The Annual Town Election is scheduled for April 25, 2026. Three current Select Board members have decided to leave the board.
Ken Coyle is running unopposed to fill the one-year seat. There are three candidates running for the two 3-year seats that are opening up.
Each week until the election, Abington News is asking the three residents for the two contested seats questions to help voters better understand them as candidates.
This week’s question was:
You can also check out past questions:
Also, each candidates has already recorded an interview with AbingtonCAM Executive Director Kevin Tocci. They can be viewed here:
Ken Coyle
Daniel Eddy
Wendy Happel
DANIEL EDDY
Comparing our commercial tax base challenges with neighboring towns helps highlight both shared realities and opportunities for targeted action. Abington is not alone, many South Shore communities are predominantly residential, but some have achieved modestly stronger commercial shares through proactive zoning, infrastructure focus, and business attraction.
Current Abington Snapshot (data collected from ninety sources via A.I.)
- Residential share: Approximately 89–90% of total valuation (consistently high, trending around 89.5% in recent years).
- Commercial / Industrial share: Roughly 10–11% (fluctuating between 9.7% and 10.5% in recent fiscal years).
- Result: Homeowners shoulder a growing portion of the tax levy, with limited new commercial development in our centers or along Rt. 18/123 corridors.
Comparison with Our Neighbors (data collected from ninety sources via A.I.)
Here’s how Abington compares with similar Plymouth County towns (Whitman, Hanson, Rockland, East Bridgewater), based on recent assessed value breakdowns and tax classification data:
- Hanson: ~93% residential, only ~7% commercial/light industrial combined. Hanson has seen limited but steady small-scale commercial activity.
- Whitman: ~89.5% residential valuation, with commercial at ~4.6%, industrial ~1.1%. Whitman has focused on downtown vitality and corridor improvements, but, like us, faces pressure on homeowners without stronger commercial inflows.
- Rockland: Stronger commercial presence at ~19.4% (residential ~80.6%). This gives them more diversification, helping moderate the residential tax burden. Rockland benefits from its location and has pursued mixed-use and highwayoriented development more aggressively along major routes. Their single rate still applies, but the larger commercial base provides a buffer.
- East Bridgewater: Predominantly residential and similar to Abington in overall profile. They have seen some commercial growth tied to regional corridors and maintain comparable pressures on homeowners.
Key takeaway from comparisons: Abington and towns like Hanson/Whitman sit at the higher end of residential reliance (~89–93%), while Rockland demonstrates that pushing commercial / industrial toward 15–20% is achievable in our region without massive overhauls.
What This Means for Abington Action as Select Board Member
Our situation mirrors many neighbors, but we can learn from those with slightly better balances:
- Prioritize infill and redevelopment in existing districts (Abington Center, North Abington, Rt. 18/123) consistent with our Master Plan’s focus on concentrating commercial uses to protect neighborhoods.
- Let’s identify the types of businesses we want to bring into Abington and go out of our way to attract them (tax incentive, support from planning / health / conservation boards etc.)
- Rockland is doing this well with “REiMAGINE Rockland”
- Streamline processes and remove barriers: Neighboring towns with more commercial / industrial share often succeed by making responsible projects easier to advance.
- Fiscal discipline with transparency: Any growth must include expense control and public input via hearings. Measure success by diversifying the base to ease homeowner pressure – not by chasing large-scale projects that change our town’s scale.
A Quote From Abington’s Master Plan 2019 Overall Goal:
“Encourage development and redevelopment in the two downtowns of Abington Center and North Abington Center, including attracting businesses that provide desired amenities, mixing uses in existing and new buildings, and concentrating new housing around the downtowns to foster a more vibrant and walkable community.”
How have we done in the last 6+ years towards that goal?
WILLIAM CORMIER
Well we are almost to the finish line and I am looking forward to April 25th. I appreciate you all for taking the time and getting to know us the candidates. As always thank you to Rick for putting on this segment.
So it’s no secret that I do not support a dual tax rate. I will say it again these small business owners are our neighbors and most cases become a big part of the community. Not only supporting our residents but also donating to our community. We have so many wonderful businesses and owners within our community that give back in so many ways, never looking for anything in return. Like many of us they are struggling to make ends meet at the end of the day. So adding an extra burden on business owners who are trying to provide for their families is something I’ll never support.
Now let’s tackle the development portion of the question. I grew up locally in Rockland (East Abington) and remember being a part of these bustling centers. I remember going to see Mr. Donovan at the Abington bank or occasionally getting a hair cut at Dave Nisby’s, my family always took our car to the Bailey’s as my grandfather was a good friend with Mr.Bailey. I agree that we need to find a fix to bring occupancy to these vacant and stagnant areas and buildings. However I am not sure that further development is the answer. We don’t have to travel far to look at what a few 40R projects have done to Whitman Center. Those monstrous buildings are not only out of character but also make the area unwelcoming in my opinion. Personally I prefer the small town center and not the big city look, it’s not what Abington is.
With adding development we have to look at another potential problems. First being can our current infrastructure like water and sewer handle this type of growth. Where are people going to park? What’s the increased burden on our Public Safety and DPW that are already maxed out. If you decide to do a 4O R project what affect is that going to have on our schools? All questions that have to be looked at and I for one would never want to advocate for something without talking to business owners, nearby neighbors,and departments that will be affected by these changes.
What I would propose is putting together a committee of residents, Abington business owners/leaders, and town officials to discuss and coordinate ideas to attract new business. Unfortunately this issue is not resolved easily due to the mom and pop shops being replaced by online shopping or big box stores. I am positive that with the right group of people at the helm a committee could certainly come up with not only ideas but how to entice potential business owners to come to Abington. I’d like to see some events like they have in Rockland such as a holiday stroll or fall festival etc…that would bring awareness to businesses in the area and also bring the small town appeal back to the two centers.
Growth on rt 18 and 123 would certainly be a benefit to us but again we’d have to look into why aren’t we attracting business and are we restricting certain types of business such as fast food or chain restaurants for example. Can the current road layout support the added traffic or how will a business affect local neighborhoods abutting the area. Again can we make it happen us but we have to look at 1 the reason why we aren’t attracting business to the area and 2 tooth the positive and negative affects that could come from it.
I hope you all enjoy your weekend and I hope this helps with your decision making on April 25th. Also remember to get out and support local business as they depend on us.
WENDY HAPPEL
Abington’s current tax structure is unsustainable. Right now, homeowners carry almost 90% of the town’s tax burden. We need to shift that weight by aggressively pursuing commercial growth. We can’t afford to wait for developers to find us. We need to be proactive and make Abington the easiest place on the South Shore to do business.
I propose the following strategies to grow our tax base, protect our schools, and respect our small-town character:
1. Modernize Our Zoning and Streamline Permitting: We need to update our bylaws in North Abington and the Center to allow for modern, mixed-use developments. Our current permitting process is hindered by a system where applicants navigate multiple uncoordinated boards, redundant reviews, and regulations that haven’t kept up with modern business. By establishing a one-stop coordination model and clear “by-right” pathways, we can remove the red tape and unpredictable timelines that drive investors to neighboring towns.
2. Strategic Incentives: We need to advocate for the smart use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and the Economic Development Incentive Program (EDIP). These are proven tools to lure high-value industrial and commercial tenants to the Route 18 and 123 corridors by providing a clear, predictable path for their investment.
3. Strengthening Our Commercial Corridors: I support making the Route 18 and 123 corridors “business ready” by encouraging modern, high-quality development. Transforming these areas into successful commercial destinations is the key to shifting the tax burden away from homeowners while protecting our character.
The suggestion of a split tax rate is a quick fix. With our commercial base sitting at just 8.6%, that shift would provide negligible relief to residents while potentially scaring off the businesses we are trying to recruit. My focus is on growing the pie, not just slicing it differently. By expanding our commercial base, we can protect our schools and public safety without further overriding Proposition 2½.
You must be logged in to post a comment.