Correction to the above article - The EBCDC wants their property tax rate to be subsidized by town residents at a lower rate of 8% of the affordable rents (around $600 annually per unit), not "its value", as reported.

The EBCDC tried to convince the audience that there isn't enough affordable housing in Barrington. Apparently, they don't read the weekly "Homes Sold" list in the Patch.

What EBCDC was really trying to pitch was that there isn't enough subsidized rentals in town.

The EBCDC admitted that this rental project can't move forward without local property tax subsidies paid for by town residents (i.e. at the 8% of rent rate, not based on a property assessment). Residents must pay their property taxes based on an assessed value.

Even Walker Farm residents must pay property taxes based on an assessed value (around $3000 annually). The average Barrington tax bill is over $9,000 annually.

On a per capita basis, Barrington residents are already the highest taxed in the state.

http://barrington.patch.com/blog_posts/is-barrington-the-worst-of-worst

Our new town council will have to decide whether to push our "highest taxed" status even higher, or challenge the request for rental property tax subsidies.

A challenge seems reasonable since many existing residents cannot afford the property taxes they already have. Our town council should be representing the interests of town residents, not the interests of developers, and bad public policy.

Not all questions were answered last night as the questions were halted at 9 pm.

One important question the council needs to consider is why Walker Farm homes are deed restricted at 99 years, but the EBCDC limits their deed restrictions to 30 years (e.g. the Sweetbriar lease option to end the deed restriction after 30 years).

With limited space to build in Barrington, it is an insane public policy to have affordable housing (subsidized by Barrington taxpayers) that can be cashed out after only 30 years, requiring more affordable development to make up the new shortfall.

In fact, one example of "cashing out" occurred at the EBCDC's managed property at 14 Western Avenue in Barrington where the property was flipped for a higher price (an 80% profit) after only 11 years.

This public policy is only serving the interests of developers, not Barrington taxpayers.

Gary: you are the master of inconsistency. hahahaha. On the one hand you say we don't need to build affordable housing. On the other you criticize 30 year deed restrictions as too short. It's like you get all bent out of shape and complain about how awful everything is, but never come up with any solutions that would actually work. I think you just want to make noise - the town blowhard.

Gary, thanks for the correction. As an aside, I am impressed by the "talent" behind the project, particularly architect Don Powers and his Union Studio. If there is anyone out there who can make this fit into the neighborhood, it would appear to be him.

Gary,
Agreed, this seems as if it will be as beautiful and well-developed an affordable housing complex as is feasible. With some additional public access to the water, too, if you can carry a canoe or kayak down the existing path.

Yes, the architects design is great and aesthetics fit the town look. But this is a solution looking for a problem, and our politicians are only too happy to provide the 'problem". Palmer is a response to a state mandate that seemed necessary almost ten years ago. However the world changes- so why don't state mandates also change? There is affordable housing all over RI! We must push our local politicians to push the state politicians to stop raising my (already the states highest) taxes to artificially create in Barrington something the MARKET provides all around RI: housing that meets the financial capabilities of each taxpayer.
Make the sacrifices to live here, or don't. But stop making the sacrifice more difficult with ideas like this.

Has anyone produced the numbers to see what percentage of the state mandate is being met. The Palmer Pointe project strikes me as another project where a small group with connections makes out financially at the expense of the average tax payer. Reference the "need" for affordable housing being met by the half empty walker farm.
If the council would like Barrington to be truly affordable, cut taxes by cutting spending (two Harbor Master Boats, the chipping program, the $2M per year library just for starters). Then perhaps our senior resident could stay in their homes.

It is also a fallacy that any part of this is consistent with the neighborhoods
character.

They do have kind of a broad definition fo "neighborhood"; however, much of the development wouldn't be seen from Sowams Rd either since the houses currently there will remain.

Hi William,
I always appreciate a fact based discussion, were the 2.5-3% number you quoted calculated before or after the 2006 real estate crash?

It is approximately 2.5% as of August 2012. This number is based on the total of all dwelling units in Barrington (around 6,400) and the State mandate that 10% must be deemed affordable (approximately 640 and we currently have around 160 approved affordable units). My numbers may not be exact but they are close.

I'm confused about what the definition of "affordable" is. I just purchased a home in Barrington for the same price range as the Walker Farm properties. My husband and I chose NOT to pursue those properties for many reasons, but the largest is that as a low income property, we would have been restricted to who we could sell to down the road, thus eliminating "sweat equity" as a way for us to buy a better home someday.

Does the home that we purchased instead count as an "affordable" house? I suspect not. I also suspect that with the number of houses that have sold for under or around $210,000 in the past few months that there are many properties that are "affordable" to people with lower incomes that are not "approved" as such. Why is no one taking a hard look at what "affordable" truly means in this town? Perhaps we are closer to the quota than we are being led to believe.

In RI, Rhode Island Housing establishes the rules for the "definition" of what can be counted as an affordable unit. They are a private company authorized by The General Assembly to carry out this task. Homes can only be counted if they are deed restricted for a minimum of 30 years but may be longer. Also, the party either renting or purchasing must meet income qualifications up to 100% of area median income as defined by HUD.
The reason for the deed restriction is obvious, what is priced at an affordable level today may appreciate over time and no longer be affordable. The deed restriction protects against market appreciation.
This is the applicable law established by RI Housing ad is the only criteria used in determining if a house or apartment can be counted by a city or town. Hope this helps.

This is beginning to smell like the EDC.

I just saw a public listing for "0 Sowams Rd" (to be built) and the asking price is $199,000. Why aren't we advocating that that home and others like it be deeded as "affordable housing"? By the way, I'm not opposed to housing being affordable!

Basic Information: Price: $199,000; Type: Lots & Land; Taxes: 3960.0; MLS ID: 1029512

Read my latest blog --- I found the waterfront aspect of Palmer Pointe quite interesting - I always thought Palmer River waterfront was conservation land -- quite a shock to discover otherwise.

Absent any financial impact statement on this development proposition, might a layman take a stab at what favorable tax treatment means to the developer of this project?

($150K/unit average sales price x .90 (assessment adjustment)/1000 x $18 per thousand mil rate) - ($800 estimated net property tax paid per unit) = $1,630/unit taxpayer contribution/unit/'year.

The per unit tax advantage, over ten years @ 4%/year (average budget increase in our town for the last 10 years) translates to $19,500 per unit. Over thirty, well.

Readers might take issue for this distillation based on its simplicity and assumptions. Fair. One thing is certain....readers, let me re-phrase, citizens looking to be informed, will not find, anywhere, a financial impact statement coming from our elected officials or town professionals on the tax burdens of projects such as these that are shunted, in large part, from the developer to the citizenry.

Some of us have asked publicly that a financial impact statement be provided as part of the oversight responsibilities of our elected officials for projects such as these. There doesn't seem to be an appetite for this basic planning data point. Given the gravity of these long term public policy decisions, this scribe finds it more than curious that we accept this.

Respectfully,

John Harker

Personally, I feel the main issue is that the level of effort and amount of resources needed to truly fight something like this can easily exceed the capacity of a group of citizen volunteers who lack the financial and legal backing that the EBCDC and State both have in abundance.

To Gary's earlier point, there are some assumptions being made about what's required. However, those assumptions are being made by the Town interpreting how to achieve a mandate they don't want to fight and by a company specifically positioned to benefit from those interpretations.

Given how many years and how much money was spent on the unsuccessful fight to prevent Sweetbriar, it's understandable how the wind can be taken out of the sails :)

Gary,

Then let them get private funding and impose 99-year deed restirctions. It does not have to be funded by HUD or RHIMFAC.

With all due respect, no, housing cannot be reserved exclusively for senior citizens, that is age discrimination, ask an attorney. By building one-bederoom units you are for all intents and purposes marketing to senior citizens

Gary - why are seniors exempt ? Even if they are moderate/low income ?
If that is true - we need to change that !!

Meanwhile we have lost a lovely piece of waterfront land ---- If it had been developed into Sr. condos, the Town would have had more revenue.
Then the other side of Sowams Rd. could have had the low/moderate housing and it would have been a wash in taxes.

I would say that NOT building just for seniors is AGE DISCRIMINATION !!!

www.cranstonpatch.com 12/1/2012 - Tell me again why need need to build affordable housing when there are 100's of affordable homes all over the state

Coventry has had an average of 318 homes on the market with a median list price of $201,583 for the last three months. The data shows 40 homes are being sold per month with a median price of $162,350.

In East Providence, an average of 270 homes has been listed on the market during the last three months with a list price of $189,900. What’s sold? About 35 homes per month with a median price of $143,733.

Over the last three months, there has been an average of 262 homes for sale in North Kingstown with an average median list price of $166,566. On average, 31 homes are changing hands each month with an average median price of $150,000.

In Smithfield, there has been an average of 129 properties listed for sale from August until October at a price of $253,966. Each month, an average of 16 transactions is being closed at a price of $225,983.

I have another idea - if the Town Council will not help the seniors of this Town, with affordable living --
Perhaps they could give all seniors a "Tax exemption".
Tax Free living as a means of keeping us in town to spend our money locally and support local activities.
No one has to go to the state to do that - it can be done on a local level -
Of all the residents in this Town, the senior population should not have to share the burden of subsidising anyone !!
It could be on a sliding scale - X amount of tax relief for each year of paying taxes.
Never mind this silly reduction on the assessment, take it off the tax bill !
All in favor - say (hmm don't know how to write it) AYE ??