Candidates Questionnaire - Craig Kelley (submitted August 15, 2005)

1. Many residents feel that their property taxes are  too high, and that because of this they cannot afford to buy a house or rent an apartment to stay in Cambridge. How can we make sure that property taxes keep the city affordable while providing the city with the tax base it needs?

The City has to spend less money if it wants to tax less. As I pointed out in a letter to the Chronicle a few months ago, whether it’s the library or the new Police Station, the City has no fear when taking on long-term debt. Over a 30 year period, we’ll pay half again the original cost, so, for example, the 50 million dollar police station project will cost 75 million total, 2.5 million per year. All without an understanding of what we want our police force to do over the next 30 years. Similarly, on an annual basis we pour money into the school system, a system that most City Councilors and Council candidates choose not to have their kids attend, without any understanding of what that money is getting us and how it could be spent better. Every year, year in and year out, consulting costs, outside legal fees, catered meals, police details, City Council pay raises and so forth all add up to bundles of unexplained expenses the City has to cover somehow. With commercial tax income not as robust as the City would like, these expenses get covered by residents. Which residents get hurt by tax increases more or less than others is very much like a shell game.

The most important thing the City can do to keep the City affordable is to provide a school system that keeps people in Cambridge long-term, thus avoiding the price-raising housing churn we’ve seen recently as people buy, build equity, then move when they no longer feel comfortable sending their kids to the public schools. 54% of CRLS students live in public housing, according to the CHA. Educating those kids needs to be our primary focus, so they have a chance of getting professional careers that will help them find their own places outside of public housing. Having other parents, folks who could ‘cash out’ and move to Brookline or Newton with relative ease, stay in Cambridge because they like the school system is essential to stabilizing both the neighborhoods and the tax base, because as these houses churn, they raise the assessment ‘comp’ level for all houses in the neighborhood.

Simply put, as long as Cambridge keeps spending, and spending, and spending money, and as long as the Commercial base can’t support those expenditures, we’ll hit homeowners with higher taxes. Would-be buyers should be aware of tax hikes so they’ll be better able to set an acceptable purchase price, but people who already own and whose ‘nut’ of mortgage payments is already set, will find themselves increasingly squeezed by higher taxes. Taking out liens on property or easements on future uses (such as limiting future condo conversions, thus removing that use as the taxable ‘highest and best’ value) would ease the immediate tax cash crunch for some people, as would a rebate of excess taxes collection, but systemically, if the City continues to spend money as it does now, City residents are going to have to pay for it. And as long as many people, including our leading politicians, view the Cambridge school system as dubious, we’ll see the housing churn continue, with the effect of raising home prices and raising taxes based on comps.

Reducing, or at least stabilizing, the swollen budgets of the City’s various departments is the only way to keep taxes from going up as a whole. One way of helping that happen would be to have the City and the School Department post “budget to actual” comparisons so people, and Councilors, can see where and on what our money is actually being spent.

2. How can we make public transportation better in Cambridge and what can the City Council do to encourage residents to use public transportation?

Getting rid of the “City Council only” parking spots behind City Hall would be a good start. When Councilors find themselves riding the buses and the trains, rather than just talking about them, to get around town, we’ll see some more official interest in how convenient, safe and reliable those transit systems are. The City should also at least consider giving an MBTA discount to any household that has not registered a car in Cambridge. Those households have made a commitment to taking the T and, by not having a car, are using up less of Cambridge’s resources. They should be rewarded for that.

3. What can the city do to make sure that future negotiations with the city's unions are fair to workers?

When conducting any negotiations, the City must pay attention to the details of the contract. The work to be done must be spelled out, measurable goals must be stated, and supervisory authority must be clearly designated. In short, workers need to understand what it is they are supposed to be doing, who they are doing it for and what sort of supervision they should expect. Promotions, raises and bonuses should be determined by a common and clearly described denominator, not by who has the ear of whom at City Hall. Automatic pay raises should cover inflation.

 4. Cambridge is one of the centers of high-tech innovation in the country. What can the City Council do to encourage innovation and take advantage of new technology while keeping the city affordable for its residents?

For years we’ve been touting high-tech fixes while our School System sheds ‘paid lunch’ students at a horrifying rate. We’re focusing too much on high-tech issues and not enough on simply teaching our more at-risk students to read. Make the school system a competent agency that actually reaches its at-risk kids, teaching them basic educational skills such as grade-level reading and math, and we’ll see Cambridge remain more affordable for all families than providing all the wi-fi exposure in the world. Disproportion-ately, the children and their families from the affordable housing complexes in my son’s school, kids most other Councilors and candidates won’t see because (if they even have school aged children) their children go to parochial or private schools, don’t need wi-fi, they need more nutritious school meals and homework assistance. They come from a much more challenging environment than many of our high-tech enthusiasts, an environment where English may not be spoken at home and where nearby distractions make doing homework more difficult. There isn’t a high-tech answer to this issue. The answer, and it’s decidedly low-tech, is to put more resources in our classrooms and after-school support, a task that should be easily accomplished by moving demonstrated excess public school administrator positions from central administration to direct classroom support.

5. What will you do to take advantage of the unique educational resources provided by the Cambridge's universities while preventing university development that threatens working families? 

Student-teacher Internships and college student/CPS student partnerships are key to allowing CPS students to benefit from our colleges and universities. Similarly, trips and interactive programs with the various museums, such as the “Polar Express” exhibit CPS had at the Fogg last winter, can do much to enhance the school’s educational opportunities. Many of these are already being done to great effect. To prevent university development from crushing neighborhoods, the City can do two things. First is to continue to try to expand the amount of university property held in a taxable status. It will be less attractive to build mass projects in Cambridge’s neighborhoods when they get taxed at the same rate as the general commercial uses many of these tax-exempt uses possibly are. The second method is to craft zoning packages that guide development on University land in a more neighborhood-friendly fashion.

6. What can City Council do to ensure that future development is not environmentally harmful?

The City should require permeable ground covering wherever possible, expand the protections of the Cambridge tree ordinance, require LEED certification wherever feasible for City, or City-funded, buildings, lower excise taxes for hybrid and ultra-low emission vehicles, improve the ability for cyclists to move around the city safely, buy larger percentage of its energy from ‘clean’ sources and license only buses that use CNG or, as a least-preferred alternative, low-sulfur diesel fuel