Dear beloved constituents,
I’m gravely concerned about national and international upheaval and strife, finding it hard to pull away.
Yet, for the last seven years, work has rooted me firmly in western and north central Massachusetts where we’ve been building positive momentum.
Even as we face the federal storm together, I’m called to share a hopeful state update as I ask for your deepened engagement.
When I was first elected, people would say all the time, “Jo, nothing’s going to change. Boston just doesn’t care about us.”
I didn’t buy either of those statements.
First: Nobody has ever accomplished something that they didn’t first believe was possible. The status quo is broken, so we must believe that change is possible. Then we can set about the work to make our reality match our vision.
Second, it’s not true that Boston doesn’t care about us. They’re just mostly focused on life inside of I-495 and on the giant economic engine that is the Boston-metro area. It’s our collective job to yank their attention west — and demand that they focus on the challenges and opportunities in our region. Equitably.
And as we organize with great partners, the status quo is shifting. Not as fast as we’d like or as dramatically, but we’re naming what’s wrong and turning the tables.
The beginning
Every letter has to start somewhere. I’ll begin this one with the fact that western and north central Massachusetts are losing population. The next census is projected to be all around worse.
Population loss hurts our regional economies and erodes democratic representation as legislative districts become larger and larger.
It also threatens to undermine the viability and existence of communities. A 2024 study projected that five communities in Franklin County could become “ghost towns” by 2100 as a result of population decline.
Remember, projections aren’t immutable. They can change, if policy and budget priorities change. That’s why my team and I have lasered in on what it takes to propel smart population growth — like a focus on growing jobs and developing housing. Investment in roads, culverts, and bridges. In water and sewer. In public transit. In education. In affordable childcare. These and more are the building blocks of population growth.
I wrote about some of what’s needed for “ghost town busting” in a 2024 MassLive op-ed I published with Representatives Susannah Whipps and Natalie Blais. You can read it here.
Necessary investment
You might wonder what’s blocking private investors from flocking to our region to create businesses, build housing, and launch water/sewer companies.
Mostly the math doesn’t work. The lingo is that projects in rural regions simply just “don’t pencil out.” We don’t yet have the scale or infrastructure, so capital projects cost more but yield lower returns on investment.
This means that, often, the initial investment must be public — and public investments necessitate local property taxes or state or federal direct spending and grants.
Rural and suburban municipalities do not enjoy significant commercial property tax revenue. Due to the lack of commercial development, and stringent development restrictions in areas like the Quabbin region, our region’s cities and towns rely disproportionately on residential property tax revenues. (And we generally pay higher property taxes as a result.)
Rural municipalities and smaller communities need state or federal funds to catalyze initial investments, but the help has been too little too late.
Vicious cycle of population decline and fiscal hardship
Organizers often say that we can’t change what we can’t name.
Here’s my attempt at naming four main contributors to what I call our vicious cycles of population decline and fiscal hardship.
They are: Inequitable state formulas, competitive disadvantage for grants, less access to services and opportunities, and lack of representation.
Lack of representation
Let’s start with representation and move clockwise around the pot.
We have demanded changes (and have seen some small wins) regarding a lack of representation on statewide boards and commissions.
Without our voices and perspectives on statewide bodies, they’ll continue to act without our needs, challenges, or opportunities in mind. And we already know how well that’s going.
You might be surprised to learn that major bodies like the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), the Judicial Nominating Committee, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) — really all of them — have been operating with none or close to no representation from Hampshire, Franklin, Berkshire, and northern Worcester Counties. These statewide bodies also often hold their meetings in eastern Massachusetts, frequently with no remote access or no remote public testimony available.
Tackling this problem is like wrangling one hundreds feral cats, but we’ve identified it with a willing Administration and we’re making some progress, like a new appointment on BESE of a former rural school superintendent from our region, and a constituent from Pelham now sitting on the MWRA Advisory Board (and I have bills which would further increase representation).
Similarly, we must ensure that state-related vacancies are filled quickly with a pipeline full of good folks. Last spring, the regional delegation sent a letter sounding the alarm about the significant Superior Court vacancies in our region. After working closely with the Administration, I’m happy to report that the gap in Superior Court appointments is now closed. Representation deficits remain on other bodies — so we’ll keep pressing.
Access
Lack of access to services in rural areas is well documented. Our region needs stronger support systems and better opportunities to attract new residents.
There’s some good news when it comes to Regional Transit Authorities. Because of Fair Share funding (revenue from the so-called millionaires tax), we have won the fight to fund RTAs consistently and at higher levels. We’ve also won free fares, more funding for cross-county connections, expanded fixed route service, and funding for micro-transit services.
But real regional deficits remain when it comes to accessing primary and specialty care, accessing social service benefits like heating assistance and housing support, getting employment support and job training, and more. One-size-fits-all budget and policy doesn’t fit our region, so we’re taking on these issues one by one.
Inequitable formulas
Too often, funding formulas have been conceived by a room full of people who live inside I-495.
In October, the Mass Municipal Association published a report titled Perfect Storm which showed some of the results of these inequitable funding formulas.
The report shows rural municipalities (yellow line, below) are trailing their peers and the statewide median with regard to receiving Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA). UGGA is core general aid for cities and towns:
Meanwhile, unlike gateway municipalities which have seen education aid increases to balance out UGGA declines, rural municipalities have also seen their education aid decline while suburban aid has flatlined:
Taken together, when adjusted for inflation, rural and suburban municipalities experienced around a negative 1% annual growth rate in state aid from 2010 to 2024:
Another factor causing state aid to rural municipalities to decline is our inequitable State Owned Land PILOT formula.
Under the current formula, unless land in western and north central Massachusetts increases in value at a faster rate than the state average (not happening), SOL PILOT payments to western and north central Massachusetts municipalities decline despite the Legislature increasing the appropriation for SOL PILOT reimbursements significantly.
I am the Senate appointee to the Commission on PILOT for State-Owned Land created by Executive Order 645, which is based on legislation I filed.
And I’m heading into this work with a burning agenda: Fix a broken PILOT formula and find ways to value the ecosystem services our land provides, like carbon sequestration, food provision, water purification, fostering biodiversity and outdoor recreation, and more.
Advancement through legislation
In addition to the PILOT legislation noted above, I file legislation to correct funding formulas on rural schools, charter schools, special education, veterans benefits, and I take every human opportunity to advocate for Chapter 70 reform.
While I am grateful that the Senate led successful legislation to require a study of the K-12 local contribution formula (and glad to have been part of that advocacy), comprehensive Chapter 70 reform remains at the very top of my list.
With community leaders from Quabbin towns, I’m also taking on a wildly inequitable relationship with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority which siphons 200 million gallons of pristine water from the Quabbin every day in order to satisfy the thirst of about three million people in metro Boston. It returns a pittance relative to the value of the water and fails to adequately recognize the sacrifice and service of the communities. Read an open letter to eastern Massachusetts from the newly-formed Quabbin Watershed Stewards, here.
Advancement through the budget
Chapter 90 is money the state sends to municipalities for road and bridge repair. Talk about a broken formula. The Chapter 90 formula considers road miles, population, and projected economic activity.
In our region, we sure have the road miles but we don’t have the people or the same levels of economic stimulus, so we’ve been chronically shortchanged. We’ve been turning this around, with about one-third of recent Chapter 90 funding distributed by “road miles only.” This is good, but we have a long way to go to satisfy aching deferred maintenance needs for the roads and bridges in our communities.
Competitive disadvantage
This letter to you is getting long, so I’m going to move to the final harsh reality: We are at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to receiving state grants.
Our town governments are led by intrepid people, but they’re often volunteer or part time. Our towns do not boast fleets of grant writers, engineers, and planners. We do not have the ability to set aside required local funding matches for state and federal grants.
We need technical assistance, right-sized grant application processes, and right-sized local match requirements. We also need grant programs whose goals fit our region, so we have a fighting chance of winning in a competitive process.
There have been some meaningful changes to grant programs that build housing or fund climate resilience, as well as making technical assistance available, with much more work to do. We’re taking these one by one.
Moving forward
So what’s ahead for me and our team regionally in the coming months, besides what I’ve just detailed?
Refocusing statewide experts and advocates: Too often, experts and advocates in Massachusetts’ organizations claim the mantle of being statewide, but really see the world only from inside the I-495 bubble. One by one, I’ve been meeting with these folks and challenging them to earn the right to say that they speak for the entire Commonwealth. These are hard conversations. Often heated. But they are necessary because if these good and smart people only shine a light on challenges and opportunities to the east, they will work against us instead of equitably with us.
Employees needed: The Labor Market Blueprints for our region are unequivocal in their articulation of the urgent labor market shortages in our region, as well as the sectors that are constrained without enough workers to fill their open jobs. Count me in as an advocate in partnership with regional planning agencies, Community Development Corporations, and other terrific leaders in this space. We can and should tie this work to the state’s major investment in public higher education to create a virtuous cycle.
Connecticut River Watershed resilience: In November 2024 we sent a joint letter asking for a fund and focused work along the Connecticut River to address climate change impacts, maximize positive economic growth, and most importantly, protect the public safety of residents. Thanks to this advocacy, a good deal of the proposal was embraced by Governor Healey in the Environmental Bond Bill. It’s my job to bring it home. (With some money.)
Support for our region’s farms: Nationally, farmers earn an average of $1.28 for every dollar spent on production, but in Massachusetts, the average farmer loses five cents for every dollar spent. In a profession where one bad harvest or storm can topple a business, financial pressures and climate change can mean our farmers permanently close their barn doors. I’ve filed an omnibus bill which is gaining steam in the Senate. It must pass. I’ve also filed legislation to create a permanent tax credit for farmers who donate produce to nonprofits — an economic win for farmers and a win for food insecurity.
Food Science Hub: The delegation secured a $30 million authorization in the Mass Leads Act (the Governor’s Economic Development Bond Bill) for food science. UMass Amherst is home to one of the world’s leading food science departments, and would use this funding for a western Massachusetts food industry hub — expanding its work with food industry business and supporting the region’s farm and food business ecosystem. This work must break ground this spring.
Of course, I’ll do none of this alone. My team and I are on this road with legislative and municipal colleagues, experts and advocates, and you.
I’ll stop here with thanks for making it this far.
Remember: We’re battling against hundreds of years of a groaning west/east divide. Shay’s rebellion was the stuff of what we’re unsticking and untangling today.
I know that national work demands a lot of your focus and only hope you can save a bit of time and an ounce of hope to make sure that Boston hears from us. Loudly and clearly. I promise to always give you opportunities to raise your voices.
Sending big love your way,
Jo
P.S. – I know many of you await this announcement with bated breath (not), so I’m excited to announce that the “Vicious cycle of population decline and fiscal hardship” pot metaphor has made its way out of this letter and onto the road!
I am pictured below in the upper lefthand corner, with my hand emphatically in the air, explaining the “Competitive Disadvantage” piece of the pot to the Gill Selectboard and Town residents at their January 12 meeting. I look forward to sharing it farther and wider as I continue to visit Select Boards, municipal leaders, and constituents across the district.
Photo credit: Erin-Leigh Hoffman at the Greenfield Recorder
