I attended the hearing held on October 2nd on Representative Richardson’s suggestion that the Dover Amendment become inapplicable to a town after 5% of properties fall into the charitable, non-profit category and are not taxed. My testimony was not mentioned in the article that appeared in the October 3rd issue of the Metrowest Daily News. In order to inform the readers of Frambors of what I testified to and my suggestions, I submit this comment.
For convenient reference, the Dover Amendment is contained in Chapter 40A, section 3. It provides that, “No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes …or by a nonprofit educational corporation;…”
Prior to my testifying, two representatives of Massachusetts colleges and universities, a powerful and influential lobby, predictably testified in opposition to the 5% amendment. Prior witnesses had made it clear that the complaints of Framingham residents and taxpayers were not directed to schools such as Framingham State College, hospitals, churches or synagogues. The complaints were limited to social service agencies. I began by thanking Representative Richardson for bringing attention to the fact that the Dover Amendment needs to be examined and amended. However, I stated that I opposed her suggested amendment which did not properly identify the problem and that the 5% cap was an incorrect way in which tosolve the problem. I pointed out that the problem was that the definition of a “nonprofit educational corporation” which covers the expansion of Harvard University, Tufts, Holy Cross and other acknowledged educational institutions has been inappropriately construed by the Courts to cover activities of social service agencies which are hardly in the same class as Harvard and other institutions which have great public support. I pointed out that the Framingham residents who support a change in the Dover Amendment support the use of Dover for the clients of real educational institutions and would support the opposition of the witnesses who had appeared before them. No change should be made as to those institutions. I suggested that the Committee analyze the issue fundamentally by deciding how to define just what “educational “institutions should be covered. I suggested that they should draft a more detailed definition of just what constitutes an “educational corporation” for purposes of the Dover Amendment. I believe that is it is poor drafting to try to include issues that apply to Framingham State College, MIT and Holy Cross with the placement of a sober house or drug rehabilitation home in a neighborhood of three bedroom splits, zoned “residential”. I urged the Committee to draft a provision specifically for “social service agencies”. I suggested that anyone can easily create a “non-profit corporation” under Massachusetts law and that element is not helpful in defining which entities may qualify for such favorable treatment.. A “social service agency” should be defined by its function; i.e. what services it provides and, critically, how it is funded. That a social service agency is funded by the Federal government or the State determines who controls it. If the local government is not involved in funding, it has no control. Thus, the locality should be given more zoning control. At any rate, once the Committee begins to try to define social service agencies, it will focus their minds on just what the real problem is. For instance, one of the Committee members had mentioned the concept of “bulk” in zoning so I suggested that the Committee may want to provide that buildings over a certain size be excluded from Dover and be subject to all zoning provisions on the basis that large properties may have too large an impact on the neighborhood.
In closing, I pointed out that Representative Richardson’s suggested 5% cap does not meet that issue. The cap seems to be more concerned about spreading the cost of social service agencies around the state more equitably. I did not state an obvious but fundamental issue. Her suggestion does not deal with the real problem, which is defining whether or not social service agencies, such as SMOC should be covered by Dover’s poor definition of educational at all, and, if so, to what degree. Clearly, social service agencies deal with social issues; alcoholism, drug addition, homelessness and the like that we think of as therapeutic or psychological treatment. They are educational only in the sense that all such efforts include an educational component. Indeed, Representative Richardson’s suggestion could have been drafted by a social service agency because it assumes the issue to be decided by neglecting the definitional problem and then sets a cap above where Framingham is at present with an elastic definition. Notice, that as inflation increases the value of Framingham real estate, the 5% cap would increase each year. The other aspect of the 5% cap is that it is guaranteed to elicit the opposition of the educational lobby of the real educational institutions which will sink any suggestion. Thus, the effort to amend, which is doomed from the start, may be pointed out by the supporters of social service agencies as evidence of their efforts to support the Town when, in reality, the effort is guaranteed to fail. I suggested to the Committee in closing that I opposed the 5% cap as the wrong change in that it was too blunt a proposal and applied to the issue of spreading the cost of tax-free entities around the state. I suggested that that issue could be dealt with more easily and equitably by providing for an automatic percentage of every grant be designated as PILOT payment; eg.5% of the gross grant.
Hopefully, the Committee will take my suggestion and redraft the language as I suggested.
Robert Snider, TMM Pct. 11