Nation: Trouble at the Tea Party

Massachusetts’ Proposition 2½ is sparking a revolt of its own

It was billed as the biggest tax rebellion in Massachusetts since the Boston Tea Party. For years, residents paid property levies that were 70% higher than the national average. So, in the wake of California’s Proposition 13, Bay State citizens placed their own tax-limitation initiative on November’s ballot. Under Proposition 2½, property taxes would be limited to 2½% of actual market value, auto excise taxes would be reduced by 62%, and renters would be able to take a state tax deduction for half their yearly rent. Voters, fired with visions of immediate tax relief, overwhelmingly approved 2½. Now, however, it looks as though the tax was less troublesome than the ax.

A superior court judge has questioned the constitutionality of the proposition, and a boatload of other legal wrangles are looming. The first test began the very day that 2½ became law. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), which serves 300,000 Boston-area commuters, was broke and needed $41 million to remain in operation. After a 26-hour shutdown, the state legislature voted to provide emergency funding and finance $23.5 million of it, with $10 million to come from MBTA revenues and $7.5 million to be paid by the 79 cities and towns served by the transit system. But Proposition 2½ forbids state agencies to increase assessments on cities and towns by more than 4% over the previous year. The bill for the MBTA deficit pushed the increase to between 9% and 17%. Citizens for Limited Taxation, proponents of 2½, promptly pressured the legislature to rescind the rescue provisions, and is preparing a petition drive to eliminate future assessments.

Meanwhile, many of the 65 towns that voted against 2½ are demanding to be exempted from it. Cambridge, a Boston suburb where voters opposed the tax-slashing measure, is planning to introduce a home rule bill in the state legislature that would allow the city to override 2½. Otherwise, Cambridge officials estimate, they will have to cut more than $7 million from the school budget and possibly lay off 470 of the school system’s 1,300 employees. “It is the most illogically conceived piece of legislation in this or any state,” says Cambridge City Manager James Sullivan. Last week the wealthy Boston suburb of Brookline voted to join the home rule fight rather than cut $14 million from its budget.

Other towns are adjusting to 2½ with cutbacks that could anger voters. In Springfield, where citizens supported 2½, officials are letting 46 vacancies in the fire and police departments go unfilled. In Braintree, School Superintendent John Monbouquette has threatened to shut down five elementary schools and eliminate all sports below the high school level. In Boston, Mayor Kevin White estimates that the current city budget of $862 million will have to be trimmed by $79 million, which, he warns, means cuts of 25% for police and fire services, 50% for health and hospitals and 60% for parks and recreation.

White dramatically canceled Saturday burials at all three municipal cemeteries to eliminate $360 a week in employee overtime payments. Bostonians were understandably vexed. “The mandate of the voters was not to curtail essential services,” protested City Councilman Raymond Flynn. “Among the obligations we have is burial of the dead.” Last week city hall resumed the Saturday graveyard shift. But there was no question about what else the mayor would like to bury. Says City Councilman Patrick McDonough: “City hall is rubbing the electorate’s nose in such outrages as the Saturday burial ban, hoping that this will make them back off 2½.”