Editor:

At a recent Harwich Select Board meeting, board member Mark Kelleher tried to slow the board down and consider reigning in some outlays, at least for a bit. There was no conversation among the other board members. This was unfortunate. It was an opportunity to discuss future spending wants across the capital plan, an opportunity to prepare us all. Except for Mark, that did not happen. One is left with perception of “boats and books,” or in the alternative, as the school budget is still in play, “boats before books.” Either way, not so good from my vantage point as we are still going to have to listen to levy limit concerns, still absorb sewer costs, and still must find a way to get our fair share out of Chatham when it comes to the school funding formula (all undetermined). The department heads are not going to offer haircuts. Who will? 

It is obvious, looking at the trend lines, that real inflation is 5 percent. And a “green” excuse for purchases such as new trucks and boats will only go so far. There are so many other line items.

Matt Sutphin
Harwich

Editor:

As a summer resident of Chatham aware of the proposed resident tax exemption, and as a lawyer, I am shocked that a number of the members of the select board, all necessarily residents, can in good conscience have proposed the exemption and continue to be in favor of it in view of a specific obligation they have assumed as members under the Chatham Home Rule Charter not to benefit themselves or others in their position as residents in a way that disadvantages non-residents.

Specifically, apart from other good reasons to reject the proposed resident tax exemption (for example, the very objective financial considerations and the divisiveness created by the proposed exemption brought to the attention of readers of The Chronicle by Chris Wray in the Jan. 22 issue, even part from the irony that the taxation without representation being proposed is precisely what Massachusetts residents, more than residents of most states, formerly all colonies of the English Crown, most vociferously opposed 250 years ago), the Home Rule Charter, in Section 1-8, imposes an obligation on its members which is being violated by those members favoring the exemption. Specifically, the last sentence of Section 1-8 states that “Elected and appointed officers, officials and employees of the town of Chatham shall not use their official positions to secure or to grant special consideration, treatment, advantage, privilege or exemption to themselves or to any other person beyond that which is available to every person.”

That last sentence imposes an obligation, not merely an expectation, even if the prior two sentences of Section 1-8 only involve an expectation of the conduct of members of the select board, in stating that “Elected and appointed officers, officials and employees of the town of Chatham are expected to demonstrate, in their general conduct and in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, the highest ethical standards. Elected and appointed officers, officials and employees of the town of Chatham are expected to recognize that they hold their offices or positions for the benefit of the public and that while acting in their official capacities they are expected to faithfully discharge the duties of their offices in the public interest, regardless of personal considerations.”

Also, as the members of the select board continue to consider the proposed resident tax exemption, they should seriously consider whether their support of it is reconcilable with the last sentence of Section 1-8. Based on the mandatory language of that sentence, support for the proposed exemption would seem to be precluded by the obligation it imposes.

Robert E. Goodman, Jr.
Dallas and Chatham

Editor:

South Chatham Public Library hosted its second (almost annual) community supper on Jan. 31. Despite the dark and icy night, the village hall filled with friends and neighbors who braved the treacherous conditions for an evening of comfort food, companionship and trivia fun. It was such a great evening. We hope to make it a tradition.

Of course, we couldn’t have done it without the help and generosity of many in our community of readers and friends. We are thankful for all who donated time and goods to the event: Stop and Shop for a delicious carrot cake; local merchants for the trivia prizes: Sara Campbell, Agway, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Samantha’s Hair Salon, Gustare, and Delmar; Reverend Adam Miller of the South Chatham Community Church for breaking up ice on the stairs and shoveling the ramp so guests could attend safely; Jeni Wheeler and the Family Table Collaborative for catering the perfect chili dinner for a cold night: four really fun people who conducted the trivia contest: Bill and Tilda Bystrom and Peter and Debbie Gaines. There was lots of hilarious conversation at the tables, especially when we were being stumped by the musical and local knowledge questions; the board of directors of the South Chatham Public Library and our community partners Janine and John Scott, for planning, directing parking, serving, and cleaning up at the end of the evening; Jill Madigan, our terrific librarian and saleswoman, and her husband Tom for always saying yes when we ask for help.

Very special thanks go to our friends and neighbors who bought tickets and attended the community supper. You contributed welcome warmth, fun, and camaraderie to an otherwise frigid evening. Let’s do it again!

Pat McClure
South Chatham

Editor:

I just read an interesting article in the Feb. 5 Cape Cod Chronicle about the proposal by the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates to enact a transfer fee on real estate transactions. Let me voice my opinion on this topic: I view this as nothing more than politicians reaching into my pocket and taking my money, plain and simple. Putting a fancy label on it doesn’t change it one bit, a tax is a tax! 

Using the anticipated tax money for more housing needs to be reviewed, as noted in the article, there are several issues that need to be considered on the Cape, such as wastewater management/costs, education costs, traffic, environmental issues, water quality, etc. It appears we’re totally focused on adding housing without seeing the impact on quality of life on Cape Cod. I believe a good number of Cape residents feel this way but perhaps stay quiet because it’s not “politically correct.”

I was born in Boston, yah, I’m a washashore, but I have lived on the Cape a fair number of years and have no interest in having the Cape lose its charm and become like Boston. The assembly of delegates needs to reevaluate its direction! 

Ed Madden
West Harwich

Editor:

A number of Harwich town warrants raise some important questions about development, how town funds are used, and whether town meeting should have a say in certain projects.

Some may worry that requiring town meeting approval for development projects that use town funds could slow things down — especially when it comes to affordable housing or reaching the state’s 10 percent threshold. But it’s worth remembering that large developments, including 40B projects, already take years to move through the approval process. Adding a town meeting vote when public money is involved isn’t an extra hurdle; it’s simply part of the responsibility that comes with using taxpayer dollars. If there is a delay, that is the cost of accessing public funds.

Others may see this as an attempt to block development or affordable housing altogether. That argument assumes that any project labeled “affordable” should automatically be approved. Allowing town meeting to vote does mean that some projects — like Pine Oaks Village IV — might not pass. And it also means they might. That’s how a vote works.

What often gets overlooked is that when developers ask for taxpayer funding, the community’s wishes and concerns deserve consideration. Projects that rely on public money should be acceptable to a majority — 51 percent — of town meeting voters. While the development approval process, from the state level down, already leans heavily toward building, a town meeting vote provides an important counterbalance. Rather than stopping development, it encourages developers seeking public funds to be more thoughtful about neighborhood character, environmental impacts, traffic and density.

Privately funded projects are different. When developers use their own money, they take on the financial risk themselves and, aside from zoning and regulatory requirements, are free to pursue what they believe makes sense.

Paula Myles
North Harwich

Editor:

Mary Richmond, in her column “Snowed In” (Feb. 5), reminds us that although winter is strong, the human spirit is stronger. We will adapt to the season’s physical challenges found in back-to-back snowfalls and icy patches outside our doorsteps.

Everyday is a time to enjoy the natural beauty found in glorious sunsets and snow kissed tree branches. And as we prepare for the return of golden finches and summer’s humming birds, we remain steadfast in our belief that our country will uphold the principles of justice and fairness upon which it was created.

Joseph E. Coffey
West Roxbury

Editor:

I have been reading the various opinions on residential tax exemption in the Cape Cod Chronicle, and I must say it has been as entertaining as a summer weekend on Route 28. As a retired lawyer (42 years, but who’s counting?) I have noticed that many of the letters to the editor tend to mix up the idea of owning property with the often far less exciting reality of the legal structure behind “the ownership.” Allow me to shed a little light before things get any more tangled than a garden hose in August.

In Massachusetts, property can be owned individually (the “it’s all mine” option) or jointly through tenancy in common, joint tenancy with right of survivorship, or tenancy by the entirety (reserved exclusively for the happily — and sometimes less happily — married). Then, for those who enjoy layers of complexity, there are trusts, corporations, partnerships, or LLCs (limited liability companies), choices if you like your real estate served with a side of paperwork and the skills (and fees) of learned counsel. 

Many people choose particular ownership structures for the tax benefits or easier modes of transfer. For instance, revocable living trusts can help you avoid probate (and the accompanying fees and costs that no one enjoys), while life estate deeds and transfer-on-death deeds let you hold on to your property during your lifetime while ensuring it transitions smoothly afterwards. These tools often deliver meaningful tax advantages — almost like the legal system giving you a polite nod of approval.

But in many of the letters I’ve read, there seems to be confusion between what people think they own and what their chosen legal structure actually means. Some readers appear to want the perks of RTE while also enjoying all the benefits of probate avoidance and tax-free transfers — essentially, the real estate equivalent of wanting “all gain, no pain.”

Unfortunately, that’s not quite how property law works. All parts of ownership must fit together sensibly — like matching socks — if you want them to deliver the results you expect.

In short, welcome to the reality of what you truly own, as opposed to what you imagine you own after a particularly optimistic reading of the statute books. As the old saying goes, “What you see is not always what it seems,” a gentle reminder that assumptions don’t always align with applicable law and facts. 

Tom Clarke
West Chatham

Editor:

Mr. Nicastro, the board of health (BOH) did its job. It enforced the town's regulations with no exceptions or favorites. I am proud of what our BOH accomplished for the town: getting through COVID, a new short-term rental regulation and cleaning up Mill Hill Road. I thank my fellow members for their time, effort and dedication. 

Dr. Noble Hansen
Chatham