Ballot Questions 6, 7 and 8, which will be put to the voters of Medford on Tuesday, Nov. 5, would fund the building of a new fire headquarters, level-fund and invest in the Medford Public School System and hire additional staff in the Department of Public Works for street repairs. Medford has been systematically underfunded for years through historic lack of investment and the effects of Proposition 2.5, which shrinks municipal budgets by preventing them from growing at a rate commensurate with inflation. Because of this, 94% of Massachusetts cities have chosen, at some point, to let the voters decide to override Prop 2.5 in a given year so that budgets can keep up with needs. This is Medford’s first time ever attempting one, and considering that we now have one of the lowest per-capita operating budgets in Massachusetts, it's long overdue.
Nick Giurleo wrote an op-ed on Oct. 17 opposing these measures, reflecting the sentiments he shared earlier that week when, during the nearly five-hour Q&A session that City Council hosted about the ballot measures, he stated publicly that he could find no data to back up the claims that the City needed an override. In reply, City Council promptly referred him to the Pavement Management Plan that details the $60+ million backlog of needed road repairs in Medford; the School Committee’s annual budget meetings, which are broadcast on YouTube and detail, year after year, the constant budget cuts of the Medford Public School system; the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, which provides a breakdown of the investments that Medford’s long-neglected infrastructure needs; as well as the City budget itself and the state’s databank that compares it unfavorably to the budgets of other Mass. cities. I would also like to tack on the easier-to-digest FAQs page that is available on the Invest in Medford website.
It would take a long time to parse all of the misinformation presented in his piece (and others have already tried), but I will rebut a few points here.
The op-ed discussed “free cash” as a solution to the City's budget problem — something echoed so frequently by the opposition campaign that I cited it specifically when discussing misinformation in my blog. Free cash reserves — the City’s savings account, which the federal government added to with one-time COVID relief funds — are not a magic bullet. Those reserves have already been earmarked for some of the many capital projects needed in Medford — such as a new HVAC system for our schools, two new fire trucks and initial funding for the stabilization funds that Medford was one of the last Mass. cities to establish. And, as an elected official, I would rather follow the official state guidelines of the Department of Revenue, which states that “free cash should be restricted to paying one-time expenditures, funding capital projects, or replenishing other reserves,” not recurring costs like teacher salaries. If we used free cash in that way, our reserves would be depleted quickly and we would continue Medford’s historic pattern of kicking the can down the road.
On that note, I fully agree that we should invest in commercial development — we should have done that 30 years ago. This City Council is doing so now by overhauling our zoning and putting in place instruments of municipal governance that other cities take for granted, like the aforementioned stabilization funds and updates to linkage fees that we charge developers. All of this will add to Medford’s revenue and financial stability. But those are long-term solutions. They will not prevent 35–45 teachers from being laid off next year if these overrides do not pass.
In their most recent mailer, the “No” campaign told renters that the estimated $37 average monthly increase will unduly burden them. But they also say that the five City Councilors (out of seven total) who are renters shouldn’t vote on property tax measures in the first place, claiming, when it’s convenient, that renters will not be affected by these measures. You cannot ask renters to vote for your cause while simultaneously attempting to disenfranchise them.
To paraphrase last week’s op-ed: 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. They can do this by supporting the Vote Yes campaign on Questions 6, 7 and 8.
Matt Leming
City Councilor
Matt Leming is a city councilor in Medford, Mass. He can be reached at matt@mattleming.com.
