Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Steve Hart's avatar

I'd rather set aside my very limited GoFundMe bucks to help Tom with the $10,000,000 payout.

Fortunately, Joe Petty doesn't have to explain his choice of committee assignments. Just to think of what that would sound like, breh.

It does appear Petty and Murray decided to tell the Worcester Regional Research Bureau what they can do with their Civilian Review Board pipedream. Suck it, folks. As mentioned in the post, Economou publicly stated the DOJ report was, "just words on paper". That was part of his campaign! Kate Toomey publicly requested Chief Saucier's affirmation that that the DOJ report was, "prepared by students", at a Public Safety Committee meeting I attended last September. How much lower can Moe go than that? Perhaps name Thomas B. Duffy as an alternate on the committee?

Also, how does an at-large candidate, squeaking onto the council at the very bottom, after a recount, get appointed Chairperson of the Economic Development Committee of the 2nd largest city in New England? (Ok, maybe that would be fun for Petty to explain.)

Worcester is governed and controlled from the inside. And that's why folks on the outside are so angry with the state of affairs. Worcester Obfuscates.

Expand full comment
Glenn M Pape's avatar

Regarding item 11.4: the concern you raised here about whether HDIP should be reformed to better target affordability is well taken and worth continued scrutiny. Thank you!

That said, a few clarifying details might be helpful. While HDIP itself is a state income tax credit (not a city subsidy) tied to a roughly $27 million private investment in Worcester, the project materials (agenda attachment) indicate that the development WOULD include five affordable units (out of 48) at 60% of Area Median Income, deed-restricted for at least 30 years. In addition, the project includes four fully accessible units, exceeding baseline code requirements.

At the municipal level, the City’s involvement is limited to a Tax Increment Exemption (TIE): a 10-year agreement capped at 35% of the incremental assessed value, not a full tax abatement. Over time, the project expands the tax base that funds all our municipal services such as streets, parks, and public safety.

None of this resolves the broader policy question you appropriately raised about whether HDIP, as a tool, should do more to directly support affordability. It should! But in this specific case, the project combines limited affordability, accessibility, and long-term tax base growth rather than representing a pure subsidy for “unaffordable housing.”

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?