Correction to the above statement: "that the RI Attorney General’s office has been asked by him to look into the purchase of the land with Spencer Trust money".

A formal complaint to the AG has not yet been filed by me, or any other person.

The land was purchased in March of 2010 for approximately $275,000 using funds from the Amey Tucker Spencer Trust Fund, not town funds. Title for the property was given over to the Town of Barrington.

But the Spencer Trustees only met for the first time ever on January 28, 2013. The required Charitable Trust Registration Statement was only filed with the RI Attorney General's Office a couple of weeks ago, where it was supposed to have been filed with the AG back in 2005.

There appears to be a lot of assumptions by the Housing Board of Trustees that everything to date was done properly, and a transfer of clear title of the property will have no problems.

There remains a lot of unanswered questions.

The Barrington Town Planner has previously described the George Street project as being "similar" to the Walker Farm affordable development. Those at Walker Farm do not appear to qualify for support from the Spencer Trust.

Apart from the fact that most who have moved into Walker Farm are not prior Barrington residents, a requirement for support from the Spencer Trust, few who can purchase an affordable home could ever qualify as being under the federal poverty level.

The household income level to qualify for affordable home ownership using the benchmark of 100% Area Median Income is approximately 4 times greater than the corresponding household income at the federal poverty income level.

Town solicitor Michael Ursillo described those who would be served by the Spencer Trust as: "they must be serving anyone under the federal poverty level".

A household of four people can have annual income of $75,625 to qualify for affordable housing. A similar household of four would only qualify as being "under the federal poverty level" if their total household income was below $23,050.

A legitimacy question for this project arises: Does the George Street affordable housing project help the "poor and unfortunate people of said town of Barrington" if anyone from any town earning four times more than the household income at the federal poverty level can be a buyer?

This, and other questions needs to be properly addressed.

One last point. The discussion in last night's meeting leaned towards the idea that seniors could enjoy this project in the same manner that seniors can enjoy Walker Farm or Sweetbriar.

If the town decides to fund an age restricted community for Barrington residents only with income restrictions consistent with those defined in the Spencer Trust, that's one thing that is desperately needed in town.

That is NOT what was discussed last night.

It might be argued that the "Housing Board of Trustees" doesn't have authority to do whatever this is & that the property is really owned in constructive trust by the Amey Tucker Spencer Trust to "help the poor and unfortunate people of" Barrington. The income of the Spencer Trust is supposed to be used “annually” to help those beneficiaries, not saved up for the Town to take.

There are lots of issues to be properly addressed before the Trustees of the Spencer Trust attempt to sell this property to a developer.

The price isn't $1 is it? The proceeds (including legal expenses recoup?) go back to the trust? With interest?

According to this RFQ, the Housing Board doesn't want to make the developer put in town water or sewers. They want elderly LMI people to have wells and septic systems - for a development that has at least 12 units on 2.8 acres in the eco-sensitive George Street area.

The Housing Board says that they will “retain approval rights on the architectural, civil, mechanical, and landscaping designs”. Really? The Housing Board of Trustees? They don’t even do the duties they are supposed to have per the Town’s website.

Speed is of the essence.

There are many strange things in that RFQ, but our favorite might just be this one:

“The Town also reserves the right to select a developer based solely on the Housing Trust’s opinion as to the ‘best fit’ for this project”.

Clearly, the Barrington government is out of control.

Another question to be asked, is this the best place to put senior housing? Shouldn't senior house be placed NEAR the center of town, where they can WALK to the grocery store, pharmacy, doctor appointments and easily catch public transportation? This is a crazy idea putting senior housing where there are no public resources. What are they thinking?

Interesting question, TKH.

The Constructive Trust for the Benefit of the Amey Tucker Spencer Trust Fund Beneficiaries would sell the property (at arm's length fmv based on a legitimate appraisal & considering all costs, to avoid unjust enrichment) to the town so that the town would own the property to use as the cemetery.

The proceeds of the sale would go into the Amey Tucker Spencer Trust fund to be used to help the poor and unfortunate people of the Town of Barrington - as the Spencer trust is intended.

That's the same process that will have to happen if the Town wants to sell the property to a developer.

Because the town can't just grab whatever money they want from the trust and convert and use it to buy property and then put the property in the town's name and then sell that property to a favored developer for, say, $1. 'Cause that would be big, bad wrong.

Mr Martin,

Since the Palmer Point hearing on January 15th, there are two unanswered questions that neither the Planning Board, or the Housing Board of Trustees, have been willing to answer:

- How many people living at Sweetbriar are former Barrington residents?

- How many people on the current waiting list are Barrington residents?

It is my impression from this debate that affordable housing is supposed to address local needs. I don't see any local need, nor do I see anyone coming forward with answers to these important questions.

Is it your intent to sweep this under the rug hoping residents will forget the questions were asked?

Lorraine, you are correct that these questions have not been answered. The request was made to EBCDC and they have not responded. I will ask again and if the info is provided I will post it here. And no, the intention is not to sweep it under the rug.
As to your impression that addressing local needs is the priority. Remember why this law was created at the state level. The feeling on smith hill was the cities were bearing an unfair burden of housing the states lower income residents. This law was designed to spread the responsibility among all RI cities and towns. And as a practical matter, that means many of the people living in newly created affordable housing will not be local. We also have to comply with federal fair housing laws that say we cannot exclude anyone from housing and with the RI Housing decision that only 25% of newly created affordable housing may be locally set aside. Our goal is always to try and address local needs first but we are quite limited by existing laws.

I'll try and answer your question but this is my opinion only. The LMI state law that requires 10% affordability is an unfunded mandate. And yes, it essentially transfers the cost to all non deed restricted properties. There is no question about this, but as of now it is the law.
Think back to the Sweetbriar fight when the town had done nothing to comply with this law. We were helpless to fight back and the courts ruled accordingly, in favor of sweetbriar.
Much has changed since then; we have a comp plan that lays out a plan for providing affordable housing. We have built Walker Farm, we have been proactive in trying to comply with the law. And because of that I believe we are in a much stronger position to require that new proposed projects are in the best interest of local needs. At least we can say that we are not just digging in our heels and saying "not here"
Again, this is just my opinion, but I believe that we have some leverage to shape future projects to our interests where before we had none.
And yes, I've worked for everything I have. But I also was fortunate enough to grow up in Barrington and have parents that encouraged me to excel. Not everyone has been as lucky as I have.

Steve,

Affordable housing is an unfunded state mandate which most communities are passively protesting by simply ignoring it.

On the other hand, Barrington has dispatched it's town officials to do work for developers, and created volunteer boards to promote this insane public policy. We are not simply ignoring it like other communities, we are embracing it.

The Spencer Trust Fund should have helped the poor and unfortunate people who were already living in Barrington at the time the money was spent from 2007 to 2010 on affordable development. Our government instead used these funds to help developers.

Residents are already the highest taxed in the state on a per capita basis, and that burden is about to get bigger. Where is that problem addressed in the Comprehensive Community Plan? It's not addressed anywhere.

In spite of this "highest taxed" burden, we play host to affordable developers with tax breaks, application processing for CDBG money, and other subsidies.

Where is the strategy to make living in Barrington affordable for long term residents? At the moment, it doesn't exist because we seem to be too busy planning for people from other towns under the cover of serving "local needs".

Lorraine, I just got my hands on the information you were looking for as to the demographics at Sweetbriar (as provided by EBCDC):
Currently, out of 48 households 18 were prior Barrington residents.
Waiting list is 25 current Barrington residents out of 71.
Hope this answers your question.

Thank you Steve for providing the information.

It's my understanding from prior blog posts that Barrington subsidizes the property taxes at Sweetbriar. Is there something that is a provided back to Barrington such as the 25 waiting Barrington residents given first priority for the apartments?

Quite honestly, I would not mind the subsidy if indeed Barrington residents are served first. But the math is not adding up.

There are 25 currently waiting, but only 18 current residents are former residents of Barrington. Something still does not appear right.

A MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL SITTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEES OF THE AMEY TUCKER SPENCER FUND

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2013 @ 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER, BARRINGTON TOWN HALL

Agenda

1. Call to Order.

2. Discuss and Act on Amendment to Article III, Section 1 Mission, changing the word “persons” in the first line to “people”.

3. Discussion of Possible Amendments to Each and Every Article of the By-Laws.

4. Discuss and Act on Investment Portfolio Recommendations.

5. Discuss and Act on Fiscal Year 2013 Budget.

6. Adjourn