November 18, 2008

Pilot Program

I have been reading and listening to many people talk about the PILOT idea the past month, especially since the real estate market (city tax revenue collections) have slowed. Some ideas have been pretty good, while some have been somewhat bizarre.

Let me go on record, the City of Worcester, unlike many other urban cities in the NorthEast, has been lucky to have a college base to keep it from being the next Springfield. That said, I still feel the colleges could play a more active role in the "success" of Worcester.

For the 102nd time, I was on a task force some five years ago to look into this exact subject, commissioned by Mayor Murray run by former State Rep Leary. We did an incredible job. It resulted in the formation of the Univercity Partnership, which was suppose to turn the inherent untapped potential of these colleges into dollars that that the host city could not only see, but measure. This was not a unique concept, but that had been repeated by numerous other cities with a high proliferation of colleges.

In Worcester, this was an utter failure, although some councilors (specifically Councilor Toomey) actually praised the Univercity Partnership for all of its great work, when it was shut done some two years after it started. This never made sense, since the recommendation of the task force was that we needed this "partnership" to be an ongoing concern to turn the economic power of the colleges into "concrete" dollars and cents that the tax payers could realize and measure. The mere fact it was being shut down, if you read the task force report, meant that the Univercity Partnership was a failure.

The most ironic thing of the task force was that we read about a prior task force in the mid to late 90's. Upon completion of our task force recommendations, I (as others) was struck by the similarities in the recommendations from these two task forces some ten years apart. In fact our task force suggested and strongly recommended that we meet again (I think a year later), to review and grade our recommendations to ensure that another task force was not convened five years laters to do again for the third time, what had been done then two times already.

We never met again. As I sit here I can almost guarantee you a third task force will be convened and wil recommend what has already been done the other two times.

9 comments:

Paulie's Point of View said...

Somerville & Medford have a PILOT program with Tufts that includes use of indoor and outdoor athletic facilities..thousands use weekly and somehing that would be a plus for this city that has a high obesity rate!

Tufts has given a reduced rent in a Tufts owned building for the Somerville Senior Center-Senior Center an issue in this city...Tufts pays Somerville 1M a year in cash...Tufts in addition is involved in numerous civic endeavours similiar to Worcester Colleges...

Our leaders have dealt with the issue in an unprofessional way-more for their own political gain than for a win-win for the city and the colleges!

It is another classic example of how inept they are at tackling difficult urban issues - if ya don't live in the urban core how do you plan to fix the urban ills!!

Anonymous said...

Bill,

Can you publish the findings of either task force?

Anonymous said...

The city doesnt have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.

The list of ideas to cut city spending is endless, yet teh council and school committtee will never adopt any saving measures b/c they are mostly all in the back pockets of city labor.

The Worc Mun. Research Bureau, at least annually, comes up with great ideas to save money, the council & school committee listen, and then basically say to the WMRB ++++ you and your ideas and deep six the report.

I cant blame the colleges for not wanting to pony up, at least until the city gets off the crack cocaine of spending. Allegedly 600city employees out on Injured on duty status, that's 12% of the ciy work force.............10 paid sick days /yr/'ee.....try pulling that crap in a private sector job and how much you want to bet that Monday and friday are the 2 most commonly used (abused) sick days.

Then we got Councilor Palmieri tooting the Pilot Payment horn and according to the city teasurers website a Philip Palmieri owes taxes from previous years on 3 different parcels of land in the city. Is this Philip Palmieri the same city councilor Palmieri? It's less than $400 but if the above 2 Philip Palmiriers are one and the same person...then WTF kinda message does it send that the councils point man on Pilot Payments is himself behind on his legal obligations to pay the city taxes...........when the same person (?) is out badgering the colleges for money (donations) that they are no even legally obligated to pay?

May least of the non payers be the 1st to cast a stone!

Paulie's Point of View said...

this lack of resolve to deal with this taxation issue is more disturbing to me..we are low end city and we are doing nothing to make ourselves atractive to new suitors..

I would rarely call for an ouster publically..but this guy Clancy has to go..his comments at this weeks city council meeting are one more sign of how inept many leading us are about business & how to atract business..I am equally shocked at how litle business sense comes out of Councilor Joffe Smith who is supposedly in the financial sector.

Councilor Rushton has been willing to bring up to sensitive subjects in the past two weeks
: police files and a single tax rate that leads me to believe that he may be moving towards leading he council and not fighting with the mayor..this is something many of us have been waiting for..I hope he keeps it up because we are lacking leadership on the City Council

Anonymous said...

Bill, given your expeinece of serving on this board, why would any taxpayer who is working 40+ hr per week want to volunteer their time on one of these committeees or boards...when the ends results are either ignored or not properly implememted.

Fool me once shame on you..fool me twice shame on me.

Would you volunteer again for such an effort given how your 1st effort ended up?

Anonymous said...

Rushton is the one councilor IMO who is MOST vocally pro city employee which equates with anti -taxpayer

Re: Section 19 and health ins., he wants to tie the CM's hands when it comes to negotiating health ins benefits. When asked on the WTAG morning show how Sec. 19 benefits the taxpayers, the guy just completely fumbled & was non responsive to the question. I would expect a more concise, reasoned, and logical response from someone such as he.

Paulie, bottom line the guy is 100% in the back pocket of city 'eees and you cannot be pro city' employee and pro taxpayer...the positions are mutually exclusive.

Lukes may not be as "likeable" to some as say a Mayor Tim Murray or others, but she usually comes down on the side of the taxpayer and logic and she is too often callled an obstructionist, etc. by those who dont like her positions on the issues.

Again, I'd also like to know which councilors accept political donations from the colleges and in whats amt(s).....b/c if they are pushing for Pilot payments and then accepting campaign contributions from the colleges.........at the very least it sends the wrong message.

The only way we're going to solve Worc's fiscal problems is when the moeny runs out....a la General Motors & Springfield & Chelsea

Paulie's Point of View said...

I understand these guys need to get re-elected and so do you Senor Jahn..and unfortunately for Worcester we have a huge block of peeps who just do not vote or get involved to help the city or themselves as far as I can tell..the block that does vote is municipal workers, the elderly, % of middle class and % of upper income..so to get elected one has lead the crowd voting and listen to their needs as well as those who don't.but the ones that do vote are the ones that keep you in office..so I do not lose a lot of sleep on your thoughts...this all being said..I do see Councilor Rushton stepping outside the box as did Mayor and now Lt. Governor Murray by proposing new ideas for Worcester..perhaps they have been proposed before but he is bringing them to the table such as the 311 communication system, single tax rate & this current police issue and from the rest I am hearing little that is ground breaking..this is not to say that other CC's are not doing the necessary constituent services it is just that I am not hearing any new forward thinking ideas..like 311 or a single tax rate..

Once can buck the system all they want but in politics this will only go so far..and I understand this and I think you do also..I am hoping that CC Rushton does not abandoned this 311 issue or the single tax rate..listening to CC Clancy call the head of the Worcester Chamber as throwing out "chicken little threats" is not productive to good relations with business..it is similiar to the "tear down that mall" and the rhetoric coming from CC Palmieri and directed at the colleges..I just do not see this stuff being productive for the city and assisting in changing the opinions of many who look poorly towards the city. I wrote a piece on my own blog about "perception"...great that everyone is so proud out here..but many look at the city as a bad place to live in, recreate in or do business in and this "who cares what others think" attitude as really hurt us..I know it has me as an investor...

I really do not see the love affair with Mayor Lukes..saying "no" all the time means nothing to me..the council is not being lead and we have taken some steps backwards as far as I can see..a turning economy is always an excuse..I think we are faring much better under City Manager Mick O'Brien and I think he has brought some fiscal sanity as well as common sense to the city..but we are a long way away and I think we desperately need some new leadership blood in Worcester..the current State Senator issue of living outside the city and the State Rep financial issues have really bothered me..at a time when we really need to be led some of our leaders have not led the charge.

Paulie's Point of View said...

Senor Jahn..many of these city employees are city taxpayers..if they weren't then our CC's would not be supporting them as they do? The statement below makes little sense.

"Paulie, bottom line the guy is 100% in the back pocket of city 'eees and you cannot be pro city' employee and pro taxpayer...the positions are mutually exclusive."


Billy Bulger was a fairly devout Catolic:>)..8 kid's, church involved yet as President of the State Senate he never let his views on abortion cloud the majority

Pols follow the votes..and to vote in this city you have to be a resident and most likely these voters are involved municipally and are also tax payers.

Fill up the urban core with young professionals, single & married post baby boomahs like me & baby bomahs all with jobs and are financially stable and then watch the different tap dance we see from many of our leaders.

Anonymous said...

Paulie, as taxpayers they are customers of the city and its services.

As 'eees they are wage earners.

In each capacity there are objectives that are complete opposites, but the overriding obective is how do I squeeze more money from my employers treasury....which money must also come from the taxpayers who dont work for the city.

Bottom line what do i ccre if I am a city 'eee who has to pay higher taxes, as long I get my 3% raise every yrs plus a paygrade promotion every other year and I can go out Injured on duty or take sick days w/o to how sick I really am.

I am sick of this behavior

With 1 or 2 exceptions you cant get elcted to council or school committee unless the city employess and more specifiaclly the union has you in their pocket.

And then there's always the city 'ees contributing to councilors campaigns who dont live in the city....and if you dont think that councilors go behind teh scene and nudge MOB to certain wage and bennie settlements.......then i suggest you're naive. This Sec 19 that the council seems to want will put MOB in a less competive position when negoiating contracts....so we have to ask ourselves why would they do it............b/c they were elected by those who will benefit most by it.

Our Downfall will be that employees can indirectly through the policital process vote them selves our tax dolars from teh public treasury...and Sec 19 speaks volumes to that