growth strategy.

Existing buildings are also a resource for learning about life before buildings were addicted to fossil fuels, and cities and towns were addicted to automobiles in the name of progress.

For the next generation of architects, embracing the opportunities and challenges of existing buildings is the elephant in the room. How long before our profession notices?

*Earthshot Prizes: Five Challenges

Summing up: Should William and Kate ever return to Boston for another Earthshot Prize ceremony, here’s hoping Sustainable Buildings will be added to their list of climate challenges, of which these five were spotlighted last week at the MGM Music Hall. Here is a recap:

1. Food Production. Award to Kheyti, an Indian startup, for their Greenhouse-in-a-Box, an inexpensive, simple covering for small-acreage farming that reduces water and pesticide use during periods of heat and drought while increasing crop yields.

2. Air Pollution. Award to Mukuru Clean Stoves. Conceived as a replacement for charcoal burning stoves in the slums of Nairobi, Mukuru stoves burn a processed biomass. Stove and fuel are less costly while reducing pollution by 70-90 percent over traditional cooking.

3. Dying Oceans. Award to Queensland (Australia) Indigenous Women Rangers Network for training over 60 women to protect coastal ecosystems in the area of the Great Barrier Reef.

4. Forever Plastics in the Waste Stream. Award to London-based start-up Notpla, innovators of a seaweed-and-plant-based alternative to plastic — entirely biodegradable and useable for food containers, as well as in the cosmetic and fashion industries.

5. Greenhouse Gases. Award to 44.01, an Oman-based company named after the molecular weight of carbon dioxide. 44.01 developed a technique for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere by mineralising it in peridotite, an abundant rock in several parts of the globe.

More information on the 2022 Earthshot Prize Winners here.

All Politics is Local: Nov. 23-30

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Will Brookline Revisit How Reading is Taught?

The most substantive discussions of public education don’t necessarily occur at School Committee meetings.

That was decidedly the case last Sunday night, when a parent/teacher group, the Brookline Literacy Coalition, hosted a free-wheeling discussion prompted by research into the prevalent method of teaching reading, not just in Brookline, but in school systems nationwide.

The research isn’t new. It has been accumulating since the 1990’s. But attention to it sky-rocketed as a result of a popular podcast. American Public Media, producers of the podcast, describe Sold a Story as “an exposé of how educators came to believe in something that isn't true and are now reckoning with the consequences — children harmed, money wasted, an education system upended.”

There’s a local connection. Emily Hanford, the journalist behind Sold a Story, is a graduate of Lincoln School and Brookline High. She has won several awards for her reporting on the unscientific underpinnings of popular reading curricula going back to 2019, when Hard Words won the public service award from the Education Writers Association.

To those who have the time, my advice is to listen to all six episodes of Sold a Story. Here’s an episode-by-episode summary:

1. Prompted in part by at-home learning during Covid, many parents are waking up to the reality that their children can’t read at grade level.

2. Since the 1970’s, the teaching of reading has been dominated by the methods of theorist Marie Clay, despite research dating to the 1990’s proving that Clay’s theory on how children acquire reading skills was wrong.

3. Despite advances in reading science, backers of Marie Clay’s “cueing” theory pushed back.

4. Lucy Calkins, a disciple of Marie Clay’s reading strategies, incoporated them into a series of books and curriculum platforms that came to dominate American pedagogy.

5. The popularity of instructional methods promoted by Lucy Calkins, despite being debunked, gained backing from a powerful publisher, Heinemann, which makes millions in profits from promoting the curricula to school systems.

6. After conceding she had overlooked important advances in the science of reading, Lucy Calkins revised her materials. But the “Fountas & Pinnell reading levels” curricula, based on earlier and flawed teachings of Calkins, remain embedded in public schools (including Brookline’s) in many states.

What I Learned From the Literacy Coalition Meeting

Sunday night’s meeting was a revelation. It attracted some three dozen participants — parents, teachers, and two School Committee members (Steve Ehrenberg and Suzanne Federspiel). To encourage everyone to speak freely, without fear of consequence, no recording was kept, so there is no video link to provide.

The result was frank talk and some admissions that might come as a surprise.

• Twice during the meeting, individual teachers acknowledged they don’t use the School Department’s favored curriculum because, in their experience, it is the wrong way to teach reading.

• One participant told of an encounter with an aspiring reading specialist being trained at Lesley College, concerned that job openings favor instructors who teach according to Fountas and Pinnell methods. (Dr. Irene Fountas holds the “Marie M. Clay Endowed Chair in Early Literacy” at Lesley.)

• Brookline is not alone in confronting decisions about reading curricula. Witness this recent meeting of the Newton School Committee where representatives of the Special Education Parent Advisory Committee thanked the Mayor for an ARPA grant to evaluate reading curricula. Here’s how one parent characterized the Fountas and Pinnell curricula: “not evidence based, does not follow the science of reading, lacks aspects of cultural sensitivity and does not insure equity for our most vulnerable students, especially those with learning disabilities.” Comments by parents begin at 0:7:00 of this video.

Rejecting Failed Methods: NYC example

One of the first initiatives taken by New York City Mayor Eric Adams was to support phonics-based reading instruction in the public schools. He did so with support of Schools Chancellor David Banks, who argued that the education department’s previous reading curriculum has not worked.

The Literacy Coalition’s letter to the School Committee

Literacy Coalition leaders spoke during the public comment portion of the 11/21 School Committee meeting — delivering this letter stating their concerns:

​To the Brookline School Committee:

Literacy is related to everything we all care about for the students in our schools, including social-emotional health, academic achievement, and life opportunities. We are particularly concerned about longstanding methods, materials, and practices that create conditions for inequity and large disparities in outcomes.

We will be blunt. Some children are not dependent on school to teach them to read. But a significant number are. When children are not learning to read in school, many families in Brookline have the resources to at least try to teach them at home and/or hire outside help. We are not talking about enrichment or pushing their kids to sky-high competitive achievement. We are talking about foundational skills that should be taught to all kids in school.

This evening, we want to request two things from you. First, please listen to a new 6-episode podcast series from American Public Media called Sold a Story. It provides important background about a set of ideas and practices that have informed and continue to inform literacy teaching in Brookline, and that actually make learning to read much harder for some children. It will help you understand the needs and challenges up ahead for Brookline.

We are encouraged to hear that, in compliance with state law, our schools have started implementing a well-validated early literacy assessment in Kindergarten through Grade 2. We hope this is a step in the direction of a preventative, rather than a wait-to-fail model.

And this brings us to our next request: Please, eliminate the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System at all grade levels. Do not wait to conduct a review. It is not an evidence-based assessment, it is misleading and time-wasting. There is evidence that it is unreliable in identifying kids who need help, and identifying what they need, and inaccurate in measuring progress. It can easily be replaced with a quick, freely available measure alongside skill assessments when needed, and teacher-led formative assessments. A level does not describe a student’s strengths or needs and does not meaningfully guide teaching. Eliminating the BAS will also facilitate clear communication with parents instead of an alphabet soup of meaningless ‘levels’.

We understand change can be hard. We urge you to make sure that the leadership of the district is informed and well-prepared to lead on this issue. To emphasize a point from the podcast, “This shouldn’t be about what adults want, but about what kids need.” Thank you.

Sincerely,
Miriam Fein
Ola Ozernov-Palchik
Benjamin Kelley

Affordable Housing: A Reader Responds

The debate over paths towards adding to Brookline’s supply of affordable housing continues with this latest reader comment:

From Precinct 6 —

The “new luxury units are bad for housing costs” meme is common but has it exactly backwards. Adding units at any price point helps free up supply at all price points below it.

The demand for housing is such that folks move up, freeing space in the next tier down; a study in Finland (where public records are much more comprehensive than elsewhere) showed this working explicitly. See https://www.fullstackeconomics.com/p/how-luxury-apartment-buildings-help-low-income-renters.

We need more units, and any increase at any level helps.

All Politics is Local: Nov. 13-20

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Tax-Rich State Needs Lesson in Sharing

Years ago, there was a popular book with the title, “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.” I recommend that our State leaders read it.

At the top of the list of lessons learned is: “Share everything.”

A frustration of serving in elected office at the local level is the reality that dollars from Town-collected property taxes are capped, while income taxes, which the State collects, grow with the economy.

Nonetheless, the State fails to make up the difference by adequately sharing growth revenues at the local level.

The rich-poor gap between State and Local revenues was evident in two events this fall:

1. Thanks to voter approval of a 4% surtax (Question 1) on incomes of the wealthy ($1 million+), the State will experience a booster shot of new revenues for transportation and education. The amount of those dollars that will be shared at the local level will be determined by the legislature and governor. However, the trend is clear — and not in local government’s favor. In the past 5 years, state revenue as a share of local budgets has declined.

2. Even while the State stands to capture added taxes from multi-millionaires, its revenues in FY22 were so extraordinary that refunds were triggered. More than $2.9 billion will be returned to the state’s taxpayers, many of them in the upper brackets. No such bonanza is available to cities and towns, some of which face a choice between labor strife or taxpayer exhaustion because of revenue shortfalls.

Here’s a chart showing that the increase in State revenues since FY17 has been double the increase in Brookline’s revenues.

Yes, the State offers local aid to assist communities with services, primarily education, but the year-to-year increases in aid significantly lag the State’s revenue growth. The State could and should do more.

The ‘Ability to Pay’ Gap

The pace of revenue growth isn’t the only State-Local gap.

There’s also a gap when it comes to matching taxes to ability to pay.

Brookline faces one of its periodic reckonings with budget shortfalls tied to our 2.5%-capped property tax growth and government costs that are inflating in the 4% range.

Talks are underway between Town Hall and the Public Schools. An override proposal, if agreed upon, could well be $10 million or more — and on the same ballot as a debt exclusion (tax levy increase outside the 2.5% cap) for a $150 million Pierce School project.

Ability of property taxpayers in 2023 to shoulder the added burden of an override and a Pierce School debt exclusion isn’t guaranteed, especially for those on fixed incomes. But no such doubt exists where the State’s income-based taxes are concerned.

A possible indicator that some residential property owners are feeling the strain would be an increase in unpaid taxes. Two years of a spike in delinquent taxes doesn’t make a trend. But this next chart showing outstanding taxes nearly doubling since 2019 is worth watching.

Auditor Bump Tells It Like It Is

Suzanne Bump can look back with pride on her accomplishments as State Auditor.

She risked unpopularity with the Legislature with a report she issued in October. The report identified a shortfall of $1.2 billion between State-mandated programs imposed on local governments, and the dollars to fund them.

Bump’s message to the Legislature was blunt: “The solution … is to prioritize funding of (the mandated programs). It is a simple solution, but it may require some hard choices.”

One shortfall highlighted in Bump’s report is the local burden of $448 million to fund school transportation programs.

The Massachusetts Municipal Association added this note to Bump’s report: “Support from the state continues to decline as a percentage of local budgets, reflecting a growing reliance on the property tax, which is capped by Proposition 2½.”

This chart shows the decline of State Aid as a contributor to Brookline’s total spending.

All Politics is Local: Nov. 5-12

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Income Gaps, Housing Prices and Affordability

Recent issues of this newsletter have focused on Prop 2 1/2 override proposals headed to the Brookline ballot, as well as the possible impacts on tax bills, rents and housing affordability. Here’s how one reader responded:

“The bottom line is that I am being taxed out of Brookline… I would like to see more frugality and better attempts not to tax the struggling middle…

“The real issue is the income gap. In reaction to the 1929 depression, the top federal income tax tier from 1936-1980 was at least 70% and sometimes 90%. This had a great leveling effect. Both New Deal and Great Society programs were built on high tax rates on the wealthy. Reagan cut taxes and Clinton failed to restore the top tiers. Today everyone expects New Deal and Great Society benefits, but the rich get to keep the tax dollars these programs were premised on. (Republicans thought lowering taxes would force program cancellation. The programs weren't cut and the middle class pays the price.)

”Affordable (subsidized) housing is not the answer. Keeping excessive money out of the hands of those who keep bidding up the price is the answer. It worked 1936-1980.”

The reader provided links to various charts illustrating the “Gilded Age” dimensions of current income gaps. Here’s one:

Here’s another:

The ​just-released 2022 Greater Boston Housing Report Card put out by the Boston Foundation contains this key finding:

“Our region has failed to build sufficient housing for a couple of decades running. Production has increased somewhat in recent years, but it remains below what is needed for a healthy market. A subset of largely urban communities are leading these production increases, while higher-income suburbs continue to contribute less new housing to help meet our regional needs.”

Indeed, Brookline lags significantly behind more-urban Boston and Cambridge as a contributor to housing supply:

The 2022 Report Card finds Greater Boston housing markets to be unhealthy by several measures:

• not enough new supply to meet growing demand in a post-Covid rebounding economy;

• almost half of renters cost burdened (rate of increase in incomes not keeping pace with increases in rents);

• lower-income households hit hardest by the gap between housing cost increases and income increases.

What’s Missing From the Report Card

The Housing Report Card falls short in one important respect. It lacks analysis of how wealth gaps influence the type of housing that seemingly dominates the new production visible in Boston and surrounding cities and towns.

One example of the prevalent housing trend is rising on the edge of Brookline and Brighton, at the corner of Washington Street and Corey Road. Construction activity has been relentless on the complex known as “The Brookliner.” To whom are the units being marketed? This pitch tells the story:

The Brookliner has not yet listed prices, but a comparable development (“Pierce Boston” on Boylston Street in the Fenway) advertises studios and one-bedrooms starting at $4000 and two-bedrooms starting at $6700. Such rents are at the high end of the market. The 2022 Housing Report Card cites $2800 as the average rent for an apartment in the Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area. (Based on overall rents, regardless of unit size, as tracked by Zillow.)

The pipeline is full of projects similar to The Brookliner coming to Allston and Brighton. Here are six chosen at random from the many listed on the website of the Boston Planning and Development Agency.

The City of Boston has inclusionary programs requiring developers to set aside affordable units in developments such as the above. However, those programs will never close the gap between the existing housing market and the goal of affordable housing for all.

For example, take 76 Ashford St., Allston (top left, above). The project will include 218 market rate units and 36 (14.2% of the total) at so-called AMI levels ranging from 40-70% of “Area Median Income.”

If 40 percent of current renters are cost burdened at current rent levels, according to the 2022 Housing Report Card, the gap can’t be closed when only 14% of new housing units are affordable through developer subsidies. The math just doesn’t add up.

Suggestion to writers of the 2023 Housing Report Card: Reset the discussion. Focus on what’s being built in Boston, and who’s buying/renting those shiny new units. Consider the possibility that the housing crisis is equal parts shortage of supply and disproportionate incomes fueling prices.

All Politics is Local: Oct. 24-31

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

‘Yes’ on Question 5, But Fix the Broken Process

There’s a “Yes On Question 5” sign on our lawn. That said, I worry that the proposed $65 million tax-financed debt increase made it to the Nov. 8 ballot while many voters have been in the dark as to what it’s all about.

Last Friday, to their great credit, the Brookline League of Women Voters featured Fire Chief John Sullivan’s overview of the need for extensive fire station renovations, as well as the escalating costs, which were at $21.5 million just two years ago.

His presentation was met with reactions such as these from those attending:

Resident of Brookline for 21 Years —

“This was an unbelievable presentation and shocking about the conditions… I would really appreciate an opportunity for residents to tour the facilities and see for themselves.”

Owner of Several Older Properties —

“I am shocked the fire stations have been allowed to stay at this level — that the stations won’t pass inspections for those electrical panels... Why are we not doing maintenance on a more routine level?… I’m also worried about the impact on the taxpayer, because my tax bill has already doubled in the last five years, and we can’t keep going to the homeowner to pay more and more.”

To elaborate further on existing conditions, Chief Sullivan called on one of the veteran female firefighters.

Firefighter Patricia Cripe —

“I was at Station 7 — the oldest one. I had to use the public bathroom. I moved to Station 1 where I was ill for two years. The ‘condo’ (women’s quarters) was above a staircase to the mechanics room. It created a chimney effect, so I breathed in the products of combustion during the day. The HVAC didn’t work, so I froze in the winter and sweltered in the summer. I chose not to have children — I was not comfortable having kids knowing that I could not breastfeed… We have a medic who is fighting for her life. She has cancer — three organs are affected.”

Keep in mind revelations such as the above were being shared with an audience of just a few dozen people. The election is now two weeks away, and thousands of ballots have already been cast thanks to early voting.

The low profile of the fire stations ballot question was evident from reactions on the Town Meeting Member listserv (a forum of some of the Town’s most politically-aware activists):

Precinct 16 —

“Has there been discussion of what renovations/improvements could be accomplished without a debt exclusion (that is, with tax increases within the prop 2 1/2 limits)?”

Precinct 5 —

“I have never doubted the need for the projects. I have just found the paucity of information about something so important to be unusual… The ask for debt exclusion is $65 million.”

Precinct 1 —

“Are there any TMMs on the listserv with the financial expertise to estimate Question 5’s likely percentage increase in real estate taxes?”

Precinct 9 —

“Question 5 -- on the ballot’s reverse side -- is hugely unknown to most Brookliners, especially without a local paper; and wasn’t in the Secretary of State’s mailed 2022 Information For Voters.”

Missing Steps in the Process

Chief Sullivan himself acknowledges that the $65 million tax increase (Q. 5 debt exclusion) for the fire stations found its way to the Nov. 8 ballot by a route that skipped some crucial steps.

In September, Chief Sullivan wrote the following in this document:

“An appalling lack of foresight and planning have forced the Town to take exigent action to address these serious health issues without deferral. As such, this plan has not followed a traditional project development path. Traditionally, funding is secured for feasibility and design studies prior to being moved to implementation in the CIP; however, urgency has compelled a more direct path to action.”

But the “urgency” didn’t arise overnight. The first of the evaluations of fire station conditions, complete with recommended renovations and cost estimates, was published three years ago, in November of 2019. The report by Garcia, Galuska & DeSousa, Inc contained detailed, station by station estimates of the required upgrades, including code compliance, contamination cleanup, and gender-equitable bathroom facilities.

The bottom line of the renovations project, at the time of the November 2019 report, was $21.5 million.

Fire station project costs (not including the recent $15 million bump-up attributed to “net zero” and other) were driven significantly higher from 2019-2022 by the change in Station 5 status from basic renovations to full-blown demolition and rebuild. Here are the numbers:

It Didn’t Have to Be This Way

As Chief Sullivan himself recognized, there is a better way to approach projects such as Brookline’s $65 million fire station renovations/replacement. In recent years, Boston, Cambridge, Newton, Needham, Somerville, and Dedham embarked on fire station upgrades, including gender-equity accommodations.

The approach of neighboring communities was deliberative and step by step. From the FAQ (something Brookline lacks), here’s Needham’s description of the process that yielded the Town two fire station reconstructions:

How did we get to this stage of the project?

Both stations have been included in the numerous facility master plans that have been developed over the past two decades. The November 2, 2015 and February 10, 2016 Special Town Meetings and the 2017 Annual Town Meeting approved a total of $390,000 in funding for feasibility and schematic design leading to the reconstruction of the Public Safety Building and Fire Station #2. The October 2, 2017 Special Town Meeting appropriated $3.75 million for the design phase of the project.

The contrast between Brookline’s rushed, “urgent” process (by-passing Town Meeting in the early stages), and the step by step approach taken in neighboring communities raises questions:

• Should Brookline have studied the possibility of selling off an existing fire station property, while moving the company to a new choice of location at an available site?

• Are any of the historic Brookline stations candidates for adaptive-use private development? (Such as Wellesley’s fire station converted to affordable housing.)

• Are grant monies available to assist in covering costs? (See Middletown, CT.)

• Will significant federal dollars be available in coming years?

• Compared to other towns, is Brookline getting maximum “bang for the buck”?

But What About That Lawn Sign?

Given the above questions, how do I explain that “Yes On Question 5” lawn sign? Two reasons:

1. The vote on Question 5 will authorize a $65 million tax-financed debt increase to cover fire station projects. But that’s not the end of the story. The projects, and the borrowing, will be phased in, station by station. There is still time for the plans to be improved upon.

2. Firefighters like Patricia Cripe deserve better from the Town of Brookline. We lost valuable time that should have been used for more deliberative planning of the fire station projects. Yes, Chief Sullivan is playing catch-up, but he has the right priorities. The health and safety of firefighters shouldn’t be compromised.

All Politics is Local: Oct. 15-22

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

Debt (Mostly for School Projects) and Higher Taxes

In last week’s newsletter, I began a series of three reports aimed at offering a “Do It Yourself” kit for understanding benefits and costs of Town projects that will require substantial tax hikes if approved by voters:

• upgrades to all five fire stations, including replacement of the Babcock Street station;

• a demolition and replacement of the existing Pierce School (dating to 1973), and gut rehab of the adjacent Pierce Primary (dating to 1855/1910).

The proposed Fire Station projects hinge on voter approval of a debt exclusion enabling the Town to borrow roughly $65 million outside the 2.5% levy cap imposed by state law (“Prop. 2 1/2”). The fire station borrowing will be Question 5 on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The Pierce projects (both buildings) will require voter approval of a debt exclusion for roughly $155 million to be added to tax bills. That question will be on the ballot in the Annual Election in May of 2023.

(Part 1 of this series, in theOct. 7-14 newsletter below, reviewed the Override/ Debt Exclusion process and the case made by advocates for the Pierce and fire station projects.)

The accumulated borrowing for both projects, if approved by voters would add some $220 million in “exempt debt” to a substantial amount (approx. $340 million) already impacting taxes.

Thus the headline equating debt “mostly for school projects” with higher taxes. Let’s deal with that in two parts:

1. The evidence that taxes have taken a steep upturn of late.

2. The link to a comparable upturn in debt exclusions, mostly for school projects.

1.

Charting Recent Tax Upturns

Given the grab bag of tax shifts and breaks, there is nothing simple about forecasting property tax bills. However, we can count on this much: Prop. 2 1/2 sets the baseline annual tax levy increase at 2.5%. Putting aside revaluations of properties across neighborhoods, that should mean homeowner tax bill increases, on average, of 2.5%.

This useful report from 2015 points out that the average Brookline homeowner tax bill for that year was $13,610. The chart below shows how a 2.5% rate of annual increase in that tax bill (red line) would compound over time. For comparison purposes, I used Brookline Assessors records to track actual fluctuations (blue line) of an Eliot Street single family house taxed in 2015 at $13,490 — just below the average.

What the chart shows:

• Over 7 years (2015-2022) a simple, 2.5% compounded increase in annual taxes would add $2600 to 2015’s average single family tax bill of $13,610.

• However, using the actual house from Eliot Street taxed at $13,490 in 2015, real property taxes actually increased by $4122 during those same 7 years — in other words, $1500+ in added taxes. This occurred despite a dip in the house’s valuation between 2018-2020.

To test this observation further, I used Brookline Assessor records to track the Single Family taxation trend based on randomly chosen properties at the low, middle, and high end of pricing.

Here are results from North Brookline:

And here are results from South Brookline:

The annual tax bill increases in the above two charts range from a low (Russett Road) of 3.3% to a high (Windsor Road) of 8.9% — at which rate taxes would double in just eight years.

2.

Connecting Debt Exclusions and Tax Escalations

The sharp upward turn in taxes from 2019-2022 coincides with sharply increased debt and interest payments resulting from hundreds of millions of dollars of voter-approved debt exclusions, almost entirely for school projects.

On page 10 of this document you will find the table below, showing the various FY19-FY22 voter-approved debt exclusions, and the impact on debt and interest payments — climbing from $3.4 million to $14.9 million in just three years — layered on top of local tax bills.

Debt Service Costs Due to Debt Exclusion Votes, FY19-22

Pushing Brookline’s Exempt Debt to $1/2 Billion+

I recently came across a paragraph in the FY16 Financial Plan that puts Brookline’s extraordinary recent borrowing in perspective. Here’s the paragraph (from page 13):

In Brookline, one project is funded with exempt debt: the High School Renovation ($43.8 million).

Yes, in 2016, the Town was carrying just a single debt-exempted project (mostly paid off, with final installment due in FY20). Furthermore, the trend in exempt debt had actually fallen to single-digit millions:

By comparison, check out these numbers — in the hundreds of millions — from the forecast of Exempt Debt over the next five fiscal years, assuming voters approve the debt exclusions for the fire stations, Pierce School, and some other anticipated projects.

• Debt exclusions require approval by voters through ballot questions.

• Voters need to be informed of the need for borrowings as well as the impact on tax bills. (There is also an indirect impact on rents.)

• Past years featured information through Override Study Committee reports and/or newspaper coverage. Neither is available to voters in the face of the upcoming fire stations and Pierce votes.

• Inform yourself. As part of that process, watch for the unveiling of a Town website tool enabling calculation of the impact of upcoming votes on individual tax bills. Stay tuned.

Next Week: Part 3 of my DIY ballot question prep kit.

Saying “no” to debt exclusions is always an option for voters. But a “no” vote, of itself, won’t make the needs of the Pierce School or the Fire Department go away. Informed voters need to weigh the result of NOT approving projects such as the $155 million Pierce proposal and the $65 million fire stations project. Are there less expensive approaches that can get the job done? That will be the focus of next week’s newsletter.

All Politics is Local: Oct. 7-14

by John VanScoyoc
Select Board

“You can observe a lot by just watching.” — Yogi Berra

A Do-It-Yourself Model for Evaluating Tax Hike Plans

In the months ahead, you’ll hear much discussion of plans to put various local tax hike proposals on the November 2022 and May 2023 election ballots:

• November 2022: A “debt exclusion” for the estimated $65 million cost (through borrowing) of improvements to five of Brookline’s fire stations, including demolition and rebuild of the Babcock Street station.

• May 2023: A Proposition 2 1/2 “override” to cover shortfalls in the FY23 and future budgets for Town and School operations. A low-ball estimate of the override tax increase in FY23 would be $5-10 million. More ambitious proposals floated on the Town Meeting Member listserv include “at least $30 million” (unlikely?).

• Also in May: A debt exclusion for the estimated $155 million cost, through borrowing, of demolition and replacement of the 1970’s vintage Pierce School on School Street and gut renovation of the adjacent historic Pierce Primary, next to Town Hall.

It’s important to understand the difference between the two options (overrides and debt exclusions). For example, overrides increase taxes forever (the 2.5% cap becomes a 2.5%-plus cap). Debt exclusions increase the cap for the lifetime of the borrowing (often, 20 years). There are other differences as well. For those who wish to study overrides and debt exclusions further:

Here is a detailed explanation.

And here is a video. (With apologies for ad.)

But a key thing to understand is: Whether override (May) or debt exclusion (November and May), both forms of the ballot question amount to self-imposed increases of local property taxes. As such, they call for voters to be informed as to:

1. The need to raise taxes to pay for capital projects or close budget gaps, (And the potential benefits.)

2. The impact on those whose tax bills (and likely rents) will increase as a result.

3. The alternatives. Can overrides/debt exclusions be avoided by cost savings, revenue enhancements, and/or less costly approaches to capital projects.

Which leads to this question: How can voters be fully informed?

Override Study Committees: Learning From the Past

In past years, when budgetary stress required tax increases to be decided by voters via ballot questions, Override Study Committees were formed. The most recent was in 2014. The report that many regard as the gold standard for override committees was this one in 2008.

There isn’t going to be an Override Study Committee this time around. However, the work done by past committees, 2008 especially, offers some guideposts. Think of them as “Essential Information to Consider When Overrides/Debt Exclusions Are on the Ballot.”

In short, with a nod to that 2008 report, here’s my Do-It-Yourself Override Study Guide:

• Evaluate the Town’s long-range financial and demographic projections.

• Weigh potential efficiencies and best practices in town and school operations.

• Determine impacts, including operating and capital, of any recommended expansion of facilities or alternatives.

• Compare Brookline’s per capita costs of services and capital debt to other towns and cities.

• What is the Town’s bonding capacity?

• What is Town/taxpayer capacity for an increased tax burden?

• Analyze the impact of possible voter rejection of proposed overides/debt exclusions.

Next Week: DIY Override Study/ Tax Impacts

As noted above, need is just one of three elements of a Do It Yourself Override Study. There is also the question of tax (taxpayer) impact, as well as the question of alternatives. I’ll continue with this DIY Override Study guide next week, with a discussion of tax impacts of the planned debt exclusions and overrides. Stay tuned.