Houses SOLD: 5 Homes Change Hands
Five warranty deeds were recorded in the Barrington Town Hall last for properties that got new owners.
Five warranty deeds that showed an exchange of properties from a seller to a buyer were recorded in the Barrington Town Hall last week, May 6-12.
The deeds include one property that sold for $735,000 and one affordable housing property at Walker Farm Lane that was repurchased from its first owner.
The other warranty deeds can give you some idea of the price of Barrington properties in the Nayatt, Sowams and Primrose Hill neighborhoods.
| Address | Price | Seller | Buyer |
| 2 Cranberry Court |
$735,000 | Christopher Luttmann |
Asked to remain unidentified |
| 688 County Road |
$272,000 | Roger G. Burau & Sondra Burau |
Renee B. Lute & Zachary P. Lute |
| 19 Walker Farm Lane |
$210,000 | Denise M. Mitsuma |
RI Housing & Mortgage Finance Corp. |
| 346 Nayatt Road |
$457,000 | Ronnie C. Ramos |
Lance Vachon |
| 425 Sowams Road |
$210,000 | Robert E. Johannis & Celeste V. Johannis |
Donna Adams & Joseph Adams |
Manifold Witness
12:50 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
RIHMFC had to buy back 19 Walker Farm Lane.
425 Sowams Road went for the same price.
Please discuss the implications.
Gary Morse
10:17 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
Thus the fallacy that affordable housing is always desired and of benefit to the residents of RI.
A question: who guarantees RIHMFC's loans?
Bristol County Anonymous
1:03 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
1) "Affordable housing" is unwanted, unneeded, and the concept is outdated.
2) We already have enough affordable housing.
3) Our Government is broken.
4) Developers, lawyers, and the "non-profit" EBDC's of the world are the only benificiaries.
5) The arbitrary 10% state laws need to be scrapped.
Signsandwonders
5:57 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
What
Ignorance is not bliss
8:41 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
The town of Barrington needs to back off from the dense housing projects and only do the individual affordable housing units where it makes sense to do. Give the state time to see the error of their ways. If we put affordable housing where it makes sense then there should be no regrets. We can't sacrifice open space for dense housing projects. You can't get open space back. How do we change the course of this?
Manifold Witness
9:24 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Get the legislature to repeal the "10%" statute.
Get them to recognize in the "affordable" count houses that are now "affordable" due to the economy, not just so-called "affordable restricted"/subsidized housing.
RIHMFC has to get realistic data instead of the Housingworksri data that they are using.
The legislature has to recognize that those who pay the "non-affordable" property taxes includes folks who earn less than some of those who qualify for "affordable" housing. This puts unfair tax burdens upon the "non-affordable" taxpayers and, as Gary Morse has said, this is a problem.
Revise the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Pernitting process so that they eliminate spot zoning and are fair to the "non-affordable" developers like the couple who wanted to put 7 residences (or 12 would have been nice) on the Sowams property but were denied - you know- 'cause of the curvy road.
Ignorance is not bliss
8:31 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
How do we get the legislature to repeal the 10% statute? Or at least amend it to recognize that we are still in the middle of or maybe the tail end of a housing crisis.
Shades of Gray
9:51 am on Friday, May 18, 2012
It's a shame what happened at 19 Walker Farm.
Instead of building new properties, maybe $ would be better spent fixing up older properties and selling them affordably. They could be purchased at a reasonable price and then renovated if need be. No new buildings to take up more space. They could count those towards the 10%. Not against the 10%, but looks like properties are already available that could count.
Ignorance is not bliss
8:50 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Excellent point Shades of Gray. It's common sense. The green way to go. Rebuild, remodel, reuse. Not destroy the valuable limited open space we have left. Fixing up properties would add value to the town and surrounding neighborhood.
Gary Morse
9:28 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Ignorance,
You have to understand that a primary goal of Barrington Comprehensive Community Plan is in fact to "infill" all available space in town. This was noted in the review of the Sowams project that Sowams fulfills the infill goal because Sowams is deemed "vacant land" (in spite of the fact that the town recognizes it, and taxes it, as being agricultural land).
Look up the planning concept of "infill". You will find that since we are close to a city center, the concept means we "infill" all available space leaving more rural land farther out. Why we in Barrington are subsidizing this in a declining population is absurd.
Shades of Gray
3:55 pm on Saturday, May 19, 2012
The "infill" aspect is unfair. Don't all the towns have to follow the same mandate? Why does Barrington have to have such a requirement and other towns like, say, Little Compton doesn't?