MEMBER SIGN IN
Not a member? Become one today!
         iBerkshires     Southern Berkshire Chamber     Lee Chamber     Lenox Chamber     Berkshire Community College    
Search
No on 2, Yes on 4, and Community Preservation Act Adopted
By Andy McKeever,
12:42AM / Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Print | Email  

A grassroots organization Preserve Pittsfield headed the campaign efforts to adopt the Community Preservation Act.

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Money can't buy votes.
 
At least that's what voters said when it came to Question 2, a ballot initiative calling to raise the cap on the number of charter schools by a dozen.
 
Voters overwhelmingly shot down the expansion of the charter school system on Tuesday by a 2-1 margin. That is despite proponents outspending opponents by some $10 million. Those pushing for more charter schools spent $24.1 million as of Oct. 31, compared to $14.5 million spent by opponents.
 
"The power of people is stronger than money. The influence of the Wall Street corporate hedge fund, funding about $20 million of this with 80 percent being out of state money, and people hitting the ground, knocking on doors and calling their neighbors and parents, that speaks louder than money from New York," United Educators of Pittsfield President Brendan Sheran said Tuesday night. 
 
The question not only raised the cap on the number of charter schools but also eliminated the cap on district spending for charter schools. The question drew significant concern from public schools — from school committees and city councils passing resolutions opposing it to teachers and community members campaigning. The main focus of their argument surrounded the funding, with opponents saying the charter school reimbursement formula was not up to par and adding more schools would mean less funding for the traditional public schools.
 
"I don't think we should sacrifice our No. 1 public school system on this altar of choice. We have great schools here and for the most part, we've been led down this path of a shame, blame, and punish accountability system. That has shamed public schools that are doing probably a better job than we would think and we are rating them on these scores that aren't really assessing the school as a whole," Sheran said. 
 
Locally, the cap on the number doesn't mean much but the cap on district spending does. A charter school can still open because the county is not at its cap, but not nearly as much money would be able to go from Pittsfield to support students in charter schools. It is estimated that $2 million goes from the city of Pittsfield to charter schools already. 
 
Sheran says expanding the charter school system isn't going to improve public schooling as a whole. Instead, the union president says investing in educators is what improves schools.
 
"I think the way to improve is to invest in faculty, in educators, in communities as opposed to creating this competition that is unhealthy for us," Sheran said. "That to me was the driving factor. We need to focus our efforts on what is actually going to improve our schools and not further divide us."
 
The rejection of the ballot question sent that message to the state and that was heard loud and clear by state Senate President Stanley Rosenberg.
 
"We have had a very robust and substantive debate on Question 2. The voters have spoken and the matter is resolved. It's time to shift our focus to 100 percent of the students in our public education system. They deserve the best education possible so they can be engaged citizens and find a meaningful place in our increasingly competitive economy," Rosenberg said of the results to the question.
 
However, Gov. Charlie Baker was supportive of the expansion of charter schools. He said the efforts to reform education to provide "more educational choices for students stuck in struggling districts" remains a priority.
 
"I am proud to have joined with thousands of parents, teachers, and education reformers in a worthwhile campaign to provide more education choices for students stuck in struggling districts, and while Question 2 was not successful, the importance of that goal is unchanged," Baker said.  
 
"I am proud that our administration has made historic investments in our public schools, expanded support for vocational schools and  proposed new solutions to make college more affordable. I look forward to working closely with all stakeholders toward our common goal to ensure a great education for every child in Massachusetts, regardless of their zip code."
 
The term underperforming districts is something Sheran says is misleading. He said the state's public schools are all different but yet are compared as if they are. Sheran said many schools are providing its students with good educations but still get ranked low because only certain aspects of the performance are measured. 
 
"A city like Pittsfield, we have a Level 3 district that is on this rating system that is fundamentally flawed," Sheran said."We are not comparing the same things with schools."
 
The voters in Pittsfield agreed, voting against the question by a 69 to 31 percent margin. In what may be the city's largest voter turnout, 13,503 voters voted against expanding the system while 6,099 voted in favor of it.
 
"Pittsfield, Berkshire County made a statement when it came to Question 2," state Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier said.
 
In Pittsfield only, voters also overwhelmingly voted to adopt the Community Preservation Act. That will allow the city to place a 1 percent surcharge on tax bills, with the first $100,000 of value being exempted. That money will then be matched by the state from revenue from fees filed at registries of deeds for property sales, at a rate that has been trending around 30 percent. That money can then be spent on projects historical preservation, open space conservation and affordable housing as determined by a new Community Preservation Committee.
 
"I'm extremely thrilled right now," said Joe Durwin, who was one of the organizers of pro-CPA group Preserve Pittsfield. "We really made our case to the community and you can see the difference in the percent from 10 years ago when this was attempted before in Pittsfield, and we failed by 18 percent. ... We really as a community changed and moved forward and the Community Preservation Act has changed and moved forward as well." 
 
Voters passed that by a 63 percent to 37 percent margin, a drastic change since the last time the program went before voters. Proponents have eyed it as a fund to support an array of projects from restoring St. Mary the Morning Star to a dog park to the Springside House. Durwin sits on the Parks Commission and the possible allocation of funds for parks and open spaces allures him.
 
"I think right now the Parks Department priorities are divided between Springside Park and Durant Park. We have new master plans for both of those parks and we're looking at a number of different amenities and additions and thinks that need to be refurbished," he said, adding there's always a wish list of things that need to be done at the city's recreational facilities that could be funded by the CPA.
 
The next step will be for the city to develop an ordinance to implement the act. Advocates have calculated the city raising about a half-million total annually, and not all has to be spent in a single year. The funds can be saved over time for larger projects. 
 
"I think the Community Preservation Act is more ideal for Pittsfield than it was 10 years ago," Durwin said. "I think this suits our needs better and I also think there's been a change in awareness of how we want to manage historic properties and a greater concern for saving some of those buildings. ... 
 
"We've had some losses and some near losses, buildings that were very important to people. That's what brought this to the ballot in the first place."
 
Durwin noted that there will be "a ton of public input in the process" of determining how the CPA is used for recreation, open space, historic preservation and affordable housing.
 
Pittsfield voters also mimicked statewide numbers when it came to legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes. A total of 11,538, or 58 percent, voted in favor of legalizing the substance for recreational use and 42 percent voted against. Statewide, the ballot question passed.
 
"The voters have spoken on legalization. I look forward to swiftly implementing their will and working with Gov. Baker and Speaker [Robert] DeLeo to create a best-in-the-nation law that protects public safety while respecting the wishes of the voters," Rosenberg said.
 
A commission will be formed to oversee the implementation of the law and applications for distributors will start to be accepted next October. But, voters shouldn't get their hopes up too high. Massachusetts passed a ballot initiative in 2012 to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes and still there is not a dispensary within an hour drive of the county.
 
Question 1 got shot down. The question would have allowed the licensing of one more slots parlor in the state. Its criteria includes being within 1,500 feet of a horse racing track and seems related to a development proposed near Suffolk Downs. Pittsfield voters were slightly more torn on the issue than elsewhere with 55 percent against it and 45 percent for it. But, statewide more than 60 percent of voters opposed the expansion.
 
Passage of Question 3 was an easy one with 79 percent of voters statewide, and 79 percent of voters in Pittsfield in favor of the question. It prohibits confining farm animals to cages or pens that prevent them from moving around or laying down and any sales of products from such animals. These including breeding pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens. This question is not expected to adversely affect Massachusetts farms but will have an impact on imported products.
0Comments
More Featured Stories
SouthBerkshires.com is owned and operated by: Boxcar Media 102 Main Sreet, North Adams, MA 01247 -- T. 413-663-3384
© 2024 Boxcar Media LLC - All rights reserved