Partly Cloudy 33°F Partly Cloudy [Forecast] :: Friday, November 21st, 2008
Vacation Info Wedding Info NEW! Kids & Parents

Editorial

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” - George Washington
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Woodwose Landscapes
Full-service landscape design/construction & licensed irrigation installers for residential/commercial clients. From seasonal maintenance to new construction, our experts are dedicated to working with you to implement a design that meets your needs. (Barnstable)
Comfort Cuisine
Prepared good old fashioned home cooked meals with the finest ingredients ready in 10 minutes. Come in to the Sandwich location or have it delivered to your door. All items are individually portioned and packaged for your convenience. (Sandwich)

How the rich get richer (and the poor taxpayers get poorer)

  Chatham's Reverse Robin Hood
  Homeowners with $3 & $4 million homes ask for taxpayer relief
cmiller601_600
  This modest-looking Cape Cod style home owned by Richard Miller at 42 Harbor View Lane in North Chatham, a little north of the Fish Pier, is assessed at a few dollars less than $4 million. The inset shows the Miller house from the water. See the other $3,448,000 house below.

By Walter Brooks 

The stories in the local newspapers this week tell a sad story of arrogance and greed by the super-rich of Chatham.  A simple search of the Town of Chatham website reveals that the homes of the two homeowners mentioned in one story as organizers of a new "Save Our Shoreline" group have homes assessed at over $3.5 and $4 million respectively.

cbreak1860_373
   This is a map published in 1860 showing the break in exactly the same spot as today's new break.
Hardly the kind of home or family one usually associates with welfare recipients. 

Yet these "swells", many of whom darken our shores a few months in summer, think it appropriate that the fisher-folk and waitrons and other working stiffs who make up the year round resident population of this precious village seaport, should pay for a preemptive strike at Mother Nature by spending $2 million or more to fill in the new breakthrough opposite their pleasure domes.

Hey, they're even willing to throw in a million of their own money. 

National Seashore & common sense common folk

We assume that either the United States National Park system which actually owns the beach they wish repaired, will put a stop to this nonsense, and if they don't, then the good people of Chatham surely will.

It's bad enough that these nouveau arriviste have already forced the town to call for and thus pay for a Special Town Meeting next month to address their needs.  Worse, they know so little about their adopted town that they are unaware that what happened to that barrier beach in April has been happening with regularity at least as long as Europeans have lived along that shore and been mapping it, starting in the mid-17th century when William Nickerson bought Chatham from the local Nauset Indians for a rowboat.

The old timers in town call North Chatham "Uptown" due to its height above sea level, an area in the least danger from wave or tide damage. 

A few thousand angry letters to this online newspaper and the Town of Chatham's Selectmen (945-5105) might go a long way toward nipping this silliness in the bud.
cbreak2soltpondrd_600
  One of the homes above, owned by Gerald A. Milden of 2 Salt Pond Road in North Chatham, is assessed at $3,448,100. A search shows that the home was last purchased in 1989 for $434,195.
He is asking Chatham taxpayers to spend a million dollars to protect his house from possible-but-highly unlikely damage from the new breakthrough in the barrier beach on the opposite shore.
 

30 comments
Blog posts and comments are entirely the thoughts and ideas of the people who write them and in no way represent the views of CapeCodToday.com, eCape, Inc., or its employees or owners.

06/13/07 @ 6:19 pm
Opinionator [Member] writes:
Rich folks must learn that you can't buy Mother Nature.
06/14/07 @ 9:18 am
jakeskid [Member] writes:
I would be more impressed if you did not resort to pajoritive terms like "swells: and nouveau arriviste. You also underplay the $1000,000 they are willing to pony up.
Being wealthy is not a crime and any normal human would be concerned about the potential damage to their property from cape cod storms. If you don't think the work in necessary, fine, than just say so. Buy the way, how long you live in a place is usually not a very good gage of character and historical knowledge is not a residential requirement.
06/14/07 @ 9:57 am
WB [Member] writes:
On the other hand, you 132 Chatham "swells" who make up the members of S.O.S. would each pony up $15,000 ($2M ÷ 132 members), you could pay for your own beach protection and save the town the time and money of a Special Town meeting, a year of legal suits and a Prop 2-1/2 override.
06/14/07 @ 9:59 am
oh the huge manatee! [Member] writes:
If these people are worried about their property, then they need to sell and move - period. Many rich people have enough money to buy their houses, even knowing that they might be lost to the storms. If you don't have enough money to be able to afford losing your waterfront home, then move.
1. Taxpayers should not have to bail out rich property holders, obviously.
2. Even if the property holders paid for the ENTIRE project of "fixing" the beach, I don't think the beach should be messed with. Leave nature alone and let it move the sand around.
3. I don't even think that these folks should be allowed to put rocks in front of their houses. Where that happens, the beach disappears and is lost for everyone. This is not a good thing.

The problem isn't that the beach broke. The problem is that people build houses too close to the water and then expect other people to fight nature in order to preserve their mistake. Leave the beaches alone. Also, how do they come up with 132 homes endangered? That is an outright lie.
06/14/07 @ 10:54 am
WB [Member] writes:
For the unlettered "swells" reading this, the dictionary defines a swell as a;
blueblood, bluestockings, gentleperson, , nobleman, patrician, peer, ritzy, silk stocking, or upper-cruster.
06/14/07 @ 10:58 am
John Q. Public [Member] writes:
What's most amusing about those Chatham nabobs is their seeming total lack of understanding about how offensive their greed appears to the rest of us, rich or poor. I too live in a home overlooking the same outer beach, and it would never occur to me to ask my neighbors, especially those less well-off than myself, to pay for my protection, which BTW is imaginary on their part.
06/14/07 @ 11:02 am
WB [Member] writes:
Before any of you "nabobs" get het up, here's the definition of nabob;
big star, captain of industry, celebrity, headliner, heavyweight, idol, megastar, mogul, panjandrum, person to be reckoned with, superstar, topliner, very important person (VIP)...
06/14/07 @ 11:44 am
Krista [Member] writes:
I don't think these people are worried that they will suffer a fnanacial loss if their house washes away. They carry flood insurance that will pay them for there loss. What is not guaranteed is whether they will be allowed to rebuild, either by FEMA or by Chatham. Their real cost will be "loss of opportunity".

The manatee is right, we shouldn't be building houses so close to the water. But I'll go you one better. We shouldn't be allowed to own the shore either. It should be open to the public.
06/14/07 @ 3:12 pm
jakeskid [Member] writes:
I generally agree with the idea that if you build to near the water thats your bad. However, here on the cape we all live to near the water, thats one of the reasons for the high insurance rates. I have to wonder what the detractors would do if they were one of the wealthy property holders.
06/15/07 @ 7:04 am
oh the huge manatee! [Member] writes:
jakeskid

Huh? Wha?
We "all" live too close to the water? That doesn't even make sense. I live miles from the water. How could that be considered too close? If I were one of the property holders, I'd sell my house or not mind losing it. Pretty simple choices. I wouldn't try to pervert nature and bilk taxpayers to preserve my privileged status quo. There, that's how I'd feel.
06/15/07 @ 7:40 am
capemom [Member] writes:
jakeskid: you will not find a bigger fan of rich people than yours truly. But these people exemplify chutzpah, which is defined as the guy who murdered his parents pleading for lenience from the jury on the grounds that he is an orphan.

Their organization is called "Save our Shoreline"? It should be called "Save MY Shoreline, because guess what, it doesn't belong to we the people.

If there was a hope in hell that filling in the cut would actually help the situation, I'd be all for the taxpayers footing the bill, as long as:

--it included a beach rebuilding effort to create more beaches for the use of the public, yes, right in front of these houses.

The Great Unwashed would show up in front of these people's houses on the newly created beaches EVERY DAY in the summer, kids, cellulite, and all.
06/15/07 @ 12:34 pm
Katie [Member] writes:
(trying desperately to come up with another word for "nabob" so WB can define it for us)
06/15/07 @ 2:14 pm
Peter Kenney [Member] writes:
Now wait a minute...

Why do we have to attack rich people just because they are rich? A few facts that have not made it into this 'discussion':
(Disclaimer...I know Gerry Milden personally and am very familiar with his house and property)

1. Milden's house and others threatened by the breach are up to nearly 100 years old; built when their beaches were expansive and North Beach was a massive barrier to open water tidal action.

2. What does Milden's purchase price have to do with anything? I notice no one has mentioned his annual tax bill with no kids in the schools.

3. These selfish, rich, evil people HAVE offered $1,000,000 to repair the break, half of the $2 mil. estimate.

4. These people can afford to armor their shorelines...would you all prefer that?

5. How much tax revenue does Chatham stand to lose if houses disappear?
Who will support Chatham's municipal services then?

More on Milden in next comment, if allowed?
06/15/07 @ 2:25 pm
Peter Kenney [Member] writes:
More on Milden...

Since Gerry is mentioned by name; he made a conscious decision to preserve an original of the four house built by the 'minister' in the early 1900's, though he could well afford to do what others have done along the Chatham shore line: tear down and build a new mansion.

Also, he has maintained the appropriate vegetation on his terraced bank and CHOSE not to supplement his shore-side armoring with an unsightly rock revetment (for which he once had a permit), prefering to stick with the wood and steel bulkhead he acquired with the property and as a result having little or no beach depending on tidal cycles.

Chatham has to decide how much tax revenue it is prepared to lose, how much dredging it is willing to fund to correct growing navigation problems, how much of its sheltered fishing harbor and fishing fleet it wants to lose, how much scouring of the newly exposed shore it can tolerate, etc., etc.

There is more to this than we can deal with by simply disliking rich people. We seem to enjoy their tax revenues.
06/15/07 @ 2:26 pm
bittersweet [Member] writes:
Peter-
It's funny, but I agree with you. This is not something of their making, it just happened. They are entitled to the help the rest of us would get, rich or not.
And you're right about the tax revenue. And wealthy people support the Hospital and the beautiful MFA...many charities as well. I hate class warfare, it's just too bad the enequity makes it so.
06/15/07 @ 2:48 pm
Peter Kenney [Member] writes:
Bittersweet

Well said. Funny thing...if the seasonal 'swells' and the evil rich leave Chatham tomorrow, buldoze their houses and leave their land to their churches or other favorite charities...there will not be enough property tax revenue left in town to function. Bachelor Milden's property taxes pay for nearly two students per year in the Chatham schools; what a rotten guy! And, check it out at town hall if you don't believe me, all five of the houses on Minister's Point probably pay the freight for 12 or more kids...with not one of their own in
the public schools. They will not need an ambulance...they will call a limousine for the ride to a Boston hospital. Like them or not these folks make it possible for many others to remain in Chatham.

The issue here is not class or wealth; it is how do we respond to this latest challenge by Mother Nature? Do we respond at all? That is the question. I hope.
06/15/07 @ 3:22 pm
blp7171 [Member] writes:
Regardless of how you feel about who pays for filling in the breach, many of us would object to the strong possibility of seeing all that money wasted when Mother Nature tears a new breach in the beach- as will inevitably happen.

I say let the concerned homeowners do what they need to do to protect their homes- short of filling in the beach- and let them pay for it themselves. That's the price you pay for being a homeowner no matter where you live and how much money you have.
06/15/07 @ 4:13 pm
capemom [Member] writes:
As an enthusiastic capitalist and half a libertarian, I think we should leave these homeowners free from government interference.

Taxpayer's money would interfere with their paying for the whole thing themselves and no one likes the government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong, wouldn't you agree?
06/15/07 @ 4:39 pm
blp7171 [Member] writes:
Capemom; Another good post! (I liked your previous post, too!)

About all the rich 'swells' leaving Chatham and the Cape in general- gee- then the Cape might be the nice, quiet place it used to be before it was ruined by all these 'swell' folks who came over the bridge with all their money and 'improvements'.

BTW; I grew up in a neighboring town but my kids went through the Chatham school system and there were plenty of 'rich' kids in their classes. Even if the two individuals mentioned don't have kids going to school here, someone paid for their education, so what goes around, comes around. If they can't afford to take care of their own homes, they shouldn't have them. I've never had to ask anyone to bail me out when my home was damaged by a storm (hurricane) and nor did I ask.
06/15/07 @ 7:20 pm
Peter Kenney [Member] writes:
What is your point?

I guess it's ok in the name of punishing the rich to watch as the Chatham fish pier is either destroyed or landlocked...gee, that makes sense. All those 'rich' fishermen. Right? Of course, the sixty or so million dollars passing through chathjam's eceonmy from the fishing fleet is easily replaced ...by what? And, of course, let's not forget about all those ugly room tax dollars Chatham won't have to count when they lose 4 or 5 miles of beaches to tidal scouring and people decide that going to a part of the Cape that has no beaches makes no sense. And, if coastal wetlands and irreplaceable habitat for threatened & endangered species are wiped out that's ok because we have punished some rich folks. Of course, there are those people who have owned homes affected by the breach for decades, who are neither rich now nor were they when they first bought in. But, if they have to suffer irretreivable loss in the name of punishing rich folks, those are the breaks, so to speak.

It all makes sense to me now.
06/15/07 @ 7:29 pm
Peter Kenney [Member] writes:
Manatee-

I saw six sheets of the Chatham GIS maps, showing every proerty from the fish pier to Scatteree. And, I can count, can you? How do explain the total destruction of a car parked BEHIND a house within sight of the Milden house so kindly mentioned herein? This happened last night during high tide with wind-driven swells. A GODDAMNED CAR...parked on what has been dry land for as long as anyone down there can remember!

Question: if all the barrier beaches on Cape Cod were obliterated tomorrow and thus the entire habitat network for plover sna dother species, how would you react?

Question: Do you think we are tinkering with nature by leaving bird feeders out through the winter and thus altering the 'natural' patterns of southerly bird migration?

BLP7171-

Who sold the rich folks their land and houses? Probably the very people whose kids and grandkids now long for the 'good old days'?

Let's get real.
06/16/07 @ 7:10 am
blp7171 [Member] writes:
Filling in the breach is the ONLY way to save the fish pier???

What, so we shouldn't sell houses to 'rich people'?

I have no problem with so called rich people- I DO have a problem with people using their money to throw their weight around. I also am against wasting money on stupid 'solutions'. Even if they do manage to fill in the breach, it's a temporary cure at best. It is absolute folly to attmept to keep the beach the same forever.
06/16/07 @ 10:41 am
Peter Kenney [Member] writes:
blp71717

Why is it when a rich person speaks up (or out) he is throwing his weight around, but when an ordinary person speaks up (out) it is an exercise in democracy? And who says the people behind Save Our Shorleines are all rich?
In fact, one of the four founding members is a third generation Cape Codder who makes his living as a lobsterman. Apparantly the CCToday research department missed this fact and no one else has cared enough to ask who the entire founding four are. In fact, CCToday was way off on the purchase price it stated for Milden's house...as was I on how many kids his taxes pay for in the schools; the correct number is closer to three.

Both Orleans and Chatham have filed with the state and their town conservation departments required barrier beach management plans...both towns have failed to honor the requirements of those plans. Why? Ongoing beach nourishment would have prevented this breach. And, the National Seashore owns only separate parcels of the beach...not the entire beach.
06/16/07 @ 1:11 pm
blp7171 [Member] writes:
I have said REPEATEDLY that it makes no difference whether they are rich or not. YOU brought up the money factor and the notion that if we don't help them, they will lose their homes/leave and we will ultimately lose the money they pay in taxes to the town. AGAIN, my main comment is that they shouldn't be trying to fill in the breach because it's a fultile effort! It is a waste of money. But, since you bring up money (again) people who have enough money to own these homes should be ashamed and embarrassed to be coming before the town with this proposal.

And, what I said was "I have a problem with people using their money to throw their weight around..." I said nothing about people speaking up. All you can talk about is the class warfare aspect- you are ignoring the fact that filling in the beach is a stupid idea because it won't solve the problem. If you want to talk about the pros and cons of filling in the beach, fine. But leave the "Oh, the poor rich people- no body likes them" out of it. No body is sympathetic to that line of commentary.
06/16/07 @ 1:24 pm
Peter Kenney [Member] writes:
Fine...let's talk about the problem. The purpose of the beach management plans was to determine how thowns and others who own/control barrier beaches would maintain those beaches and protect habitat. Neither orleans nor Chatham has done a damn thing to protect habitat. I have no idea what your background is but I have a fair amount of experience in heavy construction, concluding marine projects. There are hundreds of miles and hundreds of thousands of acres of coastal sand maintained throughout Florida, for example, by sound beach nourishment programs. The ongoing replenishment of sand on barrier beaches can be found in ancient engineering projects. This is not an insoluable problem, regardless of what you think.

For decades wind and tide have been eroding Nortgh Beach, more severely in some spots than others. Simply replace the sand through carefully planned depositing of....say....dredge spoils. Since it is clear that few give a damn about coastal property owners let's use the habitat protection requirements in place to kill two plovers with one stone.
06/16/07 @ 1:26 pm
Peter Kenney [Member] writes:
And by the way, I am not the one who brought up the issue of wealth...it was the original editorial. I notice no one has offered a way out of the problems Chatham will face if it starts losing property tax revenues due to erosion.
06/16/07 @ 1:47 pm
blp7171 [Member] writes:
Thanks- this is at last a productive conversation. I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but for the record, my back ground is study or the natural history of Cape Cod, I've worked for Fish & Wildlife and various sportsman's organizations. My father was a commercial fisherman and I, too, worked in the commercial fishing industry for many years. My family has been on the Cape since at least the 1690's which gives me a long, long history here, via family stories of the past. Erosion has been a pretty constant problem here. People have had to face either losing their homes or relocating them for hundreds of years. When I was a kid, I lived in one of those old homes that had been moved to another location. Also when I was a kid, during a severe winter storm, I heard my mother scream from upstairs and ran up to see a 4 foot wall of water coming at the house, because a barrier beach had broke through and now we were suddenly on water-front property. We could and did row around our yard.

Will continue...
06/16/07 @ 1:57 pm
blp7171 [Member] writes:
So, I'm not insensitive to those who are facing this issue. But, I still believe that if people want to protect their homes, they should pay for it themselves. (The piping plover point is a whole 'nother issue- more money wasted.)

Florida has it's own problems with it's beach/land management and they're still figuring out where they've gone wrong and how to try to right it. Personally, the governemnt has made so many errors in trying to manage our natural resources that I would be very leery of taking their past solutions are the ultimate cure. Not to mention that the outer beach has a long history of washing through at various points and it will continue to breach no matter what we can do. We can try to keep filling in the holes, or we can try to find a way to work with nature, or take our lumps when nature doesn't work with us. Whether we like it or not, we'll probably end up with the latter.
06/16/07 @ 4:55 pm
Peter Kenney [Member] writes:
blp7171

I agree, folks who can afford primo seacide properties should not expect public sibsidies of their comfort. But, there is also the question of the general or public good. Let's just use round numbers: if millions of dollars over several years might be lost in tax revenues but for the spending of $2 million and private folks will pay half (I think they would pay even more), the math seems to be in favor of restoring the break. While the constantly changing nature of the barrier beach(es) is a matter of historical fact, the existance of dense population centers now threatened by the breach is also a fact. We need a rapid analysis of what will happen if nothing is done and a rapid decsion as to what if anyuthing will be done. Chatham has to settle this argument now and for the future. In my opinion a program of regular beach nourishment can be environmentally sound and still save private proerty. And, private property is not an evil, per se. Why do we assume everyone threatened by the breach is rich? If you have a history in town you know better.
06/16/07 @ 6:35 pm
blp7171 [Member] writes:
I'm very interested in discussing the science and engineering of repairing the breach. You have me until you get to the part where you say: "Why do we assume that everyone threatened by the breach is rich?" Why even bring that up? The editorial started the smarmy slant to get attention and sensationalize the issue, but we don't need to carry on in that vein. For the last time, no matter how rich or poor the homeowner is, my take on this is that people should pay to protect their own property.

If you want to make this a rich/poor arguement again, talk to somebody else. And your last sentence is totally unnecessary and rude. As I previously pointed out, my family home was threatened by a beach when I was young and the water actually flooded our yard. I've been on both sides of the breach.

You've made your point, I've made mine. Have a nice day.
Please visit these local CapeCodToday sponsors:
Adrene Jewelers
Dedicated to providing you with the highest quality Cape Cod and nautical style jewelry at the lowest prices possible. Owned and operated by an independent jeweler/gemologist, Adrene's also offers repair, appraisal, restoration and other services. (Yarmouth)
Cape Cod Weathervane Company
Online shop for weathervanes, cupolas, finials, bird feeders, copper fire pits, and other quality copper accessories for the home and garden. We feature many beautiful nautical theme weathervanes that can be used as both interior & exterior decorations (Hyannis)
IMPORTANT NOTICE FOR COMMENTORS & BLOGGERS: CapeCodToday now requires a one-time validation of your account email. When logging in or registering for the first time, you will be emailed a link to click that will validate your email and complete your login. The link in the email must be clicked in the same session when you are logged into the site for security purposes (i.e. retrieve the email right away and do not close your web browser).

This is a one-time-only process (or if you change the email on your account), and will help CCToday keep out the spammers. If you cannot validate your email because it is invalid, and you are a legitimate user, feel free to contact us and we will update your account to your current email.

Please Login or Register to leave a comment. There are 2,104 registered commenters!

CapeCodToday requires readers register an account with us in order to post comments. Become a trusted commenter and receive the benefits of posting instantly throughout the site. It's quick and easy!

Please note: If you are a CapeCodToday registered blogger, you can use your blogger login. Your login for the blogs is separate from your CapeCodToday main site login (if you have one).

Previous/Next posts in this blog

About This Blog

Editorials are the conscience of the Fourth Estate. They usually represent the opinion of the media which publishes them whether they are original or guest editorials. These latter may also offer a contrary opinion, and responsible media allow dissent.
Like all our content, the readers may offer an immediate response as a comment. We welcome submissions from our readers sent to wb@eCape.com.
Walter Brooks, Editor & Publisher
James Kinsella, Managing Editor
Maggie Kulbokas, Editor
Peter Robbins, Investigative Reporter
Julie Brooks, President, eCape.com

- site sponsors -


CCT Blog Tools

Login to comment or manage your blog:

Username: 

Password:     

Become a CapeCodToday Blogger!

Are you passionate about your community? Do you blog or at least harbor thoughts of doing so?

If so, CapeCodToday.com would like to host your blog on our CapeCodToday weblog publishing platform.

Blog Newsfeed

CapeCodToday uses standard web "newsfeeds" (RSS) to automatically update the latest blog entries in your browser or newsreader.

Use any of the links below in your newsreader or web browser to get "Editorial" postings delivered to you, or use the RSS icon in your browser's address bar.

RSS 2.0 Atom 0.3