Jay's Real Estate Predictions for 2010

There are a lot of sighs of relief now that 2009 is past, particularly coming from the real estate industry.

But will 2010 be any better?

I have just dusted off my crystal ball... and I can now offer my annual 10 predictions for real estate in the coming year:

1. The residential housing market will pick up early this year, but will dip again after mid-year.

2. Short sales will increase and foreclosure inventory will continue to rise.

3. Mortgage rates will rise and settle in around 6%+/-.

4. Appraisal guidelines will tighten and mortgage lenders will require stellar credit from buyers.

5. A lot of prospective move-up buyers will stay put.

6. Commercial real estate will continue to decline.

7. Builders will continue to be cautious and not in any particular hurry to gain project approvals or begin construction.

8. New construction prices will drop significantly.

9. Prices will continue to decline on higher end properties (over $1.5 million).

10. The terms "communication" and "service" will take on new meanings among real estate agents with the need for more direct contact with clients, such as phone and face-to-face contact as opposed to Internet, email and voicemail communication.

There you have it. Perhaps not the rosiest picture imaginable, but no one said that climbing out of a recession would be easy... or quick. Take a look at the graph below and you will see why. I would put us somewhere between the "depression" and "hope" positions of the graph.

The good news?

A lot of real estate transactions will take place in 2010, despite the market. Reasonable sellers, savvy buyers and service-centered real estate agents will win the day.

Carpe Diem! Make it a great year!

Follow me on TWITTER: http://twitter.com/jayburnham

Real Estate in 2010 vs 2009...Good News Ahead

Is This A Test?...A Quiz?...A Question?...A Poll?

This is a test.

Actually, it's more of a quiz.

Scratch that, it's really a question. Or perhaps a poll. It's for any and all real estate agents that may read this blog from time to time. Here's the set up:

It's the day before Christmas and Santa has agreed to give you any technology tool you want for your business. The cost range is $300 to $3,000. The question, therefore, is:

What single piece of real estate technology would you ask for and why?

All answers to this question will be posted on this blog for others to see and learn from.

I'll start it out with my own wish which would be to receive a new Palm PRE Smartphone...but with VERIZON as the carrier. Right now, Sprint is the only choice, but I have it on good authority that Verizon WILL be carrying it in 2010.

Here's why I like the Palm PRE...

1. The WebOS operating system. It's fast and smooth and allows you to keep multiple applications open at the same time.

2. Easy management of multiple email accounts, collectively or separately.

3. Contact management and scheduling are a breeze and information can be pulled together in one place from multiple sources.

4. Software updates come to you over the air...without having to log into your computer.

5. It has a slide-out tactile QWERTY board (as opposed to simply a digital screen version).

There's more that I like, but I don't want to sound too much like a Palm PRE advertisement.

So what's on your wish list?.....

Here's a link to Time Magazine's Top 10 gadgets.

The Night Before a Christmas Closing

This is for all those real estate agents who find themselves in the position of trying to close a transaction before the end of the year....

'Twas an hour before closing and the agents were tense,

To close Christmas Eve just didn't make sense.

But the seller was booked on the 6 o'clock flight

And had warned "THERE WILL BE A CLOSING TONIGHT!"

The agents agreed because business was dead,

And visions of commission checks danced in their heads.

The loan was approved by the lender's good grace,

Everyone knew it was a borderline case.

The buyers divorced, remarried again,

Divorced once more, and now were just friends.

The loan package complete to the attorney was carried,

With instructions to close before they remarried.

The title policy arrived via UPS,

From page One through Sixteen, a terrible MESS!

An improper legal, 3 judgments, a lien,

But a few lines on page seven, looked pretty clean.

The title was cleared and the closing was set,

But to finish today was not a sure bet.

The attorney dashed in waving the HUD,

It was covered with whiteout, coffee and crud.

But down in the corner you barely could see,

That the buyer still owed a buck thirty-three.

So the attorney decided to waive a part of his fee,

And the agents agreed better you than me.

To add to the turmoil, guess what hadn’t arrived?

The certificate of approval of Title V.

And the seller now wanted to change the disclosure,

His mother had just died of RADON EXPOSURE!

But everything else in his house was O.K.

(his cracked floors and walls were always that way)

About that time the buyer chimed in,

"We'd like to continue, but before we begin,

I noticed these papers - I'm likely to blame,

But I gave my agent the wrong legal name.

And one more thing I had hoped to avoid,

Does it really matter if I'm self-employed?"

Just then the closing attorney exploded,

Pulled out a gun and said it was loaded.

Everyone froze and sat there amazed,

He frothed at the mouth and his eyes were both glazed.

More rapid than rain, his curses they came,

He bristled and spouted and called them bad names.

"THE CLOSING IS OFF, DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR??

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL – NOW GET OUT OF HERE!"

Can You Hear Me Out There? (Is This Mic On?)

Have you heard the latest?

The Hamilton Board of Selectmen (BoS) voted on Monday, November 30th, to increase the property tax rate from $15.23 per thousand to $16.25 per thousand (of assessed value).

That's right...INCREASE.

Here's their reasoning for raising your taxes 6.7% during the worst economic recession most of us have ever experienced:

According to the Hamilton Board of Assessors and the BoS, the total value of property in Hamilton has decreased by 4.1 percent this year. Of the total, 95 percent is residential, 4 percent is commercial, and 1 percent is personal. They say that the average single-family home values have decreased by 4.4 percent since fiscal 2009. When property values decline (they say), the tax rate on real estate automatically increases (a 4.4% average in this case for residential property owners and a 4.1% total increase for all property) to keep the tax revenues "neutral". If you subtract out the 4.1%, the net rate increase is 2.6% which is roughly the equivalent of the 2.5% levy growth.

That's their explanation.

Let's analyze that. First of all, it assumes that when you get your next property tax bill, your home will be assessed at 4.4% less than last year.

Anyone care to bet on that?

If it's not, then you should join the hundreds of other homeowners and get in line down at Town Hall to file for an abatement. To apply for an abatement, you must file within 30 days of receipt of your January tax bill.

Secondly, the explanation assumes that the tax levy must rise by 2.5% in order for taxes to be "revenue neutral". That's simply ridiculous. The 2.5% increase is ALLOWABLE, it is not REQUIRED. It's not a statute. It's a permissible entitlement that has come to be expected, but it should not be during these recessionary times. I blogged and conducted a poll about this last September [click here] and 86% of the respondents to the poll indicated that they would be willing to accept cuts in services in order to see a 0% increase in their property taxes for one year.

Lastly, the BoS's explanation that "when property values decline, the tax rate on real estate automatically increases" doesn't seem to account for the fact that when property values were rising, our real estate tax rate also increased. At least then we were seeing equity growth in our homes. Increasing taxes, even as the equity in our homes diminishes, simply adds salt to the wound.

And it goes even further than that. Higher tax rates (and Hamilton's are the highest on the North Shore) are driving buyers away from our town in favor of neighboring communities with much lower rates. Additionally, the high costs are driving residents away (read: Voting With Your Feet)...if only they could sell their homes. Which they can, but at discounted prices as compared to other towns.

And so, even as values decline due to the exceedingly high property taxes in Hamilton, your Selectmen have voted to increase your taxes...causing values to decline even more...and so on.

You have heard the term "enough is enough". Apparently our elected officials have not.

"Hello?...Is the mic on? Can you hear me out there?"

Teacher Shortage...Or Glut?

Jim Kent of Hamilton is a teacher. He works at a private school where he earns less than his counterparts in the public school system. He recently wrote a Letter-to-the-Editor that was published in the Hamilton/Wenham Chronicle [click here to read it].

In it, Jim describes the pay and benefit cuts that he, like so many others, has had to make during the current economic recession. I know Jim, and too many others like him that have been hard hit by the economy. Jim is grateful that he still has a job. More than 317,000 others in Massachusetts are less fortunate.

All across the country people are losing their jobs and are unable to find other work, in nearly all employment categories. The teaching profession is just one that has gone from a shortage to a glut.

Why?

Because the teachers and their advocate unions have steadfastly refused to cut back on salaries or benefits (the way they have at Jim Kent's non-union school) thereby resulting in layoffs in support of the remaining teachers and their incomes and benefits. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Hamilton and Wenham. Last spring, you will recall, the taxpayers said "enough is enough" to 10 years of Proposition 2.5 overrides for the school district and the majority of taxpayers in the two towns disapprove of salary and benefit raises in one sector at the expense of others.

According to the U.S. Bureau of statistics, school systems, state education agencies, technical schools and colleges have shed nearly 125,000 jobs since last fall. At the same time, many teachers that had been planning retirement are staying on due to the recession and many people who have lost jobs in other professions are trying to make teaching a second career or work as substitutes until they can find full time employment elsewhere.

According to the annual report from the American Association for Employment in Education, the nationwide demand for teachers in 60 out of 61 subjects has declined from a year ago (Math is the only exception). In other recent years, more than a dozen subjects had extreme shortages. Neil Shnider, the executive director of the association said, "We don't see a teacher shortage now. The school districts aren't hiring."

Which brings us to the Hamilton/Wenham Regional School District (HWRSD) and current negotiations taking place with the teachers' union. It has been said that if the teachers do not get a contract that maintains or increases salaries and/or benefits they will leave and go find positions in other school districts.

That's highly unlikely, given that the other districts are not hiring for the very reasons mentioned above. It's a hollow threat.

In case the teachers and their union representatives missed the news, here are a just a few recent headlines from the Boston Globe:

"Outlook is grim deep into 2010"

"Stimulus job boost in state exaggerated, review finds"

"Amid budget pain, some states furlough teachers"

"Jobless rate at highest level since '83"

"State jobless pay to end for many"

"Mass unemployment rate climbed to 9.1 percent in August"

"Patrick warns of 2,000 job cuts...asks unions for concessions"

"Unemployment at 33-year high; insurance fund running out"

"A state of economic anxiety"

"2 sheriff's unions OK furloughs"

"As jobs remain elusive, foreclosures rise again (30% in October)"

Let's hope that the HWRSD School Committee can work out a new contract with the union that will be fair in light of the issues that Jim Kent has raised. No one wants to see more teachers laid off... and "budgeting by override" is no longer an option.

To read how other public employees are sacrificing for the good of all, read this inspiring article about our state representatives in the Salem News, posted 11/24/09.

You Probably Think This Blog Is About You

Most people remember Carly Simon's hit song "You're So Vain" and to this day she has not revealed who she wrote the song about. Many have asked and many have speculated, but no one knows for sure...except Carly, of course... and perhaps the person about whom she wrote it.

Below are some new lyrics to the same tune.

Who were they written about?

I'll tell....as soon as Carly does!


**********************************


You walked into the meeting
Like the queen of the debutantes

You had your speech so carefully prepared

And typed with the proper fonts

You had one eye on the camera

And one eye on the crowd

And then you dreamed

That you'd be convincing

But you're not convincing, and...

You're so vain

You probably think this blog is about you

You're so vain

I'll bet you think this blog is about you

Don't you? Don't you?

Well you fooled us several years ago

When we were still quite naive

And you said that we needed more overrides

Or else we should simply leave

And you took away the dough we need

And called it just a "cup of joe"

We had some dreams

They were clouds in our coffee

"Just another cup of coffee", and...

You're so vain
You probably think this blog is about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this blog is about you
Don't you? Don't you?

Well we hear you're going to negotiate now

Against a union with enormous clout

And you say that it's all under control

And in you we should have no doubt

But you don't inspire our confidence

With the things that you say and you do

To earn some respect

You need to change your demeanor

Change your demeanor, and...

You're so vain
You probably think this blog is about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this blog is about you
Don't you? Don't you?

Questionable Arrogance

Unlike Barbara Anderson’s well-known Citizens For Limited Taxation (CLT), that has been in existence for 30 years, the Hamilton/Wenham fiscal watchdog group Enough Is Enough (EiE) has been around for just under two years. But during that short period of time the group has been enormously successful in achieving its agenda of fiscal responsibility in the two towns. Membership has swelled to 400+ and supporters come from diverse backgrounds, age and income levels and family size.

Just before the two most recent town meetings in Hamilton the organization published and distributed what is known as the EiE Yellow Sheet, a voting guide with the group's recommendations for voting on key issues on the town warrants. Eleven recommendations on the two published Yellow Sheets resulted in ten wins for the group, an astonishing accomplishment for such a young organization.*

The reason?

Well surely there are many, but perhaps the group’s name serves as the best explanation: Enough Is Enough. Taxpayers in Hamilton and Wenham finally reached the tipping point after the 10 years of “budgeting by override” that has earned the towns a place in the Taxpayers’ Book of World Records. Those overrides cost the taxpayers over $39 million and counting since override costs are not one time events. They are added to the tax levy and you pay the override amount again every single year - year after year after year – forever...or for as long as you live in town.

In the past, the School Committee had displayed no small measure of arrogance regarding their requests for overrides (Remember their "only a cup of coffee" justification?). In a sense, they can almost be forgiven their arrogance and sense of entitlement. After all, if a bully takes advantage of another person, and year after year the weaker person allows that to happen, can you really blame the bully for his arrogance? Or sense of entitlement? On the other hand, if the weaker person finally and firmly says ENOUGH is ENOUGH and makes it perfectly clear that they will no longer be bullied, you’d expect the arrogance to dissolve, wouldn’t you?

Well, apparently not if you are the School Committee for the HWRSD. This group of elected individuals seems to believe that they are autonomous and unencumbered by the will of the people they represent. Here’s what their chairman has said about EiE and its members and supporters:

“We’re going to be contending with this group of people in the future and this is their tactic…They don’t care what the truth is.”

Actually, EiE does care what the truth is. The truth is that the residents of Hamilton and Wenham were promised more openness and transparency and that promise has not been kept. The truth is, EiE’s efforts to determine exactly what budgeted maintenance funding was spent on over the past three years have been stonewalled by a clever game of semantics and deliberate refusals of repeated requests for the information. The truth is that by publicly making statements like the above, the School Committee is declaring that their arrogance remains intact.

Recently, when EiE offered the School Committee suggestions and recommendations regarding the current negotiations with the teacher’s union over the contract that expires next year, the chairman had this to say:

“We will not be directed or distracted by a community group that seeks to undermine the process. We know what we are doing in this area.”

Well, we certainly hope they do since they are going up against one of the strongest unions in the state with what appears to be, by comparison, extremely limited strength in the area of contract negotiation.

Just a thought…Do you think the School Committee would consider hiring an expert contract negotiator with a proven track record of success representing other towns in similar negotiations? What if EiE was willing to pay the expert’s fee? Or would that be considered an attempt by EiE, as also stated by the chairman, to “compromise what we intend to be a successful negotiation process”?

These statements and others represent the kind of ARROGANCE that most would agree the committee is no longer entitled to.


* The one loss was the motion to permit secret or private balloting on articles requiring large expenditures or appropriations, such as overrides and capital debt exclusions, over $250k.

Town Meeting Is Over...Now Back To My Real Job

Now that the Hamilton Special Town Meeting is over, my wife has advised me that I need to spend more of my newly freed up time concentrating on advising my readers about real estate issues. That is, after all, what I do for a living as a Realtor...as opposed to what I do as a volunteer.

So a tip of the hat to all who worked so hard on the many articles and motions, some passed and some not, at our recent Saturday Town Meeting. I promise to pick the discussion up again as we get closer to next spring's annual Town Meeting.

But right now, let's talk real estate. And let's begin with the topic:

SHOULD I TAKE MY HOUSE OFF THE MARKET DURING THE HOLIDAYS?

When you look at your calendar you may find the months already overloaded with seasonal obligations -- shopping, entertaining, children's pageants, charity work, decorating the house, and so much more. If you are also trying to sell your home, you are under extra pressure to keep your home in "showtime" condition. And that could be the last thing you need before the holiday spirit is broken.

It is understandable why you would be tempted to take your home off the market during the holidays. The list of justifications is long. If you are too busy, buyers may be also, and you may find your efforts unrewarded with not enough showings. And what if you do get an offer? You may be faced with the possibility of packing and moving during the busiest time of the year. Besides, you can give your house a rest, and it will have better momentum after the holidays. Better to just pack it in and start fresh in January, right?

Wrong!

Most smart Realtors agree that taking your home off the market during the Holiday season is a mistake. The house isn't going to sell while it's off the market! What is the advantage of that? So you're busy... let me do the work. You can leave in the morning, go to work, go shopping, and let me take care of showing and selling your home.

The holidays are actually a wonderful selling period. Why? Because most people take off work sometime during the season. The husband and wife are both off and want to see houses. Most agents like the holidays because the buyers have more time, and they can look at homes together.

So before you take your home off the market, consider the following points:

1. Although buyer activity may appear to slow down, the buyers who are actively looking during the holidays are that much more serious. The home market is no more affected at Thanksgiviing or Christmas than during other "busy" periods. If that were so, the market would shut down throughout the year as families concentrate on spring weddings, June graduations, summer vacations, and autumn back-to-school activities.


2. Many buyers deliberately choose to shop for a home after the busy spring and summer rush. They know that it will be easier to look, and that negotiations will be less stressful. They may not have children, or they may have grown children, so moving to accommodate the school year isn't a consideration. Finding the right home at the right price, however, is.


3. Relocating families often don't have a choice when they can leave for their new destination. Although 68% of transferring families have children, many families have to transfer during the middle of the school year. These families are that much more motivated to get their families settled in before either the January semester begins, or to arrange for the move during spring break in March. If you sign a contract by New Year's Eve, the timing couldn't be more perfect.


4. During the holidays, our culture focuses on family and the home. Preparing for the indoor activities of winter is one of the most enjoyable periods of family life. Allowing buyers to view your home during this most hospitable of seasons lets them better picture their own family life in the attractive environment you have created. When is your home ever more beautiful and inviting? You have cleaned and decorated, and your home looks like a picture postcard. If the results are good enough for family and friends, they will surely be good enough to impress your buyers. Get the family team on board to do a five-minute blitz pick-up every morning to keep holiday messes to a minimum.


5. With reduced inventories and motivated buyers, you will have all the members of the MLS on your team. You may find you have more showings than you would if you marketed your home during a busier time of the year.

Here's a testimonial from one of my clients regarding selling during the holiday season:

"Jay - The article in your newsletter caught my eye: Should I Take My House Off The Market During The Holidays. How well I remember our buyers coming to our door the first week of January 2004, temperature at 4 degrees, smoke coming off the ocean waves, when the doorbell rang and the couple said they wanted to buy our oceanfront home! You had set the stage with an earlier listing and showing. We're enjoying sunshine and palm trees because we did not take our home off the market during the holidays! Warmest regards - Jerry and Mary Anne Greely"

Thinking of selling in the next few months? Give me a call and we can schedule a confidential meeting without obligation to discuss the benefits of my services and Coldwell Banker's marketing and worldwide reach. Thank you!

Democracy in Hamilton...There's an App for That

On October 17th Hamilton held it's first Saturday Town Meeting since a motion to hold it on that day was approved by the voters at spring Annual Town Meeting. The special Town Meeting commenced at 9:00 AM sharp with a quorum in attendance. As I glanced around the room at the Winthrop School, I noticed that the majority of residents seated and ready to begin the meeting were (dare I say it) aged 50+. The room was about half full.

By 9:30, the room was about 3/4 full and the age composition had clearly shifted with many more voters under age 50 meandering in. If I had to guess, Id' say it was close to 50/50.

It was a sight to make even the biggest skeptic proud...nearly 400 residents in attendance at a fall Town Meeting. And opponents to the Saturday morning meetings said it couldn't be done! Special thanks to all in who came and for the organizers and donors of refreshments and child care.

The meeting progressed well through nearly 20 articles and motions and then there was a brief break, after which Moderator Bruce Ramsey continued the meeting by taking up the motion for funding a debt exclusion override for the Cutler School HVAC.

Then I noticed something unusual.

The room was now completly full...with standing room only. Residents were lined up all around the room. I'm told that there were over 500 people present at that point.

Wow! Small town democracy at it's best! Fantastic!

But wait a minute...how did it happen that so many voters suddenly appeared at just that point in the meeting?

Well it turns out, as they say in the iphone commercials, that "there's an app (application) for that". It's called TWITTER. You've heard of TWITTER right? It's a messaging app that allows you to send and receive short messages (called TWEETS) instantly over your mobile phone or PDA.

It seems that the group Support Our Schools (SOS) set up a TWITTER account recently as a way of notifying their supporters exactly when to come to the meeting to support their cause, in this case the debt exclusion override. No less that 24 TWEETS (as the instant messages are known) were sent advising their "followers" of the status of the meeting and when to come down to vote.

Now I'm not saying there is anything wrong or unlawful about what was done. In fact I applaud SOS on their ingenuity.

What bothers me is what I observed immediately following the Cutler HVAC vote, which was overwhelmingly supported by nearly everyone - including Enough Is Enough.

Immediately following the vote, about half the voters left the hall, even though other town business remained to be completed. And guess who were still in their seats at the end, having taken part and listened and voted on ALL the items on the agenda for the day?

That's right...the same people that arrived and were seated and ready to partake in the process at 9:00 AM.

A tip of the hat and special thanks to them for their COMPLETE participation in the Town Meeting process.

Read a Salem News editorial about the same subject: http://www.salemnews.com/archivesearch/local_story_291231239.html

Surprise Endorsement From Enough Is Enough

Enough Is Enough surprised a packed Hamilton Special Town Meeting today when they endorsed the motion made on behalf of the School Committee and Administration for a capital debt exclusion override for replacement of the Cutler School boilers and HVAC.

At their last meeting (10/15/09) members of the School Committee specifically asked members of EiE in attendance what the group's recommendation would be. They were told simply that the recommendation would be made at Town Meeting, not before.

Strategically, it was a very good move by Enough Is Enough and probably resulted in greater attendance at the meeting by voters. By not knowing the position EiE would take on the motion, it's likely that many more made the effort to attend so as to support their choice, whichever way they were voting. And that was good for the democratic town meeting process in Hamilton. I will have some more observations about the meeting in the next few days.

The following is the statement that was read in SUPPORT of the motion by EiE:

Enough Is Enough regrets that we find ourselves in the position where the School Department has come before us to ask, once again, for additional funding above and beyond the $27 million approved at the ATM, $592,000 of which was approved as a line item for maintenance in this year’s budget. EiE believes that if the maintenance funding approved each year was properly managed and not directed away from maintenance to other sources, we might not have to be addressing this issue today. Soon perhaps, but not today.

Today we are told we have a crisis that needs immediate attention and funding. Rest assured that no other group or entity, save the School Committee and Administration, has spent more time meeting, researching, discussing and debating this issue than Enough Is Enough.

We have broken the question of whether to approve or not approve the motion into 2 major parts. There are other issues to be considered, to be sure, but we think these are the underlying ones.

First, the condition of the existing boilers. It is clear to us that the boilers at the Cutler School appear to have met their life expectancy and should be replaced.

Second, the reimbursement funding from the MSBA. Jack OKeefe has made the case that if we do not move forward with the motion before us, the window of opportunity with respect to MSBA’s reimbursement will close. We believe this to be true.

As previously mentioned, we now find ourselves in crisis mode. The residents and taxpayers of Hamilton deserve to see better long range school budget planning in an effort to avoid this kind of crisis management in the future.

That said, and given the condition of the current heating system, the availability of guaranteed reimbursement of 42.58% by the MSBA - resulting in reducing the impact and burden of the additional tax we would each have to pay - EiE supports the motion before us.

The motion was then approved by about 500 voters in attendance. The only thing lost in the approval of this article was Enough Is Enough's reputation (held by a select few) as a "knee-jerk, anti-school group". Sadly, a statement made about Enough Is Enough by the Chairman of the School Committee at their 10/15/09 meeting was, "We're going to be contending with this group of people in the future and this is their tactic: They don't care what the truth is."

Ouch.

I wonder how they will choose to brand Enough Is Enough now. We can only hope that they learned something positive from the group today.

To read the Salem News coverage of the vote and several comments, go to: http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_290163855.html

To read the Hamilton/Wenham Chronicle coverage of the vote, go to: http://tinyurl.com/yjwacom

Let The Dead, Beaten Horse Rest In Peace

DEFEATED...The Special Town Meeting warrant article calling for (yet) another study of combined services and/or merger of the Wenham and Hamilton police departments was defeated last night in Wenham. Considering the numerous studies already conducted over the years, this defeat should finally put the issue to rest.

Guess again. According to a report in the Salem News, after the meeting petition supporter Deb Evans said "The issue isn't going to go away."

Does that kind of thinking sound familiar? It should. It's the same attitude that override supporters have used in the past to reverse votes defeating their overrides. They just keep coming back for revotes as many times as it takes until their agenda finally is approved. All it takes is filling the hall with your own special interest supporters and then wearing down the opposition with revote after revote.

Selectman Harriet Davis framed the issue best at the Town Meeting and had clearly given it serious thought and had researched thoroughly the reasons NOT to approve the study. Anyone questioning the reasoning for the defeat should read her statement.

Now please... let the poor dead, beaten horse rest in peace.

Hamilton Town Meeting - The Yellow Sheet

On Saturday, October 17th, the Town of Hamilton will vote on numerous warrant articles at a Special Town Meeting, including a debt exclusion override. As they did at the spring Annual Town Meeting, Enough Is Enough (EiE) is distributing its Yellow Sheet with recommendations and a short explanation of why they are taking their positions for your consideration.

EiE is a tax watchdog group with many educated members, including Teachers, Architects, Planners, Real Estate Professionals, Active as well as Retired Business Leaders, Nurses, Members of Town Boards, Accountants, Engineers, Town Employees, Writers and Bloggers, Attorneys and others, as well as parents with school-age children. They collectively researched, met, and discussed the impact of the warrant articles in order to recommend to you what is on their Yellow Sheet. EiE's goal remains to balance an excellent education with the taxpayer's ability to pay and to support changes they feel are in the best interest of our communities.

EiE will continue to scrutinize and help stabilize the operating budgets of our towns and school district debt through recommendations on a Yellow Sheet of the warrant articles presented at all future Town Meetings. The $39 million that taxpayers have paid as a result of the previous 12 year’s overrides is a burden the group was formed to help alleviate.

Your attendance and votes at the October 17th Special Town Meeting are vitally important.

Below are the recommendations from EiE on the warrant articles they feel are most important to the taxpayers and citizens of Hamilton. Please refer to the Warrant book that you received from the town for the specifics of each article/motion.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Article 4-3 – Vote NO – This motion appears to be an attempt to draw attention away from the maintenance funding (already a line item every year in the school budget) that has been misappropriated or directed elsewhere each year. The school department does not need TWO maintenance accounts…they need to properly manage the existing account.
Read a Salem News letter detailing maintenance funding mismanagement: http://tinyurl.com/yf4dev2

• Article 4-4 – Vote YES – Extensive research has shown that many other communities - including Essex, Andover, North Andover, Middleton, Wakefield, North Reading, Stoneham, and Manchester, to name only a few – have enacted similar voting standards, particularly regarding motions requiring large expenditures or appropriations.

Read another blog supporting this measure: http://tinyurl.com/ydum5gp

• Article 5-2 – Vote NO – At least three other studies have taken place regarding this issue in the past six years. Two found no significant savings. The most recent study (2009) by the Department of Revenue (DOR) found savings that came primarily from a reduction in the number of police officers. It seems unnecessary to conduct yet another study and waste valuable time and talent on the issue.
Read a letter from Wenham Selectmen supporting our position: http://tinyurl.com/yl72pxo

Read a letter from a Wenham resident in the Salem News: http://tinyurl.com/ykf5q2b

Read an editorial by the Salem News supporting our position: http://tinyurl.com/yh4e8kg

• Article 5-7 – Vote YES – This is essentially the same motion that was overwhelmingly approved at last spring’s Town Meeting. Increasing the number of Selectmen will help distribute the work load and allow more time for strategic long term planning, policy decisions and revenue generation.

• Article 5-8 – Vote NO – Times are tough enough without burdening our local business owners with additional taxes. They are already experiencing reduced business and should not have to support yet another tax, aka: a cut in pay.
Read another Hamilton blog supporting our recommendation: http://tinyurl.com/ygt2dpz

• Special Town Meeting, Part II – Debt Exclusion Override for the Cutler School Boiler – EiE will make a recommendation at the Town Meeting.

At the time of publication of this blog two major questions regarding this motion by the schools remain unanswered: (1) Exactly how will the reimbursement portion ($652,206.00 from the MSBA) of the debt ($1,531,720.00) be credited to the taxpayers?...and (2) what will be the effect upon the property tax rate and for how long?

Unless and until these questions are answered, taxpayers are prevented from making a properly informed decision about whether to approve or deny the school's request.

Reverse Eminent Domain?

Anyone who even remotely knows me knows that I am a strong proponent of private property rights. As a Realtor I have fought for and supported homeowners' rights for over 25 years. But at a recent Board of Selectmen (BoS) meeting I was surprised to see the board entertain a public discussion with local real estate developer Jim Farnham concerning plans to develop land that is restricted from development.

Surprised because Jim Farnham, who by the way seems like a nice guy, a good citizen and a capable professional, had already been to the proper authority - the Planning Board - with his proposal and was essentially told to consider NOT spending any more money pursuing the proposed project because it could not be permitted.

Why? Because the land in question was restricted from further development by the Planning Board in 1980. The approval of the subdivision at that time created "pork chop" lots with a common driveway. When the PB signed the approval for the subdivision in 1980 it was with the clear understanding that the lots could NEVER be further subdivided. Ever. And the restricted approval was duly recorded with the deeds and the approved plan even has a notation indicating the restriction. The notation on the plan is common practice with the PB in order to assure that no one buys the property without the clear understanding of its limitations. Mr. Farnham concedes knowledge of this.

But here he was, discussing with the BoS the reasons why his "intent" for development of the property parallels the intent of the Senior Housing Bylaw approved by the voters in Hamilton.

This marks the first time I have ever seen a developer attempt to "go around" the PB by appealing to the BoS. Or perhaps it was the other way around. Either way, although Selectman Carey stated that the BoS was in no way attempting to usurp the authority of the PB, the fact that he invited the developer to come and state his case at an open meeting of his board speaks otherwise. Mr. Carey spoke of "disconnects" between the developer and the PB and and said he wanted "to see if there is anything we (the BoS) can do to help out." And he has suggested that the developer, the BoS and the Planning Board meet jointly to "toss around" ideas concerning the project to see if there is a way to make it work. He said he felt that it would be a shame to deny the first project application of the Senior Housing Bylaw.

But here are some facts to consider:

(1) If the property in question is restricted from development, it has to be denied by the Planning Board...period...and therefore should not be considered as a failed attempt to utilize the Senior Housing Bylaw because it was not applicable in the first place. Developers wanting to use the Senior Housing Bylaw need to first find land that conforms, not land that does not.

(2) The BoS is not the authority that interprets the subdivision control and zoning bylaws. That is the responsibility of the PB and the Selectmen should not be attempting to influence their authority, in any way. To do so is tantamount to an Eminent Domain taking in reverse. Instead of the town taking property for the betterment of the community, they are suggesting a private (non-public) entity be allowed to "take" property for private profitability.

Selectman Bill Bowler said it correctly: "I'm not quite sure what the Selectmen's role here is."

No matter how sensitive the developer is willing to be to the concerns of the town, neighbors and local affordable housing, if the land has been restricted properly from further development, as this property has, then that should be the end of the story.

Cutler School Boiler Solution Announced...

HAMILTON -- A decision has been reached that appears to satisfy all parties involved in the Cutler School boiler replacement issue. The School Committee announced today that a grant has been obtained that will allow for the installation of wood stoves in all the classrooms at the school.

The Fincomms and Boards of Selectmen of both towns praised the idea as a unique and revenue sensitive solution to the situation. According to a spokesman for the School Committee, all students will be required to bring a split log to school each morning to fuel the stoves.

As one grandparent noted, "It worked in the past, why not now?"

And one Selectman was overheard saying, "History is repeating itself and Hamilton and Wenham will be role models for other communities throughout the Commonwealth faced with similar heating issues and utility costs."

A Cutler School teacher heralded the concept and stated: "The wood stoves will give the children a sense of responsibility - they will be able to bring wood in each day and use the ashes to sand icey paths. The tops of the stoves can be used for pots of soup for nourishing and inexpensive lunches."

According to information obtained by this blogger, savings attributable to this groundbreaking new solution will exceed $100k per year, enabling the funding of other school maintenance projects previously placed on a "back burner".

In a rare display of solidarity, the solution is also being (un)commonly supported by several diverse local citizen groups, including Enough Is Enough, Support Our Schools, and the Ipswich Greenhead Breeders Association.

(TIC)

SURVEY SAYS...Perform Operational Audit of the Hamilton/Wenham Schools

For the past ten days I have run a poll on this blog site with the following question:

Would you like to see an expert independent operational audit of our schools to improve efficiencies?

The results are now in and although I am not particularly surprised, I think perhaps the School Administration, the School Committee and the members of the Blue Ribbon Committee might want to reconsider their positions opposing an operational audit.

Why?

Because overwhelmingly the majority of citizens who responded to the poll WANT an expert and independent operational audit of the schools.

89% of respondents voted YES.

Only 11% of respondents voted NO to such an audit.

It shouldn't come as a big surprise that the School Administration does not want an audit that could possibly illuminate inefficiences or uncover poor management systems and/or processes. We already know that they have been unable (or unwilling) to account for hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars that were earmarked for school maintenance. What else might an operational audit uncover?

While I understand the administration's reluctance, wouldn't you think that the School Committee officials would feel obligated to those that elected them to support an audit that could likely save their constituents money...or point out ways to more efficiently run our schools? Or are they afraid that an operational audit will prove that they have allowed your tax dollars to be poorly managed, all the while telling you that the yearly budgets they have presented you are "cut to the bone"?

Let's not forget that the schools have asked for and received 10 overrides since 1998 that have cost the taxpayers in Hamilton and Wenham more than $39 million over that period.

Why is it that so often our elected officials support the citizens' causes...until they get elected? And then they ignore what the voters clearly want them to do.

News Flash To Our Elected Boards:

Residents of Hamilton and Wenham support an operational audit of the school system.

So how about it?

*****************************

On another note...They're baaack!

Look out. Here comes the School Department with another capital debt exclusion override request. This one is for over $1.5 million to replace the boiler at the Cutler School. Oh yes, and to install and upgrade air conditioning as well. We're being told that this is an "opportunity" for the taxpayers in our towns because the state will reimburse 40% to 48% of the costs.

Can you recall other times that argument has been used to cut into your paycheck?

The joint library comes to my mind. Beautiful building and all, and nice meeting rooms and computer stations, etc., but do you know what it costs to run each year? Last year it cost the taxpayers $572,291.00.

So hang on to your wallets, residents of Hamilton and Wenham, and just remember this:

Every Tax is a Cut in Pay.

Can you afford a(nother) pay cut today?

FUZZY MATH at Hamilton/Wenham School Department

The following is a letter from Enough Is Enough to the taxpayer-residents of Hamilton and Wenham:

It’s been a year since Enough is Enough (EIE), a citizens group promoting fiscal responsibility, asked for an operational audit of our schools. Our thinking was that this was an idea that all sides could agree upon, a way to get an expert, independent, outside look at how we could improve school operational efficiencies. We were dismayed when the idea was repeatedly ignored, confused and ultimately rejected by the school committee, the “Blue Ribbon Committee,” and even selectmen who claim they have no authority to ask the schools to entertain such an audit.

Last spring, EIE awakened citizens and defeated a capital debt exclusion override at Hamilton town meeting. The school district had been ignoring long-standing maintenance issues with our school buildings (a requirement under the two towns’ regional school agreement). A few school committee members publicly apologized for not making sure that the maintenance money budgeted was actually spent on maintenance issues. The school committee pressed forward with a capital debt exclusion override that addressed maintenance items that should have been completed with budgeted money and added many additional “wish list” items that went far beyond maintenance issues. EIE attempted to make a compromise that it could support: i.e. - limiting the town meeting article to health and safety items only, but this approach was rejected. As a result, the capital debt exclusion override went down to defeat.

The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Committee and school support groups promised a more open process to explain to voters why a large capital debt exclusion override was needed, despite the fact that the schools had ten operational real estate tax overrides in past years and had not spent the money budgeted in their maintenance expense line item. EIE looked forward to the promise of more openness, but this never happened. Instead, EIE had to make many requests under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (MPRL) (M. G. L. Chapter 66, Section 10), which is very similar to the Federal Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to find out what was going on with maintenance in the schools. Request after request was met with partial non-specific responses. Instead of telling us what the schools did and did not spend money on, they gave EIE numbers that conflicted with school published reports to the community, along with vague expenditures on maintenance and “special projects”. Overall maintenance expenditures provided were far below those budgeted. When challenged, we were told that the schools do not maintain “budget versus actual reports”. We were appalled that either school accounting is not being done in accordance to acceptable practices or we were not being told the truth. “Fuzzy math” and obscuring the facts about maintenance, as well as other school expenditures, must come to an end.

The following are the results of our analysis of maintenance expense data obtained from the HWRSD:

A publication called " HWRSD Annual Report 2007- 2008 provided by HWRSD via mail to all citizens indicated that $461,103 was spent for maintenance during FY2007 and $459,067 was spent for maintenance during FY2008.

It should also be noted that the HWRSD budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2007 was $650,559; and likewise, the budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2008 was $676,377. This budget information was also provided by the HWRSD via the MPRL request made by EiE.

When EIE received the Massachusetts Public Records Law info from the HWRSD Administration the FY2007 actual maintenance dollars spent were $402,504 and included $49,136 for special projects, undefined. This leaves $58,599 unspent for the period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.

Likewise, the FY2008 actual maintenance dollars spent were $380,726 and included $71,391 for special projects, again undefined. This leaves $78,341 unspent for the FY2008 period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.

Clearly, there is a significant difference between the data provided in the HWRSD Annual Report versus the data provided to EiE by HWRSD Administration per the MPRL request. What data (of any data provided) is correct?

The largest variance of all is the FY2007 maintenance expense budget of $650,559 versus the maintenance actual 0f $402,504 which equals a variance of $248,055 less than the approved budget number of $650,559. Also the FY2008 maintenance budget of $676,377 versus the maintenance actual of $380,726, which equals a variance of $295,651 less than the approved budget number of $676,377.

A similar situation exists within the MPRL data received from HWRSD for FY2009 maintenance budget versus actual. The budget was $583,786 and total actual dollars spent were $469,353 which included $81,853 for special projects, undefined. The total variance between budget versus actual spent was $114,433.

For the three years discussed above (FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009) the total approved maintenance budget dollars were $1,910,722 and of that total, $658,139 were not spent for maintenance; and of the $1,252,583 dollars spent $202,380 were spent for special projects, undefined.

Where was the $658,139 spent if not spent on much needed maintenance?

Whatever the truth, EIE cautions the public to think hard when deciding if you trust the schools with another attempt at a very large capital debt exclusion override. Without the kind of openness that the taxpayers deserve, along with public discussion and debate, the numbers are nearly meaningless. The schools, because of regional school laws, and unlike our towns, do not have to spend money allocated in their yearly budget to the line item approved. It is clear from what we have learned that funds budgeted for maintenance were never spent and/or spent in ways that may not have been related to maintenance of school buildings.

It is in everyone’s interest to have safe and healthy schools. It is also in everyone’s interest to have a school committee that demands that citizens’ questions are answered in an open and forthright manner. The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School is a public school, funded by the public, and citizens have the right to know that their money is being spent in a fiscally responsible manner in the best interests of our children. We call once again for an independent outside operating audit that focuses on all aspects of school operations. Without this independent oversight, citizens should not be giving more money to the school system. We cannot rely on hope that they will use the money as appropriated, when this clearly has not been the case up until now.

(Please let us know your opinion by voting in the poll that is posted at the top left corner of this blog.)

Sincerely,

Enough is Enough

Robert Sica
James Kent
Elizabeth Dunbar
Edwin Howard
Warren Gray
Bruce Wadleigh
George LaMontagne
Jay Burnham

And the Answer Is...Cap Our Property Taxes!

THE VOTES ARE NOW IN

...Regarding the question: "Would you like to see a 0% increase in your property taxes for one year?"

59% voted YES, even with large cuts to services.

27% voted YES, provided there were minimal cuts to services.

14% voted YES, provided there were no cuts to services. This represented the "NO" vote, since we can assume there would be some cuts to services.

So 86% of respondents would like to see a cap on their property taxes for one year, even it it means a cut in services.

The answer to the question was what the tax watchdog group Enough Is Enough (EiE) was attempting to discover when it proposed that the Board of Selectmen (BoS) place a NON-BINDING citizen's advisory question on the warrant for the upcoming Special Town Meeting on October 17th. It was denied, unfortunately, and this writer would have liked to have seen a larger sampling of voters that a warrant article would have provided. However, the BoS themselves suggested that perhaps a poll could be taken using the town's new website...once some of the bugs had been worked out of it.

Not knowing when that might be, and in the interest of time, I decided to conduct the poll myself here on this blog site and the results speak for themselves. We seem to have the answer EiE's initiative would have provided...and perhaps some insight as to why the BoS denied placing the question on the warrant. It's the answer they surely did not want to hear.

But hear it they must... if only to grasp the seriousness of the economic plight of so many residents in Hamilton. The Wall Street Journal recently posted findings by The Tax Foundation showing the states with the highest property taxes as a percentage of income. Massachusetts ranked 9th with 4.1% of income paid toward property taxes. With the highest property tax rate on the North Shore, you can imagine the role Hamilton taxpayers play in that standing.

"Budgeting by override" fortunately ended last spring at the Annual Town Meeting. Now it seems as though voters also feel that increasing yearly budgets by +2.5% needs reconsideration, at least in the short term. Perhaps next time EiE will, instead of asking permission, submit a citizen's petition that will require the BoS to place it on a Town Meeting warrant so that voters can decide.

Don't be surprised, however, if it calls for a BINDING resolution next time.

NO SURPRISE...Taxes as Usual in Hamilton

The group Enough Is Enough (EiE) recently presented the Hamilton Board of Selectmen (BoS)with an article the group sought to have placed on the warrant for the fall Special Town Meeting. Calling it a "Local Stimulus Package", EiE was seeking a non-binding advisory question be placed on the ballot for the next election which read:

"Shall the town of Hamilton place a cap of 0% increase on the total taxes assessed for residential property in the town for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010?"

The question applied only to residential property taxes, not commercial (which only represents about 3% of Hamilton's tax base) and was intended to apply to only the one year. It was to be non-binding, so in essence it would serve simply as a poll for how the voters felt about paying the same taxes next year as they paid this year...with no increase. Naturally, a 0% property tax increase could possibly require cuts in services or adjustment for service personnel (pay cuts). EiE's stated intent was to use this non-binding question as a springboard to discussions, both pro and con, that such an initiative would undoubtedly create.

This week, the BoS voted to deny placement of the article on the fall Special Town Meeting warrant.

It comes as no surprise that the BoS chose to deny EiE's request of a question asking if the taxpayers in our town would like some relief from the burden they currently bare for living in the town with the highest property tax rate on the North Shore.

I say "no surprise" because the Hamilton BoS has consistently supported every single override for at least the past 12 years. Collectively, the overrides since 1998 have cost the taxpayers of Hamilton more than $39 million.

With such a record of endorsement for higher taxes, why should we be surprised that they would choose not to allow an opposing viewpoint to be openly discussed and voted upon by the residents of our town.

As I said, I am not surprised. But I am disappointed...disappointed because they have chosen NOT, as is so often espoused by override proponents, to LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.

The BoS has stated that they are aware of how tough times are in our current economy. But I am not certain they are quite as aware as they could be about how this economy is affecting the residents of Hamilton. Most of our citizens have slid down the economic ladder. Those that used to go out to eat are now serving meatloaf at home. Lawn maintenance contracts have not been renewed and homeowners are weeding their own gardens and mowing their own yards. Needed repairs to homes are being put off. Vacations, if taken at all, are spent at home or at nearby campgrounds. Pay freezes, pay cuts and job losses are much more common in our town than I believe the BoS realize. And foreclosures and short sales are becoming a way of life...even here in cherished Hamilton. And yet when a chance presents itself for voters to inform them of their plight, the BoS chose to deny them that opportunity.

The BoS stated that among their reasons not to support the request to let the voters decide is that the issue is too complicated and that the voters will not understand what they may need to give up in terms of services. It was suggested that capping the residential tax levy would mean cutting up to $500k from our budget.

But that's simply not correct. It's "fuzzy math".

You see, EiE was not suggesting cutting the taxes collected by 2.5% - they were recommending "level funding" based on the previous tax year's budget. The BoS was wrong to suggest that not raising taxes by 2.5% = cutting the budget by 2.5% (which is where they came up with the $500k). It does not. And EiE was remiss in not pointing that fact out. In fact, the only cuts that consistently are made every single year when the 2.5% formula is applied is a cut to the taxpayers' paychecks. Every tax is a cut in pay.

Most importantly, however, the BoS chose to ignore a rare opportunity to be innovative leaders during this dramatic economic decline...an opportunity to embrace a concept that is far removed from the "business as usual" budgets that rely on 2.5% MORE in taxes every year, year in and year out, regardless of the economy, and overrides to make up any anticipated shortfalls. They may have lost an opportunity for town-wide dialogue and discussion of an issue of critical importance to those they represent. And by the way, no one asked them to ENDORSE or RECOMMEND the question...just simply allow it to be placed on the warrant so that they can actually HEAR what residents are saying and thinking and FEEL what they are going through.

For so many residents, things are far worse than the BoS realizes. But unlike their willingness to support proposals that INCREASE our tax burden, they now are showing an unwillingness to support a question designed to suggest a LESSENING of our tax burden.

No surprise...

************************
On a positve note...At the same meeting the BoS voted to place an article on the warrant that would allow for secret (or private) balloting at Town Meetings when 25% of the registered voters present seek such a motion. The article also calls for private balloting for override motions requiring the appropriation of more than $250,000

Below are some other Massachusetts towns that have made similar changes to their bylaws regarding Town Meetings.

Any percentage is the number of registered voters needed to allow for a secret ballot at Town Meeting. Some towns just use a number of voters and some towns require automatic Secret Balloting on motions requiring large expenditures.

Essex = 20%

Andover = 25%

North Andover = 25%

Middleton = 25%

Wakefield = 25%

North Reading = 25 voters

Easton = 29 voters

Mendon = 10 voters

Stoneham = 25 voters

Wrentham = Automatic Secret Ballot on all issues of capital projects over $2 million

Berkley = Automatic Secret Ballot on all issues over $500k

Manchester = Automatic Secret Ballot on all issues over $250k



*****************

Reminder...Town Meeting in Hamilton is Saturday, October 17th

******************

Secret Balloting in Hamilton?

The following article appeared recently in the Salem News:

Group wants ability to vote in secret at Town Meeting

By Steve LandwehrSTAFF WRITER
August 12, 2009 09:15 am—

HAMILTON — At their best, they are freewheeling wrangles over the public will, where the high and mighty and the low and powerless each have just one vote. At their worst, town meetings dissolve into name-calling, booing and other displays of boorishness before moderators restore order.

What if some people fear the latter more than they welcome the former, and claim to be uncomfortable expressing an opinion in such a forum, unwilling even to raise their hands or voices "yay" or "nay"?

They should be able to vote in secret, a group of Hamilton activists is proposing.

Members of Enough is Enough, a grass-roots group that has been lobbying for "fiscal responsibility" since 2007, have asked selectmen to place a question on the Special Town Meeting warrant this fall that would set a threshold for a secret ballot at future meetings.
Presently, town bylaws don't address secret ballots, meaning they are Moderator Bruce Ramsey's call. Ramsey said he asks that anyone who wants a secret ballot to say so before discussion of an article begins. After that, he lets a simple majority of those present make the decision.

Instead, proponents of the citizens' initiative want 20 percent of the voters at the meeting to make the call.

Ramsey can recall only one time when a secret ballot was employed in Hamilton. That was for a single-issue meeting called to decide the fate of new and renovated middle and high schools, when several thousand voters were expected. School operating budgets have been contentious in town for years. When a Proposition 2 1/2 override is called for to boost the budget, battle lines form quickly.

Opponents of the overrides have long claimed they are intimidated about appearing to be voting "against the children" if they speak up during a meeting. "I was actively booed at a town meeting," resident Betty Gray told the selectmen during their Monday night meeting. Others in the crowded room clamored in agreement.

While state law mandates some of the conduct at town meetings, individual towns decide whether secret ballots are allowed and how they can be called. Until two years ago, Middleton allowed a secret ballot if just five voters stood for it. Now, 25 percent of those present must favor it, and Town Administrator Ira Singer said the change seems to have dissuaded those who were routinely calling for it.

Undemocratic?

In Middleton, as in Hamilton, proponents of secret ballots claimed voters were intimidated by a public vote. But opponents say open discussion — and voting — is the very essence of democracy in this most basic of forms. "It's the nature of the system," Singer said. "There's nothing necessarily wrong with people having different opinions."

Hamilton Selectman Bill Bowler was vehement in his opposition to the citizens' initiative, on a number of levels. First, he's heard the arguments about reluctant participation, he said, but thinks they're overstated. Second, "Town Meeting is the legislative branch of town government," Bowler said. "Legislators vote in public." Finally, permitting 20 percent of the meeting to direct the actions of the other 80 percent would violate the very basis of Town Meeting, he said. "It's undemocratic," Bowler said, drawing rebuttal from Enough is Enough members.

"People are intimidated to vote on certain issues," Betty Gray said.

Selectman David Carey is of two minds about the proposal. He said that he wouldn't oppose "occasional" secret votes, because some people do feel intimidated. On the other hand, the point of the meeting is to gauge the community's support or opposition for the various items on the agenda. "Secret ballots don't do that," Carey said.

Ramsey's biggest concern is a rash of secret ballots that could bog down meetings and discourage attendance. If voters are so reluctant to speak and vote their minds, why not elect people to do it for them and adopt representative town government? In Hamilton, where the subject of merging with neighboring Wenham has consumed volumes of time over the years, dumping open Town Meeting would be a nonstarter, Bowler said.

"I think we'd merge the towns before we'd go to representative Town Meeting."

For an unquestionably fine and thoughtful

response to this Salem News article, go to:

http://unquestionablyquestionable.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-not-secret-ballot_15.html

Hamilton/Wenham Officials Close Doors to Public Input

The following is a Letter to the Editors of the Salem News and Hamilton/Wenham Chronicle:

Closed-door meetings, even if not secret, send the wrong message...

In an era when trust is a factor most of our citizens feel is lacking in town governance and the School Department, along comes a group of elected officials that still don't seem to get it.

Last week, members of the Budget Process Committee (BPC) decided to have a meeting that included one Hamilton selectman, one Wenham selectman, one School Committee member, one Hamilton FinCom member and the school superintendent. When three citizen members of Enough is Enough tried to attend, they were dismissed and told by the Hamilton selectman that "the meeting was not posted, and it was optional for those attending to allow the public to attend. I polled those who were attending, and the majority wanted it to be a working meeting without the public."

He went on to say, "As for why we felt it better to meet this way, it is not to hide things; but sometimes to advance all of our agendas and do the work, we need to be able to let our hair down. We all spoke bluntly and pointedly."

I don't know about you, but I want representatives who speak "bluntly and pointedly" and honestly at PUBLIC meetings, rather than in closed meetings where the public is not allowed or permitted to even listen. Additionally, the entire point of the BPC was to improve transparency and allow for citizen input.

Come on folks, a "working meeting without the public" is just another way of saying "closed-door meeting" or "secret meeting," both of which are completely unacceptable given the public's already justified lack of trust in the budget process. This is exactly the WRONG way of conducting town business and only serves to enhance taxpayer distrust.

What the heck happened to the "openness and transparency" we were promised after the spring town meetings?

Speaking of which, did you know that as part of their efforts at "openness and transparency," the School Department is now requiring citizens to file Freedom of Information forms and pay a fee for any request for information such as where, exactly, roughly $600,000 a year in maintenance line-item costs have actually been spent for each of the past three years?

It's true. And thus far, even that has not prevented the School Department from denying EiE's request for that simple information. We have been told twice now that what they will provide "will not be a specific detailed breakdown of the Maintenance Expense"; and, "Please be advised that the information that you have requested is not a matter of public record and, therefore, I cannot honor your specific request."

Not a matter of public record?! Are they serious? If they can't even tell us where they have spent nearly $2 million of our taxes earmarked for maintenance, it's no wonder they keep asking for more. The last we heard they were called PUBLIC schools, operating on taxes the PUBLIC pays. Don't we deserve some straight answers to simple questions? Why do you suppose they won't give us the answers we seek?

In both instances mentioned above, the message seems clear: "Sorry, we don't want you to know how we spend your tax dollars."

I'd probably be angry if I were not so astonished.

Jay Burnham, Moderator
Enough is Enough Steering Committee

http://www.enoughisenoughHW.org

Are Followers the Same as Friends?

Followers...Friends...Fans...It seems as though whatever blog or social networking site you are on, there is a different name for basically the same item. On Twitter, you have followers. On Facebook, you have friends or maybe fans. On LinkedIn...Well, you get the picture.

So do they all mean the same thing?

Sometimes, but not necessarily. Today's blog, however, is only devoted to explaining the benefits of becoming a "follower" of a blogger that you enjoy reading. You do not have to be a "friend" in the Facebook sense of the word to follow a blogger. You simply need to want to keep up to date with new posts by someone whose writing you enjoy reading.

There are several ways to become a follower of a blog. One of the easiest ways is to visit a blog that has added the "Following widget" and click on the "Follow" button. You will then have the option of following the blog publicly or privately. Select how you'd like to follow the blog, then click the "Follow this blog" button. It is that simple, you are now a follower of the blog!

The Following widget for my blog is at the left, at the top of the column. I have just posted it today and hope that you will consider following my blog which I promise will have interesting stories and articles on the real estate market in general, and the Massachusetts North Shore in particular, posted regularly.

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Jay Burnham

Hamilton, MA

Is There a Limit?

Do you have plans to buy a home soon? If so, has it occurred to you that some of the homes you inspect may be overpriced? They may be priced too high for the market.

How would you recognize that kind of situation? Should you assume that all houses are overpriced and make low offers on all of them until one is accepted?

Relax. There's a way to assure yourself of becoming a satisfied homeowner without taking the risk of paying too much. Consider for a moment how prices are set on the homes you will be seeing.

Some prices are arrived at by the owner's "guess-timation:, while others are decided only after thorough investigation of the present real estate market by knowledgable real estate agents. The latter involves careful study of homes for sale now as well as those which have sold recently. As a result, homes listed for sale with a highly successful real estate agent tend to be priced fairly up-front, from the very beginning.

Thus, by selecting your agent carefully, you can be assured of having a gnerous selection of homes from which to choose without having to worry about pricing. You'll be able to focus your concentration on features which fit your lifestyle and enjoy the process of choosing your next home...a satisfying experience.

Regards,

Jay Burnham

Hamilton, MA