Mass. pols believe democracy flawed

9 November 2001

Will the overwhelming defeat of the Community Preservation Act tax surcharge in Boston - as well as its defeat in a number of other surrounding towns - provoke any soul-searching?

It should. Once again, the people have spoken. Once again, those who claim to represent the people seem dramatically out of step with them.

Organizers for the surcharge - Question 1 in Boston - collected 43,000 signatures in September from Boston residents to put the measure on the ballot.

Irony No. 1: Only 30,000 people ended up voting for the thing.

Irony No. 2, of course, is that virtually every politician, community organization and do-gooder group in the city was staunchly in favor of the tax surcharge. Everyone, it seemed, backed Question 1 - everyone, that is, except the voters.

Neighborhood groups in Dorchester, Brighton, Chinatown, and East Boston all urged a yes vote. Residents in those communities rebuffed them, saying no by large margins.

Labor unions were foursquare behind the new tax. Nevertheless, voters in labor-dominated neighborhoods like South Boston were more than 2-1 against.

Mayor Thomas Menino, challenger Peggy Davis-Mullen, most of the City Council and a bevy of state reps and senators all said they backed the new tax. Yet only 32 percent of voters agreed.

That's right, 32 percent. That's not a loss. That's a slap in the face.

CPA at first seemed an irresistible deal. It was a tax hike, but it largely exempted homeowners. It promised matching funds from the state as well. Many, including me, early on predicted it would pass.

However, as time passed - and especially after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks - voters grew wary of increasing taxes in the midst of a recession. The proponents, sounding like Sally Struthers pitching for donations to feed a family of four for a year, argued it would cost the "average" homeowner just $1.48 a month. It sounded disingenuous. Someone, after all, would have to pay real money for the surcharge to raise its predicted $15 million annually.

Just as important, voters seemed distrustful of the way the tax worked: a dedicated pool of money, managed by an appointed body, spent to buy other people housing. Accountability seemed weak; there was a hint that the real beneficiaries would be developers, not those in need.

The voting patterns were telling. The proposed surcharge did best (although not hugely so) in the city's tonier wards: the South End, the Fenway, Jamaica Plain, Beacon Hill and Back Bay. It was crushed in Boston's traditional working- and middle-class neighborhoods: Charlestown, East Boston, Dorchester, Hyde Park, South Boston and West Roxbury.

That liberal/working class split was apparent outside Boston as well. Malden, Waltham, Saugus and Woburn - all towns with working- class populations - defeated the Community Proservation Act in their local elections. The wealthier communities of Easthampton, Newton and Peabody passed it.

There's a theme here.

A year ago, against the advice of many of the groups who eventually supported the CPA, residents throughout the state voted to reduce the state's income tax. At the same time, and against the advice of incumbent politicians, they also backed public campaign financing, approving the Clean Elections Act.

And the response to that? The Massachusetts's House and Senate have both done everything in their power to thwart the Clean Elections Act. As a result, it now appears that elections next year will be business as usual, despite the voters' will. Moreover, on the day that the CPA was being defeated, Senate President Thomas Birmingham was floating the notion that, last year's vote notwithstanding, any state income tax cut should be postponed.

The voters, we've been told in both cases, didn't understand what they were doing. That, at its heart, has been the rationale for trying to reverse both votes.

It's a new notion in Massachusetts' politics: This democracy stuff is really overrated.

Don't be surprised to hear the same sort of talk about the CPA: Voters didn't know what they were doing. They were fooled by the advertisements. The mayor's people didn't work hard enough. The ballot was too confusing. People really don't know what is good for them.

I don't buy it. Voters understood the CPA, as they understood the state income tax cut and the Clean Elections Act.

However, it is clear that politicians and various public interest groups did not understand the voters very well.

Voters are skeptical. They are unconvinced that government knows how to spend their money better than they do. They are frustrated by a political process that seems to work for the benefit of insiders instead of the public.

That message was delivered on Tuesday. It should be cause for introspection by a political elite that seems disconnected from the public.