CLT UPDATE
Friday, April 23, 2010
CLT's 'prevent defense' winning another one for
Prop 2½
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 2½....
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 2½ 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 2½ 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 2½. 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 2½ 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. 2½. 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. 2½
tax cap
Democratic lawmakers are
brazenly pushing a bill that would skirt Prop 2½
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 2½ 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 2½ (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 2½.
The overlay account
is presently funded within the Prop 2½ 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 2½.
Proposition 2½, 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 2½ 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 2½. 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 2½. 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 2½ in any way other than the ballot, and
if this is a way of circumventing 2½, 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. 2½ 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 2½ 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 2½ 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 2½ 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 2½ 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 2½ 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 2½. 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 2½ 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. 2½. 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
2½ 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 2½ 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 2½ 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
|
