Gloucester Daily Times - Latest Comments in Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

~TeaForMe~ — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:01:16 -0000

Not Happy: Can you clarify the above answer? I'm not clear what you are suggesting.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:37:58 -0000

You're right, it wouldn't be the city, would it. I should amend that to "someone in the city" - the EDIC, perhaps?

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

~TeaForMe~ — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:25:46 -0000

NotHappy: Thanks for all the great information. ME's statistics indicated that in surrounding towns, including Beverly, the residential rate was about half the Commercial rate, but your statistics are different.

The city can't just find some parcels, can it? They would be owned by someone and therefore not under the control of the city.

This is what big, bloated, wasteful, special-interest-driven government has given us. Government at all levels spends much of its time plotting how to get more money to keep itself in the style to which it has become accustomed.

We can't increase the commercial tax load at this time. I think that Gloucester should at least acknowledge its strengths and stop seeming so desperate for development. They should pretend they are all Donald Trump and negotiate to get the best deal for the people of Gloucester, their employers.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:44:17 -0000

Okay, low commercial property tax rates - you can't look at them in a vacuum:
Gloucester - lower commercial rate than the surrounding towns (with the exception of Manchester and Rockport)
Total tax levy in Gloucester is carrying 55.95% of the revenue burden in town, with the lowest residential rate except for Manchester, Rockport and Peabody (Peabody has the lowest burden at 52.97%, Manchester is the highest at 73.35%)
Peabody receives $29.6 million in state aid (20.64% of their total revenue), Salem gets $28.33 (23.46%) and Gloucester gets $13.2 (13.97%)
Gloucester, for 2008, is showing 2,026 parcels vacant. Rockport has 562 - there is no-one in between. Look at all that lovely open space. Let's buy some more.

My guess is that to compete with our cousins up the road, we need to have a lower tax rate - but if it won't drive what little business we have left out we should be charging more, NOT leveling the playing field as some have urged.

The city should find some parcels and go down on their knees and BEG some company to locate a facility here - gonna be a neat trick in this economy!

And, we should be finding out why Peabody is getting such a big slice of the state pie, when they have a commercial/industrial base that blows EVERYONE else in the area totally out of the water!

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:29:47 -0000

Beverly's rate on Mass.gov is is 18.47 - and their residential is higher than ours as well. That seems to be the trend - we have lower commercial rates, but they have higher residential rates. With the exception of Peabody, which has a residential tax rate of 8.67 but receives $29 million plus in state aid. Talk about getting the breaks! Better geographical location, lower residential tax rates, plenty of state aid on tap....

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

~TeaForMe~ — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:54:06 -0000

Thank you very much, NotHappy. It is my understanding that Gloucester's commercial rate is far lower than that for most surrounding towns, based on a post from ME a couple of months ago. I Googled Beverly and got just over 16. It's gone up.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:24:49 -0000

Let's add in Newburyport, which has some financial issues also:
Gloucester's commercial rate: 9.7 (630 parcels)
Newburyport commercial rate: 10.13 (625 parcels)
Gloucesters' residential rate: 9.1 (Single family parcels: 7,147 -average value $510,540)
Newburyport residential rate: 10.13 (Single family parcels: 4,266- average value $486,986)
Gloucester commercial property assessed value: $449,562,435
Newburyport commercial property assessed value: $454,788,761
Gloucester commercial tax levy: $4,360,756
Newburyport commercial tax levy: $4,607,010
Total of all tax levy income for Gloucester: $94,354,903
Total of all tax levy income for Newburyport: $60,360,481
Newburyport also taxes open space.The difference in tax income, despite the higher commercial and residential rates - negative $33,994,422. This includes the state aid ($13,181,820 for Gloucester, $8,530,329 for Newburyport).
And yet, they look so prosperus.....

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:00:37 -0000

I don't see where you get Beverly is twice the developed space - they have a smaller area (22.7 square miles with 6.1 water opposed to 41.5 sq miles with 15.5 water) with more parcels.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Mike_Mulcahey — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:39:07 -0000

the conclusion is even though Beverly only is twice the developed space, it's what the did with it. I work in Beverly and I see the companies that have moved in there and they National and Global companies. This city has a handful which doesn't cut it.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:06:51 -0000

Check out that website - it even lists occupations, broken down by gender.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

coldwaterdiver — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:45:44 -0000

"dont they care about the children...: HAHAHA< ...oh wait, were you being serious?

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:42:19 -0000

Okay, GYHOOMW - first glance, Beverly (I combined commercial/industrial for convenience):
Gloucester's commercial rate: 9.7 (630 parcels)
Beverly's commercial rate: 18.47 (531 parcels)
Gloucesters' residential rate: 9.1 (Single family parcels: 7,147 -average value $510,540)
Beverly's residential rate: 10.4 (Single family parcels: 8,352 - average value $456,848)
Gloucester commercial property assessed value: $449,562,435
Beverly commercial property assessed value: $662,017,705
Gloucester commercial tax levy: $4,360,756
Beverly commercial tax levy: $12,227,467
Total of all tax levy income for Gloucester: $94,354,903
Total of all tax levy income for Beverly: $112,474,667
Surprisingly, Beverly taxes open space (Gloucester doesn't). The difference in tax income, despite the higher commercial and residential rates - "only" $18,119,764. This includes the state aid ($13,181,820 for Gloucester, $17,676,851 for Beverly) and other line items you can see at the Mass DOR Municipal Data at-a-glance.

You'll have to draw your own conclusions on this one.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Guest — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:32:39 -0000

Thanks for the link, NH. - 'the majority earn between 30K & 60K'. I must wonder how many of those folks work outside of Gloucester and I would question how many of those are employed at a Mall or a Hotel. - Of course that is not to imply that most Elder Service providers would receive earnings at or above that range - nor would Agriculture. However, thoughtful comparisons ought to evaluate the added benefit to the quality of life for establishing growth in those more necessary fields of occupation - as opposed to the increasing deficits thereof.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

cowgirlshirl — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:05:42 -0000

........Moral Compass.....

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:15:44 -0000

That's going to take a bit of work to do right. I'll get back to you on that...

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Sybil — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:17:27 -0000

Ha ha. I'll bet you like the "values" police too glostaman.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

glostaman — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:07:23 -0000

Moral Justice. Here come the moral police. Get real!

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

~TeaForMe~ — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:32:00 -0000

Correction, Mr. Mulcahy: I stated that I don't support raising commercial property's tax burden in another post. I thought I had written it above.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

~TeaForMe~ — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:30:03 -0000

Mr. Mulcahy: I specifically said above that I do not support raising commercial property's taxes relative to residential property, so I'm not sure why you wrote your last sentence.

Second, you didn't address my question: Can you address the very low commercial property tax rates in Gloucester compared to surrounding towns? Isn't this a big advantage for us that is already a subsidy of sorts?

You don't have to answer that. Maybe NotHappy will. However, you said you were going to address it and then talked about other things. After all, the Beverly developers who request a TIF are starting at about 16 compared to about 10 in Gloucester.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Mike_Mulcahey — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:15:18 -0000

I can address it. Only 9% of this city is commercial. If you want them to stay you can't lay the majority of the tax burden on them. You want to keep comparing us to Beverly or Newburyport. You can't. Those cities have large commercial areas that balance out the tax burden. Those cities offered tax incentives to attract businesses to them. Go ahead and apply Beverly's tax rate to Gloucester and watch businesses leave in droves.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

~TeaForMe~ — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:32:50 -0000

NotHappy: Can you address the very low commercial property tax rates in Gloucester compared to surrounding towns? Isn't this a big advantage for us that is already a subsidy of sorts?

Also, one cannot judge all opponents of TIFs by No Free Lunch's talking points (although I appreciate this group's efforts in some areas). For example, I have no concerns about the salamanders or types of jobs, etc. We all have our own reasons for not believing a TIF is wise.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:20:20 -0000

I was reading the minutes of the public hearing on this, and I am still a little disturbed by the tone of the opponents, and their lack of fact-checking. I've been digging around, looking for places where TIFs have been used (other than Gloucester) and have found other instances where there are no high-paying jobs created and uses other than industrial/manufacturing built. A few good examples: The Arcade at Downtown Framingham (a mixed-use downtown development with residential space), Wedge Hotel Management Group in Chelsea, and in Fitchburg - a TIF granted for a group that will build an indoor waterpark and hotel similar to Coco Key. And, of course, we granted Amelia's a TIF - not really retail, I guess, but I would argue that it is equivalent.
Of the towns where Market Baskets exist, 18 are in an ETA and eligible to grant a TIF. Only Lowell has at present granted one directly to them. 7 municipalities, including Rowley and Middleton, are not TIF eligible.
One bright spot for opponents - Bellingham turned down Lowe's request for a TIF, because they had already broken ground before they requested it.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

funkymonkey — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:05:09 -0000

Nolie....I'm with you. However, we have traveled to senior communites in Florida and Arizona. They are light years ahead of us in planning, implementing and actually building wonderful retirement communities. These companies have given a tremendous amount of thought to many different issues that seniors face.

I, for one, (all things being equal when I retire) have decided that I could skip the winters here and head for warmer weather.

I see seniors really enjoying themselves with all sorts of outdoor activities...and living longer because of it!

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Dorothy_T — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:55:40 -0000

Nolie - I was doing a little research (it's what I do!) and found a really interesting data website - http://www.city-data.com/ci...

According to their charts, the majority of households are making between $30K and $60K. I'm not saying this is good, but perhaps expectations of what is a "good" job are lower for most of the population.

Re: Letter: 'No free lunch' crowd is out to lunch

Huh — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:24:27 -0000

am, it's a fact that all business’s face challenges with today's economy. However, with the extreme LACK of any competition in this city, any company coming to that mall will most likely get many of the people of this city and Rockport to shop there. And if some of these stores fail, then it is due to bad business management and or prices and another company will replace them. Gloucester has been kept a fishing port for a long time and we've stopped large commercial retail ventures such as this one...from opening here. And YES, I like be a small and close nit community. But, it is now here and we've allowed the city to compete with others (Beverly) we may see other business’s come across the bridge and open some additional doors thus adding jobs and income. I'm not saying that we're going to become Peabody but lets allow our city to open itself to retail business and retail chains if the opportunity’s is there. It means jobs, and taxes for the city.