Sec of State looks to increase foreclosure protection

The Taunton Daily Gazette reports here that Secretary of State William Galvin will file legislation to require banks to go before a judge in order to foreclose. Massachusetts does not require court review on a foreclosure proceeding.
There have been a lot of questionable practices on the foreclosure process around the country. Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism blog has some great posts about the abuses and why they are important. This post is a good start. Select "real estate" in topics on her blog and read a few posts. Don't think that fraud and sloppiness in foreclosures is a problem. Someone did not pay their mortgage, right?
It gets a lot messier than that. Like the securities sold by the banks ...
...which were not properly constituted and the banks have to buy them back or a foreclosed home is sold twice.
Yep, two different buyers both paid for the same place. How does that happen? Could it happen to you? Maybe, and that is a big problem for our economy. Click here to read on!

Probation Department civil service bill in the works

Charlie on the MTA over at Blue Mass Group says State House Speaker DeLeo will file a bill to place the Probation Department ...

.. under civil service. Sounds like the right move to me.
What do you think? Click here to read on!

Unemployment insurance, tax cuts and recovery

This post at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities talks about the effects that unemployment insurance and tax cuts have on the recovery and the long term deficit. The finding was that extending unemployment insurance ...
... and tax cuts targeted at low income taxpayers cost less and create more stimulus than extending tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers.
What do you think? Click here to read on!

Dr. Russell and School Committee at loggerheads

The Standard Times reports that the School Committee and Superintendent are unable to come to terms on a new contract in this article. The sticking point, according to the second hand information of which I am aware, is compensation.
Mr. Lenz is quoted in the article saying the school department is funded at the minimum required level. That is not correct. Dartmouth schools are funded above the minimum required. Also, Town Meeting has provided hundreds of thousands for texts and technology above the budget. The Select Board has included $91K and $47K in the budget in addition to get the School Committee not to charge fees for high school transportation and activities. There is no question that the schools are funded at above the minimum required.
This leadership change also may be an opportunity to make some changes in the way that the school and town interact. The school business administrator is retiring this year as well. I would like to see the school business functions integrated into the town and the town's personnel functions integrated with the schools. The schools and town run separate and redundant purchasing and accounting functions. The town's personnel functions are not good and the schools, who have many more employees, do a better job. Combining these functions could save expense and give better services. The Town of Barnstable has successfully gone to this arrangement.
Another area that might be ripe for integration is custodial services. The school department has a much larger and more capable staff than the town does. The school department has licensed plumbers and electricians on their staff while the town does not. Town departments frequently have one or two employees which provide these services but are paid out of each departments budget. There may be opportunities for savings and efficiency there,
Finally, this might be a good time to look at regionalizing our schools. The obvious candidate for a regional partner is Westport. Combining our districts would save administration and transportation costs.
What do you think? Are any of these worth pursuing?

Click here to read on!

We Are In DEEP Trouble

The Labor Department reports that the labor market remained weak last month. Nationwide 39,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate was 9.8%. There are 15 million unemployed in the nation.
Meanwhile the GOP is preventing extension of unemployment benefits and have no plan on how to increase demand for goods and services. Increased demand must occur before we will see a decline in unemployment. Unemployment compensation is the most effective means to counter cyclical recessionary declines. But the Republicans will not continue the benefit unless tycoons get a tax cut. In fact, the House Republicans (all but three) just yesterday voted against extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of earnings by the nation's taxpayers.
Some comments here have placed the blame on the unemployed for needing the benefit. I don't believe that 15 million workers are kicked back on their couches waiting until their $300 a week benefit runs out. Think about that. The average unemployment benefit is $300 a week. Think about how your household would get by on $300 a week.
There are no jobs out there ... .
... and won't be until there is increased demand for goods and services. There will not be increased demand without someone spending some money. That is where the federal government must step up. People have no money to spend, states have no money to spend, businesses don't hire people unless they need the additional labor to produce for the market. Even now states are facing budget shortfalls that will throw even more people out of work. Something needs to be done and I don't see a plan from anyone in Washington on what to do. The Center for American Progress lays out the case for more stimulus at this link. All the talk is about deficits and I maintain that most Republicans (those not in the Congress) and most Americans don't give a flip about the deficit. Remember just a decade ago, the federal government had a surplus and was projecting surpluses in the future. That was before the ill-advised Bush tax cuts (trickle down does not work, never has), two expensive and ridiculous wars and a $500 billion unpaid for prescription drug benefit. We need to get our economy working again, get revenues up, and health care costs down. If Congressional Republicans won't allow more stimulus or even continue anti recessionary policies like unemployment, and want to repeal the only legislation that can curb health care costs, then please tell me what should be done. Please just skip the part where Barney Frank made all the banks give mortgages to poor people. It is not true and it doesn't matter now.
The country is in real trouble and our leaders fiddle while Rome burns.
DEEP Trouble Click here to read on!

Senator Brown blocks unemployment

Our Senator Scott Brown took to the floor of the Senate to block extension of unemployment benefits. Blue Mass Group has the details here. The unemployment benefits of an estimated 2 million Americans will expire before Christmas unless Congress acts to extend them. While our Commonwealth did not reach the depths of unemployment that other areas are experiencing and is recovering jobs more quickly than the nation, there are still thousands of Bay Staters out of work with no prospect for employment because there are no jobs to be filled. Merry Christmas from the GOP!
To compound matters, unemployment payments are anti-recessionary. Unemployed workers spend their benefits and stimulate the economy. Which helps to reduce unemployment and spur demand. Demand creates jobs, ...

... not small business and certainly not tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of our population. It is simple. A well run business has exactly the number of workers needed to fill the demand for their product. Giving them a tax break adds to their profit, not their payroll. Click here to read on!

Select Board passes on Zoning Board appointment

The Select Board voted 2 for to 3 against on the reappointment of Mr. Ray Souza to the Zoning Board of Appeals(ZBA). Mr. McDonald and I were for reappointment. Mr. Souza had served on the ZBA for the past 46 years. Members voting against the reappointment cited the desire to have new people involved and several cases where the courts have ruled the ZBA board decisions were badly in error and/or were against the recommendation of the Town Counsel.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has a difficult and very technical job. There are in and outs of the law and court decisions which affect their rulings and it takes a while to get familiar with legal constraints. That is the reason I supported Mr. Souza's reappointment. He has the experience.
In an unexpaectecd turn of events, Ms. Figuereido, who had expressed interest in being appointed to the ZBA as a full member, withdrew herself from consideration at last night's meeting. She is currently an alternate member and attends most hearings but cannot vote unless there is an absence of a full member. When Mr. Souza was then nominated for reappointment, the vote went against him. An alternate member will have to fill that spot on the ZBA until the Select Board finds a new member.
Curt Brown's Standard Times article about the reappointment can be found at this link.
I feel there was quite a lot of rather uncivil behavior ...

... at the meeting and I hope that I did not contribute to it. I tried to keep the discussion on the topic at hand but it frequently strayed from the issue of the appointment.
Finally I want to thank Mr. Souza for his many years of service to the town. He has spent many hours as a volunteer on the ZBA and has my gratitude for that.
Click here to read on!

Lakevile votes for increased regionalization

The Standard Times reports at this link that the Lakeville Town Meeting voted to fully regionalize their district with Freetown I think it is a good move. As I wrote here, a regional school with Westport would be a good idea for our town. Click here to read on!

Lakeville tries again

The Standard Times reports here that Lakeville voters will take up full regionalization of their schools again. Their high school is already regional with Freetown. Combining the two districts will reduce transportation and administration costs. I think it shokld be done.
I also believe that Dartmouth should form a regional district with Westport. The resulting school district would have about 6000 students, 7-8 elementary schools, ...

... two middle schools, and two high schools. The new district would save millions in transportation and administration costs. Hard to see a down side from my point of view.
Why do that now you ask? Well, while our finances are not in dire shape at the moment, the long term outlook is that the required school spending is outstripping revenue. This is not a criticism of the school department but a fact of life due to the school funding formulas in place. Regional schools get state help with transportation costs. This is one way of getting the state to kick in more funding of their unfunded mandate to the town..
What do you feel about a regional district and why do you think it would be good or bad? Click here to read on!

Tax classification time

The Select Board will have a public hearing tomorrow and set the tax rate for 2011.Several years ago, I posted an explanation of how the tax levy and the tax rate are related and that explanation can be found at this link. Currently Dartmouth employs a split tax rate where commercial, industrial and personal (CIP) property is taxed at a higher rate than residential properties. For the past few years that "split tax" rate has been 40% higher on CIP property. In addition a small commercial exemption has been adopted which reduces the tax on small businesses by 10%, resulting in a split tax on those establishments of 130%.
Back in March 2008, I posted an explanation form Mr. Gracie on why the ability to split tax rates exists and why it is applicable to Dartmouth. That post can be found at this link.
Thanks to the banksters and Wall Street's riverboat gamblers, residential real estate values have declined for the past few years. The result is that the percentage of the total tax levy paid by the CIP properties has increased somewhat over the past few years. I believe that this compensates for a decade or more shifting the burden to the residential portion of the levy. In any case, ...

... the shift is not large, CIP real property taxes would grow to 22.2% of the levy from a low of 13.8% in 2006. My initial thought is to leave the tax shift unchanged for the next year. That position is not staunchly held and I will be interested to hear what the arguments are to change it, if any, at the hearing tomorrow. What are your thoughts on this? Click here to read on!