Help save yourself -- join CLT today!

CLT introduction  and membership  application

What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone
Join CLT online through PayPal immediately

CLT UPDATE
Friday, April 23, 2010

CLT's 'prevent defense' winning another one for Prop 2˝

An early CLT bumper sticker
for enlargement CLICK HERE


 

"It's like a sitcom, where someone says 'I didn't do it and I won't do it again.'"
-- Barbara Anderson


prevent defense; n. Football

The goal of defensive strategy is to prevent the opposing offense from gaining yards and scoring points, either by preventing the offense from advancing the ball beyond the line of scrimmage or by the defense taking the ball away from the offense (referred to as a turnover) and scoring points themselves.

Wikipedia definition


Republican legislative leaders, with encouragement from two candidates for governor, will launch an effort next week to strike from a Democrat-sponsored bill language they claim will permit sizeable property tax increases without permission from local voters.

Citing a Citizens for Limited Taxation estimate that the proposal could spur as much as $550 million in additional property taxes outside of those allowed under the state law limiting property tax hikes, House Minority Leader Bradley Jones called the proposal "simply mind-boggling" and a "slap in the face to the taxpayers." Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei called it "another glaring example of one-party rule run amok on Beacon Hill."

The criticism stirred House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charles Murphy, whose panel endorsed the controversial proposal last week, to issue a memo to CLT defending his plan and asserting that it would not raise property taxes by more than $500 million and did not represent an “assault” on Proposition 2˝....

In his memo, Murphy said his plan does not call for a “permanent increase” in taxes associated with overlay accounts and treats the account “like an exclusion outside of the levy limit base” without factoring into levy limits in ensuing years. Communities raised $164.4 million this fiscal year in overlay revenues, “significantly less than the alleged $500M,” Murphy wrote, a figure that he said has steadily declined over the years.

Jones said that Murphy’s “own figures” meant that lawmakers who approved the changes “are supporting a property tax increase of $164.4 million” next fiscal year....

Citizens for Limited Taxation President Barbara Anderson rejected Murphy’s explanation, and predicted lawmakers would change the language of the law once cities and towns win the authority to raise additional taxes.

“I was born at night, but not last night,” she said, noting that there had been no public hearing on the proposal. “They will change it again, just as sneakily as they have this one.” ...

In a press release Wednesday night, CLT said the plan would allow all communities to increase, without a local vote, presently allowed local levy limits by the amount in a community's overlay account, which funds abatements. State law now allows communities to raise property taxes only 2.5 percent a year over the previous year's levy, plus a factor to capture new growth and development. CLT said the amount of money set aside in overlay accounts varies each year but predicted that if the bill is approved, communities would raise the maximum allowed.

State House News Service
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Property taxes emerge as new battleground


Despite pledging not to raise taxes in this year's budget, House leaders are pushing a plan that would allow cities and towns to raise property taxes above the 2.5 percent limit mandated by law without seeking an override from local voters.

The measure would allow communities to raise property taxes above the limit set by Proposition 2˝ to pay exclusively for tax abatements for residents who challenge their property-value assessments.

Critics immediately seized on the proposal as an assault on taxpayers in the midst of a recession, and criticized Democrats who just a week ago stated that "there is no appetite for new taxes" in next year's state budget. Gov. Deval Patrick also threatened to veto the bill if it reached his desk.

Any change to the law would mark the first time in 30 years -- since Proposition 2˝ was approved by voters -- that the state would allow taxes to be raised above the 2.5 percent limit without voter approval....

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Murphy, who wrote the measure, said the change would not create a back door for towns to raise additional taxes to fund operating expenses like public safety or schools....

Murphy did, however, concede the fact that most communities would likely raise property taxes more than 2.5 percent in the first year as they set up their new accounts....

"I encourage the Legislature to reject this provision so that the bill comes to my desk in a form that I can support," Patrick said in a statement last night. "I will not sign a bill that includes that language." ...

Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, called the move an end run around Proposition 2˝. Despite provisions preventing the money from being used for operating budgets, Anderson said Beacon Hill cannot be trusted to maintain that protection once the bill gets passed.

"The goal is to raise more money, so they're doing it using the overlay," Anderson said. "Whatever they're saying, it's a deliberate attempt to get the thing through and alleviate some concerns and then they'll do whatever they want. It doesn't change the fact that they're raising money outside of 2˝ and that hasn't been done in 30 years." ...

"As loud as Barbara Anderson wants to yell, this is not a tax increase," Murphy said. "This is not an end-around Prop. 2˝. This is just another tool to help cities and towns manage their local budgets." ...

"It's simply mind-boggling that in a time when foreclosure initiations spiked more than 20 percent from last month, a Democratic lawmaker on Beacon Hill could have the audacity to suggest raising taxes, yet again," said Rep. Brad Jones, the House minority leader. "If this isn't a slap in the face to the taxpayers, I don't know what is."

The Lowell Sun
Friday, April 23, 2010
Critics rip plan to ease Prop. 2˝ tax cap


Democratic lawmakers are brazenly pushing a bill that would skirt Prop 2˝ while blithely brushing off a sales tax rollback initiative - all but daring Republicans to use the hot-button issue against them in November.

The bill - which critics claim could hit homeowners for as much as $500 million - comes after House Speaker Robert DeLeo vowed not to raise taxes this year.

It drew a sharp response from Republicans, who said it’s just the misstep they need to get more from their party elected to Beacon Hill in November....

“What are they thinking? The governor campaigned on property tax relief, and the Legislature said there would be no tax increases,” said Charles D. Baker, GOP candidate for governor. “This is absolutely a tax increase, and it comes at a time when foreclosures are at their highest levels in years.” ...

But late yesterday, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick - who ran on a promise to lower property taxes - vowed to veto the Prop 2˝ bill if it reached his desk.

“I encourage the Legislature to reject this provision so that the bill comes to my desk in a form that I can support. I will not sign a bill that includes that language,” the governor said in a statement.

The Boston Herald
Friday, April 23, 2010
Dems push homeowner hike
GOP pounces, eyes November elections


The number of Bay State families facing foreclosure reached record levels in March as homeowners kept struggling to pay their mortgages.

Lenders filed 2,581 petitions to foreclose last month, a 22 percent increase from 2,122 in February and 8 percent more than the 2,381 petitions filed in March 2009, according to the Warren Group. Petitions to foreclose represent the first step in the foreclosure process....

Foreclosure deeds, or completed home takings, also increased dramatically in March. The number of foreclosed homes surged by 51 percent from February to March and by 45 percent compared to a year ago.

The Boston Herald
Friday, April 23, 2010
More in state on way to lose homes


Chip Ford's CLT Commentary

Too often we hear "Sure, CLT helped taxpayers -- long ago, but why would I want to become a member; what have you done for me lately?"

Well maybe now those cynics will realize that 'prevent defense' in a far more critical day-to-day function of Citizens for Limited Taxation than it is given credit for. Sure, the bad we prevent isn't as high-profile as our past ballot campaigns to cut taxes -- but think what would have happened had CLT not been here to discover and alert everyone to this latest assault on our Proposition 2˝ (see Wednesday night's news release). Consider how much our immediate actions -- your CLT staff's and yours -- have once again saved all taxpayers across the commonwealth.

Barbara received a memo by e-mail yesterday from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charles Murphy. She replied to him:

I was born at night but not last night.

I know what you are saying, I get how it is presently drafted. I have been here before.

We do support much of the municipal relief bill, especially support giving cities and towns more control over their health insurance.

We do not support higher property taxes. We fight to preserve Proposition 2˝.

The overlay account is presently funded within the Prop 2˝ levy limit. If Section 8 passes, property taxes will be increased beyond the present limit to fund abatements.

You say now that the money will be used only for abatements. I understand that's the way, sort of, that it used to be before the law was quietly changed to allow cities and towns to spend it on anything they wanted if it wasn't all needed for abatements.

But the law was changed, and now allows cities and towns to move unused abatement money into free cash to be spent next year.

Now you say this is being changed again. Once you get what you want, higher property taxes, it will be changed back. The goal is to have higher property taxes to fund local spending, to make up for local aid cuts that are caused by the ongoing fiscal irresponsibility of the Massachusetts Legislature.

And if you wonder why we don't trust that Legislature, let me ask how you voted in 2002 on the "temporary" freeze in the income tax rate rollback that the voters passed in 2000. It's been eight years, and the rate is still 5.3%.

Consider this exchange from excerpts:

"As loud as Barbara Anderson wants to yell, this is not a tax increase," Murphy said....

Murphy did, however, concede the fact that most communities would likely raise property taxes more than 2.5 percent in the first year as they set up their new accounts....

Jones said that Murphy’s “own figures” meant that lawmakers who approved the changes “are supporting a property tax increase of $164.4 million” next fiscal year....

Got'cha, Mistah Chairman!

It's not over yet -- taxpayers won't be safe until Murphy's amendment is stripped from his municipal relief bill -- but it looks like it's as good as dead on arrival. The minority Republican legislative caucus in both the House and Senate have vowed to remove this proposed tax hike (see their news releases), Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker opposes it, independent candidate for governor Tim Cahill has joined with his opposition to this outrage, and even Gov. Patrick has condemned it, promising a veto if it reaches his desk.

All in all, what started as a serious threat requiring immediate action over a few hectic days (and nights) is turning into another success for CLT, its membership, and the taxpayers of Massachusetts. 'Prevent defense' appears to have succeeded, again; preventing "the opposing offense from gaining yards and scoring points, either by preventing the offense from advancing the ball beyond the line of scrimmage or by the defense taking the ball away from the offense (referred to as a turnover) and scoring points themselves.

Now the majority Democrat incumbents have something else to explain as they campaign for reelection. We can thank them for contributing to Revolution 2010 and their electoral demise. As Republican candidate for governor Charlie Baker observed, "this proposal by House leadership to raise property taxes shows exactly what happens under one party rule on Beacon Hill.”

Chip Ford


 

State House News Service
Thursday, April 22, 2010

Property taxes emerge as new battleground
By Michael Norton


Republican legislative leaders, with encouragement from two candidates for governor, will launch an effort next week to strike from a Democrat-sponsored bill language they claim will permit sizeable property tax increases without permission from local voters.

Citing a Citizens for Limited Taxation estimate that the proposal could spur as much as $550 million in additional property taxes outside of those allowed under the state law limiting property tax hikes, House Minority Leader Bradley Jones called the proposal "simply mind-boggling" and a "slap in the face to the taxpayers." Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei called it "another glaring example of one-party rule run amok on Beacon Hill."

The criticism stirred House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charles Murphy, whose panel endorsed the controversial proposal last week, to issue a memo to CLT defending his plan and asserting that it would not raise property taxes by more than $500 million and did not represent an “assault” on Proposition 2˝.

Proposition 2˝, approved by voters in 1980 and implemented in 1982, prohibits cities and towns from raising property taxes by more than 2.5 percent a year without first securing support from voters.

Property taxes are a sensitive topic for Gov. Deval Patrick, who promised to alleviate them as a pillar of his 2006 campaign, but has failed to deliver. Patrick budget aides did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Murphy made no mention of changes in Proposition 2˝ when his committee endorsed what he called a scaled-back version of so-called municipal relief legislation last week.

In his memo, Murphy said his plan does not call for a “permanent increase” in taxes associated with overlay accounts and treats the account “like an exclusion outside of the levy limit base” without factoring into levy limits in ensuing years. Communities raised $164.4 million this fiscal year in overlay revenues, “significantly less than the alleged $500M,” Murphy wrote, a figure that he said has steadily declined over the years.

Jones said that Murphy’s “own figures” meant that lawmakers who approved the changes “are supporting a property tax increase of $164.4 million” next fiscal year.

“Whether those figures are higher will be ultimately determined by the DOR’s decision of what is ‘reasonable’; but they could go higher. Leaving it up to DOR’s discretion alone is, in my opinion, cause for concern,” Jones said in a statement.

In a statement, Speaker Robert DeLeo’s spokesman Seth Gitell said, "As Speaker DeLeo has stated, there are no new taxes in the House’s budget proposal. Speaker DeLeo does not favor, and will not support, any weakening of Proposition 2˝. The intent of the language in the municipal relief package is to provide cities and towns with a tool for addressing tax abatements and for better managing their municipal budgets. It is not the intent of the bill to affect Proposition 2˝. The Speaker is open to working with members who have concerns and are looking to clarify that intent and policy."

Murphy said his plan would allow for a single “overlay” account to be created in each community to collect funds for anticipated property tax abatements, exemptions and uncollected taxes. Funds in that account could be carried forward annually but could not be used to finance operating budgets. He said that because of the “tightly defined purpose” for the money, there was no incentive for communities to raise more than what is needed and that any proposed increase must be approved as “reasonable” by the Department of Revenue commissioner to meet exposures covered by the account.

Under current law, Murphy noted, cities and towns may use excess money in their overlay accounts to fund general budget items. But the change in the law would prohibit that practice, requiring such funds to be maintained for future tax abatements.

Citizens for Limited Taxation President Barbara Anderson rejected Murphy’s explanation, and predicted lawmakers would change the language of the law once cities and towns win the authority to raise additional taxes.

“I was born at night, but not last night,” she said, noting that there had been no public hearing on the proposal. “They will change it again, just as sneakily as they have this one.”

One Democratic state senator criticized the plan.

“We shouldn’t be circumventing 2˝ in any way other than the ballot, and if this is a way of circumventing 2˝, we shouldn’t be doing it,” said Sen. Steven Baddour (D-Methuen).

The overlay proposal drew stinging criticism in the hours before Murphy aides released his memo.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker announced the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if he were governor. "Four years after Governor Patrick vowed to cut property taxes, this proposal by House leadership to raise property taxes shows exactly what happens under one party rule on Beacon Hill,” Baker said in a statement.

State Treasurer Tim Cahill’s campaign for governor also checked in Thursday, predicting the committee plan could raise property taxes by more than $500 million. “Make no mistake, this is nothing but a backdoor method to raise taxes," Cahill said in a statement. “The Legislature should vote no on this measure, and Governor Patrick should come out right now and promise to veto it if passed. The Governor has not delivered on his promise to cut property taxes - the least he can do is make sure that property taxes do not go up."

In a press release Wednesday night, CLT said the plan would allow all communities to increase, without a local vote, presently allowed local levy limits by the amount in a community's overlay account, which funds abatements. State law now allows communities to raise property taxes only 2.5 percent a year over the previous year's levy, plus a factor to capture new growth and development. CLT said the amount of money set aside in overlay accounts varies each year but predicted that if the bill is approved, communities would raise the maximum allowed.

The group said former House Speaker Thomas Finneran had launched a similar "assault" on the voter law and that subsequent attempts failed in the face of veto threats from Govs. William Weld and Mitt Romney.

Jones said he learned about the property tax provision in the bill after it was released from Ways and Means last week and filed an amendment to strike the language before a Friday deadline for amendments.

"The overlay has always been something people have gone after," said Jones, who predicted the provision’s passage would lead to property tax hikes worth "tens of millions" of dollars and possibly hundreds of millions.

"Local officials would probably be pilloried," Jones said.

The fiscal 2010 budget bill endorsed by the House Ways and Means Committee last week and up for debate next week in the House calls for a $234 million reduction in local aid to cities and towns.

In his memo to CLT, Murphy said the committee budget also proposes “cuts to a myriad of other programs and agencies that will have immediate and drastic results across the commonwealth.” He said the municipal relief bill “would provide cities and towns additional ‘tools’ to assist them in what are extremely difficult fiscal times.”

Massachusetts Municipal Association Executive Director Geoffrey Beckwith said current state policy discourages local property tax exemption programs sometimes sought for veterans and the elderly. Beckwith doubted Anderson’s $500 million estimate.

“This is an important policy discussion to have,” Beckwith said.

“The current system inhibits or interferes with proposals to expand property tax exemptions, in particular for seniors and veterans,” he said. “If the overlay account was above the levy limit, what would happen is communities would be able to expand the exemptions and therefore the property tax relief they give to seniors and veterans without having to cut programs and services to pay for it.”


The Lowell Sun
Friday, April 23, 2010

Critics rip plan to ease Prop. 2˝ tax cap
By Matt Murphy


Despite pledging not to raise taxes in this year's budget, House leaders are pushing a plan that would allow cities and towns to raise property taxes above the 2.5 percent limit mandated by law without seeking an override from local voters.

The measure would allow communities to raise property taxes above the limit set by Proposition 2˝ to pay exclusively for tax abatements for residents who challenge their property-value assessments.

Critics immediately seized on the proposal as an assault on taxpayers in the midst of a recession, and criticized Democrats who just a week ago stated that "there is no appetite for new taxes" in next year's state budget. Gov. Deval Patrick also threatened to veto the bill if it reached his desk.

Any change to the law would mark the first time in 30 years -- since Proposition 2˝ was approved by voters -- that the state would allow taxes to be raised above the 2.5 percent limit without voter approval.

House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Murphy, who wrote the measure, said the change would not create a back door for towns to raise additional taxes to fund operating expenses like public safety or schools. He said the bill specifically requires that any money raised outside Proposition 2˝ limits would have to be spent on tax abatements.

"As you know, the proposed House FY11 budget calls for a reduction in local aid, as well as cuts to a myriad of other programs and agencies that will have immediate and drastic results across the commonwealth," the Burlington Democrat wrote in a memo. "The intent of the (measure) is to provide cities and towns additional 'tools' to assist them in what are extremely difficult fiscal times."

Murphy did, however, concede the fact that most communities would likely raise property taxes more than 2.5 percent in the first year as they set up their new accounts.

House leaders are preparing to debate the change on Monday when the House considers a larger municipal-relief bill aimed at helping cities and towns cope with losses of local aid.

"I encourage the Legislature to reject this provision so that the bill comes to my desk in a form that I can support," Patrick said in a statement last night. "I will not sign a bill that includes that language."

Even state Sen. Steve Panagiotakos, a Lowell Democrat and chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, said he would be wary of making any changes to tax law without getting voter approval.

"My feeling with 2˝ is that it was voter-approved and any amendments really should have to go through the voters statewide," Panagiotakos said. "It might be a good idea, but the bottom line is that any changes to 2˝ have to be done very carefully and you would have to have voter approval."

Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, called the move an end run around Proposition 2˝. Despite provisions preventing the money from being used for operating budgets, Anderson said Beacon Hill cannot be trusted to maintain that protection once the bill gets passed.

"The goal is to raise more money, so they're doing it using the overlay," Anderson said. "Whatever they're saying, it's a deliberate attempt to get the thing through and alleviate some concerns and then they'll do whatever they want. It doesn't change the fact that they're raising money outside of 2˝ and that hasn't been done in 30 years."

Murphy challenged Anderson's assertion that the change would amount to a tax increase of more than $560 million on property owners throughout the state.

Because the bill does not allow communities to spend money from their overlay account to fund general spending, there would be no incentive to raise taxes more than what is needed to cover tax abatements and challenges to property assessments, he said.

In fiscal 2010, cities and towns raised approximately 1.4 percent of the total levy as overlay, amounting to $164.4 million.

"As loud as Barbara Anderson wants to yell, this is not a tax increase," Murphy said. "This is not an end-around Prop. 2˝. This is just another tool to help cities and towns manage their local budgets."

Under current law, cities and towns are allowed to raise property taxes 2.5 percent over the previous year's levy, plus new growth. From that pool of money, municipal leaders create an overlay account to cover the cost of any property-tax rebates owed residents in that fiscal year. Any unspent money can be drawn from the overlay account to pay for operating expenses.

The proposed law would let communities create a revolving overlay account funded with property taxes raised above and beyond the 2.5 percent limit. Money left over can be carried over into the next fiscal year, but cannot be drawn out to help fund the annual budget. Any tax increase to replenish the overlay account will not permanently increase a town's levy limit.

Additionally, the state Department of Revenue would have to sign off on any tax increase to replenish the overlay account, helping to ensure that communities are only raising what they need to cover abatements.

Republicans immediately prepared amendments to strike the change from the municipal-relief bill.

"It's simply mind-boggling that in a time when foreclosure initiations spiked more than 20 percent from last month, a Democratic lawmaker on Beacon Hill could have the audacity to suggest raising taxes, yet again," said Rep. Brad Jones, the House minority leader. "If this isn't a slap in the face to the taxpayers, I don't know what is."

Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker also weighed in, saying the proposal would be "dead on arrival" in a Baker administration.

"Four years after Governor Patrick vowed to cut property taxes, this proposal by House leadership to raise property taxes shows exactly what happens under one-party rule on Beacon Hill," Baker said.

Sen. Richard Tisei, the Senate minority leader and Baker's running mate for lieutenant governor, said if opposition in the House failed to defeat this proposal, he would fight it in the Senate.


The Boston Herald
Friday, April 23, 2010

Dems push homeowner hike
GOP pounces, eyes November elections
By Hillary Chabot


Democratic lawmakers are brazenly pushing a bill that would skirt Prop 2˝ while blithely brushing off a sales tax rollback initiative - all but daring Republicans to use the hot-button issue against them in November.

The bill - which critics claim could hit homeowners for as much as $500 million - comes after House Speaker Robert DeLeo vowed not to raise taxes this year.

It drew a sharp response from Republicans, who said it’s just the misstep they need to get more from their party elected to Beacon Hill in November.

“Democrats are operating at their own peril if they ignore the will of the voters,” said Nick Connors, executive director of the state’s Republican Party.

House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Murphy defended the measure, saying municipalities can use the new taxpayer dollars only for exemptions and abatements.

“It’s absolutely not a backdoor way to increase taxes,” said Murphy, who nevertheless admitted property tax bills could be higher if the legislation is passed.

Democratic legislators yesterday also spoke out against tax rollbacks at a sparsely attended hearing on three ballot initiatives, saying the anti-tax passion that boiled over during last week’s Tea Party rally has cooled.

“I think a lot of the crowd was there because of the curiosity factor,” said Revenue Committee co-chair Sen. Ben Downing (D-Pittsfield) of the more than 5,000-strong turnout at last week’s Tea Party rally. “While people might want their taxes cut, they also depend on the services (those taxes) provide.”

But House Minority Leader Brad Jones insisted state taxpayers are just as mad as ever.

“That’s just a complete misreading of the electorate,” Jones said.

The Prop 2˝ bill would force homeowners to pay for property tax abatements and exemptions - known as overlay revenues - on top of the community’s annual 2.5 percent tax levy limit. Cities and towns currently collect all the money they need for abatements and exemptions as part of the 2.5 percent hike.

“What are they thinking? The governor campaigned on property tax relief, and the Legislature said there would be no tax increases,” said Charles D. Baker, GOP candidate for governor. “This is absolutely a tax increase, and it comes at a time when foreclosures are at their highest levels in years.”

Democratic lawmakers seemed emboldened when only two people testified in support of initiatives to roll back the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent, to repeal the sales tax on alcohol and to reinstate the sales tax holiday.

But late yesterday, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick - who ran on a promise to lower property taxes - vowed to veto the Prop 2˝ bill if it reached his desk.

“I encourage the Legislature to reject this provision so that the bill comes to my desk in a form that I can support. I will not sign a bill that includes that language,” the governor said in a statement.


The Boston Herald
Friday, April 23, 2010

More in state on way to lose homes
By Thomas Grillo


The number of Bay State families facing foreclosure reached record levels in March as homeowners kept struggling to pay their mortgages.

Lenders filed 2,581 petitions to foreclose last month, a 22 percent increase from 2,122 in February and 8 percent more than the 2,381 petitions filed in March 2009, according to the Warren Group. Petitions to foreclose represent the first step in the foreclosure process.

“While the housing market appears to be turning around, the state continues to lose jobs,” said Alan Pasnik, data analyst for the real estate tracker. “Even if you have a reasonable mortgage, if you’re out of work for a year, you will have trouble making the payments.”

Foreclosure deeds, or completed home takings, also increased dramatically in March. The number of foreclosed homes surged by 51 percent from February to March and by 45 percent compared to a year ago.

March had the most completed foreclosures for any month in more than a year, according to Warren Group CEO Timothy Warren. The last time foreclosure deeds reached this level was in May 2008, he said in a statement. Some of these are foreclosures that were started months ago that are just now being completed, he added.

“While there are foreclosure prevention programs in place, unfortunately not all homeowners are benefiting from them,” Warren said.

 

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


Citizens for Limited Taxation    PO Box 1147    Marblehead, MA 01945    508-915-3665