This article originally appeared in the Dorchester Reporter
By Senator Nick Collins
For several weeks, my office has heard from residents across Boston seeking relief from the Mayor’s proposed property tax increases. Much of this outreach has followed the Mayor’s aggressive public relations campaign, in which she has blamed the Senate for her decision to raise taxes.
As a Boston Globe editorial put it, the strategy and timing are “bewildering.”
The Mayor’s finger-pointing began only after the Legislature adjourned, just days before she announced her intent to raise property taxes on Bostonians.
Instead of building consensus, the Mayor used her platform to distract the public from this simple fact:
Higher tax bills would be going out because the Mayor made a deliberate choice to raise property taxes to the maximum allowed under Proposition 2½.
Casting this as a failure of the Legislature may be convenient, but it does not hold up. The Legislature does not set Boston’s property tax rates; that authority rests with the City alone.
The Mayor has also been clear that she intended to raise residential property taxes regardless of whether her proposal passed. That’s not tax relief.
The families, homeowners, and small businesses I hear from are facing real economic pressure. They want partnership to take precedence over politics.
The Mayor’s approach assumes Boston must raise taxes to the maximum allowable level and then redistribute the burden. The result is a zero-sum framework in which some lose so others lose less.
A better approach ensures the City fully examines its valuation practices, spending growth, and the substantial resources taxpayers have already provided over decades.
In just four years, Boston’s budget has grown by 26 percent, while annual debt service payments have increased more than $100 million in the same time period to pay for the City’s increased borrowing costs.
Thanks to Boston taxpayers, the City is currently sitting on more than $552 million in reserves.
Last year, the City spent $110 million from those reserves on affordable housing projects for future residents. Current homeowners and taxpayers deserve the same kind of investment and support. The City could and should use these funds to alleviate tax increases.
Under Boston’s property tax system, lower- and middle-priced homes are often assessed at a higher share of market value than the most expensive properties. In neighborhoods like Dorchester, residential valuations rose at three times the rate of comparable properties in Beacon Hill.
This “vertical inequity” means middle-income homeowners pay a larger share of their home’s value in taxes than those who own the City’s most valuable properties.
The City’s own data makes this clear.
In 2025, Boston’s highest home sale was a $21 million townhome in the Back Bay. The City valued it at nearly half that price, $12 million. This undervaluation resulted in property taxes equal to less than one percent of the property’s value.
Temporarily shifting the tax burden compounds the problem. A Department of Revenue (DOR) study warns municipalities against this approach because residents end up shouldering a disproportionate share of the burden.
Yet here we are again. The City is pushing a zero-sum plan in which someone always pays more.
The Senate has offered legislation delivering a better path, giving Boston and other municipalities the authority to provide direct homeowner relief, including rebates exceeding expected increases, without shifting the burden, harming small businesses, or pitting residents against one another.
Stripped of the rhetoric, the Mayor’s proposal and the approach taken by Senate legislation have more in common than often acknowledged. Both support relief for seniors and homeowners, but differ in method.
The Senate bills favor leveraging surplus funds and correcting inequities in home valuations. A temporary fix dependent on higher taxes elsewhere is neither responsible nor fair.
For nearly five decades, Proposition 2 ½ has safeguarded taxpayers by requiring municipalities to raise revenue in a responsible and transparent way. Any attempts to raise revenue above a certain rate or amend taxing authority must be approved by a vote of the residents.
The Mayor wants to sidestep these protections entirely, putting Boston in a class of its own with unchecked taxing authority and without full regard for the consequences.
The real choice is not action versus inaction. It is between a zero-sum approach that shifts more burden onto the middle class and a responsible, win-win approach that delivers real relief.
As the Senate advances tax relief proposals, I hope that 2026 brings collaboration, common sense, and solutions that work for everyone.