Open space for improvement

IN THE SEVEN years since the Legislature passed it, the Community Preservation Act has worked largely as advertised. The law has helped dozens of communities pursue three vital goals: saving open space, preserving historic assets, and promoting housing that is affordable to people of modest means.

Still, a new study prepared by Robin Sherman and David Luberoff for the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston does reveal some unexpected -- and undesirable -- quirks.

Cities and towns that adopt the act must impose a property tax surcharge of up to 3 percent and set up a committee to vet projects that further the act's goals. In return, they receive matching money from a state trust fund financed with a $20 fee on all real estate deed transfers. Yet many such transactions occur in urban centers that have not adopted the act. Hence the study's eye-popping finding that tens of millions of dollars generated in cities have been spent in richer, leafier towns. Boston, whose voters rejected a surcharge in 2001, has generated $11.4 million in fees but received nothing in return.

Backers of the act bristle at any implication of reverse Robin Hoodism. Doug Pizzi, a spokesman for the Community Preservation Coalition, says inequalities in funding will shrink as more communities sign on.

Still, a tax surcharge may always be a tough sell in some cities and towns. For that reason, the report calls for letting them adopt the act without imposing such a tax. A better idea, though, might be to let municipalities use other funds -- such as lodging taxes or appropriations from general revenue -- in combination with a lower surcharge rate.

The study makes other persuasive points. Communities must spend 10 percent of their preservation act money on open space, 10 percent on historic preservation, and 10 percent on affordable housing, but have great flexibility in allocating the rest. Yet record-keeping has been sporadic. Proposals to use preservation act money for artificial turf on high-school playing fields underscore the need to track projects better.

The data that are available suggest another problem: Most communities use the bulk of their preservation act money on open space and skimp on affordable housing. Plus, most of the money spent on housing has been used to buy up existing units, not to add new ones.

Open-space advocates tend to be wary of new construction and favor the conversion of existing units into price-controlled ones. But while this puts the units within the reach of qualified buyers or renters, reducing the supply of market-rate homes could, over time, push those prices higher. The report calls for requiring some percentage of preservation act money to be spent on production of new affordable units. That makes sense in theory, but would likely meet with stiff resistance. More realistic, perhaps, is the suggestion that communities with scant affordable housing be required to spend a higher percentage of the money on the problem.

Supporters of the law should be open to changes that would make it work better. State Senator Cynthia Creem has filed legislation that would make some amendments to the act -- some helpful, some less so. But if her bill were amended to deal with some of the problems identified in the study, a stronger Community Preservation Act could emerge.