Pages I refer to often

  • Income Distribution in the US
    How is our income distributed? Well, it is pretty concentrated. How concentrated? Take a look.
  • Progress and Poverty, by Henry George
    Here are links to online editions of George's landmark book, Progress & Poverty, including audio and a number of abridgments -- the shortest is 30 words! I commend this book to your attention, if you are concerned about economic justice, poverty, sprawl, energy use, pollution, wages, housing affordability. Its observations will change how you approach all these problems. A mind-opening experience!
  • Wealth Concentration Tables from 2004 SCF: Bottom 90%, Next 9% and Top 1%
    Aggregated data by net worth quantile, for various kinds of wealth. With calculations you won't find anywhere else!
  • Wealth Concentration Tables from 2004 SCF: 50-40-5-4-1
    These tables show how concentrated the ownership of various kinds of assets are. With calculations you won't find anywhere else! This version is less aggregated: Bottom 50%, Next 40%, Next 5%, Next 4% and Top 1%.


Books I Value

  • Henry George: Progress and Poverty: An inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth ... The Remedy
    This is perhaps the most important book ever written on the subjects of poverty, political economy, how we might live together in a society dedicated to the ideals Americans claim to believe are self-evident. It will provide you new lenses through which to view many of our most serious problems and how we might go about solving them: poverty, sprawl, long commutes, despoilation of the environment, housing affordability, wealth concentration, income concentration, concentration of power, low wages, etc. Read it online, or in hardcopy.
  • Bob Drake's abridgement of Henry George's original: Progress and Poverty: Why There Are Recessions and Poverty Amid Plenty -- And What To Do About It!
    This is a very readable thought-by-thought updating of Henry George's longer book, written in the language of a newsweekly. A fine way to get to know Henry George's ideas. Available online at and

Where Else Might You Look?

Sites I enjoy

Blog powered by Typepad

July 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          


  • Add to Technorati Favorites

« How do we eliminate poverty? | Main | The College, the Beach, and the Cottagers »

February 20, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lifetime Little Necker

This is a very thorough analysis of the situation. How does the fact that the cottages are strictly seasonal (only 24 of the 167 cottages are "year round" - all the other restrict access during the winter months) get reflected in the value assessment?


It seems to me that it would be legitimate for the yearround tenants to pay more. How much more might depend on the market. Do the 24 homes with year-round rights sell for a higher price than those with partial-year occupancy rights? It would take a number of transactions to demonstrate this, so we might not know for a while.

Year-round rights would allow the tenant to put children in the public schools, and might attract a premium price. But then again, the homes are generally rather small. I could envision a situation in which a far-off buyer of a largish home would be willing to pay the seller far more for one with year-round rights than he would a seller of an otherwise comparable home with partial-year rights, because he could rent it out for the school-year, either to a teacher or to a parent of children in the schools. Particularly if the Ipswich schools are well-regarded.

And for those who only mean to own one home, a year-round home certainly has more value than one they could only occupy for part of the year.

Are there other areas in Ipswich where occupancy is required to be only seasonal for some reason? That might give you a sense of it, if they also have the sorts of views LN has, and the sort of open space, too.

I looked at the question from the point of view of the owner or buyer of the year-round homes. Let me try it from the POV of the owner of a seasonal home, and see if we come out in the same place.

I certainly wouldn't pay as much for seasonal occupancy, but I guess I'd be indifferent about whether I am paying it in the form of a higher selling price to the previous owner (and therefore to the mortgage lender) or in the form of a higher land tax to the Feoffees. I don't think the previous owner created the value of the land, so I don't quite see why he should be the winner of a windfall he didn't create, even though that has been our traditional way of doing things.

If seasonal occupancy is, say, 8 months of the year, I would tend to expect that the land rent for year-round occupancy would be something more than the 50% -- that is, not simply every month being equal. Yes, the 4 or so summer months would be worth a lot more than the 8 non-summer months, in terms of what one can rent out any particular home for, but the year-round continuity also has value.

Some of the seasonal tenants would probably love to be able to go to year-round occupancy. If someone with year-round occupancy could sell the right to another tenant, how much would it sell for? If they could lease that right for, say, 5 years, what would a willing leaser pay? Interesting questions. Much may depend on the economy. I suspect if I owned a home with year-round rights, I'd not part with them permanently at any price, if I had other assets to live on. But I might be quite willing to "lend" them at a huge price for a few years.

The Feoffees might consider offering this as a way to (1) understand the values better and (2) to raise additional funds for special purposes.

Back to your question. It might be that if most of the seasonal residents lived within, say, an hour of LN, those year-round leases might be worth quite a bit more than if the vast majority were, say, midwesterners who were unlikely to be able to visit over, say, Christmas or spring break.

Boston residents might be willing to pay significantly more for a year-round retreat than they would for a seasonal retreat. The question becomes who should receive that? The previous tenant, or the Feoffees?

Lifetime Little Necker

What are your thoughts on the latest Little Neck news:

J.  Tomas

Why does everyone who talks about the "rent" in Little Neck always seem to ignore the fact that this does NOT include taxes on the land or on the house? Now, I rent an apartment in Boston for which I pay a small ransom, but I do NOT pay the taxes, I get a roof over my head included in the rent, and I do not have to move out in the winter months. The Feoffees collect a "rent"on the land that does NOT include the taxes on either the land or the house, and they do not provide a roof over the tenants head. The seasonal rental means that you cannot send your children to school in the town because they do not live there in the months when school is in session, so the taxes on the house and the land pay for a benefit (60% of taxes go to schools) they cannot receive. So the "Rent" is not just the amount the Feoffees are calling the rent, but the rent is about double the nominal "rent" when you include the taxes in addition to the rent and fees for hooking up to a sewer (that is included in my rent in Boston). So what do the home owners pay in rent? Not the numbers any of you have been talking about, and then the schools get the money and you can't even send your kid to the school you are paying for? Now tell me what the total "rent" should be when you include the conventional landlord costs of ownership, and while you are at it, what about the cost of maintaining the roof?


It seems to me that if the tenants are paying the full market rent on the land value, and paying the same millage rate on their houses as other property owners in Ipswich, that they do not also owe property tax on the land value. If the landlord were a private entity, that entity would owe property taxes to the community, but since this is a trust for the benefit of the public schools, I can see why the town might not tax the Feoffees on the land value.

The seasonal tenants at Little Neck understood when they bought or inherited their cottages that they were for seasonal occupancy. And the smart ones read the terms of the trust under which they occupy the sites, and know that they have been getting a cheap ride for quite some time, but that past bargains don't promise similar bargains will continue indefinitely.

It seems natural that the owner of the cottage would maintain his own property. And, like most tenants on property that includes grass, pays to maintain the grounds as long as he is the tenant. Few landlords throw that service in. But maybe the Feoffees do so. I don't know.

Maybe the tenants' tenants' children earn spending money by mowing lawns.

J.  Tomas

LVTfan is mistaken in believing that the Feoffees are exempt from taxation. Although they COULD have asked for an exemption, since they are a trust that benefits a public entity, a school system, but they NEVER ASKED FOR THE EXEMPTION, and they do not get an exemption. They just add the tax bill to the rent, but when saying how much rent they ask, they do NOT INCLUDE the taxes that they also collect. They also collect $480 a year for connection to a sewer collection system, plus outrageously high water usage fees for disposing of the sewage waste.

It is true that the past "rents" were much lower, but the Feoffees repeatedly stated that since they turned over the taxes to the town, and the LIttle Neck residents could not send their children to school in the town, that they were providing a large benefit to the town by increasing the value of the land, and therefore increasing the tax revenues. The idea that the Feoffees could charge any amount they chose is the basis for an ongoing legal battle that challenges the methods, arithmetic and adherence to State law. A "fair" rent should be based on some rational value, keeping in mind that it is LAND, not a HOUSE that is being leased,and then only seasonally.

As to the suggestion that the Feoffees auction off vacant lots, the blogger might want to check the fact that the lots are not compliant to current zoning laws, and adding any new houses would come into immediate conflict with existing zoning ordinances, not to mention major protests from current owners. It is simply not possible to provide adequate setbacks from any vacant lots for any new houses. These lots were made many decades ago, and any attempts to allow new homes to be built would certainly involve major legal battles that would most likely lost in any case.

If you look at the rental prices for HOUSES in Ipswich, you will find the following rental in as close to a comparable as you can get, on Great Neck, with water views, just a stone's throw from Little Neck. For $1925 per month (that figures out to $23,100 per year, from which the landlord has to pay taxes of $11,310, yielding a total of less than $12,000 in net yield on the house). For this you get 5.2 acres of land (on Little Neck you get 0.07acres of land), a HOUSE of 3500 Square Feet built 7 years ago, with washer, dryer, dishwasher, etc. (you can check this out on the web for a home at 44 Plover Hill ROad, Web ID: 70863560, offered by J. Barrett & Company.

In contrast,for $5500 in "rent" (regardless of the view or location on Little Neck), Plus $3000-$5000 in Taxes, Plus at least $500 in water fees above and beyond normal usage fees, this means that you are paying between $9000 and $11,000 for a seasonal usage of JUST THE LAND. Then you have to pay to have an actual structure on this land.

The Feoffees want to collect $9700 in rent on the land plus the additional taxes and water fees, and they have no apparent restraints on future rents, except that there is a legal challenge to the whole process, not to mention what is going on politically in the town.

Agreed, it is difficult to determine what a "fair" rent should be, but taking into account what you can rent for less than $2000 a month, for a nice new and BIG HOUSE, with taxes paid by the landlord, out of the proceeds of the rent, it is NOT reasonable to expect someone to pay rent on land that is 2% the size of a property a short distance away,and from which you can send your children to the local schools if you choose, and you do not have to own or rent another property to have a roof over your head in the New England Winter climate.

I submit that any calculation of "market" rents should take into account what the actual market rates are for rental of HOUSES,and then discount that for the lack of a house and lack of anything for critical months every year. Even the current payments of over $10,000 a year for most of the Little Neck residents seems an outrageously high price under the comparison of what a house on Great Neck costs,appliances, roof, large lot, and taxes paid by the landlord, would be. Let's get real about what a return on value can be--it is not that much. Really.


Most of what any of us pay in rent in most places is not for the house or structure itself, but for the location.

How much do houses on Little Neck rent for per week? It isn't for the fabulous amenities of the house, based on the photos I've seen; rather, it is for the wonderful views, the location, the community amenities, the beaches, the breezes.

Even Great Neck is not a direct comparison. Not as nice a view, different beach access, no access to the huge common areas on Little Neck. (How much could a house on Great Neck rent for per week?)

A house on Little Neck should sell for what the house is worth ... likely $50,000 to $100,000, given the age, condition and square footage of the house. The difference between this and the asking prices(more precisely, the actual transaction prices) of the houses represents capitalized land rent. The terms of the trust say that the land rent is to go to the Feoffees for the benefit of the public schools.

Should the Feoffees or the tenants be paying for the water and sewage? I don't know the answer to that. I suppose I could make arguments on both sides of that question.

Seems to me that the Feoffees ought to be paying the taxes on the land, and the tenants paying the taxes on the buildings (both of which go to the town's general fund, I assume) and the Feoffees then pay certain costs, like maintaining the community center, sewage plant, the grass, the beaches and other common amenities on Little Neck. The Feoffees ought to maintain some reserve for future expenses (e.g., paving the roads periodically, replenishing the beaches, etc.). And then the rest should be turned over to the schools, each year.


Afterthought: it would be prudent for water and sewage to be metered in some way. If fresh water is scarce, there ought to be incentives for tenants to conserve it.

Perhaps some reasonable allowance might be included in the annual land rent, but usage in excess of that ought to cost the user.


The Feoffees, as trustees, never ran Little Neck as they should have. And that was for the primary purpose of making distributions for the support of the schools. It is for the support of the schools that the trust is about and not for the subsidization of a social experiment In multi-class social fraternity. At annual; meeting after annual meeting the former head Feoffee trotted out the tired canard of how badly the tenants were over-taxed as the reason why rents were kept so low. For decades this was believed until the Special Town Committee on the Feoffees went to Town Hall and looked up the sale prices of cottages at Little Neck from 1993. In that year Massachusetts went over to market value assessing. The Committee published that after 1993, cottages never sold for less than three times their assessed value and often sold for five times! This seems to continue even with the recession and the problems that the Feoffees have brought down on Little Neck, A few weeks ago the Boston Globe noted that 55 River Rd. was for sale for $575,000. It is assessed for $78,500!

Not only have the Feoffees supported the low assessment myth to the disadvantage of the schools, they have come up with a theory of rent that works against the schools. According to the Feoffees theory and practice, the value of a tenant's share of the common lands and buildings is included in the value of the land in the tenant's lot. Thus, when a tenant pays rent for his or her lot, the rent for the use of the common lands and structures on it is also covered. The effect of this interpretation is that the common lands become non-productive assets and the taxes on them have to be paid by the Trust. This is a double wammy for the schools. The potential distributions to the schools are reduced by the amount of rent the common lands and buildings could generate as well as by the amount the Trust must pay for the taxes on those lands and buildings. The Town Assessor does not see things the same way as the Feoffees and has placed a value on every parcel of land at Little Neck including the common lands. If his notions of land values were followed the common lands would generate income and the taxes on them would be paid by those who benefit exclusively from their use- the tenants.

Until 2006, the Feoffees' Financial Statements always showed that all the taxes due each year were collected on time down to the last cent. That 167 tenants were able to meet their entire tax obligations every year since 1920 was one of the most extraordinary records of tax payments in history. The only problem was that it was false. What the Feoffees seemed to have done each year was to enter some of the money collected as rent as money collected as taxes. Each year there was a gap between what their rent schedule indicated they should have collected as rent and what they listed as actually collected. This gap, could be explained, in part, by the money changed into tax receipts, but not noted as such. This changed after 2006 after years of complaints. Their statement now even has an accounts receivable line something it never had before 2006.

Another way in which the Feoffees have been able to stick it to the schools is the matter of betterments. Some betterments, such as the electrical conduits and the waste water system, enhance the value of both the land, owned by the Feoffees, and the cottages, owned by the tenants. In such cases it might be expected that the Trust would pay its share of the betterment from its assets and the tenants would pay their share in a separate charge over and above the rent. In brief, the rents should not be raised to cover the betterment. The Trust should eat the costs of its share of the betterment and the tenants should do the same. The rent should only change when either value of the leased lots increases or the rate on which the rent is based changes.

Clearly at every turn when the Feoffees have been confronted with a choice between helping the students of Ipswich or helping the tenants of Little Neck, they have come down on the part of the tenants. They have turned the notion of Fiduciary responsibility on its head.

Which leads to the big question. How should the rents be determined?

It strikes me that the simplest way to decide on the value of the land at Little Neck for rental and tax purposes is to go along with the Assessor's values. It just seems like good sense that the values should be the same for both purposes. The only issue then becomes how to determine the rental rate. The simplest way to determine this is to find the interest rate buyers are paying for real estate loans. A substantial proportion of typical residential mortgage is for the land in the parcel. A 6% mortgage means that the buyer is willing to pay 6% of the value of the land in his lot for its use. This amount can be viewed as the rent he pays for the use of the land in his parcel.

The leases at Little Neck should be for 30 years and should increase one year for every year the tenant pays his or her rent and taxes in full.

The rental rate should be determined every three years and should be the average rate charged by all banks with offices in Ipswich for a 30 year fixed rate mortgage. The rate will be determined as of July 1 of the 1st year and every 3rd year subsequently. However, the rate should not exceed seven percent and, on the low end, it should always be sufficient to pay all land taxes, including the taxes on the common lands and structures: the payment of interest on loans; and the operating expenses. The distribution to the schools should not be treated as a regular expense but should only be made when there are sufficient funds.

If such a simple system were in effect now, the gross rental income would be about $2,000,000.

This would permit the following expenses: $450,000 taxes on real estate owned by the Feoffees including the wharf and community house; $400,000 reduction in waster water loan; $400,000 operating expenses including legal fees of $250,000 and salaries of $75,000; sinking fund, $200,000; distribution to schools, $550,000.

In this case the average rent would be about $12,500 and the additional fee for the waste water betterment would be $1,200

In the future it can be expected that legal and management fees will be reduced making possible greater payments into the sinking fund.

I am Ed Traverso, a member of the School Committee. However, the views I express here are my own and not those of the committee.


Would the person responsible for this terrific blog be willing to attend a meeting of the Feofffee Subcommittee of the School Committee? We would very much appreciate the opportunity to talk with you. Dr. Hugh O'Flynn is the other member although the Chair and Superintendent often attend.


Ed Traverso


Ed, as I visualize it, the full annual land rent on these sites would be the amount which would bring the transaction prices on the cottages down to what those cottages are worth -- that is, what it would cost to produce them today, less depreciation. Let's say that amount is perhaps $75,000, on average. (That's $83 psf for a 900 sf cottage -- still rather high for a 50 or more year old cottage without heat!) At the current land rent, of, say, $10,000 per year, houses worth $75,000 are selling for perhaps $500,000.

As a rule of thumb, full land rent is roughly 1/20 of the selling price. 1/20 of $425,000 is $21,250 per year, which you'd add to the existing land rent (which I guessed at $10,000 above, but you should substitute the actual figure).

And you'd do this calculation separately for the lots with only seasonal occupancy and the full-year occupancy. I'd expect them to be quite different from each other. And obviously some locations have far better views than others, and some are closer to positive amenities (or further from negative ones), and that ought to be taken into account in setting rents for each lot. (If it sounds difficult, ask a few real estate agents. Every ad lists those positive amenities, and I'll bet you'd get a consensus about the relative merits of each location. You could probably do it from an office downtown, with a topographical map and a few dozen view photos as inputs! And I'd bet you wouldn't get much disagreement from the tenants about the relative amounts.) As a guide for this, you might find how the assessors' committee in Arden, Delaware, assess the sites within their community. The situation is a bit different, but it might be a helpful input. There is some information online, but I don't recall precisely where.

Current mortgage rates aren't relevant to the calculation. Long term, the rent will continue to rise, though if the economy stays sour, it may rise slowly for the time being. And under the terms of the trust, the Feoffees ought to be updating the rents fairly regularly.

Banks ought not to be loaning money on an asset which the borrower doesn't own. So a bank should only be willing to loan roughly the $75,000 amount. It could very well be that some purchasers would pay the $75,000 (cash), and tear down the existing cottage, and build something new on the site.

Houses don't appreciate. When a cottage owner sells his cottage, assuming he hasn't done a gut rehab on it, it should be worth less than he paid for it, not more. To the extent that cottages appear to be appreciating, the land rent is not being collected. (Think of the implications of this for the rest of Ipswich, for California under Prop 13, etc.! Staggering -- and very basic economics, which almost no economics professors bother with today.) And since Little Neck's trust calls for the full market land rent to be collected, those houses should never appreciate.

The assessor should be assessing the cottages at their depreciated value, more or less the $75,000 figure (there would be many $50,000 ones, and likely a few $125,000 ones), and the rest of the value is land value. A good assessment values the land first. The assessor knows that a tiny lot on LN is worth a great deal more than a larger lot a few thousand feet away without the views and other amenities (including the large amounts of common space one has access to as a tenant, and may not trespass on otherwise). His/her valuations ought to reflect that.

Realistically, few of the LN tenants are year-round Ipswich residents or voters, and I'm not sure why the assessor hesitates to value these sites at their full value. Yes, investors prefer assessments which overvalue the buildings, because they can depreciate them, and they ought not to be able to depreciate land -- particularly land they don't even own!!

People who were looking at their LN cottages as assets will be upset. People who are used to paying bargain-basement rents will be upset. But notice that once the land rents are brought up to their proper level, the buyers in subsequent transactions will be in a different situation. They might borrow to buy the cottage, at whatever the current mortgage rates are, but their net costs will be no higher than what a buyer last year would pay. Arguably, they would be lower, for some years. Instead of borrowing the $425,000 from a mortgage lender, and paying 6% interest money on it, plus some amount to amortize the loan, they would be paying 5% of the $425,000 in year 1, and that amount would rise -- slowly -- over time, as demand for LN rises.

The Feoffees would be collecting the full rent, the tenants would receive good services on the land they rent. The Feoffees would create reserves for anticipated spending, and then turn over the rest to Ipswich's schools, as the creator of the trust intended.

(Incidentally, this could also be used as a model for a Community Land Trust, which might be an interesting way for the community to deal with foreclosed properties. But that's another story.)


While it is not directly comparable, you might be interested in this ad for a property in Lewes, Delaware. Lewes is one end of the Cape May-Lewes ferry line, which connects the southern tip of New Jersey with the northern point on Delaware's Atlantic shore; north and west of that point is Delaware Bay. The nearest city is Wilmington, perhaps 80 minutes away. Washington, DC, and Philadelphia are further away.

Certain parts of Lewes have land leases. I don't know the details, but apparently the annual rent has nothing to do with any current reality. The result is that the low rents gets capitalized into the selling price of the rights to the property.

Come to think of it, the cottage might not be that much larger than those in Little Neck; slightly brighter in color!

Asking Price: $924,900
Community: Lewes Beach
Address: 2 Cape Henlopen Drive, Lewes, Sussex, Delaware 19958

1/2 block to the bay, can be subdivided into 2 lots. Detached screen house, work shop, garage. Attic is a full walk up attic that has possibilities of being living space. The main value is in the land. Estate sale sold as is. Inspections for info only. Ground rent is Lewes perpetual ground lease.

City Tax: $174
County Tax: $528
Ground Rent: $360

In other words, the seller admits that the current buildings on the site are not worth much, but thinks that the right to own the land in payment for $360 in land rent (plus other taxes of a mere $700 per year!) might be worth $924,900 to someone!

I'll try to remember to keep an eye on it, and see what it sells for. But if the existing house is worth, say, $50,000, and the capitalization rate is 5%, the annual value of the land is ($925,000 minus $50,000)*.05, or $43,750. I tend to think it is worth a lot less than that, even if it is subdivided into two lots. A non-waterfront lot within a nearby subdivision is on the market for $400,000 and $500,000.



refurbished computers

The distribution to the schools should not be treated as a regular expense but should only be made when there are sufficient funds.


RC, I thought the purpose of the trust was to provide income to the schools. Land rent should be flowing at a pretty even pace, and if it were at truly market levels -- that is, high enough that $75,000 cottages sold for $75,000 -- there would be plenty of income available for the schools.

Certainly the Feoffees should be keeping a reserve for meeting special expenses, but beyond that, the trust terms provide for the schools to receive the income.

Update on the Lewes, Delaware, item posted above: the asking price has come down a little, from to $899,000.

cheap computers

I think the assessor knows that a tiny lot on LN is worth a great deal more than a larger lot a few thousand feet away without the views and other amenities.

used computers

I guess these lots were made many decades ago, and any attempts to allow new homes to be built would certainly involve major legal battles that would most likely lost in any case.


There are some rather new homes on Little Neck; I assume that they replace older homes which had been on the same lots. But the landlord can do what it chooses, I assume.

I suspect that if the tenants succeed in buying the land from the Feoffees, we'll see additional homes being built, particularly if people can buy year-round rights from the "condo association." Great way to keep the budget solvent, in the short run anyway.

refurbished computers

it might be expected that the Trust would pay its share of the betterment from its assets and the tenants would pay their share in a separate charge over and above the rent. In brief, the rents should not be raised to cover the betterment.

Chuck Kollars

Another commenter above said the rents collected by The Feoffees do NOT include property taxes owed to Ipswich. I do not believe this is accurate. As far as I know The Feoffees do indeed have to pay property taxes to Ipswich on all of Little Neck, and that money of course has to come out of the rents they collect (The Feoffees have no other source of income).

Can you point me to a source substantiating your belief?


Chuck, I suspect that the Feoffees pay property taxes on Little Neck's land, the community building and docks and other improvements (and likely the sewage plant as well, I assume, unless such things are exempted locally). The tenants likely pay taxes on the assessed value of the houses.

Incidentally, if the assessor, in the next valuation, recognized how hugely valuable the land on Little Neck was, and Little Neck's share of Ipswich's taxes rose, the Feoffees could not pass along the increase to the tenants, IF they were already collecting the full market rent. Economists apparently agree on very little, but one thing they do agree on is that a tax on land value is not passed along to a tenant. The market value rent is what it is; landlords are said to be charging what the market will bear, and thus could not raise the rent to cover their increased cost. That is one of the beauties of land value taxation: it is not passed along; it is a direct tax rather than an indirect one. (If you're curious about that, look for pages at with those titles.)

If I'm wrong, and the Feoffees are paying the taxes on both the common property and the individually-owned cottages from those way-below-market rents, the taxpayers (and particularly the public-school parents) of Ipswich ought to be outraged. Except, of course, for those of them who are tenants at Ipswich. I read somewhere that roughly 1/4 of the Little Neck tenants are year-round residents of inland Ipswich. I'm sure they're well-connected and that their interests are taken to heart by many decision-makers. (Which runs counter to the intentions of the trust.)


Update on the Lewes property: $799,000


Update on the Lewes, Delaware, property: last listed at $399,000.

The comments to this entry are closed.