by Greg Nadeau in Announcements, Development and Zoning, Neighborhoods and Squares
Posted on November 28, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Last Modified on November 29, 2008 at 12:35 am
loading…
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3CzyBFLfkI" width="320" height="270" wmode="transparent" /]
The tree is gone. Boston Globe video
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/AKFspz5hIew" width="320" height="270" wmode="transparent" /]
Several of us confronted the arborist. Ellie and Kirsten went to court in Woburn where Joe Benoit mysteriously turned up and successfully challenged their request for a temporary restraining order.
Paul Harlow from Cambridge Landscaping should have his arborist license revoked. His evaluation proved false. There was no evidence of decay. I have a call in to the MAA to see if we can challenge his license.
Joe Benoit is a coward. He never dealt with any of us with good faith or honesty. The city has to stop turning a blind eye to his lack of maintenance to his many rental apartments. He has to be held to account.
Our Ward Aldermen Bob and Rebekah have pledged to work together and with all of us to help pass a meaningful tree ordinance. We will hold a community meeting and pot luck within the next couple of weeks to help ensure that this ordinance becomes law.
loading…
Calm down and stop vilifying. I don’t think someone would spend money to take down a tree, which benefits their property visually just like it benefits neighbors, unless the tree was causing problems to the property.
loading...
Greg – thanks to you, Ellie, Kirsten, Deborah, and everyone for doing everything you could. I wasn’t aware that Joe Benoit had been shirking maintenance expenses in his rental properties. I wonder how long he’s going to wait to invest in a sump pump for this particular property. The spring that fed what was once known as Tannery Brook might start to prove problematic now, unless the water finds its way into the MBTA tunnel. I *think* the cellars of the new condos are between it and me up on Cameron – we’ll just have to wait and see where the dammed thing turns up…
loading...
We are heartbroken in this neighborhood with the loss of our beautiful willow. I went to purchase curtains for the first time today because I no longer have the tree there to protect my window from the bike path and street below. As a resident of this building where the willow once stood before, I am thankful for the efforts of my fellow neighbors to prevent this awful outcome, fearful of the possible consequences that this loss will have on our local watertable, but optimistic for how the community can continue to work together to create something beautiful again in this space.
loading...
“I have a call in to the MAA to see if we can challenge his license.”
A landowner hires a man to remove a tree from HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY, and now you want to put the guy out of business, because you LOVED the tree?
This is “Joe the Plumber” all over again.
For the love of God, grow up.
loading...
“Our” beautiful tree? Are any of you hammerheads versed in the concept of private property rights??
This guy had a tree on his own land that was causing problems. he was fully within his rights having it removed.
loading...
Three things to consider:
(1) Plenty of other communities like Lexington, MA have tree ordinances extending to private property, similar to historic home protections. We will work on one here. We need it more than the leafier suburbs.
(2) Benoit and Cambridge Landscaping were not truthful. Anyone there when the tree came down in slices (including the cops) would attest to the fact that there was no decay (which is what the Boston Tree Preservation arborist said.
(3) I believe that Somerville Voices should only publish authenticated real people. The anonymous comments above, like several on the Davis Live Journal, are simply immature musing and need not be taken too seriously.
loading...
I don’t know re: point 3, Greg. I’m appreciating the opposition’s frankness, and think it’s actually helpful of them to fly their colors good and high. It gives a richer perspective to the issue, and clarifies the origins of some of the attitudes you’ve run up against. But I also understand how they could raise the noise-to-signal ratio to insupportable levels, so I could go either way.
loading...
Three more things to consider:
(1) The mere existence of a law is not justification of its existence or the enforcement thereof, nor is it indicative that the law in question does not violate the rights of the individual. Laws that once counted women and people of color as second-class citizens, or that prohibit homosexuals from enjoying the same rights as heterosexuals, serve as prime examples.
(2) That is irrelevant. Mr. Benoit could have taken that tree down, because space aliens from the planet Knog told him to, and he’d be equally within his rights to take it down.
It’s.
His.
Property.
(3) You want to see “immature” (not to mention petty and vindictive)? Look in a mirror.
As for my anonymity, I write my blog using my first name only, on account of threats against my person that I have received for writing about and defending the concepts of individual liberty, personal responsibility, respect for the Constitution, and simple common sense – all concepts that run contrary to today’s “progressive” community and its agenda.
loading...
All of those who either violated or tried to violate the individual property owner’s right to remove the tree should spend a minimum of 10 years in the state prison.
loading...
Joe Benoit mysteriously turned up and successfully challenged their request for a temporary restraining order.
Why would a party to a case showing up to a court hearing be a mystery? Didn’t you give him proper notice of the hearing?
loading...
Dear Weebs, Bruce, and Mr.X,
Please refrain from your angry and mean spirited comments. They are not creating any good for anyone in this painful situation. Regardless of your opinions, the loss of that tree is painful for many of us, especially those of us who loved it and who now live in the void it left behind. Please respect that. Thank you.
loading...
Julia, I do understand where you’re coming from. My grandparents’ old house in Cambridge still has a majestic chestnut tree in front, that Bill Weld’s wide once called the most beautiful tree in Cambridge. I used to swing from its branches on a rope swing my grandfather made for us.
But, if the new owners were to decide to cut it down, I’d ask them if I could have some of the wood to build some furniture with to remember the tree and my fond childhood memories.
What I would not do, not ever, is unlawfully trespass on his private property to obstruct him from engaging in a perfectly lawful activity.
And, if you want to criticize someone for being “mean spirited”, those comments should be directed toward Mr. Nadeau for threatening Mr. Harlow’s livelihood when he did NOTHING at all to warrant such an attack.
“I have a call in to the MAA to see if we can challenge his license.”
I got your anger right there.
loading...
Thank you for understanding, Bruce. I respect your opinion that property owners’ should be free to do whatever they want to their property, regardless of how it will impact the community, and I understand that, in most cases within our legal system, this is the case. Please remember though, that this is not always true, and that this is where zoning, preservation ordinances and building codes come in. If Mr.Benoit had wanted to remove all of the parking from the side of our building, for instance, he would have faced legal opposition because Somerville zoning requires a certain number of parking spaces per unit. Or, if he had wanted to paint the house bright pink and purple he would have probably had to go through some form of review or permitting. Without referring to the Somerville Zoning Ordinance, I can’t be specific here- but what I am trying to express is that there are plenty of legal restrictions and guidelines on what property owners can and cannot do to or on their property which take into consideration the welfare of the community. It is not always a private property free-for-all.
Trees happen to not be included in any of those restrictions or protections, at least not here in Somerville at this time. In plenty of other communities, such as Cambridge and Lexington, they are. Some of us believe that trees, whether on public or private property, should be granted some protection here in Somerville, such that there at least be some form of public review before a felling takes place. You are free to disagree, of course.
I think this is a classic case of private property versus the common good and it is clear that we share different opinions on how the two should be balanced under the law.
As for Paul Harlow, the arborist from Cambridge Landscaping, it appears he may have had a conflict of interest in his evaluation of the tree to my landlord. That, to me, is unconscionable, to both the people who appreciated the tree’s existence and to Joe Benoit who paid huge sums of money to have it taken down.
loading...
Julia –
As you point out, Someville does not have an ordanace that covers removal of trees on private property. You are free to attempt to get one passed. Untill then, however, you have no standing in this. It makes no difference what other commumities do or what you belive to be the “common good” or what else is covered by regulations. It’s still his tree to do with as he sees fit.
Tell me, though, what would be your stance if a falling limb had damaged your car or you? Sue your Landlord for damages or just call it the price of living with trees nearby?
loading...
Bob, I have never claimed to have legal standing in this situation. In fact, I have been well aware that I have none, unfortunately. And yes, this is what we are trying to change through the passage of a tree preservation ordinance. It’s not just for the sake of the trees, its for the people and the overall community, too (shade, cooling, increased air quality/filtering, character, beauty, privacy, etc.).
My neighbors attempted to gain legal standing on grounds that removal of the tree would cause their basements to flood. They lost, and the tree came down anyway. Only time will tell how the water table will be affected. In an ideal situation- aka under a tree preservation ordinance- the City would have had time to evaluate the affects of tree removal on flooding to surrounding properties, including the street, and then either make the necessary improvements/mitigations or deny his request to take it down. Pruning would then have been prescribed to mitigate the danger of falling limbs- not complete removal.
I had hoped that Mr.Benoit would have accepted our offer to pay for the pruning of the tree so that it would not be a threat to passerby, the building, or cars. This is what was recommended by the arborist not affiliated with Cambridge Landscaping (the company paid to take it down). His evaluation was that it did not need to come down. Because my landlord claimed to also love the tree and to be in deep regret of his obligation to take it down, I had hoped that this second evaluation would give him just the reason he needed to keep it standing. Clearly, it didn’t, and I respected his decision to follow through with the felling.
But that doesn’t make it any less painful or upsetting. My greatest hope at this point is that we will be able to work together with Mr.Benoit to create new landscaping in our unusually large front yard that provides increased value to both his property and to the neighborhood in which it exists.
loading...
let’s see….HIS tree, on HIS property. If a branch had damaged someone’s car HE would have been sued, so HE decided to cut down HIS tree.
want to see trees? go to Walden Pond.
loading...
Julia,
According to the Boston Globe article, Mr Benoit tried pruning it but it kept dropping branches anyway. What would you have him do? Would you and all of your neighbors be willing to sign a release, absolving him of all responsibility should any injuries or property damage result from these dropped branches? Would you and your neighbors purchase insurance to cover such an occurrance?
Seems to me that he didn’t have much of a choice – when the so-called experts disagree, you have to judge which one you believe. And given that even pruning didn’t stop the fall of branches, I think I’d have believed the guy who said to take it down, too. After all… HE’S the guy who’ll get sued if someone gets hurt, or someone’s car gets trashed. Or would you and all your neighbors really have taken on that responsibility?
loading...
Ross, once again, my neighbors and I have never doubted or challenged my landlord’s decision to remove the tree for reasons of public safety and liability. We have always respected that position of his.
However, when we received word from a licensed, independent arborist saying that not only did the tree not need to come down to ensure public safety but that it might actually cause more damage to the neighborhood if it was removed, we hoped it would give Mr.Benoit the reason he needed to save it, while saving himself $4,000. It actually made logical sense to save the tree at that point. So we tried- of course we tried. But Mr.Benoit did not agree, and so we lost the tree. And that was that.
We loved that tree and our lives are now different without it. We look forward to working with Mr.Benoit, if he is willing, to make the property beautiful again. And that is the end of the story. Thank you.
loading...
Julia, are you sure you’re speaking for all your neighbors, when you wrote:
“…my neighbors and I have never doubted or challenged my landlord’s decision to remove the tree for reasons of public safety and liability.”
According to Mr. Nadeau (as quoted in the Boston Globe):
“When Benoit first tried to remove the tree Nov. 12, neighbors “literally stood under the tree and stopped it from being cut down,” Nadeau said.”
By that account your neighbors were, in fact, directly challenging and interfering with the lawful actions of Mr. Benoit. Not to mention, just being plain old rude and disrespectful.
And, I’ll assume that would be a resounding “NO” in response to Ross’ question about assuming liability for property damage or personal injury.
loading...
From Ellie:
Here’s what Springfield does with it’s trees – private and public:
SIGNIFICANT TREES
Chapter 8.20.070 Significant Trees
A: Except as provided by Chapter 87 of General Laws, it is unlawful for any person other than the city forester, or his designees, to cut, trim or remove, in whole or in part, any significant tree, even if such person is the owner of the fee in the land on which such tree is situated, except upon a permit in writing from the city forester, and only to the extent of the terms and condition of such permit.
B: The city forester shall grant such permit only upon a showing by preponderance of the evidence that the continued present state of such tree endangers person, or, in his discretion, if such tree is diseased or damaged.
C: For purposes of this section, a “significant tree” is any tree which is seventy-five (75) years or older, or which is three (3) feet in diameter or more.
D: Each person is held responsible for ascertaining the age and diameter of any tree prior to such person cutting, trimming, or remove same, in whole or in part.
E: A person who is aggrieved by the provisions of this section and for cause shown may apply directly to the Board of Park Commissioners for a permit to cut, trim, or remove in whole or in part, any significant tree, which is otherwise protected under this section so long as such commission in the exercise of its discretion is satisfied that such applicant would sustain a hardship, financial or otherwise, which outweighs any detriment to public interest that would result in the application of this section. For purposes of this section, “hardship” is the loss of an advantage. It may include, but not be limited to, a monetary advantage or the advantage to put property to particular use. (Prior code § 13-25).
loading...
That tree is absolutely huge. Needed to come down.
Let’s keep things in perspective here people. There are plenty of things we should be concerning ourselves with. This is hardly one of them.
How about the millions of Americans who will lose their jobs this year? Or the hundreds of people who were killed in India this week. Or the rampant consumerism which led to the death of a Wal-Mart employee this week as customers trampled him to death.
Let’s talk about these things rather than whether the “most beautiful tree in the whole darn town” really had to be taken down. Julia, I think in light of world events your plight of “having to buy curtains” wains in comparison.
loading...
You cannot build a lard rendering plant or a nuclear waste site next to my home simply because it is on your property. Property rights have never been absolute, and those who argue that they are discredit themselves. Laws such as zoning, historic preservation, and, yes, tree ordinances mitigate property rights, preventing the uses of private property that do public harm or remove public benefits.
Beyond law, if one chooses to live with other human beings, one should be expected to behave as a responsible member of the community. Mr. Benoit has a long history of not playing well with others. I will relate one anecdote.
At the end of 1997 or beginning of 1998, then Mayor Capuano convened an Affordable Housing Task Force to study and make recommendations on means of creating or retaining housing sufficiently affordable to prevent long term residents from being force out of the city, and preserving a mixed-income community.
The 30 committee members represented every political orientation and every role in developing and operating housing. We all came with our own, and often very different, opinions. Mine was that the best affordable housing program is a living-wage job.
Mr. Benoit was one of three realtors on the committee.
The committee met for a year. As might be expected, we began with spirited but respectful conflict. Paula Stuart chaired the committee and managed the conflict by continually refocusing us on the available data. That is, by measuring all stated positions against hard evidence.
When people in conflict are committed to working through it in order to accomplish something for the larger community, they produce creative solutions. Such was the case.
One proposed solution was a modest transfer tax. The huge escalation in Somerville housing costs was then ramping up. Proposed, was a 1% transfer tax on the capital gain realized by a residential property sale. Since sellers were realizing gains of more than 100% on sales, while driving up housing costs in the process, it was not too much to expect a modest give back to the community that had made such gains possible. The cost would be small to the seller, but collectively leverage enormous sums to support affordable housing.
During discussion of the transfer tax, Mr. Benoit made vague threats regarding the consequences of recommending it. At the year’s conclusion, the committee voted unanimously, minus one, to make all of the recommendations. When the specific vote on the transfer tax was taken, Mr. Benoit threw a handwritten resignation onto the table and stormed out of the room.
loading...
As the the tree was on private property, no one had any right to have the tree examined except the tree owner. The tree is not community property. Perhaps you would like someone to paint your house a different color just because they think it would improve their view or let everyone and anyone park their car in your driveway. You all seem so noble when it comes to someone elses property, I bet you would not be that noble if that property was yours.
loading...
So Bill….
Not to drift futher off the subject but…
After a full year of meetings, your “Task Force on afforable housing” decided that the best solution was to ADD 1% to the cost of housing?? How does that make anything more affordable??
Tell me, now that the market has reversed and investors are holding property worth substantually LESS than what they invested are you suggesting that they be awarded a tax refund?? ( a bailout, in other words?)
Seems to me that Mr. Benoit was right to walk out in protest of your socialistic “solution”.
loading...
Well other Bob,
Either I need to improve my writing skills, or you need to improve your reading comprehension. The transfer tax was one tactic among many in a proposed housing strategy.
The only way to ensure that some portion of Somerville’s housing stock is permanently affordable is to permanently remove it from a volatile market through ownership by limited equity co-ops, nonprofit housing organizations such as SCC, or housing authorities.
Suggesting that a modest transfer tax on people who are cashing out of Somerville’s housing market would reduce housing affordability requires some seriously tortured logic. What it would do is create a fund that could leverage ten to twenty-five times its size in debt and subsidies to create and preserve affordable housing.
I am curious to learn your definition of “socialistic” and your understanding of what socialism is.
loading...
First, just because one landlord sells a property doesn’t do anything to Somerville’s housing stock. The house is still there. But your Tax does add 1% to it’s cost without increasing it’s value. You do understand that any Tax like this is simply built into the price at the next transfer, right?
For every investor that “Cashed out” as you put it, someone else has done the opposite and is a new “investor” or Landlord. Now you want to add another competitor to the Marketplace with your fund. Only this competitor has some built-in advantages over the regular Landlords since it is either “non-profit” or a agency of Government and either way it’s funded with Tax payer money. Doing that also increases prices.
The whole notion that it is a function of government to “ensure that some portion of Somerville’s housing is permanently affordable” smacks of Socialism. Who gets to determine just what is affordable? And why is it even necessary?
AS to a definition of Socialism, don’t take mine, try this one. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism. It seems to fit your proposal.
You’re advocating Government ownership of housing and intervention of the marketplace.
loading...
Why does “social justice” always seem to require that someone other than the putative fighter for justice pay money, or lose property, or give up rights?
My thoughts? (Well, you knew they were coming, right?)
We’ve learned, in our society, that life is more fun if nothing bad is ever really our own fault. If we can blame our schools for our dismal reading skills, our parents for our conflicted relationships, our politicians for not forcing us to get away from hurricanes, our police for pushing us down when we argue with, and scream at, them, our TV networks for not showing us better shows that we won’t watch, our road engineers for not planning on us speeding while blind drunk, our wealthier citizens for not wanting to pay more taxes even as they pay most taxes . . . well, if we can blame all of those others for our own failures so easily, we learn that we can also, as an expression of the essence of that philosophy, simply blame others for not living their lives in service to us.
I see real outrage here, expressed by people who have no ground for outrage. Just as I would dismiss you if you demanded that I wash my blue jeans in cold water instead of hot water – because you have no say in the matter whatsoever – I dismiss your attempts to steal this tree for your own.
Because that’s what you’ve done – you have decided to violate the rule of law and attempt to coerce and blackmail a man to give up his legal ownership – which means, ultimately, control – of his own property for your benefit. For YOUR benefit.
I can hardly imagine how large an ego it must require to be truly deeply outraged that you were unable to seize control over someone else’s property.
If this had involved a food source in a starving land, and you only wanted to feed your children, I could justify your actions.
This was a tree. You thought it was pretty. So you tried to steal it.
loading...
You’re right, Bob. We thought the willow tree was so darn pretty we set out to STEAL it! We are crazy, Obama-voting socialist hammerheads and our goal is to steal trees- pretty trees- and destroy your rights to private property in the doine! Guard your maples, folks, the socialist neighbors are on the loose!
loading...
loading...
Julia Prange well your last post does pretty truthfully decsibe you and those of your ilk. Except you want to make everything community property and make sure that everyone is the same and treated equally. Guess what, everyone should not be treated equally. Too poor to afford a house, too bad, live in a box. America offers you the PURSUIT of happiness, not a right to it.
loading...
I was delighted to learn of the campaign to save the willow and deeply dismayed to hear of its demise. It’s so sad that to find so many anti-tree rants on this site.
While a tree may not be on our own property we all – neighbors, city residents, people passing by – benefit from its presence. In today’s day and age of lawsuits, property rights idealogues, and short term thinkers, the need for legal protection for trees that benefit all who live in a community is ever more pressing. We have a mature landscape in terms of many of the local trees and our quality of life will diminish enormously if we don’t work to protect them.
We allow neighbors to chime in through zoning regulations about alterations to nearby buildings when the loss of a neighborhood tree has far greater and more longlasting ramifications on quality of life in the neighborhood. The difference in an attractive neighborhood and a street or area that’s pretty dismal looking is all about the trees. Though it is hardly the most important factor there is no denying that property values are always higher in areas with trees.
When a mature tree falls the void cannot be repaired in our lifetime. To suggest that there are more important issues to worry about completely misses the point. Absolutely – there are lots of things wrong with the world – don’t get me started on the list! The cutting down of trees is hardly a trivial issue however. In terms of beauty, the environment, even health and happiness – trees or their absence have a huge impact – day to day and for decades to come.
With endless pavement, overhead wires, a lawsuit happy nation, leaders who don’t see beyond the needs of today or the next few years, restrictive zoning, etc, it’s hard to imagine that we’ll be able to replace or maintain the gorgeous mature trees we’re lucky enough to have. Please don’t take them for granted.
loading...
Thank you, Liz- Your kind and compassionate words are a breath of fresh air in this hostile and hateful dialog. I won’t be commenting anymore. I hope we can end this discussion on a positive note.
And Columbine, thanks for the tofu sandwich
loading...
Well, I was done with this conversation, but Liz, I have to comment on this.
“Anti-tree rants”?
Where?
That [anti-tree] is such a disingenuous label, that it makes rational discourse nearly impossible, as your side is thus starting the discussion from a position that’s simply not reflective of reality.
It’s like when Ted Kennedy takes the floor of the senate to discuss gun control and says:
QUOTE: “As we all know too well, the debate about gun violence has often been aggressive and polarizing with anti-gun violence advocates on one side of the debate, pro-gun advocates on the other.”
Tell me you recognize the deceptive wordplay there.
I could rewrite that paragraph this way and it would be just as slanted (though, much more accurate).
“As we all know too well, the debate about gun violence has often been aggressive and polarizing with unconstitutional civilian disarmament advocates on one side of the debate, pro-freedom, self-defense advocates on the other.”
I love trees as much as anyone, but if one threatens to drop a branch on my kids or fall on my neighbor’s house, it’s history. There’s nothing “anti-tree” about such a decision.
loading...
“The whole notion that it is a function of government to “ensure that some portion of Somerville’s housing is permanently affordable” smacks of Socialism. Who gets to determine just what is affordable? And why is it even necessary?”
It’s necessary so that people who work hard their entire lives are able to afford a place to live that is worthy of a human being.
In case you haven’t been following the news recently, it’s not just the poor who can’t afford the basic necessities in our country. The middle class is facing tremendous pressure and it’s only been getting worse over the past several decades. See today’s CNN article about affordability of higher education. Or read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. Or simply go to news.google.com and search for middle class.
Calling people you disagree with socialists is a cheap strawman tactic. No reasonable person is proposing that everyone be paid the same. But it’s an undeniable fact that gross inequalities of income are not compatible with a truly democratic society, and lead to a host of other societal ills. The erosion of upward mobility and universal opportunity in our country should trouble any thinking person.
By the way, according to any measure of happiness, quality of life, stability, security, or well-being that has ever been devised, the “socialist” Nordic countries consistently rank near the top. Maybe this is because their progressive taxation, universally available health care, free education, and other progressive tenets have led to a society where people who work hard know that they will never have to choose between housing, feeding, and educating their children.
loading...
Feel free to move to one of your Nordic Utopias any time.
It’s only fair, however, to warn you that their progresive taxation is double the US rates as a % of GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
On the plus side at least you won’t have to be so concerned about Global Warming living there. You might even look forward to it.
loading...
Other Bob,
Sorry to take so long in getting back to you. No, I don’t “understand that any Tax like this is simply built into the price at the next transfer.” Nor does any competent economist.
Market price is the price at which a willing buyer will buy from a willing seller in a market with reasonably good information flow. As you probably know from personal experience, a seller will charge the highest possible price at which this can take place.
This applies to all products in a free market. The naive imagine that a product’s price is related to its costs. It is not.
And you are mistaken as well when you say, “Now you want to add another competitor to the Marketplace with your fund.” Permanently affordable housing is no longer “competitive.” It no longer contributes to the inflationary spiral. In fact, it helps moderate inflation because a subset of consumers do not have to bid up prices simply to live.
I do appreciate your acknowledging the definition of socialism: “1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goodsv2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”
What the Affordable Housing Task Force proposed has nothing to do with socialism. Your reckless use of the term smacks of the demagoguery that describes single-payer healthcare as “socialist.” Socialism is where the government owns it. Socialism is the government’s buying up large stakes in banks while protecting the super rich who put the entire economy at risk, not directing a transfer tax to support affordable housing.
loading...
I have been inspired by this tree, and have dedicated a blog documenting the final year of its existence. Please enjoy my pictures at: http://somervilletrees.blogspot.com/
loading...
G.S. Bogage – Wow, great retrospective! You’re right, it was hard to get a good shot without any wires in the way. I often wished there was a good way to share the sound the wind made in the tree’s leaves, and the rain.
loading...
Ok, I know I said I wasn’t going to comment anymore, but…..
I have to say a huge and very heartfelt THANK YOU to G.S.Bogage for sharing his beautiful blog with us! What a commemoration to the splendor of that magnificent tree! I’ve shared it with my neighbors and others who loved the willow….we are so touched…and I want to say thank you
loading...
The tree is down and that is the end of the story. Greg’s rant about revenge on the owner of the property and the landscaping company notwithstanding. One also has to wonder; do you people who loved a tree have lifes?
Bill, long time no talk. It seems that you proposed a 1% “surcharge” tax on real estate sales. Somehow this was going to help afordable housing? LOL. You slay me, man. You absolutely slay me! Now that prices have fallen – what next? You’re lucky Benoit only handed in his resignation. He could have handed you your…
loading...
Yes, it’s been too long, my friendly antagonist. If Joe Benoit had handed out asses, there would have been thirty-two of us holding our tails. Instead, he high-tailed it out of the room.
Interestingly, after the Union Square hearing on Thursday I was speaking with Monica Lamboy, head of Somerville’s Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development. She mentioned to me that she had never before lived in a city that did not have a transfer tax on real estate sales. So if Joe Benoit were going to hand out asses, where would it stop?
loading...
Bill, I hope things are going well for you and I wish you a very Merry Christmas!
Anyway, we already have a “transfer tax” at the state level (.5% for fees). What the talk of a transfer fee was back then was a way for the city to fatten their already bulging wallets by implementing a hamfisted tax on people selling property. Back then – when values were increasing – some dimwits actually thought they could sneak that tax in. Luckily Benoit and others stood up and said “enough is qnough with you socialits!”
Oh.. and if you increase taxes on a seller – who do you think pays? The buyer. If you’ve ever run a business you would realize that. If the product cost for a product I sell goes up by X then I’m raising my prices by – at least – X. If I can — X plus. In an already depressed housing market; how would that go over?
Monica Lamboy? LOL!
loading...
And I wish you the best as well this season, Imux.
When I went to business school, I naively imagined that costs had something to do with prices. What I learned there, and reinforced subsequently as a strategy consultant, a business manager, and a business owner is that you want to charge the highest price at which you can sell, regardless of costs.
Or if you are selling a whole lot of the same things, like boxes of laundry detergent, the higher the price, the fewer people will buy. So you want to set a price where the number of people willing to buy at that price, times the profit margin on each unit at that price, produces the highest total profit.
Market price is just the price at which a willing seller and a willing buyer will consummate a deal. A transfer tax on a home sale would have no appreciable impact on housing prices.
What had the impact in Somerville was the inflationary spiral run up by people trying to outbid each other, i.e., demand out pacing supply. Permanently removing homes from the inflationary spiral by making them permanently affordable won’t drive up prices because, along with the homes, home buyers are removed from the demand side of the equation as well.
loading...
You said “Permanently removing homes from the inflationary spiral by making them permanently affordable won’t drive up prices because, along with the homes, home buyers are removed from the demand side of the equation as well.”
That’s not true. Let’s say your program removes the unit from the supply side but the “Home Buyer ( or renters)” are not removed from the demand side since they were never really part of it to begin with. They are only there because they are subsidized. As you indicated, under normal circumstances, they can’t afford to live there. Subsidizing them actually increases the demand side since there is now more demand than there would be otherwise. You are artificially expanding the demand pool.
I certainly understand that cost is not a determining factor of price. It is, however, a part of profit or loss. The transfer tax reduces profit. It’s the opportunity for profit that drives demand in this tranaction. (Laundry detergent is a consumable and not a good example) And demand drives price.
There is a lot of subsidized housing around to look at for example of this kind of programs. But I can’t think of a single example of it that I’d actually want to live in by choice. Why do think that forcing to be spread around to new locations will change anything. When people get things for free ( or subsidized) it gets abused and wasted.
The American system offers opportunity ……. not guarantees.
loading...
I think there is a lot of talk here about Joe Benoit because he does not tend to maintain his properties well. He does the minimum he can just to keep the rent coming in. He’ll do an “upkeep” to help his insurance or lower his own costs only. Yes, his properties are cheap (which is why I am still one of his tenants, even though I hate it). But he is one of the worst landlords I have ever had. I have spoken with other tenants of his as well, and it seems almost everyone feels this way. Perhaps it’s some of this sentiment that is coming out here…
loading...