Some messages from residents and nonresidents concerned with Chatham’s extravagant spending:

Being a nonresident taxpayer I have no vote but have been a taxpayer for [many] years and my parents...before that. I feel that it is the nonresident taxpayers that have enabled the town to spend as much as they want for years.

Unfortunately, that spending attitude impacts those of you who live there and are voters as well. . . . we have been the source that has provided a warped sense of reality when it comes to town spending.

Just for the record, I am not a trophy home owner but a person whose ancestors came from Chatham and still own the family homestead. I'm just barely able to hold on to the place with the ever rising tax burden.

I just read the page 3 summary in the May 4,2009 Cape Cod Times comparing spending in the 15 towns across the Cape. It is pretty basic information, but it still raises some interesting questions.

Across the 15 towns Chatham spends more to service its debt than any other town on the Cape as a percent of its total spending. In fact we spend 47% more on a percent of total spending basis than the next highest, i.e., Harwich.

Chatham’s total spending per capita population is $4748. Only Truro and P Town spend more, and those are towns where lack of size and extreme seasonality impacts those numbers. In fact the only other town of any size that spends more than $4000 per capita is Orleans and we still spend 14% more than they do. So for a town on the Cape of any size Chatham’s spending number stands out. Of course from the information in the paper one of the points you could make is it is because we have more debt! I would agree and I think that is a problem, not a reason.

Lastly, our tax relative to valuation is shown as the lowest on the Cape by a wide margin. Why doesn’t that make me feel better? Dollar value of houses don’t require town services, people require town services. The ability to raise taxes shouldn’t define the budget, the services required should define the budget and the taxes should be the result. None of us in Chatham can live on the value of our house, unless we sell it, remortgage it or rent it.

Chatham is discussing a budget that ignores the economic reality of its taxpayers, it provides pay raises when other towns on the Cape deferring them, it spends windfall savings from lower energy costs, and it uses reserves meant for other contingencies to make the math work and package it for our voters to buy.

Many of us our tired of hearing about our low tax rate and feel the focus needs to be on our very high cost structure. I feel the constant reference to the low tax rate is just a way to not engage the real issue of cost control in the worst recession most of us have seen in our lifetime.

Just as we were shocked into reality watching our investments crumble, we may just have to accept that we can no longer spend money we don't have. . . .The mentality of buying on credit got our entire country into very big trouble so I don't understand why we want to continue to do it on any scale... individually, community- wise or nation- wise.

May I suggest to this group that not all non-resident tax payers should be lumped into a rich or very rich category. People have second homes for various reasons and in Chatham have modest homes. The tax bill is of significant concern to us as well as to resident taxpayers. Yet we have no voice. You voters have my support in your effort to control the level of spending in the town as well as to eliminate the poor decisions such as mentioned [by the writer].

iF YOU FEEL THAT THE 58% PLUS INCREASE IN TOWN SPENDING OVER THE PAST NINE YEARS IS TOO MUCH -- MORE THAN TWICE INFLATION AND TWICE WHAT PROPOSITION 2 1/2 ALLOWS, HELP MAKE IT STOP.

THE FISCAL 2010 BUDGET IS SO FAT IT SPILLED OVER INTO SIX ARTICLES (6, 7, 8 , 10, 11 AND 12) IN THE TOWN MEETING WARRANT. NOT ONLY SPENDING AS USUAL, IT RAIDED EMERGENCY SAVINGS ACCOUNTS ($605,000) TO COVER THE $2 MILLION IN RED INK. AND THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY WAS PUSHED HIGHER AGAIN, THIS TIME BY $770,000. IN THE END, TAXPAYERS PAY FOR OVERSPENDING LIKE THIS.

TO STOP THE OVERSPENDING, A "NO" VOTE AT TOWN MEETING WOULD HAVE DONE IT, BUT THE "NOs" WERE 58 SHORT.