To the editor:
Recently in The Berkshire Edge, Leigh Davis challenged assertions made by Patrick White, a fellow candidate for the 3rd Berkshire District seat in the State House. The decision to debate one of her opponents for the seat through a letter to this publication struck me as inappropriate, and since Patrick White will likely not chose the letters section of a local newspaper to debate policy, and since no one else has bothered to challenge Ms. Davis’ assertions, I will do it for him.
Among the subjects in Ms. Davis’ letter were her actions on housing and the local environment, as well as the Estate Recovery Act, a law within Medicaid wherein states can sue the estates of MassHealth patients without the ability to pay for care. Patrick White wrote an open letter to introduce many of his constituents to this law, which has the potential to affect many of us.
Aside from calling Mr. White alarmist, Ms. Davis states, “MassHealth will not pursue recovery from any estate of $25,000 or less …” Okay great. Now, we know that estates usually include a home. So, ask yourself: What home in Great Barrington (I use Great Barrington because it is where I reside) is worth $25,000 or less? The 2020 U.S. Census states 11 out of 2,156 owner occupied homes.
She further states, “… and [MassHealth] may grant a hardship waiver if pursuing recovery against even a larger estate [larger than $25,000] would be unduly hard on the member’s family.” This is true and would be to the benefit of a spouse or dependent living in the house belonging to a deceased patient as long as the person living in the home is blind or is an heir with income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($20,030) for two years while living in the patient’s home (see here). It is also true if the same person earns under 400 percent the federal poverty level (less than $60,240). Let’s keep in mind that the latest American Community Survey (2022) shows a household median income in Great Barrington of $74,205.
Given that the the Census-derived median value of a home in Great Barrington is $431,600, and that many dependents of retirees are entrepreneurs or professionals earning above the poverty level of $15,060 for a single person, I feel confident in saying that the Estate Recovery Act would apply to a large portion of the population of Great Barrington, if not most of South County. So, it was absolutely correct for Patrick White to bring this potentially catastrophic policy to our attention and to urge federal and state leaders to support intergenerational homeownership and wealth. I would hope that if Ms. Davis wins the seat that she would do the same.
The title given to Ms. Davis’ letter also struck me: “South County needs someone who can really turn concerns into policy.” The only policy I know of that she has written in her two terms on the Selectboard in Great Barrington is a bylaw regulating short-term rentals, the effect of that law being dubious when compared to its stated goals. The lasting effects of the push to approval remain the division that it caused in the community and the dollars that it has added to the town’s already constrained budget. She adds, “I went to bat for [the Town of Lee] and successfully persuaded the Great Barrington Selectboard to support the Town of Lee’s request to release the Rest of River executive session minutes.” This is also not policy. Her “fight” to “protect” Great Barrington from horse racing is also not policy, but her fight did cost the town the amount it takes to hold a special Town Meeting. Did she bother to ask Smitty Pignatelli or Adam Hinds (senator at the time) to go to bat for Great Barrington to avoid gambling and horse racing?
And on housing, let’s stick to Ms. Davis’ record as a public official, not a private citizen, which is what she mentions in the letter. Ms. Davis has voted down support for the construction of affordable-housing units on Main Street with Community Preservation Act money and voted to deny the opportunity for the construction of at least 10 extra houses on a town-funded project in Housatonic. Now, I understand that there was concern from the neighbors about density and overcrowding, but the site in question could legally, according to our zoning bylaw, accept up to 66 dwellings. The Planning Board had recommended the project be increased by 10 houses, a density still substantially less than the majority of Housatonic. That is 10 extra families that will not have a housing opportunity in town, let alone contribute taxes, because the plan was voted down by the Selectboard.
Ms. Davis is a champion for housing; she raises the issue with great frequency and has made housing part of her professional life. Unfortunately, when it comes time to make difficult decisions concerning the actual creation of affordable housing, her record is not so good. And let’s not forget her abstention from voting on the issuance of a license to sell beer and wine at Price Chopper.
If she were to win the 3rd Berkshire District seat, I am sure Ms. Davis would work diligently for the district. I just hope that if it comes to pass, she realizes that accomplishing her goals will not be any easier if she alienates colleagues with less-than-accurate accusations in a public forum. Win or lose, she will have to work with Mr. White as a state representative or select board member in the future. And she will likely have to work with me too.
Pedro Pachano
Great Barrington
NOTE: Pedro Pachano is a member of the Great Barrington Planning Board; however, he writes the above as a private citizen.
Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.
