Our View: Chatham Town Meeting

First and foremost, let’s give the town’s seniors what’s long overdue and approve the last bit of money needed to renovate and expand the Center for Active Living building on Stony Hill Road at Monday’s annual town meeting. Only $200,000 is required to supplement the $5 million appropriated last year for the work. After literally years of failure to secure funding for a new CFAL, making the existing facility as functional as possible is a priority, and we urge voters to support Article 15.

 Although the residential tax exemption (RTE) backed by the select board isn’t on the town meeting warrant, two measures relating to it are, and are likely to spark debate. The assessors are seeking $500,000 in Article 31 to augment the overlay account and cover abatements and exemptions likely to rise from the RTE. In Article 56, the finance committee seeks a one-year delay in the implementation of the RTE, which the select board is slated to vote on in September. 

 The RTE isn’t perfect; not all year-round property owners will qualify for the exemption, and while property taxes for many year-round owners would go down, nonresidents, who own 56 percent of the town’s residential properties, would pay slightly more. Year-rounders who rent won’t get the break, but landlords worried about the increase can take advantage of another town meeting measure to provide incentives to rent to year-round residents (“Lease to Locals” program, Article 35).

 The RTE is admittedly a blunt instrument. Not all year-round owners need the exemption, and not all nonresident owners can afford higher taxes. And yet, there are many owners who will benefit from the tax savings, and the RTE’s implementation should not be delayed just because the finance committee has questions. Many year-round owners are hurting financially, chiefly because of the high cost of housing, driven up by nonresidents and speculators buying up available properties, particularly during the pandemic. Currently, there’s no way to target the tax relief; a residential tax exemption means test is only allowed under state law for seniors. It’s not a bad idea — someone who makes in the high six figures shouldn’t get the same tax break as someone barely making ends meet — but that requires changing the state law. And that takes time and could be pursued separately while the RTE is in place. And, of course, a future select board can rescind the RTE, should it prove ineffective; it has to be voted on annually.

 Many Massachusetts communities have implemented an RTE. Locally, there’s no evidence that it’s impacted property values or cooled the real estate market. Nantucket has had it for many years, and we’ve yet to hear about nonresidents not buying on the island because their property taxes will be higher than those of year-round residents. Will it help local residents, the people who work in shops, cut lawns and wait on tables? There’s no way to know without moving ahead with the RTE. 

 We urge voters to approve the overlay funding and reject the finance committee article, which is advisory and not binding on the select board.

 We also support a study of large aircraft use of Chatham Airport. We’re mystified why airport critics don’t support it as well, since it will provide concrete answers to their concerns about use of the facility by large turbo-prop planes.