To get away from the school "frenzy" try public money for private use.

from today's Gardner News: 

Large potholes and cracks in the pavement is a regular problem along Laurel View Road. There are a many places where the pavement heaves upward and vegetation is growing through breaks. News staff photo by Christine Smith

So in the interest of public knowledge and what is possible, I did a little reading on the tv, ah the internet, the big screen, the land of what google lets you see.

by Mary Mitchell, esquire (retired) Municipal Finance Law Bureau from 2006

So I am sure some things have changed - or not - but it is worth a check because these people who live on these roads do pay property taxes!

Authority to Spend

The authority for cities and towns to spend money arises under Section 5 of MGL c. 40. That section provides that:

“[a] town may at any town meeting appropriate money for the exercise of any of its corporate powers; provided, however, that a town shall not appropriate or expend money for any purpose, on any terms, or under any conditions inconsistent with any applicable provision of any general or special law.(2)”

Cities and towns are free to exercise any power or function, except those denied to them by their own charters or reserved to the State, that the Legislature has the power to confer on them, as long as the exercise of these powers is not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws enacted by the Legislature.(3) In general, the properties and purposes for which cities and towns are authorized to spend are not specified, but rather they include any necessary expenditures arising from the exercise of their powers or functions.

Public Purpose Limitation

Cities and towns can spend only for public purposes. Public funds cannot be used for private purposes. Thus, cities and towns have the right to spend money for any purpose where the public good will be served but not where the expenditure of money is directly for the private benefit of certain individuals. This principle is expressed in the Massachusetts constitution and in numerous cases.(4)

In some situations, however, the expenditure of public funds advances both public and private interests.  In those situations, if the dominant motive for the expenditure is a public one, incidental private benefits will not invalidate the expenditure.(5) If, however, the dominant motive is to promote a private purpose, the expenditure will be invalid even if incidentally some public purpose also is served.(6)

Notations:

5.) See e.g., Opinion of the Justices, 313 Mass. 779 (1943) (“The fact that the owner of a way may profit by expenditures ‘for the removal of snow and ice’…does not invalidate expenditures…where the primary purpose of such removal is the benefit of the public to whose use the way is open.”).

6.) See e.g., Salisbury Land & Improvement, Co. v. Commonwealth, 215 Mass. 371 (1913) (act was unconstitutional where it authorized the condemnation of lands for a public beach and the sale or leasing to private parties of any portion not needed for the public beach)

So that should give anyone a start who is interested in that subject, or if you live on one of those roads.

posted by Jeff Bennett