CPA study raises questions

The Chronicle’s cartoon last week on the state’s Community Preservation Act raises serious questions about the fairness of a program that has supported many good causes in Cambridge.

Authors Robin Sherman and David Luberoff of Harvard’s Rappaport Institute conclude, “It may be time to revisit the Community Preservation Act, particularly the state matching fund program.”

According to a recent press release from the institute, “Sherman and Luberoff estimate that between 2001 and 2006, residents of Boston paid $11.4 million in fees that fund state matching grants for the CPA program, but the city did not receive any money from the program … In contrast, Cambridge, which generated an estimated $1.6 million in fees, has received more than $27 million from the commonwealth, which represents about 15 percent of all available state matching funds.”

The reasons for these discrepancies are many, but Sherman and Luberoff determine that poorer communities are less likely than rich ones to pass a property tax surcharge, the primary mechanism for funding the CPA.

We are left with a conundrum in Cambridge about how to think about these imbalances. It is fair to point out that Cambridge was one of the first communities to pass the CPA (by referendum, no less). Not only that, but Cambridge accepted the highest tax burden on its own citizens to maximize its return from the state. This commitment on the part of the city has paid itself back with high dividends — affordable housing units protected and created in a very expensive housing market, and thoughtful measures to protect Cambridge’s water supply, among many others.

At the same time, equity must be a concern in a progressive community. No society can long endure simply on the principle that “I got here first,” and the commonwealth is no exception. We should be especially sensitive about this in Cambridge, since we are so aware of the wrenching changes that a runaway housing market has had on the fabric of this community.

While I do not believe Cambridge needs to spearhead the effort to examine issues of fairness within the CPA system, we nevertheless must offer our support if or when efforts proceed. We work hard to maintain fairness and opportunity in our own city. We should not allow our laudable efforts to be a roadblock for other communities to do the same.

Candidate for City Council