– By David Bingham, MD, CTLCV Co-Chair
The Community Green Fund (see April 8, 2011 posting) has re-emerged with a new bill number, SB 866, after a supportive vote by the Environment Committee on April 8.
Although kind words about the proposal were noted on both sides of the aisle during debate, the bill passed 13-10 without any Republican votes, in a vote dictated by party lines. The bill now goes to the Finance Committee which must approve all bills concerned with municipal revenues before a floor vote can be considered.
Passage of SB 866 will enable local communities, if they so choose, to impose a conveyance fee of up to 1% on buyers of real estate in that community. The income would be placed in a fund (a Community Conservation Fund" dedicated to local projects for conservation of land, air, water and energy. Such projects, especially brownfield mitigation and storm sewer upgrades, will provide hundreds of green jobs while helping attain healthy and sustainable local economies.
Local income for conservation can also leverage grants that multiply the investment in the community, so that the buyers that pay into the fund acquire real estate that grows in value as the community becomes more healthy and sustainable..
Note there is no mandate on municipalities in this bill, and there is no effect on the state budget. SB 866 simply makes available a tool for conservation funding that communities may wish to use in lieu of raising property taxes to pay for these urgently needed projects. Also note that the first $150,000 of value of real estate purchases is exempt from the tax, to diminish the effect, if any, on buyers of low-cost housing.
Opponents of the bill have provided no alternative for paying for local conservation other than raising property taxes or increasing state grants, at a time when neither of these options are viable for most communities.
Without SB 866, most conservation efforts will continue to be delayed or cancelled at a time when the public has shown overwhelming support for clean air and water, and for land and energy conservation. Supporters of SB 866 are asking their legislators to become co-sponsors of the Community Conservation Fund proposal, and are asking the Finance Committee leadership to raise the issue for a vote that can significantly improve the future health and and sustainability of municipalities throughout the state, while boosting green jobs in a down economy.
I can't imagine why the state legislators would not support SB 866 which does not require any state funding but simply enables municipalities to take advantage of this tool for conservation funding. The demands on property taxes are already overwhelming and increasing these taxes is counter productive to encouraging a healthy community where people can afford to live. SB 866 is reasonably written to avoid negative effects on low-income buyers. All in all a good bill.
ReplyDelete