How arrogant of EBCDC! This meeting should be held with town residents, not just neighbors of the project.

In the words of Councilor Speakman, these projects cannot work without property tax subsidies paid for by all Barrington residents.

If EBCDC is going to be asking again for property tax subsidies as they did for Sweetbriar, they should be prepared to explain planned kayak launches in an affordable housing project, along with the high salaries over at EBCDC.

Barrington residents should not be expected to subsidize lifestyles that many in town cannot afford themselves.

And what about the 30 year deed restriction that disappears after 30 years allowing the developer to cash on a project leaving Barrington residents having to find more open space to develop more affordable projects.

This is the worst idea ever to hit the town of Barrington. If the current town council lacks the determination to push back on these projects, then we need new blood in the town council.

Well said! I have been trying to find out what the salaries @ EBCDC are, their website lists no financial information on revenue, expenses and salaries of all personnel @ EBCDC. How is this possibly? Their are a state, town and federal funded organization.
What happened to full disclosure?

The affordable housing meeting has been canceled for this upcoming Thursday night, however we encourage all to meet at the town hall at 7:00 to sign the petition, if you have not already done so.

The next monthly meeting of the Planning Board is October 2nd at 7:00. This meeting requires the presence of all those resisting the development of dense housing on Sowams Road.

I agree with garymm - the meeting should be held for all townspeople to attend. We all share this town's good and bad points - and tax burdens. Try the middle or high school auditorium. Barbara Donovan

What happened to government by the people for the people? It is incredibly elitist to lump all low income people into one area like a "reservation." Stigmatizing for children.
Furthermore, I have been told the EBCDC construction was shoddy on Washington Rd that one of there sales unwound when the house flooded in the first two weeks.

"What happened to government by the people for the people"?...Obama

One more question: - who keeps track of the income of the tenants of low/moderate income. If their income should rise due to raise, job change, inheritance, etc., who keeps track on a yearly basis to assure they qualify. And, is this done on a yearly basis for 30 years? And if so, who pays for this service? Barbara Donovan

What little I know of this affordable housing mandate makes me think that RI government, both at the state level and town level, needs to rethink this policy.

There is no shortage of affordable housing already in Barrington. It's right there every week in the "Homes Sold" list in the Patch. So how is it that some bureaucrat at the state level is able to force a tax hike on residents to correct this phantom problem?

How is it that rational thinking people have played along with this for as long as they have? Our government wonders why no business wants to create new jobs in RI.

Margaret Thatcher once said: "Socialism is fine until the other peoples money runs out" (something like that).

"Phantom problem"...I like that!

As others have stated so well in this forum: policy is there because there is money to be made...affordable housing is big business for some folks.

Non Profits and Not for profits have often been used as a way to get the goverment to fund people for salaries higher than they would get else where, and be able to accept charitable contributuions to help fund it. 501-3-C corps are very often a scam. Johnson and Wales is a 501-3-C and use it to buy up all the property in Providence and take off teh tax rolls. Buddy Cianci ( of whom I am not a fan) once said they are as not for profit as Citibank. There are many books on how to start your own not for profit to make a profit with specific instructions.

Joel are you implying that EBCDC is running a “scam” here in Barrington?

Not in just Barrington, not just in housing, I am saying $120,000 a year plusbenifits and retirement plus other staffs does not sound like charity work to me.

Joel, agree that it would seem that some kind of standards should apply to non-profits...
to prevent excessive salaries, etc….

Speaking of standards, when will the actual, required Barrington revaluation standards (to comply with RIGL and BET Settlement Agreement and your duties as a Barrington Tax Official) be done?

Again talk to the committee chairman> I do not set the agenda

I've tried to be informed on issues concerning affordable housing. It appears there are two laws guiding town officials when creating affordable housing policy and the Barrington Comprehensive Community Plan. These laws form two Acts, both written in 2004, and are the "Comprehensive Housing Production and Rehabilitation Act of 2004", and, the "Rhode Island Low and Moderate Income Housing Act".

Requirements for a comprehensive plan are found under RIGL § 45-22.2-6 which specifies that the Comprehensive Community Plan recognize both Acts, not just one. § 45-22.2-6 states "The comprehensive plan ..." shall include an affordable housing program that meets the requirements of § 42-128-8.1, the "Comprehensive Housing Production and Rehabilitation Act of 2004" and chapter 45-53, the "Rhode Island Low and Moderate Income Housing Act...".

This appears to create legal dilemma: The former Act requires no deed restriction when counting affordable homes in town, and the latter does.

This reader wonders why our town council has decided to put residents in a more binding position than might actually be necessary for affordable housing compliance by recognizing only the latter Act.

Am posting this only to advance public awareness of the issue. Fellow readers please correct any of my message, especially if it is materially unsound.

Why 50 rentals?
Seriously, I don't get it. It is my understanding (correct me if i am wrong) that LIH rent is partially subsidized, meaning paid for by the goverment (our taxes). So if rent is $900 dollars a LIH family might only have to pay like $300 in rent.

What does a LIH occupant get after renting for years- nothing. At least if these were homes they could own, we would be helping LIH people build equity. Equity that could be used for education.

One wonders if the East Bay Economic Development Corporation asked for 50 units with the intent of building 25 and appearing to compromise.
The residents for low impact Barrington housing should start a not for profit with a fund for the coming legal battle.

Rental affordable housing gets special treatment from our town council who want to encourage affordable rentals over home ownership through property tax policies.

The average property tax bill in town is over $9000 per year, and the median is over $8000. Even an average affordable home has an annual property tax bill of around $3000 - $4000.

But town council members Speakman and Weymouth believe rentals deserve ultra low annual property tax bills, as low as $500 per year (see December 2, 2008 special town council vote on the Sweetbriar tax rate).

If you are in favor of continuing to subsidize rentals vs home ownership, you reelect Councilors Speakman and Weymouth. If you believe renters should be paying at least what an affordable homeowner is currently paying in property taxes, you vote them out of office.

Its that simple.

GaryMM
Could you name the different town council members and whether they supported, opposed or abstained on votes relating to zoning and the creation of the legal framework supporting the high density development of Palmer Pointe

Was "arrogant" the wrong choice of words in my first post in this blog?

A certain town official contacted me to protest my use of the word "arrogant" in the blog to describe EBCDC's actions. I used it to characterize EBCDC holding a closed meeting just with "neighbors" in the Palmer Pointe affordable housing controversy.

I was told by the town official:

"As I am sure you know, whatever public forum EBCDC holds will be open to all
members of the public. As you know, "neighbors" is not a legal term. Everyone
is a neighbor if they choose to be."

I wanted to be fair if indeed EBCDC did intend to open the meeting to the public and I would have offered my public apology if I was wrong.

I contacted the Patch to see if indeed I was wrong. I was told the following about how the story was reported:

"It was reported correctly". ... "They withdrew from the pre-application meeting so they could meet with the neighbors before going before the Planning Board and TRC."

My original opinion that given the tax subsidies all residents will be asked to pay to support this affordable rental project, and EBCDC's plan to meet ONLY with "neighbors" (I think we understand what the word meant in this situation), I leave my first opinion unchanged that this was an arrogant act against the greater Barrington community.

Gary Morse

I would suggest that Barrrington Residents for Consistent Development band together to consider following common causes
-Present the petitions to the Town Counsel
-Identify the members of the Town Counsel that support the high density development at Palmer Pointe, so that voters on both sides of the issue may make informed choices
-Develop a fair fact base: Calculating the percentage of Barrington houses that meet the definition of affordable housing according tax assessments and recent sales
-Consider obtaining an independent environmental impact to assessment of Palmer Point Development on our endangered turtles and Coastal Wetlands
-Calculate the cost of subsidizing this project on a per Barrington Taxpayer basis

Lancer,

If this affordable housing protest is to gain overall community support, it has to evolve past a "local neighbor" issue of the Palmer Pointe project.

How do people contact Barrrington Residents for Consistent Development?

We have to take back control of our town from an agenda driven Housing Board, Planning Board, and Town Council.

They lack the will to challenge anything. What is needed is plain old push back against mindless bureaucrats who only wish to protect the mothers milk of RI politics: big money for insiders!

Lancer

Furthering the aim for affordable housing redirection, the organization might remind Gov Chafee of his commitment to lower property taxes, not raise them.

In November, the Gov re-emphasized this commitment when speaking in a community outreach forum at the Community College of Rhode Island saying:

"The greatest inhibitor to economic growth is high property taxes. . .our goal here is to do what we can to help out the property tax,”

http://newport.patch.com/articles/governor-chafee-speaks-to-newport-county-businesses-explains-resources-available

If only our local town officials had the same goal, we might get somewhere.

There is an affordable housing story in the Projo today.

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/09/rental-prices-unaffordable-for-many-in-rifriday-embargo.html?plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=TimeStampDescending&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:b46cfdba-8f19-4b39-beee-3f24ade7ad12#pluck_comments_list

Reading the story, one has to question the statistics being used by RI Housing along with their conclusions.

What RI Housing seems to be implying is that it's now governments role to ensure nobody should ever have to cut corners to make ends meet. Government is now in the business of lifestyle assurance.

RI is on hard financial times. It seems we are again promoting more government spending at a time we can least afford it.

I think I see some blue sky --- there may be hope for seniors coming -- Barbara Donovan

VOTE NO to question #7-$25Million affordable housing bond-
Get the word out!

Hi All
I could use some advice. I just received my absentee (Military Deployed) election ballot. What are the positions of the following individuals running for Town Council regarding Palmer Pointe?
June Speakman D
Shirley Applegate-Lockridge R
Ann P Strong D
Margerate E Kane R
Kate G Weymouth D
Donald S Nessing R
Also "Questions" mentions the related bond issue #7 on the back of the Ballot. It this is defeated does our local issue end?
We should consider buying an add for this information in the Barrington times for voters who are not on line. LancerRIUSA@gmail.com

So Voting the straight Republican Ticket for Town Counsel should end the high density development project. I will cross party lines for the issue.
Thank you

Lancer,

Having spoken to all the Rep candidates, I believe they are willing to :

1) end the property tax subsidies for new affordable construction which forces this subsidy back to the state, but since the state has no money,... well you get the picture;

2) they are willing to challenge how the state is counting the number of affordable homes in town. There is a difference in opinion between the Dems and Reps on this where Dems are only willing to count deed restricted homes, and the Reps are willing to fight to say all affordable homes below a certain threshold count.

The biggest difference between the Dems and the Reps on affordable housing is that the Dems are fighting for more affordable development, even where it raises property taxes, and the Reps are willing to push back against the state.

Lancer,

To illustrate the absurdity of the Dems current position, consider:

A person(s) who buys an affordable home in town still has to pay around $3000 - $4000 a year in local property taxes.

A similar condo created for rental only pays between $500 - $700 per year in property taxes due to the town council approved property tax subsidies.

A public policy that places even a low income family at a disadvantage simply to promote renter lifestyle choices is completely absurd.

If the state wants to promote this nonsense, let them pick up the tab.

Lancer-
Everything Gary said is true to a point. The Republican candidates do oppose affordable housing and the 2 Democratic candidates are generally for it. What Gary ommitted was that Sweet Briar, the template for Palmer Pointe, was opposed strongly by Democrat Jeff Brenner, then chair of the Zoning committee. He used every trick he could to keep Sweet Briar from happening in Barrington. It was a Republican controled council then, who also opposed Sweet Briar, strongly. Both groups worked hard and spent legal fees to oppose Sweet Briar, but in the end the town lost and Sweet Briar happened.
As much as the Republican candidates may oppose Palmer Pointe, and I agree with them, In the end there is very little they can do to either stop the development or end the tax subsidy. I wish they could. So Lancer just by votinhg for the Republicans won't solve the issue, but they certainly will fight it with everything they have got.

Gary,

I was at the meetings then were you? I followed all the manuvers to keep Sweet Briar from going thru. and if John Lazzaro was not a republican why did they nominate him twice. And he was against sweet Briar. Gary your statements have large holes in their facts. the town fought sweet Briar in court and lost. why do you think that simply fighting again will come out better? Just because it is Republicans fighting? Sharon Brinkworth Anthony DePasquale, Marty Scavagelli, Mark G. all good Republicans fought affordable housing and it didn't work. I was there and I attended all the meetings, you didn't. If the Republicans are elected I wish them good luck in their fight, but the fight is with the state and the courts and they will probably lose. which is bad for Barrington. But please don't let people thik that just electing Republicans will solve the issue. That is pants on fire false.

Gary

The town didn't botch it. The state just especially prior to sweet Briar, wanted to get low cost ( poor people) into Barrington. They by passed zoning objections and density requirements even the width of the street in order to let it fly. The only argument that is new is that we now HAVE affordable housing Empty. And wanting to be filled. Our property, enough of it has fallen to where it meets affordable standards. We have open house sign brigade on the trail and no body wants the subsidised housing. Why if that is the case do we have to make exceptions for more? That is the only viable argument, but the state will still shove it down our throats and a devleoper will make money and the Bristol" NON PROFIT" will justify their salaries. ( They are about as Non Profit as Citibank)
Gary, understand, i am on your side on this issue, it is just that i saw a game that was rigged big time at the state level before, and just putting the Republicans on the council, who I agree with on the issue, will not affect the outcome greatly.

Has anyone tried looking at how other RI towns are handling this 10% mandate? Particularly rural towns? Surely ther are other places facing the same issues. Are they counting affordables the same way? Tax subsidies? Open-space preservation? This can't possibly be a problem unique to Barrington...

Mr. Hellmann,
The idea of the town wanting to "get poor people into Barrington" makes no sense to me. First of all, the folks actually buying affordable homes are not poor. They are median income, which, overall, is quite a good income! Second, do you really think thre are not "poor people" that already live in Barrington? Affordable housing IS needed. But get the developers OUT, and the tax subsidies OUT, renovate existing homes and stop the rediculous herding of people onto "resevations' (someone used that term for these developments). How many people have in-law suites in their homes and no longer have in-laws, but are restricted from renting these suites? There are SO MANY other ways to achieve this. How are other towns doing it?

I am not sure that dividing people along parties lines is helpful to those who oppose high density development. I would like the candidates to declare themselves on this issue independent of party.
An affordable housing project with 5 units vacant, does not suggest that planning to build 50 additional units is good government. Rather, its speaks to a failure of rationale policy, a failure in the incumbents effectiveness in building coalitions, and a failure in the process of engaging in politics rather than a losing court action.
The parties opposed should include a "big tent" of those who believe high density units are stigmatizing, bad for the environment, and apparently unpopular with those who they are intended to serve.

Jeffrey Brenner - tricks as Chair of Zoning Board that denied Sweetbriar?

State Housing Appeals Board (SHAB) reversed ZB.

Town appealed to RI Supreme Court-which affirmed SHAB & ordered ZB to issue Sweetbriar permits:

Town didn’t meet the 10% affordable housing standard- & didn’t have any plan to.

No competent evidence in the record to support the ZB determination that the traffic expert’s opinion was not credible.

The town failed to “provide any rationale to support its assertion that the act's provisions for appellate review violate either of the constitutional protections of either constitution”.

“Despite the…fact that 142 families and 566 people fell below the poverty line in the town in 1999, the town provided only ninety-two affordable housing units.”  …

EBCDC application was consistent with the town's plan to the extent that the plan referred to affordable housing. ..the town's plan recognized the need for more affordable housing opportunities & sought to retain the town's “detached single family dwelling unit” …

…”the record does not reflect that zoning board members engaged in any of the responsibilities on which the competency of the evidence in (applicable case law) turned”….

Fire chief testimony & ZB’s practice of approving subject to conditions, show the ZB's failure to conditionally approve the application strongly suggests that Sweetbriar “was treated in a disparate manner from other projects.”

18 month resident here....struggling to catch up with exactly what's going on so that educated choices can be made in the voting booth.

There are several "affordable" homes sitting empty in my neighborhood as well as a few unleased rentals. Clearly, the demand for MORE "affordable" housing or a rental option is not there. Further, someone is paying taxes on these empty properties. Using those revenues to subsidize a housing development is only going to make it less likely that an owner or tenant will be found for these existing properties.

I simply do no understand the desire to develop precious open space when you've got neighborhoods turning into ghost towns. My property value certainly is not helped by the abandoned and overgrown property right next door. How about a tax credit for the purchase of home that's been on the market for more than 350 days, or a landlord that's willing to lower his rental rate to an "affordable" level? That would seem to achieve the same short terms goals without the need to ruin the public trust with a few dozen shoddily built structures.

Hi N8
Thanks for your well thought out commentary. As a liberal democrat myself, I am opposing Palmer Pointe on the grounds that it is bad policy rather than a party issue.
Personally, I would like to see all the candidates go on the record prior to the election. They are listed below: my impression is the following. Please step forward and correct me if I am in error
June Speakman D FOR PALMER POINTE
Shirley Applegate-Lockridge R ?
Ann P Strong D ?
Margerate E Kane R ?
Kate G Weymouth D FOR PALMER POINT
Donald S Nessing R ?
I would ask that someone with legal experience structure a not for profit where the Barrrington Residents for Consistent Development could have a paypal account and donate the $ equivalent of a tank of gas to the preservation of our town.

Consider that words of perhaps the most famous liberal democratic president in the content of this issue:
Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people. — John F. Kennedy

N8
William D. LeMoult and Gary are heading the coalitions of those opposed to the manner of development for a variety of reasons. Bill is circulating a petition against big foot print development. You can obtain a copy of the petition at barringtonresidents@gmail.com.
Bill will present them to the town on 10/2.
You can also show up at the next town meeting on Oct. 2, at 7 pm.
Personally, I welcome involved voters on both sides of the issue as it will effect all of our taxes, neighborhoods, school and environment.

Lancer,

The town meeting is tonight at 7pm

The agenda is filed at:

http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4128/2012/131606.pdf

Shades,

Another affordable taxpayer scam in the making????

You say Walker Farm flooded again in your above "just posted" comment?

Coincidentally, in the September 10th Town Council meeting, Walker Farm asked the town to take over responsibility for the drainage area land. I understand the town voted to approve this.

http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4128/2012/130518.pdf

So does this now mean taxpayers will have to pay for the drainage upgrades to correct this problem that West Elmwood should have paid???

The town doesn't normally take over drainage land in any other project, why did we do it here (e.g. Mallard Cove)?

Bill Rupp, this is a story that needs an investigation!!!!!!

Shades,

Were these town DPW or fire trucks?

Was the water significant?

When was this?

This is not a small issue since this is very close to the shoreline and new permits (e.g. CRMC) would be needed to correct a poorly designed drainage system. We appear to own it at this point.

Take a drive by...see what you think.