This election day Medford residents will vote on three ballot questions determining the future affordability of the city. If the referenda are approved, the City of Medford will be authorized to assess an additional $7.5 million in property taxes and fund an estimated $30 million bond for a new fire station. While these issues, at first glance, may seem distant from the everyday struggles of the average Tufts student, trying to keep up with courses and navigate the social rollercoaster of college, approval of Questions 6, 7 and 8 will have a direct impact on them and the community in which they live.
The measures are up for voter consideration thanks to a state law called Proposition 2 ½. This law prevents a city or town from raising taxes more than 2.5% of the total value of all real and personal property in the community in one fiscal year, and was designed to protect residents from an unsustainable tax burden. An “override” allows municipalities to surpass the 2.5% cap, but only after direct approval from the voters. The effect is a permanent increase in taxes. A debt exclusion is another method of surpassing the Proposition 2 ½ limit, but debt exclusions impose a temporary tax increase. Never since Proposition 2 ½ was enacted, in 1980, has Medford allowed the city to surpass the statutory cap.
Deplorably, the campaign to vote yes on Questions 6, 7 and 8 has turned to misinformation to portray the overrides and debt exclusion as an “investment” in Medford. It has resorted to scare tactics to convince residents that voting no on the tax increases will have disastrous consequences — the campaign paints apocalyptic pictures of pink slips, underfunded schools and roads in permanent disrepair — while providing no data substantiating how this would occur. They claim the measures are needed, for example, to keep teacher salaries competitive, when the latest Massachusetts Department of Education data shows that the average Medford teacher salary in the district is already at a competitive level, in relation to the salaries of teachers in other communities across the state. They also claim there is no other way to meet the city’s alleged funding needs. Yet supporters discount the millions of dollars in “free cash” — or over-budgeted money certified for use by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue — that Medford could tap into before imposing a hefty tax burden on residents suffering under a historic cost of living crisis. According to the latest data from the Department of Revenue’s Division of Local Services, the City of Medford has over $25 million in free cash available for use. This does not include the millions of dollars more, accounted for in the course of the last fiscal year. Supporters disregard new tax revenue that could be raised through an approach focusing on economic growth. Many have argued Medford Square and other hubs of the city have long stagnated, with promises to revitalize them through development and other initiatives remaining unfulfilled year-after-year. Medford’s stagnation has stood in stark contrast to its booming neighbors of Somerville and Cambridge, whose promotion of growth-centered development has led to expansions of their respective tax bases and corresponding increases in tax revenue.
Further, the “yes” campaign’s calculation of an average estimated impact of less than $38 a month is a gross underestimation of the actual likely impact on tax-paying property owners. It undervalues, for example, the extent to which real estate values across the city have risen in the past year. It also understates the actual cost of the debt exclusion which will also include payment of interest and bank fees. According to the former superintendent of Medford Public Schools, property owners in Medford are actually likely to see an increase of 10% or more when they receive their next tax bill, if the ballot measures pass.
Perhaps most concerningly, the voters hardly know what they are voting on. None of the questions provide any specifics on how the money that the city is seeking to appropriate will be allocated on a line-item basis. Some voters, for example, have mistakenly come to believe the override funds will be used to construct a new high school in Medford, which they, in fact, will not, because the projected costs of a new high school far exceed $7.5 million (and are actually in the neighborhood of $200 to $400 million according to another estimate). That Medford firefighters — the very beneficiaries of a new fire station — do not support the debt exclusion, which is conveniently brushed aside as well. International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1032 has come out against the debt exclusion, pointing out how the union was left out of the design planning process and that the $30 million bond will not be enough to cover the needs of a modern station. They have also echoed concerns of affordability, putting as they always have, the greater good for Medford residents before themselves. Given the enormous sums of money asked for, Medford voters deserve to know where every dollar is going before they say yes. To ask them to blindly trust their leaders and vote otherwise is no better than fraud.
The reality is that approval of Questions 6, 7 and 8 will seriously hurt affordability and the economic diversity of Medford. Despite Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn’s claims that she supports diversity, equity and inclusion in Medford, she has come out in full-fledged support of approval of the Questions. Progressives on the Medford City Council and School Committee make the same claim yet overwhelmingly support a “yes” vote as well. The administration and other supporters ignore the obvious reality that communities which become more expensive to live in result in exclusion of vulnerable groups who are disproportionately lower income. For individuals who live on fixed incomes, like adults with disabilities and senior citizens, unexpected higher costs could force them to forgo necessities, such as food and prescription medications. The impact on Medford businesses cannot be ignored either. The small businesses in and around the Medford campus will be harmed if the referenda pass, likely resulting in higher prices passed onto their customers and cut hours and lower wages for their employees. With free cash reserves, opportunities for growth and other methods to reallocate spending and raise revenue, taxation should be Medford’s last resort — not its first.
Especially pertinent to Tufts students, many of whom pay rent, the campaign in favor also ignores the likely impact on renters. When property taxes go up, landlords pass on the added costs to renters. The effect of this is higher rents, which will only exasperate the affordable housing crisis the Tufts community and country at large face. Even though property taxes are at issue, renters have a significant stake in the outcome of the November votes.
The future of Medford is on the line. Tufts students are an integral part of Medford and make a difference when they speak out. It is therefore important that Tufts students, despite busy schedules and their limited time in Medford, take an active role in Medford politics. They can do this by supporting an affordable and inclusive city. They can do this by identifying and correcting misinformation. Most importantly, they can do this by supporting the vote no campaign on Questions 6, 7 and 8.
Nick Giurleo (B.A. 2019) is an attorney, journalist and lifelong Medford resident. He can be reached for comment at nicgiur1001@gmail.com.
