Otis History: Civil War in Otis?
By Peter Cameron
August 2025
It almost happened in 1935.
Quiet and friendly, Otis has always been that way, right? Not in 1935. A bitter dispute alleging discrimination over taxes and a lack of equitable town services erupted in East Otis. Spearheaded by second homeowners, they threatened to have East Otis secede from Otis. They planned on renaming it Loudon, using the old name for the area. Let’s look at the story.
East Otis, geographically, contains many of the lakes within the town of Otis. Those lakes attracted the majority of second homeowners beginning in the 19th century through the 20th century. In 1935, those second homeowners paid 80% of the total tax liability in the town of Otis. The issue that created the friction was the lack of road maintenance east of the Farmington River particularly around Otis Reservoir. The second homeowners, upon discovering that their taxes constituted the bulk of the town’s tax base, were outraged that they received little or no services for their money. Added to that, they could not vote in town meetings, or elections, to decide what or where their tax money would be used. They organized and confronted the Otis Board of Selectmen, threatening to take East Otis and secede from the Town of Otis. Those are the facts. Let’s now explore the circumstances that surround this threat.
First let’s look at the second homeowners (non-residents) right to vote and take part in the town government process. Only two states currently allow non-residents to take part in local or state elections. They are Delaware and Connecticut. Nine other states allow non-resident voting in certain special district elections. They are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee and Wyoming. In Massachusetts non-residents are not allowed to participate in local elections or town meetings by state law, and their property is still liable to be taxed by the municipality.
In 1935, those second homeowners felt they wanted some say in how their tax money was spent. I recently asked the Otis Town Clerk about current non-residents rights at town meetings in Otis. She told me they can attend if there is space (voting residents take priority) and may speak, if the moderator decides to allow them, but they may not vote. That was the case in 1935 as it is now. This is mandated by state law.
Next the second homeowners, in 1935, were upset that they paid 80% of the tax base in town and felt they received few town services for their money. Specifically, how badly their roads were maintained by the town. I cannot speak to 1935 and must assume their account of the road conditions had merit. It all came to a head in a special town meeting in March, 1935. Moderator Clarke claimed that the Supervisor of the Public Works and one of the Selectmen lived in East Otis and he inferred that the roads near their homes would receive the best care. He went on to say 75% of the road budget was spent east of the Farmington River. This seemed to appease the East Otis folks, and the threat of seceding faded away. A crisis averted back in 1935.
Little has changed since 1935 as far as second homeowners go. Their input into town government or the percentage of the town tax base they represent is roughly the same. Their taxes do provide far more town services now than were available in 1935. Absent a dynamic change in State law, not much can change. Given all these circumstances, the threat of a repeat of 1935 is probably minimal.
