Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray w b Z Boston's Radio.
Speaker 2: Welcome back, everyone like to welcome back to the program.
Speaker 2: Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, who represents Boston for the
Speaker 2: most part, Nick Collins, welcome back to night said, how
Speaker 2: are you.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Dan? Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: You're very welcome. You have district represents you represent? Is
Speaker 2: entirely within the city of Boston, or do you do
Speaker 2: you have any any other area besides portion?
Speaker 3: Yes? So I represent a number of the neighborhoods in Boston,
Speaker 3: South Boston, Dorchester, the South End, Bay Village, Chinatown, a
Speaker 3: little Back Bay, a little of Roxbury, and the Hot Islands.
Speaker 2: Okay, So so I know that that some of the
Speaker 2: districts can pick up a little bit of Revere or whatever.
Speaker 2: But so you're totally.
Speaker 3: Boston all in time, Boston.
Speaker 2: This thing all right, now, you have had a high profile.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna call it a battle with Mayor Wou and
Speaker 2: I if I if I mischaracterize it, please help me,
Speaker 2: uh and and correct me. But a battle over the
Speaker 2: way in which property taxes in Boston would be assessed.
Speaker 2: She wanted to shift the burden towards some of the
Speaker 2: commercial real estate in Boston. And when when you say commercial,
Speaker 2: you're not You're talking not just about the big buildings downtown,
Speaker 2: you also talk about a lot of the mom and
Speaker 2: pop stores and the smaller businesses in Boston which are commercial.
Speaker 3: Correct, that's correct.
Speaker 2: And and in your concern, as I understand, that was
Speaker 2: much more with these small businesses that are trying to
Speaker 2: survive in the city of Boston in some very difficult
Speaker 2: economic circumstances. What got you involved in this fight because
Speaker 2: it became a pretty high profile battle. I think you
Speaker 2: succeeded because the mayor did not get from the state
Speaker 2: House what she wanted, which was permission to recalibrate who
Speaker 2: pays what in real estate taxes. What prompted you to
Speaker 2: get into this fight? It was pretty high profile fight.
Speaker 3: Sure, well, you know, anytime we make policy, it's going
Speaker 3: to be data driven. Can't be about conjecture, can't be
Speaker 3: based on fear and misinformation. Which was a campaign to
Speaker 3: achieve and you know it started last February. The Boston
Speaker 3: Policy Institute in Tefns University brought up in a study
Speaker 3: how falling commercial values would affect long term how Boston finance.
Speaker 3: The city government, and that sparked a debate, and initially
Speaker 3: the mayor and her team just attacked the study and
Speaker 3: said it was false information, nothing to see here, and
Speaker 3: then abruptly shifted to you know, I guess not wasting
Speaker 3: a crisis or a perceived crisis, and instead of using
Speaker 3: the data that they were compiling to come up with
Speaker 3: new valuations for the city, property owners went on a
Speaker 3: campaign to tell property owners, residential property owners that they
Speaker 3: were going to see a thirty three percent increase in
Speaker 3: their property taxes unless they supported this shift. That would
Speaker 3: have increased taxes on businesses two hundred percent. And you
Speaker 3: mentioned the types of businesses, So the businesses downtown and
Speaker 3: the financial district that had seen leases go away on
Speaker 3: the advent of the pandemic unless office space being rented,
Speaker 3: they were going to see a dramatic decrease in valuations
Speaker 3: over the course of the next few years. But what
Speaker 3: you see in the main streets are businesses that just
Speaker 3: house retail businesses and not office buildings above and so
Speaker 3: their value is maintained, but they are going to get
Speaker 3: whacked at two hundred percent. Now, these are businesses who
Speaker 3: we you know, did a lot to support during the
Speaker 3: aftermath of the pandemic as well to stay alive. And
Speaker 3: they support a lot of people, a lot of jobs
Speaker 3: in the community. Most of the folks who own those
Speaker 3: businesses live in the community and they have everything in there.
Speaker 3: And so if this is going to happen, it had
Speaker 3: to be based on data and not conjectures. So when
Speaker 3: this got ramped up, just a pretty loaded proposal to
Speaker 3: tell people, hey, if you don't get out of the
Speaker 3: way and support this tax team, you know we're going
Speaker 3: to blame you for raising residential propstactions thirty three percent.
Speaker 3: And we kept asking for this valuation data that eventually
Speaker 3: they had to submit to the Department of Revenue of
Speaker 3: the state under the pains and penalties of perjury, and
Speaker 3: so we were going to get that information eventually. We
Speaker 3: waited and asked the city for numerous times, including over
Speaker 3: the course of the summer, in the fall and up
Speaker 3: and until when I tabled the bill, when it made
Speaker 3: its way to the Senate the first time, and the
Speaker 3: mayor are called and asked, you know, what was my
Speaker 3: end game? And I said, Mayor, we want to be
Speaker 3: reading from the same sheet of music as you. So
Speaker 3: when we make this decision, we know what it's about.
Speaker 3: And the refusal was still there until after it went
Speaker 3: to the public domain that the city Assessor and the
Speaker 3: Mayor were essentially blaming the Department of Revenue for not
Speaker 3: certifiing that that data fast enough on property valuations. The
Speaker 3: a Problem of Revenue expedited that and were able to
Speaker 3: get us to release data which showed us exactly what
Speaker 3: we needed to know. What was the impact going to
Speaker 3: be to residential property owners if this property if this
Speaker 3: tax proposal did not pass, or if it passed. And
Speaker 3: the mayor said all along that even if it passed,
Speaker 3: they were going to property taxes on Bostonians at nine
Speaker 3: point five percent, which was the average over the last
Speaker 3: four years. And that's even if it passed. And so
Speaker 3: when it came to light that without the legislation passing,
Speaker 3: it would be roughly the same, we realized that this
Speaker 3: was not necessary and that the risk to the Boston
Speaker 3: economy was too great, that the impacts to businesses, and
Speaker 3: you know, the Department of Revenue came out with a
Speaker 3: study in two thousand and four after Maya Menino requested
Speaker 3: this with municipal leaders statewide. In the aftermath of the
Speaker 3: dot Com boom. You know, it was a local option.
Speaker 3: It wasn't a mandate. It said if we if weren't
Speaker 3: such a deficit that we made needed this, we'd like
Speaker 3: to have the option. This was a mandate. They come
Speaker 3: hell of high water that this tax was going to
Speaker 3: go through, whether it was needed or not. And we
Speaker 3: got to ask ourselves as well, well, what's this all about.
Speaker 3: It's not just an abstract request for revenue, because you
Speaker 3: don't really have a revenue problem. You have a fiscal
Speaker 3: management problem. Right now in the city, we've seen a
Speaker 3: twenty one percent increase in the budget over three years,
Speaker 3: just this year alone, an eight percent increase, while the
Speaker 3: state was at a two point seven percent increase, which is,
Speaker 3: you know, in line with inflation. But you can't expect
Speaker 3: tax payers to not be impacted when we're spending hundreds
Speaker 3: of millions of dollars on bike lane infrastructure, on the
Speaker 3: credit card, or one hundred million dollars on white stadium
Speaker 3: privatization and the like. And so this is really what
Speaker 3: this issue is about. It's about spending this out of control.
Speaker 3: If you compare it to the previous administration, where the
Speaker 3: last four years there was an increase in debt service
Speaker 3: obligations of twenty million dollars actually a little bit less.
Speaker 3: You're already of ninety million increase in the last three years.
Speaker 3: This is wild.
Speaker 2: Some people might not know when you refer to debt
Speaker 2: service what you're doing, what they're talking What they're talking
Speaker 2: about is the interest that any government on new debts,
Speaker 2: he pays on the money that it has borrowed. And
Speaker 2: you know, an increase in the last three years of
Speaker 2: Mayor Walsh's administration, as you said, I'm looking at the
Speaker 2: numbers right now, went up about twenty million dollars, and
Speaker 2: the increase in the debt service in the wo administration
Speaker 2: for the first three years sort of an equivalent period
Speaker 2: of time has gone up nearly one hundred million dollars from.
Speaker 3: And these are ten to fifteen thirty year commitments. This
Speaker 3: isn't a one year expense. These are essential mortgages that
Speaker 3: were at the bonds authorization. So there that was saddling
Speaker 3: generation of Bostonians with this. For what purpose We're still
Speaker 3: trying to figure out, but we do know that this
Speaker 3: came along with a one billion dollar windfall from the
Speaker 3: federal government that have operated in the city. So it's
Speaker 3: not as if we were in dire straits, we will
Speaker 3: expect to revenue. And I think that's what the point is,
Speaker 3: that we don't have a revenue problem. They made it
Speaker 3: clear that we don't have a revenue problem at the
Speaker 3: city and that the requests built based not on data,
Speaker 3: but on on a campaign of fear and conjecture was
Speaker 3: that if we didn't do this, resist we're going to
Speaker 3: see a thirty preepers an increase and taxes in the
Speaker 3: homes and risk losing their homes. Now, the other side
Speaker 3: is that we knew was that if it went forward,
Speaker 3: that we were going to risk having what the do
Speaker 3: R said twenty years ago when Marimino looked at this,
Speaker 3: this is not put public policy. You shouldn't do this again.
Speaker 3: You should look at diversifying revenues. You should also look
Speaker 3: at doing what we didn't do this year. And so
Speaker 3: today people got bills that double what they should be
Speaker 3: because instead of spreading out tax bills and the increases
Speaker 3: over four quarters, they're jamming into the first two.
Speaker 2: And so they let me just make sure nick I
Speaker 2: understand this, the tax bills many Bostonians would have received
Speaker 2: their tax bills today. Is that correct? Property owners, yes,
Speaker 2: both commercial and residential. Let me take a pause here.
Speaker 2: We got to take a break, and when we get back,
Speaker 2: I think you've set out the situation as you perceive it,
Speaker 2: that the administration has been spending well beyond its means
Speaker 2: and now is in a situation where maybe there's really
Speaker 2: no good choice. You prevented the administration from doing what
Speaker 2: they wanted to do, which was to hit the commercial
Speaker 2: property owners. I'm going to invite people to call in.
Speaker 2: I know that whenever we talk about numbers on night side,
Speaker 2: particularly budgets and things like that, it's tough for people
Speaker 2: to follow. However, when you have to write that check,
Speaker 2: make that payment as a homeowner, or as a small
Speaker 2: business or as a big business, that's really where the
Speaker 2: rubber meets the road. And that's what we're talking about here.
Speaker 2: So if you folks out there have a question and
Speaker 2: you'd like to join the conversation six one, seven, two, five,
Speaker 2: four to ten thirty six one seven, nine, three one
Speaker 2: ten thirty. We try to explain it as clearly and
Speaker 2: as cleanly as we can as to what it is
Speaker 2: at stake. But the numbers to me jump off the
Speaker 2: page and suggest that Boston has been spending in a
Speaker 2: very wild fashion, and that this is going to come
Speaker 2: home to roost here in the city, and it's going
Speaker 2: to affect the city. And the mayor has had three
Speaker 2: years at the head of this city, and she's about
Speaker 2: to enter her fourth year, which will be a re
Speaker 2: election year, and you have to wonder what sort of
Speaker 2: politics might have been involved in some of the decisions
Speaker 2: that she made. We'll back on Night's side with Massachusetts
Speaker 2: State Senator Nick Collins, who has worked very hard, particularly
Speaker 2: in the last month, to stop something from happening that
Speaker 2: he feels would have had a tremendously adverse impact on
Speaker 2: the city. Whether you agree to disagree, feel free to
Speaker 2: join the conversation. Coming back on Night's side right after
Speaker 2: these brief messas.
Speaker 1: Now back to Dan ray Line from the Window World
Speaker 1: Night Side Studios on WBZ the News Radio.
Speaker 2: My guest is Nick Collins, Massachusetts State Center. Nick, just
Speaker 2: looking at these numbers, and again, numbers are tough to
Speaker 2: talk about on radio, but I want to focus on
Speaker 2: this whole question of debt service, which is interest that
Speaker 2: the City of Boston is obligated to pay it. The
Speaker 2: last three years of Mayor Walsh's term, the debt service
Speaker 2: increased from one hundred and seventy million dollars to one
Speaker 2: hundred and eighty nine million dollars. That's, as you said,
Speaker 2: a little less than twenty million dollars. In that same
Speaker 2: period of time. During the first three terms of the
Speaker 2: mayor's first tournament office, the debt service has gone up
Speaker 2: ninety two million dollars. That's the same period of time
Speaker 2: three years, four times a greater increase in terms of
Speaker 2: just dollar for dollar. What as you look at that,
Speaker 2: what does that tell you?
Speaker 3: It tells me that we're pulling out the credit card
Speaker 3: when we had a billion dollars in the federal government
Speaker 3: to spend on government subsidy, whether it was for the
Speaker 3: schools or for municipal services, and for whatever reason, in
Speaker 3: addition to that, we took out the credit cards. It's
Speaker 3: not spending even more aggressively in ways that are going
Speaker 3: to saddle us for you know, ten, fifteen, thirty years unnecessarily.
Speaker 3: And if we look at what the state did when
Speaker 3: we had last year a gap in what our proposed
Speaker 3: budget was versus the rest that came in. The governor wisely,
Speaker 3: even though it was painful to some, made three hundred
Speaker 3: and seventy five million dollars balance the budget to keep
Speaker 3: us within a two point seven percent growth That was responsible,
Speaker 3: while we put money away in the Rainy Gay Fund
Speaker 3: and provide a tax relief for residents across the Como.
Speaker 3: It requires balance and fiscal responsibility. You can't spend money
Speaker 3: on every great idea that we think we have all
Speaker 3: at once, and in this case, the city had a
Speaker 3: lot of money. So to do that and to take
Speaker 3: out the credit card and spend wildly like that, it
Speaker 3: is totally irresponsible. And that's what this is tied to.
Speaker 3: It's not just an arbitrary reason to consider a tax
Speaker 3: reposal like this or to raise the property taxes on
Speaker 3: our sowans. But in the end, we learned after receiving
Speaker 3: that the certified data from the DAW, the city was
Speaker 3: withholding that it wasn't as dramatic or remotely dramatic as
Speaker 3: they thought it was going to be, and quite frankly,
Speaker 3: it was in line within the recent the last few years.
Speaker 3: But even raising it modestly of one percentage point, which
Speaker 3: is what the mayor decided to do and the City
Speaker 3: Council approved, was based on spending interests, not it wasn't
Speaker 3: an arbitrary reason. They weren't forced to. Under the state law,
Speaker 3: you can raise up to two point five percent of
Speaker 3: the proper two and a half of property taxes all
Speaker 3: across the city of an increase, and they don't have
Speaker 3: to do that. They decided to because they wanted to
Speaker 3: spend more money, and that's not always the best thing
Speaker 3: to do. And again last year in the state budget,
Speaker 3: we had to cut back and that's something that you
Speaker 3: know was difficult for some programs and some external spending.
Speaker 3: But you know when Mayor Neino was face with this,
Speaker 3: he cut the budget, he furloughed employees, he paused external spending,
Speaker 3: he put on a hiring freeze, and he made the
Speaker 3: changes that need to be made while also asking for
Speaker 3: some support for relief. And that was never even on
Speaker 3: the table. No, was residential relief. This his bill is
Speaker 3: a residential relief bill. How is it a residential relief bill?
Speaker 3: If regardless, if it passes, you're going to raise taxes
Speaker 3: nine point five percent. It's just it was the farce.
Speaker 2: I also want to make it clear for people, and
Speaker 2: again talking about this, when you talk about the billion dollars,
Speaker 2: this was the money that the federal government passed in
Speaker 2: the in the wake of the COVID crisis, in which
Speaker 2: money was sent from Washington back to the states and
Speaker 2: the cities including Boston and Boston. The figure of quoted
Speaker 2: is a billion dollars. And during that period of time,
Speaker 2: the spending just continued. You mentioned, I believe that the
Speaker 2: city has spent is that one hundred and twenty million
Speaker 2: dollars on bike lanes? Yeah?
Speaker 3: The figure the camel oft Fuish though, was one hundred
Speaker 3: and twenty one million dollars on bike lane infrastructure.
Speaker 2: Now, I got to tell you, I know we have
Speaker 2: a lot of bike lanes, and I know that they
Speaker 2: have put in a lot of those stanchions, you know,
Speaker 2: to protect the bike lanes, and I know that they
Speaker 2: they have painted the bike lanes. But one hundred and
Speaker 2: twenty million dollars seems to be excessive for for what
Speaker 2: has been accomplished. Has anyone looked at that project and
Speaker 2: those numbers closely? Do you feel that those numbers are
Speaker 2: are accurate or are they?
Speaker 3: You know, No, it's a great it's a great point.
Speaker 3: I mean, and you know we're talking about one you know,
Speaker 3: depending on the time of the year, one percent to
Speaker 3: possibly at most two percent of the populace that are
Speaker 3: riding regularly, you know, to and from work or from
Speaker 3: you know, the place of business or school. And so,
Speaker 3: you know, it's a lot of money and a lot
Speaker 3: of congestion, a lot of headache, and we're seeing a
Speaker 3: lot of safety issues that are coming out of that.
Speaker 3: For a small impact, but you know, I think it's
Speaker 3: just a symbol of the type of spending that's going on.
Speaker 3: And you know it for the City of Boston to
Speaker 3: be in a position and where they think they have
Speaker 3: to make a Laconian measure on taxes right now speaks
Speaker 3: to one thing and one thing only. Let's out of
Speaker 3: control spending.
Speaker 2: Now. There was an article in The Herald a few
Speaker 2: days ago about the chief financial officer in the city
Speaker 2: who was brought into Boston from San Francisco. And in
Speaker 2: San Francisco they have run into all sorts of problems.
Speaker 2: I mean that they have a myriad of problems. Worse
Speaker 2: than Boston. We have Mass and Cass They have the
Speaker 2: Tenderloin district. And as bad as masson Cass is it
Speaker 2: dwarfs in comparison to the Tenderloin district. However, San Francisco
Speaker 2: under the chief financial officer that Mayor Woo brought into
Speaker 2: Boston ran into some pretty serious financial problems. It wasn't,
Speaker 2: from what I can understand, the greatest performance. And Ashley
Speaker 2: Grothenberger is now the mayor's chief financial officer and according
Speaker 2: to Joe Battenfeld, she pers presided over San Francisco's out
Speaker 2: of control budget, which now faces fifteen percent across the
Speaker 2: board cuts to deal with an estimated one billion dollar deficit.
Speaker 2: Are we headed in that direction?
Speaker 3: Well, I hope not, and it's going to require you know,
Speaker 3: accountability across the board. But what I say, it's also
Speaker 3: a cautionary tale. If we don't get things under control,
Speaker 3: that's what can happen, and that affects government services. And
Speaker 3: that's not what is the case right now, but if
Speaker 3: it continues down this path, it could be. We don't
Speaker 3: want that to happen. So that's why the appropriate measures
Speaker 3: should be taken place. And we do have a robust
Speaker 3: rainy day fund, you know that was developed over the
Speaker 3: course of time to the previous administrations that really you know,
Speaker 3: built that up in the triple A bond rating that
Speaker 3: the current administration inherited. But I think it does speak
Speaker 3: to also a costs every tail, but what not to do.
Speaker 3: The city continues to want to run the MBTA, that's
Speaker 3: not a good idea because it costs a fortune to
Speaker 3: do that, and that's what San Francisco decided to do,
Speaker 3: take on their transit system, and that that takes a
Speaker 3: ton of resources out of there, out of their budget.
Speaker 3: So that's not a good idea. But we also look
Speaker 3: at other places like Chicago and what they've had to do.
Speaker 3: This mayor recently was a progressive mayor as well, said listen,
Speaker 3: we're going to make cuts and some modifications, and we're
Speaker 3: going to, you know, trim some of our budget proposal
Speaker 3: and find some savings to suit a sixty million dollars
Speaker 3: so we don't have to raise property taxes on bus
Speaker 3: storm years. And that's what they just did.
Speaker 2: Are you talking about what the mayor in Chicago did?
Speaker 2: I just want to make sure I'm clear of this.
Speaker 3: Yes, the mayor of Chicago. So while San Francisco just
Speaker 3: said we're going across the board fifteen percent, the mayor
Speaker 3: of Chicago decided to proactively not after he passes budget,
Speaker 3: but prior to pass the budget. That was delayed. Okay,
Speaker 3: we're going to make you know, sixty to seventy million
Speaker 3: dollars in cuts and find find find savings so we
Speaker 3: don't have to raise property taxes on residents. So they
Speaker 3: made that prudent move, so it's all doable.
Speaker 2: Okay. My guest is a state Senator. Nick Collins represents
Speaker 2: big swath of Boston has been in a battle with
Speaker 2: Mayor Wu again, a battle of the budget, if you will,
Speaker 2: fiscal battle. I know that it is not something that
Speaker 2: is easy to talk about on the radio, but I
Speaker 2: hope enough of you understand it. If you have a
Speaker 2: question for Senator Collins, you're more than welcome if you
Speaker 2: want to raise the concern that you have. We're now
Speaker 2: in the year twenty twenty five, which I will remind
Speaker 2: you is an election year for the mayor and for
Speaker 2: the city councils. Here in Boston. The mayor stands every
Speaker 2: four years for reelection or for election city council every
Speaker 2: two years, so there will be a mayor's fight here
Speaker 2: in Massachusetts. In Boston, I should say this year, you
Speaker 2: have to wonder with the state of the financers that
Speaker 2: Nick Collins is is talking about. Uh, if maybe he
Speaker 2: or someone else is going to stand up and challenge
Speaker 2: and this might become the critical issue in this campaign.
Speaker 2: We're going to talk about that. We'll take your phone
Speaker 2: call six one seven, two four thirty six one seven,
Speaker 2: nine three one ten thirty. You don't have to be
Speaker 2: a Bostonian to call in, but if you're a Bostonian,
Speaker 2: this is something that you should be concerned about. Coming
Speaker 2: back on night Side right after the break for the
Speaker 2: nine thirty news a couple of minutes late. Apologize for that.
Speaker 2: Be back right after the news.
Speaker 1: It's Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: That is a horrible story. Leave a dog with a bowl.
Speaker 2: There are people who just should not own animals as
Speaker 2: far as as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, we're talking
Speaker 2: with State Senator Nick Collins about a financial problem that
Speaker 2: he has identified. It was interesting, Senator, that you were
Speaker 2: able to, I believe, convince majority of your colleagues in
Speaker 2: the Massachusetts State Senate, mostly Democrats, not to support the
Speaker 2: Mayor of Boston. When I first heard about this, I
Speaker 2: thought to myself, well, you know, the Mayor of Boston
Speaker 2: will get her way at the legislature. How were you
Speaker 2: able to convince your colleagues most of them were also Democrats,
Speaker 2: and by the way, some of them very progressive Democrats
Speaker 2: that on this argument you had the better the better argument, Well.
Speaker 3: I think the important thing is, you know, we don't
Speaker 3: make policy and policy on matters of consequence without data
Speaker 3: to back it up. And I think there was a
Speaker 3: feeling the whole time, and you know, there was a
Speaker 3: lot going on in the legislature throughout the year. But
Speaker 3: when this got its own focus that this was not
Speaker 3: backed up by data, and when we sought the data,
Speaker 3: and I particularly sought the data and the city was
Speaker 3: unwilling to hand it over, it kind of gave us sense, hmm,
Speaker 3: what's going on here. And then once it was released
Speaker 3: and became clean that what the mayor and the city
Speaker 3: officials were suggesting that this was going to be a
Speaker 3: thirty three percent increase because of this need that in
Speaker 3: when when the valuations came out, that wasn't the case.
Speaker 3: And so, you know, the so the truth will set
Speaker 3: you free, and the data bore out in that way,
Speaker 3: and that's really what guided the decision, is that if
Speaker 3: the data bore out and said, oh jeezuz, so we
Speaker 3: got a problem here, you know, beyond belief, we have
Speaker 3: to we have to take traumatic action that maybe way
Speaker 3: we would have gone, but it wasn't the case, and
Speaker 3: we needed to deal with the facts in our conjecture
Speaker 3: and not hyperbole and not uh, you know, scare tactics.
Speaker 3: And I think they, you know a lot of a
Speaker 3: lot of them felt you know that, uh, you know,
Speaker 3: like you had mentioned, you know, you know, they want
Speaker 3: to support, you know, municipal leaders in their approach to
Speaker 3: managing government. But when you're asking for state law to
Speaker 3: be changed and to make dramatic change in this time
Speaker 3: and it's not backed up by data, then it's hard
Speaker 3: to support. And and that I think was the key part.
Speaker 2: Before we go to phone calls, let me ask the
Speaker 2: question right direct question. Obviously, you have had strong disagreements
Speaker 2: with the mayor here, you've prevailed. Do you think that
Speaker 2: you might decide to to challenge her this year?
Speaker 3: As I say, damn, you know, well, the city is
Speaker 3: touting that we're the safest major city in America due
Speaker 3: to the great work of the Boston Police and driving
Speaker 3: down gun violence. We've seen over the last four years
Speaker 3: ten thousand people overdose on Boston streets and over a
Speaker 3: thousand people have died and that's nothing to brag about.
Speaker 3: And it's shameful that the best that the city can
Speaker 3: do is put out free safe injection side equipment in
Speaker 3: vending machines across the city. So to me, that says
Speaker 3: they've mailed it in. There's been no progress on Long Island,
Speaker 3: and yet the Mayorage considered spending likely more than one
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars on the taxpayer's credit card, handing over
Speaker 3: a public asset at White Stadium for private use. So
Speaker 3: I think the city needs to change course. I'm thrilled
Speaker 3: to be back in the Senate and re elected, got
Speaker 3: sworn in yesterday for another term, and that's where my
Speaker 3: focus is right now. But I believe that the city
Speaker 3: needs to change courseible pass, whether that's what the current
Speaker 3: skipper or a new one remains to be seen.
Speaker 2: Fair enough, let's go to phone call. It's gonna go
Speaker 2: to fill in Boston. Fill you first tonight with Massachusetts
Speaker 2: State Senator Nick Collins. Go right ahead, what's your question
Speaker 2: of comment.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna vote be brother from here, but I gotta
Speaker 4: I'm curious about twenty minutes ago, the senator mentioned the
Speaker 4: belt the tax bills, we're gonna double they're gonna like
Speaker 4: be paying what we're paying four year, four installments and
Speaker 4: three installments? Is that what we're doing?
Speaker 3: No, No, so four and two And that's that's totally unnecessary.
Speaker 3: It's a you know, it's for the accounting convenience of
Speaker 3: City of Boston. You know, officials in the assessing department.
Speaker 3: They could very easily spread that over four quarters. Right now,
Speaker 3: if you look at the tax bill, it looks twice
Speaker 3: as much as it should be.
Speaker 4: You kidding me? But how can they do yah? See
Speaker 4: it could it could be free months, they could do that,
Speaker 4: split it out like a a payment in a cab.
Speaker 4: But they're not going to do that.
Speaker 3: They should be Yeah, they should be able to do that.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's they tax you on a on an
Speaker 3: annual calendar year, and they finance the city government on
Speaker 3: a fiscal year. So they go June first of June
Speaker 3: thirtieth and instead of taxing you, you know, each quarter
Speaker 3: the way that you should. Of course, it's not it's
Speaker 3: not fair. It's not convenient for residents, even though it's
Speaker 3: convenient for some city officials, and they shouldn't be doing that.
Speaker 3: But that's what is this something that they're going to have.
Speaker 2: Is this something that has been done unilaterally or is
Speaker 2: this something that the mayor of the city council I
Speaker 2: agree on? How do you change that? I mean, where
Speaker 2: I live, you pay every quarter and it's always should be.
Speaker 3: It's for their accounting purposes, which you know, to be
Speaker 3: honest with it could be done differently, there should be.
Speaker 2: Well, phil another reason question on.
Speaker 4: This White White stadiums as a gift to the city
Speaker 4: from a guy. Why wasn't even guy like that entrepreneur
Speaker 4: or something that was given to the city for the
Speaker 4: kids to use a football and stuff like that.
Speaker 3: But a fall of the.
Speaker 4: Pot it is.
Speaker 3: It's a George uh George White trust fund and there's
Speaker 3: thirty million dollars in the fund that could you know,
Speaker 3: portion of that could go to rehab the stadium for
Speaker 3: the use of the of the kids and should be
Speaker 3: done without taxpayer burden instead, you know, looking at spending
Speaker 3: one hundred million dollars for private exercise. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 4: You don't know how he's freshing it is. The here
Speaker 4: a guy gentlemen like you on the phone as unbelievable.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much and.
Speaker 2: I appreciate your call. Thank you much. Gonna take very
Speaker 2: quick break. Other calls coming up if you'd like to
Speaker 2: try to get in six one, seven, two, five, four,
Speaker 2: ten thirty or six one, seven, nine three thirty. My guest,
Speaker 2: Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins. We've talked about some fairly
Speaker 2: heady issues numbers, and I hope you followed the conversation
Speaker 2: because I think what he has said tonight has made
Speaker 2: a great deal of sense, both from the common sense
Speaker 2: point of view, but also from a fiscal point of
Speaker 2: view in terms of where the city of Boston is headed,
Speaker 2: and it impacts everyone, whether you live in the city
Speaker 2: proper or you live anywhere in New England. Back on
Speaker 2: Nightside after this.
Speaker 1: Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Speaker 1: Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2: My guest, Massachusetts State Senator Nick Collins, represents a good
Speaker 2: portion of Boston. He's talking about what he can choosed
Speaker 2: to be profligate spending patterns I guess by the incumbent
Speaker 2: administration and throwing caution to the wind JJ and Winchester JJ.
Speaker 2: Next on Nightside, go right ahead.
Speaker 5: Sir, Okay, thank you?
Speaker 3: Happy?
Speaker 5: Yeah, So I got yeah, thank you. I have two
Speaker 5: questions real quick because I don't live in Boston, but
Speaker 5: I do work there. Why isn't this wasteful spending, uh,
Speaker 5: raising catch revenue to bail out the wasteful spending. Why
Speaker 5: isn't this the illegal to do that?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I'd say that anything that's relative to taxes,
Speaker 3: nothing is automatic. So we hit nothing on tax has
Speaker 3: been automatic since the King ruled in seventeen seventy five.
Speaker 3: So a vote of the legislature or a vote of
Speaker 3: the council takes place, and that's what took place here.
Speaker 3: So there was a vote by the city council earlier
Speaker 3: in December to set tax rates, and they vote on
Speaker 3: a budget. So a budget approves and the tax rates set.
Speaker 3: And you know, at the state level, we approve a
Speaker 3: budget and if there's ever a time where we're debating taxes,
Speaker 3: it's usually you know, sales tax, income tax. And then
Speaker 3: this last term we were able to provide tax relief
Speaker 3: across the board, from the estate tax to residential property
Speaker 3: tax and other tax credits for consumers and employees. So
Speaker 3: and this is as well along with capital gains tax cuts.
Speaker 3: So you know, it's always a vote. There's nothing illegal.
Speaker 3: It's a vote, and it becomes law. But you know
Speaker 3: that's why it's also.
Speaker 2: It's also JJ, it's it's spending policy. You know, if
Speaker 2: you have one mayor or one president or whatever says
Speaker 2: I'm going to spend this, this and this. Mayor WU
Speaker 2: obviously has made bike lanes a big priority of spending
Speaker 2: one hundred and twenty one million dollars in bike lanes
Speaker 2: has a lot of money. I think that money would
Speaker 2: be better used in the in the schools, or or
Speaker 2: in police were down with police protection in Boston, there's
Speaker 2: a number of areas that are problematical. That's what a
Speaker 2: mayor's race is all about, and people make decisions as
Speaker 2: to who they want to put back in office. We
Speaker 2: just saw a presidential election, and I think you know
Speaker 2: the economics of the last few years, inflation and tax
Speaker 2: is played a factor and all of that. But that's
Speaker 2: a factor and people need to pay attention to it, JJ,
Speaker 2: as I know you do.
Speaker 5: And the second question is I'd like to maybe get
Speaker 5: your information after the show or maybe dannual give it out,
Speaker 5: because I want to send you something and get your
Speaker 5: thoughts on an in state gold depository or some type
Speaker 5: of taxpayer reserve funds with gold and silver to try
Speaker 5: of offset inflation, because this is the foundation of what's
Speaker 5: going on. It's inflation infects states, and when you see.
Speaker 2: I don't know that states, I don't know that states
Speaker 2: have the authority to do that. And I know that
Speaker 2: that is a policy proposal that a lot of libertarians
Speaker 2: like to make. But we're off the gold standard, and
Speaker 2: I don't know that state's, particularly a state like Massachusetts,
Speaker 2: going to go back to their own local gold standard.
Speaker 2: But you can reach State Senator Collins at the State
Speaker 2: House pretty easily, and I'm sure that if you wanted
Speaker 2: to send him something and be happy.
Speaker 3: To look at it.
Speaker 2: Okay, verry much, Thank you much. Le We go to
Speaker 2: Steven Cambri. Steve, You're next on Night Side with Nick Collins. Happy,
Speaker 2: happy new you you Steve.
Speaker 6: Uh has anyone audited or thought about auditing this one
Speaker 6: hundred and twenty one million dollars on the bike lanes?
Speaker 6: It sounds like there could even be Uh, I don't know,
Speaker 6: graft corruption there in terms of who was paid, what salaries,
Speaker 6: et cetera.
Speaker 3: Well, I know, I do know that what's what's strange
Speaker 3: about the spending is that on transportation, the state provides
Speaker 3: and the city is still sitting on seventy five million
Speaker 3: dollars in state funding. Well, they's taking out the credit
Speaker 3: card to spend on capital, infrastructure and transportation. So if
Speaker 3: it doesn't make any sense, we do got to have
Speaker 3: to get to the bottom of that. I know that
Speaker 3: the City Council is going to be having some hearings, uh,
Speaker 3: you know this beginning of this year, and what we
Speaker 3: can look at at is what has taken place with
Speaker 3: state funds. And you know, that's something I believe that
Speaker 3: the auditor can look at with respect to anything that's
Speaker 3: stay funded or federally funded. Municipalities, you know, have sort
Speaker 3: of autonomy, but they also are subject to audits on
Speaker 3: state funding and federal funding as well as everybody is
Speaker 3: subject to the powers of the Inspector General.
Speaker 6: And do you know if anyone has questioned Mayor wu
Speaker 6: on her choice of a chief financial officer who appears
Speaker 6: to be coming from a city which is in even
Speaker 6: more dire straits, for example, in Chicago or Boston.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know what conversations have been had on
Speaker 3: the council, but I know that everyone's asking questions now
Speaker 3: based off of how this tax debate went. And you know,
Speaker 3: here's another figure to think about. It costs thirty thousand
Speaker 3: dollars to go to the Boston public schools. It costs
Speaker 3: fifteen thousand dollars to go to your mass Boston.
Speaker 6: You mean in terms how do you mean in terms
Speaker 6: of you're not talking to issue.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the cost for a student in Boston public schools,
Speaker 3: the cost for student full freight, the fifteen thousand dollars
Speaker 3: that you messed Boston.
Speaker 2: A time by the at a time where the either
Speaker 2: the claimed student population or the actual student population in
Speaker 2: the Boston public schools is now well below fifty thousand.
Speaker 2: I mean, it was a couple of decades ago you
Speaker 2: had a school system with one hundred thousand kids in
Speaker 2: the Boston public school system. We have lost lots and
Speaker 2: lots of students through a number for a number of reasons, obviously,
Speaker 2: and yet the cost of educating students on a per
Speaker 2: capital basis has continued to go up in Boston. As
Speaker 2: matter of fact, I believe, Senator that the cost per
Speaker 2: pupil of students in the public school system in Boston
Speaker 2: may even be equal to a bigger than on a
Speaker 2: per capita basis. With new York City pays, which traditionally
Speaker 2: had been the most expensive publications.
Speaker 3: We are the most expensive in the country.
Speaker 6: Last question, what about migrant issues in terms of Boston spending,
Speaker 6: how has that affected the budget?
Speaker 3: Well, it's a good question. I think by law, all
Speaker 3: students under eighteen get access to the schools. I think
Speaker 3: that the way to face this challenge is the way
Speaker 3: that we've historically faced it the best. And as to sponsorship,
Speaker 3: the sponsorship program that's official established at the federal level
Speaker 3: of through employe from through employers and through you know,
Speaker 3: uh sponsors, individuals and families, and that's always been the
Speaker 3: best take the burden off the government upfront on transition
Speaker 3: and assimilation. And you know, I think something that we
Speaker 3: should be considering going forward is providing support for those sponsors,
Speaker 3: not turning everything into a big government exercise, because that
Speaker 3: gets very expensive how to manage, and as you can see,
Speaker 3: it's not always delivering the best outcomes. So I think
Speaker 3: that's the way we should be looking at this going forward.
Speaker 6: Keep work. Please.
Speaker 2: By the way, Steve, let me just jump in for
Speaker 2: one second. The financial burden of the influx of new
Speaker 2: arrivals has cost the commonwealth about a billion dollars a
Speaker 2: year most of the I don't know that the City
Speaker 2: of Boston has. It has cost them a lot of
Speaker 2: money directly. The one area that I think I was
Speaker 2: concerned about was the community center in Roxbury that was
Speaker 2: taken away from the Roxbury community for almost a year
Speaker 2: to house so called new arrivals. But I don't know Nick,
Speaker 2: that there is a line, a budget line in Boston's
Speaker 2: budget that deals with capital outlays or financial outlays for
Speaker 2: newly arrived immigrants.
Speaker 3: No, there is a sort of a federal in a
Speaker 3: state formula on fundings in the schools.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but most of that money comes from the federal
Speaker 2: to the state and then to the communities as I
Speaker 2: understand it.
Speaker 3: No, that's correct, But I do think on the expense
Speaker 3: that can be shrunk down, and I think it should
Speaker 3: be shrunk down by going through a facto or official
Speaker 3: sponsorship program rather than He's always been successful here in
Speaker 3: the country, and we're a good portion of the large
Speaker 3: portion of the new arrivals as you categorize, are of
Speaker 3: the from theation community that has a significant community yere
Speaker 3: and prior to the decoration of a state of emergency,
Speaker 3: which I do think was necessary. In many ways was
Speaker 3: happening that way, and that's the best in the communities,
Speaker 3: and the supports inside the communities that have beginner with
Speaker 3: us have asked for that to be well, locally, individually driven,
Speaker 3: not for the big government exercise which which can get
Speaker 3: our hand, which which we know it can be, and
Speaker 3: it has.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, General Steve.
Speaker 2: Steve, appreciate the call. Happy New Year to you, and likewise,
Speaker 2: thank you very much, Nick. Thanks for taking this fight
Speaker 2: on and thanks for taking the time tonight to to
Speaker 2: explain it to people. Because when I first read about this,
Speaker 2: I thought to myself, how is a single state senator
Speaker 2: going to convince the legislature not to give the okay
Speaker 2: to the mayor? And you did, frankly, what I thought
Speaker 2: was impossible. So keep up the fight. The more people
Speaker 2: we have looking at the budget and trying to make
Speaker 2: good decisions, the better off we are. And please keep
Speaker 2: us up the date on what's going on in the
Speaker 2: city and what's going on in the city specifically from
Speaker 2: the fiscal perspective, because I think no one knows it
Speaker 2: better than you at this point, and I don't know
Speaker 2: that Mayor wo would want to have it a head
Speaker 2: to head debate with you on this, but if she would,
Speaker 2: we could do it on night side, any night of
Speaker 2: the week that would be convenient for both of you.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, can't Thanks for having me on. Have
Speaker 3: a great night, Happy New with you.
Speaker 2: Happy New Year to you as well. Masters and State
Speaker 2: Senator Nick Collins. When we get back, we're going to
Speaker 2: talk with an author, but an author who has also
Speaker 2: served as an Assistant Secretary of State for the United
Speaker 2: States of America. His name is Robert Charles. He's written
Speaker 2: a book called Cherish America, in which he talks about
Speaker 2: historically significant true stories of American heroism from presidents, soldiers, astronauts, athletes,
Speaker 2: in a wide variety array of everyday citizens who have
Speaker 2: done extraordinary things. And I think in the context of
Speaker 2: what happened in New Orleans, I think it is a
Speaker 2: great time for us to sit back and maybe cherish
Speaker 2: this country in which all of us are so lucky
Speaker 2: to have been born or to have come to live in.
Speaker 2: Cherish America. Coming up with author Robert Charles right after
Speaker 2: the newsbreak here at ten