Editor:

Shame on the town of Harwich for considering a residential development to replace Sundae School Ice Cream. I am pro-development (wanted the new hotel/inn at Wychmere) but think this is awful for the town. It is tearing at the soul of the community. I have asked so many residents and have yet to find one who is supporting the development. It will ruin the fabric of what was becoming a quaint area with great retail services. It’s so very stupid. Wow!

Charles O’Connor
Harwich Port 

Editor:

This type of tax policy is simply un-democratic — stick it to those who can’t vote against it. The select board members are insulated. In the Cape towns mentioned in your article (Provincetown, Truro, Wellfleet, Eastham, Chatham) the majority of the property owners are seasonal second home owners who cannot vote in town matters. In fact, in some Cape towns these owners already pay a personal property tax which the year-round owners don’t pay. This government approach is exactly why the Boston Tea Party was held — taxation without representation.

These seasonal homeowners do not have kids in the town schools. They already pay annual permit fees for services used for only the summer months (such as dump stickers, beach permits, etc). These are the same folks that the restaurants, retail shops, contractors, museums, theaters, etc. depend upon.

On the other hand, the same year-round owners seeking the tax discount want full price when they decide to sell their homes. So, where is the basis for this whole problem? Are the year-rounders asking for too much financial support from the towns? No! Are the towns spending more on second home owners versus year-round owners? No! Is there a flaw in the governing system by which people get elected because they propose spending on new programs rather than seeking cuts in existing programs and staffing? Yes! 

These select board officials seem to spend very little time, if any, looking to reduce costs or raise new non-tax revenue. Costs could be cut by selling unused town/school properties, expanding revenue by zoning for new office buildings rather than more contractor bays, or searching for development targeting new corporate employers. Poor fiscal management examples that come to mind include not selling surplus school buildings in Chatham and Harwich, the rejection of zoning for a new Lowes in South Dennis and the taxpayers assuming the Cape Cod Sea Camp acreage in Brewster. 

The deck is stacked against the seasonal property owners, and the select board members could care less. Is there just one state politician willing to vote to terminate the underlying “Affordable Homes Act” legislation that allows this inequity to exist? 

John F. Schoenfelder
Harwich

Editor:

Reading the article on Chatham property tax exemptions, it’s clear that our select board has spent a lot of time thinking about the affordability of living in Chatham. Their proposed solution working with property taxes is seriously flawed, however.

What is proposed is a 26 percent increase in property tax for half the properties in Chatham. Yes, you read that right, 26 percent is the latest estimate from the assessors office. The money raised will be used to reduce property taxes for the other half who can claim the exemption, that is, year-round residents with a property value below $3.75 million. Amongst the claimants will undoubtedly be some deserving of support, but for others, whilst I’m sure it will be very welcome, it won’t be in the same category of need.

The effects on the rental market are even more perverse. As second homes, rentals would attract the 26 percent increase for the landlord, and I’m pretty sure some of that will be passed on to the tenants. Some of those tenants are likely to be exactly the sort of people the select board would like to help stay in Chatham.

Aside from the scattergun inequities inherent in this scheme, property prices around the artificial and arbitrary valuation cutoff for the exemption will be distorted, and the assessor's office will be besieged with appeals.

Absolutely we should continue to work on the affordability of living in Chatham, but we should look for something that is targeted more broadly at income and need and not restricted to property owners. By focusing on property tax and simply redistributing the load between different classes of property owners, the select board are inviting a very bitter and divisive fight that will add precisely nothing to the finances of the town they represent.

Chris Wray
Chatham

Editor:

I’m disappointed that my friend and former select board colleague Seth Taylor chose to acknowledge my having supported his petition Article 59 at the 2022 annual town meeting by perhaps trying to "throw some shade" at my consistent position in voting against the proposed residential tax exemption (RTE) 12 times now; see Sept. 4 Cape Cod Chronicle, page 31. 

Yes, I did support Article 59, and was happy to do so, because it called for a special act of the legislature to modify the general RTE enabling statute so as to address housing needs and allow even certain non-resident property owners to claim the exemption. 

Specifically, per Mr. Taylor’s own explanation as printed in the official minutes: “Passage of the special act would lead to an increase in affordability for residents through normal application of the property tax exemption, and it should bring a corresponding increase in the availability of year-round residential property through the incentivization of rental property owners to move away from short-term rentals, thereby increasing the long-term housing options in town. This outcome is achieved by virtue of the fact that the special act would open the residential exemption to class one property owners who are non-residents, or residents who own more than one class one property in town (emphasis added).” 

A creative idea, one worthy of sending up to Boston for its evenhandedness and help with addressing Chatham’s housing challenges. I thought so then, and I think so now. However, it doesn’t change my long-held view that the RTE as enabled under current law is wrong for Chatham. A legislative approach that targets the RTE for residents with demonstrated financial need would better suit our community. 

Dean P. Nicastro
Chatham
The writer is chair of the Chatham Select Board.

Editor:

In the last week, both Provincetown and Chatham have shown how incredulous the thinking behind the residential tax exemption (RTE) has become. They respectively indicated a desire to raise the percentage to 50 percent and provide the RTE to homeowners of up to $3.75 million homes (“Year-rounds To Get Property Tax Break, Aug. 28)! 

This week, the Eastham Select Board will have an opportunity to demonstrate leadership where other Cape towns have failed. A no vote to implement the RTE will prove that they are willing to take the time to step back and understand the true challenges behind home ownership.

The root of the issue is to provide good-paying jobs for members of our community that will support both the standard of living people deserve and enable all residents to pay the taxes necessary to hire and retain town employees with the salaries required to live in our community. Our town leaders should actively engage with the business community to attract such higher-paying jobs to the Cape.

Developing lasting solutions and implementing programs that truly help those in need in a meaningful way is necessary, whether this is a means-tested RTE, job creation, or another solution. The Eastham Select Board can find the right solution but only if they take the time to listen and understand the problem first. The RTE, as shown in other towns, is not the answer to this problem and will only further divide our community as demonstrated by the reaction shown since the select board’s preliminary vote last January.

Tom McNamara
Eastham and Weymouth
The writer is president of the Eastham Part-Time Resident Taxpayers Association.

Editor:

Some 40 years ago, being sent to the VoTech was not something to be proud of as only students considered to have no chance of going to college were sent in hopes that they could succeed at a career. I wonder about the success rate!

Now, going to the VoTech is considered an honor and is coveted.

It took a lot of hard work by the administration and teachers to achieve and maintain this status. Students work very hard to even be considered for the lottery. This new ruling on those who qualify is a slap in the face to the kids who really care about a career! Some have IEP plans to help with their learning disabilities, they are not disqualified from applying.

If a student truly desires to go to the Tech, apply! Don’t use it as a dumping ground for students who won’t take it seriously!

Linda Dunne
Chatham

Editor: 

In Harwich, we are talking about huge construction projects to be built in the near future. To me it seems as though infrastructure is the last thing anyone thinks about before all this great planned development is conceived. I'm talking about the soon-to-be-gone ice cream shop in the Port with its many apartments clogging Route 28 and the massive low income project on Queen Anne Road in North Harwich, which couldn't be any worse on a road already clogged with construction vehicles and certainly never planned to accommodate such a vast complex.

There must be more creative ways to provide housing for locals, perhaps tax relief for one, which might encourage homeowners to develop space that would accommodate families. Do we want to become Hyannis or Yarmouth? Who knows if most of those residents are even from Cape Cod? And if any construction project is being paid for by state or federal money, we have no control over who gets to live with us. 

So, if we build, how likely are we to get locals into this housing? Contractors are eager to build and just as eager to move on. Alas, to them it's only the bottom line that counts! We, on the other hand, have a stake in the claim that we live here, and we want what's best for those who do live here and love the town.

Marilyn Kacergis
Harwich Port

Editor:

I wanted to share my disappointment about the vote the Chatham Select Board took Sept. 2 regarding “ending their summer vacation schedule" in the middle of October. Mr. Smith asked them to come back before then and they all refused. Their response was “if anything is important” we can schedule a meeting. The chair said, “I am of the view that almost nothing is so urgent that it can’t wait. That’s how government works and always will.” Not in the private sector it doesn’t. This is unacceptable with the serious issues and spending ahead for the people they are supposed to represent. 

What about the disaster Pennrose has turned into? This isn’t going away as much as they want it to. Too many people are against the density of the projects in West and South Chatham. Pennrose apparently wasn't even aware as recently as last week that Route 137 is a state road.

Yet we have a town attorney sticking up for this project. Mr. Smith asked the board to send out RFP’s for different town counsel representation and they refused to take a motion on it. Taxpayers are paying a $12,000 per month retainer fee and the board is supposed to review the bills. This has not happened. 

The water rate increases are still a mess. Where are the fines that are supposed to be issued? To double our rates because folks with irrigation, using treated town water, have refused to comply with town regulations is outrageous.

One wonders why folks are so frustrated and angry. The select board was elected by us to do a job. Orleans, Harwich and Brewster do not have a "summer schedule." To have a summer meeting schedule until the middle of October isn't acceptable. There are multiple important issues that need to be discussed. Two select board members thought it was OK to attend a fundraiser for Maura Healey instead of doing their duty to the town that elected them. This was on a night when a select board meeting was held. This is not acceptable. If any of the board cannot do the job they were elected to do, please do us a favor and resign. 

Judy Patterson
West Chatham

Editor:

I heard someone remark that all those tourists have left and we can now make left turns and life can return to normal. What exactly is normal? Is anyone concerned about the things they are hearing each night on the TV news? Is COVID returning and are vaccines in short supply? Do we need to be concerned about the policies of our current health care system? Are children in jeopardy of measles outbreaks? Will the National Guard be arriving in Boston to begin picking up litter, costing millions to the American taxpayer? Are we witnessing higher grocery prices rather than the promised lower prices? What is happening with our voting rights and the shocking statement that perhaps women should not vote? Do we have reason to be concerned about our economy and who is really benefiting by all these tariffs? Is anyone watching over the dismantling of the judicial system and protection of constitutional rights as people are being deported to places unknown? How are we doing on protecting the planet as fires and environmental catastrophes create such devastation? Should we be concerned about threats of war being waged against the city of Chicago? Is it true there could be a government shutdown by Oct. 1? Do we need to be concerned about protecting and defending our Constitution and our Democracy? Maybe making left turns and increased traffic is the least of our worries!

If you are among those who wish to make your voices known over these concerns, you are invited to gather on the front lawn of the Chatham Unitarian Universalist Meeting House lawn on Sept. 27, from 4 to 5:30 p.m. and Oct. 18 from 3 to 4:30 p.m. Mark your calendars and invite your concerned friends to join you, bring posters and musical instruments and a spirit of making the powers that be aware that we do have reasons to be concerned. These gatherings are peaceful, non-violent demonstrations of concerned citizens.

Our goal is to create awareness and make a positive difference.

Gail Tilton
Evan Howard
Mary Byrne 
Chatham

Editor:

Thank you for the Sept. 4 article on page 1, “State Mandates New Admissions Criteria For Tech Schools.” My analysis of Superintendent Sanborn is that at best, he stereotypes two population classes. His assumption that selective criteria for admissions were intelligent implies that the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education May 2025 decision is the opposite. I appreciate your reporter, Alan Pollock, balancing his reporting by quoting New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell. I support the board’s decision in light of the goal to provide equal education to all students. 

Chris Harris 
Harwich

Editor:

While I suspect that the new property tax exemption can survive an equal protection lawsuit, fighting it to the Supreme Court, if we have to, is going to be expensive.

But I suspect that the new property tax break won’t work out as its proponents hope, anyway. (Nothing is ever as simple as it looks!)

For starters, we have overlooked a substantial group of players” people I call the weekenders. These are likely two-income couples from Boston or Providence who have bought a small summer cottage here and bring the children down every weekend for 20 years. They develop a fondness for the place and hope to retire here. (But that will require upgrading the cottage, which lacks the insulation and the storage space a year-round residence would require.) At this stage in their lives, they are younger and decidedly middle-class. And getting slapped with an extra $1,000 a year in taxes is discouraging. (For reference, roughly half of our current year-round residents are retirees.)

Meanwhile, the roughly $2,000 a year subsidy to year-rounders should encourage that. That subsidy may merely enable buyers to take on a 2 percent or 3 percent bigger mortgage. (Sort of the way easier education loans allowed colleges to raise tuition.) At least higher property valuations will be good for current property owners, but tougher on people who had hoped to buy.

P.S.: Kudos to The Chronicle and to Tim Wood for an excellent job of reporting this.

Fred Anderson
Chatham and Pittsburgh