Yes, I know the economy is in a state of flux, but buyers are clever and are recognizing the rare opportunity this situation brings. People who never thought they’d be able to manage a home on Cape Cod are discovering they can now. Market inventories are high, interest rates are good for those with good credit, and prices are at or below assessed value, in many instances.
Currently this Dixon Duo has four properties scheduled to close between late October and early November. In each case, the selling price is ten to eighteen percent below the assessed value of the property. These buyers know that, when times are better the value of their investment will increase, and in the meantime, they will be enjoying their new purchase. Some will profit from renting during the high season and yet have the luxury of escaping from the “madding crowd” the rest of the year.
Recently a couple from the UK came into the office and announced that they had traveled extensively but never visited a place where the people were so charming and the place so beautiful that they really wanted to own a home there… until now. There is something very special about our lovely corner of the world, but it’s always nice to have others discover that too. This couple from Scotland found a home that they are so enchanted with they took a detour on a flight over to Nantucket, so they could photograph the house from the air. You can just imagine how delighted they were when they came upon its picture in a book of Chatham’s history.
Now, you may say, “It’s easy for Europeans to purchase American property because the Euro and the pound are in better shape than our dollar.” That may be so, but historically real estate rebounds from a down economy, and in the meantime, it’s quite literally a solid investment, not a fragile piece of paper. There’s quite a flurry of activity here this fall, and the majority of the buyers are American. For most of Middle America, the bulk of their wealth is in their real estate. When they go to sell, if they have owned it for several years, they usually realize a nice profit. Here on Cape Cod, I guess you could say buyers are “mixing business with pleasure.”
By Elaine Dixon
Showing posts with label Chatham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chatham. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Public Rights / Private Property: FAQs on Beach Access brought to you By Trisha Daly-Karlson
Summertime. The living is easy. Fish are jumpin'. And right now somewhere along the Massachusetts coast, two people are arguing over whether one of them may walk along the other's beach.
Few issues in Massachusetts can be counted on as such a regular source of conflict. One reason for this is that in the face of the overwhelming desire for people to use our beaches, our laws are not very "friendly" toward beach access. This is because, some 350 years ago, our forefathers gave away much of the public's rights to use the coastline in an attempt to spur the development of wharfs and maritime commerce. On top of that, our laws in this area are complex, confusing, and- to an extent that is surprising in light of centuries of court battles- uncertain.
The result is conflict. Those who own property along the coast clash with those who want to walk along it, often without either really knowing what their rights and obligations are. Indeed, sometimes police officers and other public officials called in to deal with this conflict are themselves unclear about the respective rights and responsibilities.
The purpose of this guide is to try to help people understand the law in this area, to the extent that it has been settled. We have tried to provide simple answers to commonly-asked questions about the ownership of the coast. Our hope is that by informing the public of the law, we can move beyond needless conflicts and toward more consensual solutions to the beach access issue. In particular, we have highlighted ways that coastal owners who want to let the public gain access through or along their property can do so while avoiding liability and at the same time preserving their own property rights.
Of necessity, we can state what the public's rights are only in general terms. There are many complications that may arise in individual circumstances.
Questions & Answers
Q: "Someone told me that beaches are privately owned in Massachusetts all the way down to the low tide line. How can that be?"
A: Each state has its own laws regarding who owns the beach. In most coastal states, the public owns the land seaward of the high tide line, and in some states public ownership extends even higher. Massachusetts is different, however. The Massachusetts courts have consistently ruled that in the 1640s, we gave away title to the land between the mean high tide line and the low tide line to the adjacent upland owners. Therefore, this area- known as the "intertidal zone" or "wet sand area" is- generally privately owned in Massachusetts.
Q: "So you're saying that if I own the adjacent upland land, I therefore own the adjacent wet sand area?"
A: Probably, but not necessarily. It is possible that the interest in the wet sand area was separately conveyed ("severed") from the uplands parcel at some time in the past. A final answer to this question may require a complete title search, and even then you might not have a definitive answer. If this issue cannot be resolved by the available evidence, the upland owner is presumed to own the adjacent wet sand area. The boundary issues can be resolved in Land Court.
Q: "You said that I can own down to the 'low tide line,' but the low tide line changes every day. What low tide line are you talking about?"
A: Because the precise tide lines change daily, the average or mean low tide line is used. There is an ongoing dispute, however, as to whether you should use the so-called "mean low tide" line or the "mean extreme low tide line." The former is the average of all low tides, while the latter is the average of extreme low tides "resulting from usual causes and conditions."
Q: "How do you deal with the fact that over time the coastline builds up in certain areas and washes away in others?"
A: The short answer to this question is that the property lines move with the low tide line. Therefore, as land is extended by the natural buildup of sand (known as "accretion"), the private property owners generally enjoy a windfall. But when the opposite happens ("reliction"), the private property owners generally lose ownership of that portion of the land taken by the sea. The fact that property lines change with the whims of the oceans is one of the things that makes private ownership of this area different from private ownership of inland property.
Q: "If I own the wet sand area, why are members of the public claiming they can use it?"
A: Private ownership of the wet sand area is subject to certain public rights that were reserved when the land became private in the first place. Because the public-at-large retains a property interest in the wet sand area, the private owners' property interest in this area is similar to that of people who own private property in other areas subject to public easements (for example, people who abut town roads typically own to the middle of the road, subject to the public's right of passage).
Q: "What are the rights that were reserved to the public?"
A: The original laws that granted private ownership reserved the rights of "fishing, fowling, and navigation." Court cases have also held that reserved public rights include the "natural derivatives" of these uses. There are hundreds of years of court cases that attempt to flesh out precisely what these various words mean.
Q: "Does 'fishing' include shellfishing?"
A: Yes. That means that members of the public may take shellfish from the wet sand area of privately owned property and they may walk along the wet sand area to gain access to the shellfish.
Q: "Does the public's right to use the wet sand area for fishing include the right to do aquaculture, such as quahog farming?"
A: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the public. s right to fish in the wet sand area does not include a right to occupy such areas with aquaculture pens. As a result, someone who wants to perform these aquaculture activities in wet sand areas must obtain the permission of the private owner in addition to applicable state and local licenses.
Q: "What is 'fowling'?"
A: "Fowling" certainly includes the hunting of birds. Our office takes the position that the term also includes other ways that birds can be "used," such as birdwatching. This issue has not yet been addressed by the courts.
Q: "Does 'navigation' include swimming?"
A: Yes, but. According to the courts, swimming in the intertidal zone is included within the reserved public right of navigation, but only so long as your feet don't touch the bottom! And you don't have a right to walk along the wet sand area solely for the purpose of gaining access for swimming.
Q: "What about walking below the low tide line?"
A: Private property owners cannot interfere with the public's right to walk along the submerged lands that lie seaward of the low tide line. With few exceptions, they don't own that land; the public does.
Q: "Since members of the public have the right to fish, fowl, and navigate in the wet sand area, then they can do whatever fishing, fowling, and navigation they want to do there, right?"
A: So far, we've just been talking about ownership issues. Just as a private property owner's rights are subject to reasonable regulation, the same is true of the public's reserved rights. Thus, for example, the government may require shellfishermen to obtain all applicable state and local permits and to comply with applicable shellfishing regulations. And, of course, members of the public who exercise their public rights to use the wet sand area must comply with other laws, such as the prohibition on littering and the creation of nuisances.
Q: "I've heard people say that all I really need to do to 'be legal' is to carry a fishing line in my pocket?"
A: Carrying a fishing line or a fishing pole would render your walking along the wet sands area legal only if you actually intended to fish.
Q: "Does the public have a right to use off-road vehicles over the wet sand areas to gain access for fishing?"
A: The Supreme Judicial Court has never ruled on whether driving an off-road vehicle across private wet sand areas for the purposes of gaining access to fishing areas is included within the public's right to fish. In any event, the use of off-road vehicles may be regulated by the government.
Q: "Like many of my fellow property owners, I don't mind the public walking along my wet sand area even if they are not 'fishing, fowling, or navigating,' so long as by allowing this, I don't lose any property rights in the process. Is there some way that I can be a 'good citizen' and still retain my property rights?"
A: Yes. What you appear to be worried about is the legal concept known as "prescription" or "adverse possession." This is the idea that if someone uses your property for a sufficiently long time, they may be able to claim a property interest in it. For someone to be able to make this claim, however, their use has to be without your permission. Therefore, openly allowing the public to walk across your land (e.g., by "posting" such permission) is perhaps the best way of defeating someone's ability to accrue such a right. Posting the land in this manner, of course, would not affect any access rights that anyone had already obtained before the posting.
Q: "O.K., that may solve one problem, but how about liability?"
A: Under existing state law, a property owner who allows the public to use his or her land for recreational purposes without charging for such use is shielded from liability for injuries sustained during that use so long as the property owner did not bury hidden boobytraps or otherwise act with such "fault" that his or her conduct constituted "wilful, wanton or reckless conduct." Here again, the best way for coastal property owners to protect themselves may be to allow the public to walk across their land.
Q: "Wasn't there a state law passed a few years ago that gave the public a right to walk along the wet sand area even if they weren't fishing, fowling, or navigating"?
A: Not exactly. You're referring to chapter 176, section 4 of the Acts of 1991. That law states that the public is to have a general right to walk along the wet sand area during dawn to dusk hours. Such a right is not effective, however, unless the state Department of Environmental Management (DEM) acquires it on behalf of the public through formal eminent domain proceedings involving the specific properties affected, where the private property owners from whom the right was acquired would be compensated.
Q: "How much compensation would a private landowner be due if the state "took" a general easement right pursuant to the 1991 law?"
A: The property owner would be owed the amount, if any, that the market value of his or her land was reduced by the fact that the public now had a general right to walk across the wet sand area, not just to do so for fishing, fowling, and navigation.
Q: "You've talked so far about access along the beach. How about access from inland areas to the beach?"
A: Generally speaking, the land inland of the mean high tide line is owned by private parties, just like other land. Members of the public therefore do not have a right to walk across this land unless they individually or collectively have obtained such a right, or if, in particular circumstances, such rights were reserved when the land was initially granted to a private party. Rights of access can be purchased or taken by eminent domain, or they may be acquired by long term use (e.g., by the doctrine of "prescription" mentioned above).
Q: "How can I resolve whether the public has a right to cross a particular parcel of private property to get to the sea?"
A: Unfortunately, resolving whether the public . or some subset of the public . has a right to use a given path can often be very difficult, requiring an intensive examination of the particular facts and evidence at issue. It can also be very expensive for both sides, especially if a full trial is needed to resolve the issues. As with the wet sand area discussed above, private property owners who want to protect their property rights, but who otherwise don't mind others walking across their land, can accomplish this by "posting" their permission. This would not, of course, affect any access rights that the public had already obtained before the posting.
Q: "What if I want to try to resolve a coastal access dispute through mediation?"
A: One resource to consider is the Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution (MODR), an institute of the University of Massachusetts Boston (formerly a state agency). MODR promotes and facilitates the use of dispute resolution by public agencies, municipalities, businesses, non-profit organizations and citizens of the Commonwealth. MODR works with these groups to resolve disputes collaboratively and to create effective programs to prevent and manage conflict. MODR services include mediation, facilitation, public participation, consensus building, systems design and skill-building training. Services are provided on a fee-for-service basis, through highly-experienced qualified conflict resolution practitioners who are staff or affiliates of MODR. To learn more about MODR, log on to MODR’s website: at www.umb.edu/modr or contact MODR: (617) 287-4040; fax: (617) 287-4049.
Few issues in Massachusetts can be counted on as such a regular source of conflict. One reason for this is that in the face of the overwhelming desire for people to use our beaches, our laws are not very "friendly" toward beach access. This is because, some 350 years ago, our forefathers gave away much of the public's rights to use the coastline in an attempt to spur the development of wharfs and maritime commerce. On top of that, our laws in this area are complex, confusing, and- to an extent that is surprising in light of centuries of court battles- uncertain.
The result is conflict. Those who own property along the coast clash with those who want to walk along it, often without either really knowing what their rights and obligations are. Indeed, sometimes police officers and other public officials called in to deal with this conflict are themselves unclear about the respective rights and responsibilities.
The purpose of this guide is to try to help people understand the law in this area, to the extent that it has been settled. We have tried to provide simple answers to commonly-asked questions about the ownership of the coast. Our hope is that by informing the public of the law, we can move beyond needless conflicts and toward more consensual solutions to the beach access issue. In particular, we have highlighted ways that coastal owners who want to let the public gain access through or along their property can do so while avoiding liability and at the same time preserving their own property rights.
Of necessity, we can state what the public's rights are only in general terms. There are many complications that may arise in individual circumstances.
Questions & Answers
Q: "Someone told me that beaches are privately owned in Massachusetts all the way down to the low tide line. How can that be?"
A: Each state has its own laws regarding who owns the beach. In most coastal states, the public owns the land seaward of the high tide line, and in some states public ownership extends even higher. Massachusetts is different, however. The Massachusetts courts have consistently ruled that in the 1640s, we gave away title to the land between the mean high tide line and the low tide line to the adjacent upland owners. Therefore, this area- known as the "intertidal zone" or "wet sand area" is- generally privately owned in Massachusetts.
Q: "So you're saying that if I own the adjacent upland land, I therefore own the adjacent wet sand area?"
A: Probably, but not necessarily. It is possible that the interest in the wet sand area was separately conveyed ("severed") from the uplands parcel at some time in the past. A final answer to this question may require a complete title search, and even then you might not have a definitive answer. If this issue cannot be resolved by the available evidence, the upland owner is presumed to own the adjacent wet sand area. The boundary issues can be resolved in Land Court.
Q: "You said that I can own down to the 'low tide line,' but the low tide line changes every day. What low tide line are you talking about?"
A: Because the precise tide lines change daily, the average or mean low tide line is used. There is an ongoing dispute, however, as to whether you should use the so-called "mean low tide" line or the "mean extreme low tide line." The former is the average of all low tides, while the latter is the average of extreme low tides "resulting from usual causes and conditions."
Q: "How do you deal with the fact that over time the coastline builds up in certain areas and washes away in others?"
A: The short answer to this question is that the property lines move with the low tide line. Therefore, as land is extended by the natural buildup of sand (known as "accretion"), the private property owners generally enjoy a windfall. But when the opposite happens ("reliction"), the private property owners generally lose ownership of that portion of the land taken by the sea. The fact that property lines change with the whims of the oceans is one of the things that makes private ownership of this area different from private ownership of inland property.
Q: "If I own the wet sand area, why are members of the public claiming they can use it?"
A: Private ownership of the wet sand area is subject to certain public rights that were reserved when the land became private in the first place. Because the public-at-large retains a property interest in the wet sand area, the private owners' property interest in this area is similar to that of people who own private property in other areas subject to public easements (for example, people who abut town roads typically own to the middle of the road, subject to the public's right of passage).
Q: "What are the rights that were reserved to the public?"
A: The original laws that granted private ownership reserved the rights of "fishing, fowling, and navigation." Court cases have also held that reserved public rights include the "natural derivatives" of these uses. There are hundreds of years of court cases that attempt to flesh out precisely what these various words mean.
Q: "Does 'fishing' include shellfishing?"
A: Yes. That means that members of the public may take shellfish from the wet sand area of privately owned property and they may walk along the wet sand area to gain access to the shellfish.
Q: "Does the public's right to use the wet sand area for fishing include the right to do aquaculture, such as quahog farming?"
A: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the public. s right to fish in the wet sand area does not include a right to occupy such areas with aquaculture pens. As a result, someone who wants to perform these aquaculture activities in wet sand areas must obtain the permission of the private owner in addition to applicable state and local licenses.
Q: "What is 'fowling'?"
A: "Fowling" certainly includes the hunting of birds. Our office takes the position that the term also includes other ways that birds can be "used," such as birdwatching. This issue has not yet been addressed by the courts.
Q: "Does 'navigation' include swimming?"
A: Yes, but. According to the courts, swimming in the intertidal zone is included within the reserved public right of navigation, but only so long as your feet don't touch the bottom! And you don't have a right to walk along the wet sand area solely for the purpose of gaining access for swimming.
Q: "What about walking below the low tide line?"
A: Private property owners cannot interfere with the public's right to walk along the submerged lands that lie seaward of the low tide line. With few exceptions, they don't own that land; the public does.
Q: "Since members of the public have the right to fish, fowl, and navigate in the wet sand area, then they can do whatever fishing, fowling, and navigation they want to do there, right?"
A: So far, we've just been talking about ownership issues. Just as a private property owner's rights are subject to reasonable regulation, the same is true of the public's reserved rights. Thus, for example, the government may require shellfishermen to obtain all applicable state and local permits and to comply with applicable shellfishing regulations. And, of course, members of the public who exercise their public rights to use the wet sand area must comply with other laws, such as the prohibition on littering and the creation of nuisances.
Q: "I've heard people say that all I really need to do to 'be legal' is to carry a fishing line in my pocket?"
A: Carrying a fishing line or a fishing pole would render your walking along the wet sands area legal only if you actually intended to fish.
Q: "Does the public have a right to use off-road vehicles over the wet sand areas to gain access for fishing?"
A: The Supreme Judicial Court has never ruled on whether driving an off-road vehicle across private wet sand areas for the purposes of gaining access to fishing areas is included within the public's right to fish. In any event, the use of off-road vehicles may be regulated by the government.
Q: "Like many of my fellow property owners, I don't mind the public walking along my wet sand area even if they are not 'fishing, fowling, or navigating,' so long as by allowing this, I don't lose any property rights in the process. Is there some way that I can be a 'good citizen' and still retain my property rights?"
A: Yes. What you appear to be worried about is the legal concept known as "prescription" or "adverse possession." This is the idea that if someone uses your property for a sufficiently long time, they may be able to claim a property interest in it. For someone to be able to make this claim, however, their use has to be without your permission. Therefore, openly allowing the public to walk across your land (e.g., by "posting" such permission) is perhaps the best way of defeating someone's ability to accrue such a right. Posting the land in this manner, of course, would not affect any access rights that anyone had already obtained before the posting.
Q: "O.K., that may solve one problem, but how about liability?"
A: Under existing state law, a property owner who allows the public to use his or her land for recreational purposes without charging for such use is shielded from liability for injuries sustained during that use so long as the property owner did not bury hidden boobytraps or otherwise act with such "fault" that his or her conduct constituted "wilful, wanton or reckless conduct." Here again, the best way for coastal property owners to protect themselves may be to allow the public to walk across their land.
Q: "Wasn't there a state law passed a few years ago that gave the public a right to walk along the wet sand area even if they weren't fishing, fowling, or navigating"?
A: Not exactly. You're referring to chapter 176, section 4 of the Acts of 1991. That law states that the public is to have a general right to walk along the wet sand area during dawn to dusk hours. Such a right is not effective, however, unless the state Department of Environmental Management (DEM) acquires it on behalf of the public through formal eminent domain proceedings involving the specific properties affected, where the private property owners from whom the right was acquired would be compensated.
Q: "How much compensation would a private landowner be due if the state "took" a general easement right pursuant to the 1991 law?"
A: The property owner would be owed the amount, if any, that the market value of his or her land was reduced by the fact that the public now had a general right to walk across the wet sand area, not just to do so for fishing, fowling, and navigation.
Q: "You've talked so far about access along the beach. How about access from inland areas to the beach?"
A: Generally speaking, the land inland of the mean high tide line is owned by private parties, just like other land. Members of the public therefore do not have a right to walk across this land unless they individually or collectively have obtained such a right, or if, in particular circumstances, such rights were reserved when the land was initially granted to a private party. Rights of access can be purchased or taken by eminent domain, or they may be acquired by long term use (e.g., by the doctrine of "prescription" mentioned above).
Q: "How can I resolve whether the public has a right to cross a particular parcel of private property to get to the sea?"
A: Unfortunately, resolving whether the public . or some subset of the public . has a right to use a given path can often be very difficult, requiring an intensive examination of the particular facts and evidence at issue. It can also be very expensive for both sides, especially if a full trial is needed to resolve the issues. As with the wet sand area discussed above, private property owners who want to protect their property rights, but who otherwise don't mind others walking across their land, can accomplish this by "posting" their permission. This would not, of course, affect any access rights that the public had already obtained before the posting.
Q: "What if I want to try to resolve a coastal access dispute through mediation?"
A: One resource to consider is the Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution (MODR), an institute of the University of Massachusetts Boston (formerly a state agency). MODR promotes and facilitates the use of dispute resolution by public agencies, municipalities, businesses, non-profit organizations and citizens of the Commonwealth. MODR works with these groups to resolve disputes collaboratively and to create effective programs to prevent and manage conflict. MODR services include mediation, facilitation, public participation, consensus building, systems design and skill-building training. Services are provided on a fee-for-service basis, through highly-experienced qualified conflict resolution practitioners who are staff or affiliates of MODR. To learn more about MODR, log on to MODR’s website: at www.umb.edu/modr or contact MODR: (617) 287-4040; fax: (617) 287-4049.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Selling Your Own Home? by Rosa Wright
Maybe you’ve thought about selling your home without an Agent in order to avoid paying an Agent’s commission. That commission, is negotiable depending on where you live and what Agent you choose.
Handling your own sale means you will have to place ads, answer calls, perhaps hold open houses, show your home to strangers at all hours—no matter how unexpected or inconvenient, and in some cases negotiate the selling price.
Serious Buyers depend on real estate Agents. 98.3% of the homes for sale are listed by Realtors®. And 70% of homes sold are sold through Agent-to-Agent communication. The national average price of homes sold is 16% higher when an Agent is used. Using the right professional Agent will make your home sale a better experience, and a more profitable one.
When selling your home, or buying a new one please contact us, here at The Real Estate Company for a full service Real Estate Agent and counsel you can trust.
East Orleans 508-255-5100; Eastham 508-255-4949; Chatham 508-945-7777
Handling your own sale means you will have to place ads, answer calls, perhaps hold open houses, show your home to strangers at all hours—no matter how unexpected or inconvenient, and in some cases negotiate the selling price.
Serious Buyers depend on real estate Agents. 98.3% of the homes for sale are listed by Realtors®. And 70% of homes sold are sold through Agent-to-Agent communication. The national average price of homes sold is 16% higher when an Agent is used. Using the right professional Agent will make your home sale a better experience, and a more profitable one.
When selling your home, or buying a new one please contact us, here at The Real Estate Company for a full service Real Estate Agent and counsel you can trust.
East Orleans 508-255-5100; Eastham 508-255-4949; Chatham 508-945-7777
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
“It’s Band Time in Chatham” By George W. Goodspeed Jr.
This often heard expression in this great little Cape Cod Town, was probably coined in 1945 when the Chatham Band started up after World War II. Some of the young men returning from all over the world, had used their instruments during the war years, and others had to dust them off, and get their lips in shape. The Band had shut down in December of 1941 with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, but just about everyone came home to get things started again.
The Band was originally organized in 1931, when a group of local men, twelve in number, gathered and formed the nucleus of the Band. One of those men was my father, George W. Goodspeed, Sr., who had learned to play the saxophone from a Mr. Martell who lived on Crowell Road. They were able to get some other amateur musicians in town and a few from the surrounding towns, and with Mr. Martell as the leader, they started what was known as the American Legion Band. The uniform of the day was a blue blazer, white pants and shoes, and a blue and white hat, similar to the design of the current hat. They started their music library by pooling their own money, and the rehearsals were held at the American Legion Hall on School Street in Chatham.
The Band was originally organized in 1931, when a group of local men, twelve in number, gathered and formed the nucleus of the Band. One of those men was my father, George W. Goodspeed, Sr., who had learned to play the saxophone from a Mr. Martell who lived on Crowell Road. They were able to get some other amateur musicians in town and a few from the surrounding towns, and with Mr. Martell as the leader, they started what was known as the American Legion Band. The uniform of the day was a blue blazer, white pants and shoes, and a blue and white hat, similar to the design of the current hat. They started their music library by pooling their own money, and the rehearsals were held at the American Legion Hall on School Street in Chatham.
Photo - Generations of the Goodspeeds: Part of Chatham Band Tradition. July 4th, 1973 - George W. Goodspeed Sr. (center) with son Ben and grandson Benny. In the early years, the Band was directed by Joe Martell, and Thomas Nassi. Mr. Nassi and his wife taught music in the schools, and they lived in Orleans, across from what was then the main school on Route 28. They taught music in Chatham, Orleans, Eastham, Brewster and Harwich. Several of the current Band members learned their music from Mr. and Mrs. Nassi who were from Albania originally There is a small park in Orleans that is named for their son Albert who was killed in World War II.
About two years after the Band was started and things were going pretty well, the American Legion Post in Chatham, in an effort to raise money, started to charge the Band rent for the use of their hall since not all of the Band members were members of the Legion. The Legion Hall was one of the old schools in Chatham, and it was known as the Village School. The rent started at $ 2.00 dollars per night. Because the Band did not have deep pockets, they started to look for another place to practice. They were able to get the use of a hall that belonged to the Improved Order of Red Men on Route 28, next door to the present Post Office. The Red Men’s Hall was later converted into a home by the Swan family that managed the Queen Ann Inn.
With the move to the Red Men’s Hall came the new name, and the new uniform. The new name was the Chatham Band, and the new uniform was the forerunner of today’s well recognized uniform.
As the Band became better known and developed into a class act, they were asked to take part in many activities. They were the Band to play for the dedication of the two Cape Cod Canal Bridges, and they often joined with the Provincetown Band to march and play for the Blessing of the Fleet. Their first Bandstand in Chatham was on Main Street, where the large parking lot is next to the Town Office. Soon after World War II, that Bandstand was moved to Kate Gould Park, and it was later replaced with the larger and current bandstand that is there today. The current Bandstand was paid for by the Band members with the help of private donations, and it was built by carpenters that were members of the Band.
About two years after the Band was started and things were going pretty well, the American Legion Post in Chatham, in an effort to raise money, started to charge the Band rent for the use of their hall since not all of the Band members were members of the Legion. The Legion Hall was one of the old schools in Chatham, and it was known as the Village School. The rent started at $ 2.00 dollars per night. Because the Band did not have deep pockets, they started to look for another place to practice. They were able to get the use of a hall that belonged to the Improved Order of Red Men on Route 28, next door to the present Post Office. The Red Men’s Hall was later converted into a home by the Swan family that managed the Queen Ann Inn.
With the move to the Red Men’s Hall came the new name, and the new uniform. The new name was the Chatham Band, and the new uniform was the forerunner of today’s well recognized uniform.
As the Band became better known and developed into a class act, they were asked to take part in many activities. They were the Band to play for the dedication of the two Cape Cod Canal Bridges, and they often joined with the Provincetown Band to march and play for the Blessing of the Fleet. Their first Bandstand in Chatham was on Main Street, where the large parking lot is next to the Town Office. Soon after World War II, that Bandstand was moved to Kate Gould Park, and it was later replaced with the larger and current bandstand that is there today. The current Bandstand was paid for by the Band members with the help of private donations, and it was built by carpenters that were members of the Band. When Mr. Nassi, the director for only a short period of time retired from teaching, it became necessary to find a new director. Several people tried to do the job, but then the Band lucked out with a new vocal music teacher for the school systems. Whitney Tileston came on to the scene and started the program that we have today. Shortly thereafter, the Band became a feature story in The National Geographic Magazine. The Band was also featured on NBC’s Nightly News, and several other television shows.
Since the late forties, the Band has performed free concerts every Friday night at Kate Gould Park, weather permitting. Over a period of time “Whit” became known as “Mr. Music”, and with a great Band behind him, we were able to entertain thousands of people and several generations. I originally started with the Band at the ripe old age of 12, marching with the bass drum and playing cymbals. Today I’m a member of the reed section playing alto saxophone, and serve as manager of the Band. The Current director is Ken Eldredge, who started with the Band in the thirties as a drummer will continue this great piece of Americana for families of all ages. We’re all working to keep this tradition alive for many years to come.If you are free on a Friday Night in the summer, bring your blankets, chairs, and enjoy a fabulous evening. Oh yes, it is the best entertainment in New England for the price.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Chatham, Cape Cod - Homes (1/2/08)
From John Scott, REALTOR®, ABR
The Real Estate Company at Sylvan
Here on Cape Cod, in Chatham, MA, while the price of entry may be high (median asking price of about 170 homes is about $850,000), Chatham's property taxes ($3.67 per $1,000 of assessed value) are the lowest on Cape Cod. Now, in addition to all of the other attractions you have come to know, our Community Center is open just outside the downtown area. With some 170 homes in Chatham alone to choose from, mortgage rates at/below 6%, 2008 might be your year. Based on information in the Cape & Islands Multiple Listing Service (CCI MLS), here is a quick comparison between 2006 and 2007 for single family homes sold in 2007:Number sold: 163 (versus 162 last year). There are 26 homes pending sale.Median selling price: $725,000 (versus just under $710,000 last year)Price range of homes sold: $230,000 to $4.6 million (versus $275,000 to $5.5 million last year) http://www.johnscottsellsthecape.com/
The Real Estate Company at Sylvan
Here on Cape Cod, in Chatham, MA, while the price of entry may be high (median asking price of about 170 homes is about $850,000), Chatham's property taxes ($3.67 per $1,000 of assessed value) are the lowest on Cape Cod. Now, in addition to all of the other attractions you have come to know, our Community Center is open just outside the downtown area. With some 170 homes in Chatham alone to choose from, mortgage rates at/below 6%, 2008 might be your year. Based on information in the Cape & Islands Multiple Listing Service (CCI MLS), here is a quick comparison between 2006 and 2007 for single family homes sold in 2007:Number sold: 163 (versus 162 last year). There are 26 homes pending sale.Median selling price: $725,000 (versus just under $710,000 last year)Price range of homes sold: $230,000 to $4.6 million (versus $275,000 to $5.5 million last year) http://www.johnscottsellsthecape.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
