Fisherman's and a Quarry

Click here. Parents, teachers, residents and anyone and everyone who's interested in our town's budget problems and how we can work together in common cause to save the schools should click that link.

Labels: advocacy, schools, Swampscott

I never got to posting my notes from this week's Town Meeting, but there's plenty on it here and here. The major piece of news is that Swampscott will allow the sale of the old Temple, old Greenwood Ave school, the old senior center and old fire station. That's a lot of old that's about to get new - or should I say renewed? - potentially bringing in over $5 million to the town, with over $500,000 a year in property taxes when these properties are redeveloped.

All of this is good news. We'll have more resources to deal with our problems, hopefully with several other solutions coming down the line, too. Swampscott is poised to rebound from the past few years of fiscal turmoil. Hopefully, that means we'll rebound from the bad blood and anger that's festered in the town as of late, too. But what's the end goal? What's the long term vision? Coming up with a vision for the town is paramount to improving our community, becoming the kind of place we want to be.

So, what is Swampscott? Whenever people discuss the town, it's usually in comparison to some other town. Marblehead is the usual victim. Lynnfield's been a frequent target too. Wayland's popped up now and then, as well. While some of the demographics of Swampscott are similar to Marblehead, our towns really aren't very similar. Marblehead is closer to Newburyport than it is Swampscott, if we want to talk town character. Marblehead, unlike Swampscott, is a destination town - which isn't anything near as good as it sounds. Why? People have to wake up one day and decide to say to their friends or their spouse, "I want to go to Marblehead," then drive there and find a parking space. In other words, people have to want to go to Marblehead. People just drive through Swampscott, whether they want to or not.

Comparing Swampscott to Lynnfield is even more laughable. The towns couldn't be more different. Sure, there's around the same amount of people living in Lynnfield as Swampscott and, sure, a similar student body. Honestly, the median family incomes aren't too far off either - Swampscott's median family income is $72k, Lynnfield's is $80k. However, aside from that, the two towns are completely different, with Swampscott being an incredibly dense and far more diverse community than our more conservative, wealthier neighbor to the west.

So, what is Swampscott? To have a good vision, we need to focus on and improve our strong suits. First, Swampscott is a nexus that connects several large communities together. Second, we're a densely populated, small town with almost unlimited means for transportation and quick access to Boston and the entire North Shore. Swampscott has buses, the train and is highly walkable. Moreover, most of the town is in walking distance to what is truly our best assets - our beautiful beaches and assortment of restaurants and other small businesses. Third, we're an economically diverse town with some of the wealthiest residents of the state, as well as people who live on fixed incomes or are decidedly working class. As such, we have million dollar houses and affordable houses and everything in between. Wrap that entire package up with our rich history and strong community and there's no doubt that Swampscott's a clearly unique town with many assets and potential to be better.

If Swampscott were to be compared to any other town in Massachusetts, one of the best is honestly Brookline. Like Brookline, we have great public transportation, with walkable neighborhoods and a variety of options for entertainment, restaurants and shopping. We're smaller and less affluent, but we're also far more affordable. Plus, we have the beach. In fact, that's what I like to tell people when they ask me about Swampscott, "it's like Brookline, but with a beach."

In order to become a better town, we need to focus on those assets. We need to continue to foster small businesses across the town, making sure they have the tools they need to compete and thrive. We need to improve our already good transportation options, perhaps even further opening access to our beaches and small businesses by emphasizing biking for those who live just a little too far away to walk downtown. Bike lanes are cheap and help reduce traffic, as Humphrey and other major streets are repaved, bike lanes should be added. The plan for the police station, which would also open up a pathway to the beach, is another high priority in improving our town's natural assets.

Most importantly, though, we need to keep our schools strong, so they don't erode before things get better - even if that means trying to pass an override to hold us over. Otherwise, Swampscott's modus operandi is at risk and this whole vision thing is moot. We're going to be facing more challenges ahead over the next few years, but solutions will be on their way, it's just a matter of making it to the finish line without keeling over. The sale of these buildings in town will soon net us around $500,000 a year in new revenue. Governor Patrick has several proposals that could benefit the town, including a 1% meals tax option that could net the town at least $330,000 a year in new revenue. We're set to receive our fair share of Chapter 70 within 2 years, which will net us another $500,000 or so. Even President Obama and the US Congress could save us funds by taking up health care in 2009. For example, Obama has called for making insurance companies cover autism expenses, instead of schools, which would save this town tens of thousands a year, alone.

Hopefully, that's just the start of it. But if we close Hadley or strip an entire program from our schools - and lose all that institutional memory - it'll take years or decades to recover, even when things get better, if we ever really can. There's too many towns like Swampscott that are struggling to no end for things to remain the same. Too many cities and towns know that their heading in the same direction - and soon. Hopefully the people of Swampscott have the vision to see that.

Labels: schools, Swampscott

Amazingly, Town Meeting accomplished all of its goals tonight, even if some of them were altered. Most of the night consisted of routine tasks that require votes every year and move quickly, but there were a few highlights for the night.

• Capital Expenditures: these are bonds that Town Meeting approves which don't require a Proposition 2 1/2 override. They have to be paid in ten years time, accrue interest mounted to the debt and are typically meant for minor and medium projects such as road repairs and new town vehicles. This year, there will be one new police car, a new roof for Clark, as well as some radios of the non FM variety for Police and Fire. Overall, Swampscott agreed to take on nearly $2 million more in debt of this variety.
  
• Debt Exclusions: a fairly new phenomenon in Mass Municipalities, this is the process of proposing one-time fees to voters that they can approve at the ballot box to fund specific projects, instead of creating the less transparent and more expensive Capital Expenditures. Taxes go up for one year to pay for the project(s), then they go back down the next. A brand-new concept for Swampscott, it truly harkens back to the days of early Colonial America, when New Englanders paid for things as they were needed. If a town needed a new bridge, for example, Town Meeting would assemble and vote on it. If it passed, a levy would be created to specifically pay for the project over the next year or two. After the project was paid for, the levy would end. When the British Government tried to move away from that system, the American Revolution began. [See Boston Tea Party.]
  
  Obviously, the scale of operating society today is different - but the idea of having an election to raise local revenue for necessary expenditures on a one or two year basis, instead of issuing a bond and leaving it for future generations, is a noble one - not to mention both more democratic and transparent.
  
  This year, assuming the Board of Selectmen approve the question, voters will be given the chance to vote for a one-time fee as part of their taxes that would cover a new fire engine, replacing the Fire Department's 1988 classic, as well as repave 12 of the worst roads across town. Town Meeting will pay for both either way, but if voters approve the Debt Exclusion, they'll save over $200,000 compared to paying for those items using bonds. The roads will collectively cost $150k and the Fire Truck $300k, costing the average voter an additional one-time fee of $58 in their property taxes, the savings of over $200,000 comes from not having to pay the interest on unnecessary bonds.
  
  Editorial Note: Several Selectmen were afraid Debt Exclusions would be too confusing for voters -would it be seen as an override? And, if it would, would it prevent voters from approving the real override that will come either next year or the one after? Of course, that's a low opinion of voters given the fact that the Fire Truck will cost a one-time fee of $58 next year if passed at the ballot, or far more if they don't.
  
  Instead of taking leadership on educating voters about the simplicity and transparency of this new process, several Selectmen sheepishly argued to just make them Capital Expenditures, the money savings be damned. That's a funny comment coming from that group, all of whom talk about being "creative" in looking for ways to save money. Isn't this a creative solution that at least merits a try? Selectmen should know all people want is a transparent government - to know where their money is going. Capital Expenditures is the antithesis to that: it's exactly the kind of thing people don't like about government. They're less transparent. They're debt towns will pay for a decade later and, in the long run, they cost way more money than paying for them up front. People don't have the chance to approve Capital Expenditures and often questionable items are included (such as text books). Convincing people there's a better way won't be difficult, but it will take leadership that the Board of Selectmen will have to grow into - to put it nicely.
  
• The Town Building Oversight Committee. The night's second big event was approving the Town Building Oversight Committee's creation, discussed in yesterday's blog. Thankfully, a compromise was reached before Town Meeting's second night began. The Selectmen gave up the rights to make the committee an Advisory Committee in exchange for defining how the Committee will be comprised - which will include 7 members, one of which will come from the Town Finance Committee, the Board of Selectmen and the current Town Building Review Committee. Other members will be residents appointed by the Moderator and Selectmen. This committee will have authority to propose guidelines for what can be developed and built on the old Middle School, the Phillips Beach Ave Fire Station, the former Sr. Center and the Sewage Pumping Station on Highland Ave. A report on their findings is due no later than Nov. 15th, at which point Town Meeting reconvenes to take action.
• My Final Note: Voters should insist on being involved in the building oversight process. Go to the public meetings; its imperative committee members know how residents feel, making those the #1 priorities, even beyond land value and future property tax receipts. For most residents, surprising would be putting it mildly at just the taste of what could come given the Building Review Committee's report last night. Picture more than 40 units of luxury living on the old Temple Grounds, comprising at least four stories, or the core of the old Middle School's demolish in favor of two structures on the same property, with even more units than the Temple. Not pretty at all.
  
  Especially in this soft residential market, Swampscott could use more commercial base - not residential. Wouldn't it make sense to at least explore the option of turning the old Temple site into quiet office space - after all, that couldn't be any busier thanTown Hall, located there for the past year. Office space will certainly be less busy than the former Temple.
  
  None of this is to say the Review Committee's report didn't show promising results of what's to come - indeed, it was downright optimistic. One of their suggestions, for example, was to promote the idea of trimming the old Middle School back to it's historical original, a stunningly beautiful building. It may be too small for what developers would want, but definitely is the basis for a project Swampscott residents could be proud of.
  
  The committee's best idea was to expand the use of our town's pumping station. Specifically, land could be cleared to add space for parking and Whale's Beach access, as well as a new police station. The best part is it collectively represents a strategy for improving Swampscott's downtown - highlighting Swampscott's connection to the beach. It could do the nearly moribund downtown a great deal of good, making the area somewhere Swampscott residents congregate, at least in warm weather.
  
  However, all of the good ideas make it even more imperative that residents become involved (even good ideas can fail). The night's common theme among speakers: once these buildings are sold and changes made, there's no going back. This is a once-in-a-generation question for town residents; most communities wish they were this property rich, with options and tools to combat the difficult problems that arise. Town Meeting members in large numbers concur that it's important Swampscott consider what could happen in the future before we make rash decisions now, hence the creation of the new committee. But the answers to these questions don't rest solely in the members who will be appointed to the Building Oversight Committee. The answers come collectively, from town residents being engaged in the process and making sure the committee does right by the people of this town. If we don't become engaged, we'll get what we deserve - and the town may very well be worse off than we are now.
  

Labels: schools, Swampscott, taxes, town meeting, town politics

Here's a rundown of the first night of Swampscott's Town Meeting. Tune in for tomorrow's installments here as well.

• First up, the moderated opened Town Meeting. New members (including me) were sworn in. A reverend from one of Swampscott's churches lead us in prayer (why we need to ask Jesus to bless us, I don't know, but I found the whole "tradition" offensive). Representative Lori Ehrlich came to thank the town, as well as quickly discuss some of the things she's done while in office (including $350,000 for Humphrey Street - if it gets through the Senate). Various town committees reported on their year's work, some details below.
• The K-8 Master Plan. Quick run through by the Committee's chair. Readers will note I recently discussed the Master Plan on this website. The only news is that the committee suggested the Grade-Level 1 option, which would turn Clark into a Pre-K/K building and house grades 1-4 at Stanley. Editorialized Comments: They're selling it as a means to increase "parity," which is silly given the overall quality of Swampscott's elementary schools (among the best in the state - all of them). "Parity" is really a creative disguise to save money, at the cost of Swampscott's K-4 educational quality.
  
  Ultimately, all of Swampscott's elementary schools excel at teaching kids - the only disparity that exists are the kids who get the teachers who are right for them, versus the ones who don't - and that kind of disparity would continue to exist at whatever new schools we build. Smaller schools have been proven just as important as smaller class sizes in the K-4 age group, which makes a lot of sense when looking at Swampscott's MCAS scores. With Swampscott's elementary education system among the best in the state, why destroy the neighborhood-school model? It can only dampen the educational standards, whether or not the buildings our kids use are shiny and new.
  
• Bylaws. The town's committee on updating the bylaws attempted to do two things: fix what they suggested were 'inconsistencies' and 'typos' in the town's bylaws, as well as offering a motion to change the bylaws to insert a clause that would force town citizens to shovel sidewalks.
  
• The first amendment - which promised to be a quick exercise - proved to be much more daunting than it looked. Yes, the committee fixed typos and inconsistencies in the bylaws, but they also changed certain aspects of the bylaws that went above and beyond the committee's purview. The worst offender was a change in fees for violating certain town codes - which originally were to be 'no more than $50,' but would have become 'no less than $50' - for each offense. Under state law, that would mean that the town could penalize people up to $300 for each offense if those codes were violated. An amendment passed which would make each violation be exactly $50 per offense.
  
• The second amendment, on snow removal, was effectively killed. Proponents wanted to make sure town sidewalks were properly shoveled, opponents said that the change was unfair because not everyone is physically equipped to shovel and can't afford the unfunded mandate of paying for the walkways to be cleared. The Committee Chair also said that the town technically owns the sidewalks and referenced the fact that in other towns, the town itself pays to clear major sidewalks, especially those on busy streets and streets used by kids walking to and from school.
  
• Buildings. The committee reporting on what to do with the town's many properties gave focused on several buildings: the Phillips Beach Fire Station (currently used as the town's ambulance service), the Humphrey Street pumping station and the current police station. Its suggestion was to sell the Phillips Beach Fire Station, use the Humphrey Street property for a new police station and to lease out the current police station as the new town ambulance service, conveniently located next to the fire department. Additionally, it was recommended that the old middle school be sold.
  
• The Night's Wrap Up. On the whole, there was little contention over the sale and reuse of the town's buildings, but the night ended on a heated exchange when the building committee suggested the creation of a new committee to have oversight of how the buildings could be sold - including the creation of new town bylaws that would be up for approval by Town Meeting, likely in the fall.
  
  Several Selectman came out against the proposal, insisting they retain the oversight of those matters. Instead, they offered an amendment to create an advisory committee instead. Multiple people spoke out in favor of both options and the crowd went back and forth, however momentum in the crowd seemed to shift when one of the building committee members came out and said their process was necessary to avoid another Temple scenario - where the town purchased only a part of the old Temple property, when members of Town Meeting thought the entirety was purchased. Given the applause in the crowd, it seemed Selectmen's amendment would fail and an Oversight committee would be created, but the Town Selectmen were given a reprieve because, as the clock turned to 10:46, people were anxious to leave and voted to table the decision for Tuesday Night.
  
• My Final Comments: There was some dispute as to whether or not the Selectmen must come back to Town Meeting before a sale could be finalized, but it makes more sense to create an independent authority to come up with suggestions for town meeting (read: the Oversight Committee). The Selectmen would still be given great weight in the process, since they'd be the people selecting who would serve on that committee, but ultimately they wouldn't be able to steamroll a decision on the town.
  
  Given the language in the Town Meeting Warrant of the sections on actually selling the buildings in question, there was nothing to assure that the Selectmen be forced to come back to Town Meeting before a sale was finalized - as they tried to say there was. Furthermore, even if they did come back, what's to prevent them from still steamrolling their wishes since they could essentially suggest Town Meeting sell the buildings as they see fit, or else they'll lose the deal negotiated by the Selectmen. It's better to set the conditions to those deals first, so that tactic can't work, because these significant properties ultimately impact the character of Swampscott.
  
  This could be especially important for the Old Middle School, which is well over a hundred years old and represents the highest point of town. Residents can easily see it from as far away as the hills by the old Machon. Elected leaders, professional athletes, actors and CEOs have come out of that building in its 100+ years of existence, so it's only right that the citizens of this town have some more say in how it - and all of the other town property in question - can be sold.

Finally, if Town Meeting is extended to Wednesday (even though we were repeatedly told we'd finish by Tuesday night, that's not going to happen), I won't be able to go given the fact that I previously agreed to a job interview, meaning I won't be able to give a report. If any Town Meeting members will give their own rundown on Wednesday's happenings, let me know. I'll be delighted to post it! Town Meeting is exceptionally important - and rarely covered in the Reporter - so it takes true Citizen Journalism to make sure people have access to what's really going on.

Labels: bylaws, lori erhlich, schools, Swampscott, town meeting, town politics

Every once in a while, School Committee Chair David Whelan sends out a mass email essentially about how Swampscott is continually screwed by the State of Massachusetts in Chapter 70 funds compared to other cities and towns across the Commonwealth. We receive less money per children than towns that are comparable to us. Often, even wealthier communities than Swampscott do better in terms of Chapter 70 funding per child. Whelan almost always has a solid point, and the most recent email - "Another View of Chapter 70" is no different, but ultimately David's line of argument is doomed to failure.

Here's the gist of what he has to say:

How does Wellesley with almost three times the income per today’s Boston Globe get $105 more per child? How does Lynnfield get almost $600 [more] per child given their similar level of income per the referenced Globe article?

Of course, as I've said, at no point is David actually wrong. There probably aren't two people in Swampscott who don't get that. Unfortunately, though, while David is right on the merits, his argument fails to overcome two fundamental flaws. The first is that there just isn't enough cookies in the cookie jar to go around since Celluci drove through this state's last major tax cut. No matter how the cookies are divvied up, there are going to be some towns and some kids who get screwed over. Heck, even the towns that do 'well' in Whelan's analysis are facing tough economic times - despite the fact that they benefit from the overly-complicated and fundamentally flawed Chapter 70 formulas. The fact that every city and town across Massachusetts is facing similar problems with the current formula means that there isn't a huge incentive for rank and file state legislators to fix Swampscott's problems - because in order for Beacon Hill to fix our problems, it's going to have to fix the bigger ones first (lest other towns register similar complaints to our current ones).

The second flaw, the one that fatally wounds David's argument, is the fact that by comparing Swampscott to Lynnfield, Marblehead and others, he's actually pitting cities and towns against each other. For too long, that's how politics has worked on Beacon Hill - and as long as that's the way things work there, Swampscott is always going to be one of the big losers. Swampscott will just never have enough leverage to receive more than its fair share; it'll take another 3 years to receive just the 17.5% Chapter 70 funding (which is what David is asking for). David's arguments, while correct, end up in dividing his own natural base to be conquered - manipulated only by human nature. Bigger cities and towns, with more political clout than a freshman legislator, don't even have to work hard to protect the status quo, because natural allies like Swampscott, Marblehead and Lynnfield are already feuding.

A far more effective way of addressing the problems of state aid funding (or a lack thereof) is in underscoring its universal problems - which, if solved, would do even more to address the current nightmare than reforming Chapter 70's formula for every town. Each and every town across Massachusetts is facing difficult economic times - some far worse than Swampscott (and that's saying something). Ultimately, the real solutions to our economic problems are solutions that will positively effect each and every municipality across the Commonwealth - from Swampscott to Lynn to New Bedford to Pittsfield.


So, Ryan, if David's wrong - what should Swampscott be doing? Of course, that's the big question, isn't it? Well, Swampscott needs to work with municipalities that are facing similar problems - which is certainly something David is trying to do - but that alone isn't a winning coalition. Small, fairly-well-to-do towns that don't receive their fair share aren't going to overcome the stink at Beacon Hill. Does anyone honestly think there are state legislators who serve these towns that don't want to see Chapter 70 changed? Maybe some could do more, but if only towns like Swampscott represent the coalition for change on Chapter 70, we're tilting at wind mills.

Furthermore, since there just isn't enough money to go around, Swampscott's gains would be Lynn's detriment - and I don't think there's a whole ton of people in this town that think urban communities have too much money to fund their schools. Neither do towns that are similar to Swampscott, yet aren't screwed over by Chapter 70: they're facing difficult times too. It should be obvious that picking fights among communities facing similar problems, even if some are facing stiffer consequences, isn't a winning strategy for change. It would make more political sense to create larger coalitions and go after common solutions.

The biggest political winner, in my book, would be to create a .5%-1% income tax increase specifically geared toward funding schools across Massachusetts on a per-child basis. Every city and town would stand to benefit and it would be more than just a band-aid approach to a solution. It would also benefit towns like Swampscott most - it will act as a security net for when municipalities eventually get screwed over by arcane educational formulas, with little means for state recourse. At some point, most every city or town is going to get screwed over by difficult-to-understand and even-harder-to-change formulas, so every city and town stands to gain by a larger base funding mechanism.

If school committees across the Commonwealth came out in favor of such a measure, it would be a solution to the problem that everyday legislators could get behind. Ultimately, any state legislators fearing the T-Word could just blame it on Celluci, to boot, because he's the one who set Massachusetts up for failure by pushing through tax cuts that were too steep to meet core services. Restoring just some of them could fix the failed experiment while keeping the state fiscally grounded with a still-modest income tax rate compared to the other 49 states in the union. What other solution exists that won't set up scenarios where cities and towns become too busy fighting each other to work together, that actually addresses the revenue problem and does so in a way that would be quick to implement and wouldn't cost an arm and a leg? I'm all ears.

Labels: budget, chapter 70, david whelan, Swampscott, taxes

The town dems are having a potluck for new members (me included) on Sunday at 6pm. If anyone's interesting in joining the town committee, this would be a good time to meet everyone and see what it's all about. Plus, it's good to be a part of the community. I know this is short notice, but if anyone would like to come, email me over the next day or so and I'll forward your name and number to the hosts.

Labels: Swampscott, town dems, town politics

I just blogged about the situation in Saugus, where their library has been stripped of state certification and can't receive any state funding. They're no longer eligible to be in the North Shore book swap program, among other things. Their library is in danger of being shut down permanently, because they're running out of funds. Only one city, Lynn, has offered to help Saugus, by allowing their residents access to borrowing books. Why not Swampscott?

Would it really be all that burdensome to allow a few Saugus residents access to our library? It could have very well been our town that slashed funds to the library to the extent that it couldn't stay open. It may be our town in the future. We ought to set the precedent that each community in the North Shore will help one another, if it's needed. Instead, we're practicing Social Darwinism at the municipal level. Not only do we put our future at risk by being so selfish, but there are going to be a lot of children in Saugus who can't even go to a library. That's not right.

Labels: Libraries, North Shore, Swampscott

I've been meaning to update this blog forever, but between my main blog, rather large assortment of friends and family - and no doubt some laziness - a particular story was never written when it should have been. In any event, I've been having some chats with the School Committee Chair, Dave Whelan. While I may not agree with everything he's said (for example, that Swampscott wouldn't have passed an override to save Machon - we just don't know), most of what he's said makes sense. Here's his general thesis.

As you probably know Swampscott (and Nahant) are two of the 50 or so communities that receive less that the allotted 17.5% reimbursement rate under chapter 70. That rather remarkable bit of inequity costs the Town of Swampscott over $500k in educational aid.... It should also be noted that we have been living with this inequity for years. While this issue is not the sole reason for the financial crunch that we deal with here in Swampscott, it surely has not helped.

Whelan also forwarded me a few different statistics, though I'll admit a few of them can't be opened because I don't have Microsoft Excel. However, one of the interesting lists he sent over shows all the towns that receive less than the 17.5% standard state reimbursement rate. Why is it so interesting? Lynnfield and Marblehead aren't even on that list - meaning, they receive at least 17.5%. Don't they have higher median family incomes and property values? Yes.

Swampscott, meanwhile, receives the same rate as Concord, Massachusetts. Concord isn't just an historical town, it's also a very well-to-do town, with a median family income of almost $116,000 - $33,000 a year more than Swampscott's median family. Furthermore, people will note that almost all the towns that are struggling the worst this year are on this under-17.5 list: Saugus at 16.2, Stoneham at 14.6, Gloucester and others. It isn't a coincidence that most of these towns are facing large layoffs, school closings and fee hikes, just inan attempt to keep up.

Whelan largely blames Peterson, McGee and other local State Representatives and Senators. They are the ones who create these formulas and certainly, he notes, and by just about any count Swampscott does not receive its fair share. Certainly, no one is clear of any blame, but it's not as if Peterson and McGee are trying to keep Swampscott down. It's just a difficult issue to build a coalition around when so few towns are unfairly impacted like Swampscott and Nahant. It's going to take a lot of work to convince the majority of the state to change the formula, but it's a worthy goal - and the quicker it happens, the more teachers and schools Swampscott and other towns will save.

A lot of people may ask why Swampscott deserves more than 14.3%: after all, just look at all the million five million dollar homes on the beach. The town may be wealthy, but certainly not as wealthy as most of the other towns sharing spots on that list: just go to Metrowest and almost every city or town has at least the same median family income and property value. Heck, toss out the few families living on the ocean in Swampscott and things would be a lot different: most of Swampscott, contrary to popular myth, is very middle class (not that I have to tell most residents that). We may be lawyers, but we're also teachers, nurses and police officers too. Heck, Massachusetts is so expensive nowadays that even many practicing lawyers and doctors are within the boundaries of the middle class.

I don't know the specifics of what any of the answers are - it's a real complex problem that calls for real experts, of which I am not. Furthermore complicating the problem is the fact that restoring Chapter 70 funding is only a band aid solution. If Swampscott had the extra $500,000 this year, maybe we could have saved Machon - but what about the year after that? What about the next elementary school, next year? A lot of people in this town want to close Hadley, as well. The real reason Swampscott, as well as most other towns in Massachusetts, are suffering has everything to do with rising rates of health care, oil and special education costs. It's different problems, for a different blog, yet helps explain just why most towns in Massachusetts are struggling to keep up. Until we tackle those problems, as a state, Chapter 70 is an issue we can wrack our brains over all day, yet will be a small piece of the pie compared to a few more years of 10-15% rising rates at Blue Cross, Blue Shield.

Labels: chapter 70, dan whelan, schools, Swampscott