'Unusual' Start for Affordable Housing Development on Sowams Nursery Site
A joint meeting of three Barrington boards and dozens of residents gather in the library for a 'pre-application conference' on controversial 'Palmer Pointe'.
Photos
A rather unusual “pre-application conference” for the proposed Palmer Pointe affordable housing complex in Barrington took place Tuesday night in the library.
It took place even though Andrew Teitz, assistant solicitor for Barrington, said several times that the 48-unit development “can’t be treated any different” than any other project.
The project planned for the former Sowams Nursing site was presented at a joint meeting of three boards, the Planning Board, the Technical Review Committee and the Housing Board of Trustees, and in front of 50 to 60 residents in that neighborhood.
Everyone was allowed to ask questions of representatives of the developer, the East Bay Community Development Corporation, which operates the Sweetbriar affordable housing development in West Barrington. Typically, those questions would be asked at a public hearing in front of only the Planning Board after an application for a housing project is filed.
EBCDC has not yet filed an application, although it has made its plans for the project well-known at two previous public sessions: a meeting of the Housing Board months ago, and a previous session sponsored by the developer in the library auditorium in November.
Palmer Pointe continued to travel a different road last night.
There was little teeth-gnashing at the two-hour meeting, although there was obvious opposition to the project with members of COD 02806 (Community Opposed to Development) – the citizens group that has gotten 517 signatures on a petition against the development, according to leader Bill Lemoult — in the audience.
And Frank Spinella, a consultant for EBCDC, incurred a host of hoots and guffaws when he said the development would be helping Barrington fill seats in the schools with enrollment on the decline.
Representatives of the developer – Spinella, architect Don Powers of Union Studio, and civil engineer Shawn Martin of Fuss & O’Neill – started the meeting by making a PowerPoint-aided presentation that differed only slightly from the November session.
Building rental units, not affordable homes for sale, is the only way for EBCDC to get the federal money from Rhode Island Housing it needs to create the development, Spinella said. The project will include 48 units made up of 12 1-bedroom, 23 2-bedroom and 13 3-bedroom units grouped on the western side of the nursery.
At the same time, he said, to make the entire project feasible, EBCDC needs the Town Council’s support of taxing the project at 8 percent of its affordable rents – as the town does for Sweetbriar, EBCDC’s other project in Barrington. Palmer Pointe would be “infeasible” without that support from the town, Spinella said.
Powers, a Barrington native, spent most of his time detailing how his Providence-based firm created a proposed site plan that fits best in that neighborhood and adds “to the fabric of the community.” He said the units will be “clustered to the west side of the site” with 225 feet of buffer from the nearly Palmer River and 25 feet of buffer from the Orchard Avenue properties to the north.
The size of the units will compare to the adjacent Orchard Avenue properties, he said. The number of units per acre – about 5.2 – will compare to the density of Orchard Avenue, and the rooftops will be similar to those properties as well.
The architectural characteristics of the units will be traditional in form and detail and built with durable materials that reflect “timeless architecture.”
The landscaping will involve public vistas with common greens and shared space that will create a sense of community. It will have a scale of a single-family neighborhood with little or no visual impact from Sowams Road.
Martin talked primarily about sanitary services for the site. A connection to one of two sewer lines – one on the east side of the property and one on the west side near Sowams Road – is possible. A biodetention space will deal with storm water runoff.
Members of each board then got a chance to ask questions first. Among the answers:
- Construction would start by the end of next year and would take about 14 months.
- One-bedroom units are being built because there is a demand for one-bedroom units.
- Financing is available only for potential renters who are at 60 percent of Barrington’s median income. It doesn’t allow for home ownership.
- EBCDC will sell tax credits to raise a major source of funding for the $50 million project.
- Parking will be dispersed throughout the entire site.
- Renters in an affordable-housing project generally stay longer than in private developments.
- The tax burden of the site cannot be taken into account when the Planning Board considers the project.
- Barrington would get 8 percent of the rentals as tax payments.
- There is a misconception that there are many houses in Barrington that could qualify as affordable housing to meet the state’s 10 percent mandate.
- Each unit would be allowed to have two vehicles.
Residents then got their chance to ask questions. Among the answers:
- Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules demand a one-year lease.
- The developer would have to pay for a variety of studies, although Barrington could also do independent studies on various issues, such as the impact of the complex on traffic in the area and the impact on property values.
- EBCDC will ask for tax abatements from the Town Council between the pre-application conference and the preliminary plan.
- There will be at least two public hearings for residents to comment on Palmer Pointe before final approval.
- Several state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Management and the Coast Resources Management Council, must weigh in on the project in addition to Barrington boards and commissions.
Gary Morse
6:40 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
This rental project has to do with tax credits at 95 cents on the dollar that come from building HUD subsidized affordable rental units. The developer gets the tax credits (to be sold to investors), and will also ask the town council to deliver long term property tax abatement's paid for by town residents.
After 30 years (the term of the deed restriction), the entire complex might be sold as waterfront condos at their full market rate.
This is about developers and their friends.
The prior town council voted in favor of property tax abatement's for Sweetbriar where Sweetbriar pays less than 1/10th of the average property tax bill in town.
And now it has been learned that Barrington's Spencer Trust Fund has been subverted by town officials to allow transfers out of the fund to the West Elmwood Housing developer to promote their affordable projects. The original will was altered to make this happen, and demonstrates just how far town officials are going to promote this insanity.
Residents have to become better informed as to just how fast our town is being permanently changed by developers, and by our town officials.
Lorraine F
8:59 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Gary,
I thought changing a will was illegal? Are you sure about this?
Is this grounds for a recall / impeachment / throw the bums out?
Gary Morse
9:31 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Lorraine,
The first meeting ever of the Barrington Spencer Trust Trustees is supposed to take place on Jan 28th.
You will learn the answers to your questions (hopefully) at that meeting.
Manifold Witness
11:05 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The operative words in the will that was filed in probate in January of 1936 are “help” “people” (as in help the poor and unfortunate people of said Town of Barrington).
But much more recently, the paper trail got changed. The newly-enacted Bylaws (Town Council 2012) use the words “benefit” and “persons”. “Persons” can include corporations. “People” doesn’t. So this is an important problem. The average person might not know this, but a good lawyer should.
Mr. Brenner read a motion into the record at the Town Council’s February 6, 2012 meeting where he appears to be glancing down to read the word “people”, but then the minutes got changed to say “persons”. Mr. Brenner at least twice said “people”, yet the minutes say “persons”.
Mr. Brenner and Mr. Ursillo are lawyers.
The Town Council approved the minutes with the word “persons”.
When he retired from the Town Council, the Town Council gave Mr. Brenner a gavel that they said he may get to use in the future.
But he sure doesn’t seem to pay attention to important legal details.
That may not be what you want in a judge.
The Trustees of the Amey Tucker Spencer Trust Fund are about to have their first ever meeting. It will be a public meeting. It’s supposed to be January 28, 2013.
Watch for the agenda.
The 6 Trustees are the Town Council & the Town Treasurer.
Money has been spent. Oversight lacking. Duties breached.
They’ve got problems.
Pamela
8:53 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
This is so depressing! We are in this, again, because this town voted in the same leadership! The leadership of the Town Council has already stated that they think this is good and fair; that Barrington should be forced to alter their town. They are working with those whose incentive is not to be fair, but to make big bucks! Nothing short of a revolt will stop them, and then that is even questionable! Depressing!
Manifold Witness
8:58 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
EBCDC “helps” fill school seats with imported kids!
And so a dwindling percentage of “non-affordable” taxpayers must pay full boat on unconstitutionally high taxes.
Any limit on the amount these “rich” Barrington taxpayers can afford? Our government & the EBCDC think not.
Taxes too high? Sell your house. Get out. That’s your government’s attitude. (You voted for them, & all those new developments provide many happy voters a candidate can access in one visit.)
School contracts being renegotiated (done yet?). Any cost cuts? Maybe not. Teachers work 180 days/ yr for $80,000? $100,000? benefits, pensions, etc? The budget cycle is in progress. A new computer on each desk? (Were there any cost savings at all from the hundreds of thousands of dollars already spent on technology?)
School enrollment is declining. So is the tax base. e.g.: Atlantic Crossing property valued at $1,100,000 or so a few years ago? Now in the $600,000’s. Elsewhere, a house that sold for $690,000 in 2011? Now in the $300,000’s. etc, etc. Come reval time, the assessor can’t throw ALL sales out.
The Barrington budget is fast approaching $60,000,000 for 16,000 people. Barrington’s budget is about the same as Bristol & Warren COMBINED, yet Barrington’s census is not even HALF the population of Bristol & Warren.
No counting “misconceptions” here. “Feasible” = “profitable”. EBCDC (& the web of related corps, familiar names) get rich off taxpayers.
Gary Morse
9:27 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Thanks Manifold for the great comment!
EBCDC has land in other town's that they have on the market to help fund the more lucrative development opportunities here in Barrington. Our town officials have failed us, providing a red carpet to developers to flood our town with housing that provides zero benefit, and only new liability.
The EBCDC knows exactly how many non-residents applied for housing at Sweetbriar, but last night they played dumb on that question from the audience.
Walker Farm is the same where the record shows that almost all the owners came from other towns, even one from Massachusetts. The town council subsidized that development with funds from the Spencer Trust which is only to be used to benefit existing Barrington residents.
EBCDC don't want town residents to know that this is a costly resettlement initiative that will ruin the property tax base, and ultimately the entire town as other subsidized rental projects expand throughout the town.
We simply cannot afford this raid on the public treasury.
Barbara Donovan
10:20 am on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
No one heard my call to action - to vote for the person, not the party.
Now see what has happened --- .
"They" have their own agenda.
There will not be any current residents from Barrington living in affordable homes in Barrington.
There will not be any chance for Seniors in Barrington to get any sort of tax break.
If anything, everyone's taxes will rise to accommodate our new neighbors and any school ager's they bring with them.
Hmmm - one bedroom units - will that accommodate live-ins?
Two cars per unit?
48 units? Do the math.
Oh, and don't forget the space to store the kayaks.
At last nights meeting they "danced around" the issue of water access. Said it was something that hadn't been discussed. Suddenly it has disappeared !!
It is still there and the property is still valuable waterfront land being stolen from the people of Barrington. Barbara Donovan
@RightInRI
12:32 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
As a future resident of Barrington ( Hampton Meadows area ) I follow these types of postings closely. I am not as educated in these matters as you guys are but I did just notice an article on the Woonsockett Patch that seems to be dealing with the same 8% issue...Just thould I would share in case you haven't seen it...
http://woonsocket.patch.com/articles/council-asks-state-legislators-to-rally-support-for-woonsocket-causes
Manifold Witness
1:23 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Thank you, @RightInRI.
Seth Milman
2:11 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Although the tax burden associated with low and moderate income developments is a primary concern of Barrington residents (myself included), the planning board cannot legally take tax burden into account when reviewing comprehensive permits. According to the town solicitor, there are many other factors that the board can consider, but taxes is not one of them.
Gary Morse
2:49 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Seth,
What was said last night is that the project cannot be stopped because taxes will go up.
However, he did not limit the Planning Board's authority to make a condition that the property tax abatement's be approved by the town council before EBCDC breaks ground on this project.
Unfortunately, nobody on the Planning Board asked that specific question in view of the fact that EBCDC has publicly stated that this project is financially infeasible without local property tax subsidies.
A project doomed to financial failure would not be consistent with Barrington's Comprehensive Community Plan and thus the Planning Board should have raised this as a pertinent issue.
Manifold Witness
2:19 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
What about a moratorium on development, Mr. Teitz?
There are no” local” needs in Barrington, Mr. Teitz. Walker Farm housing is vacant. Walker Farm units were sold to non-Barrington residents. We’re hearing that EBCDC is selling “affordable” land in Warren to focus on the more lucrative Barrington projects. The state statutes were not designed to force Barrington to import “affordable” people the Barrington taxpayers can’t afford. The state statutes were designed to provide housing to residents of said Town of Barrington who were already in Barrington. To use property tax subsidies to do otherwise is unconstitutional.
Does Mr. Teitz’s law firm (Ursillo, Teitz & Ritch) have conflicts of interest because his firm benefits from “affordable” housing?
Mr. Tetiz’ zealous advocacy seems to be favoring the developer rather than the town.
These are some of the things the Planning Board can consider.
Seth Milman
3:09 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Actually, I'm not sure the Planning Board can take those things into account (with the exception of local needs, depending on what you mean by local needs). If you wish to bring evidence before the Board (and I encourage you to do so), this portion of RIGL (which you can find in 45-53-4) may be useful to you:
(vii) In reviewing the comprehensive permit request, the local review board may deny the request for any of the following reasons: (A) if city or town has an approved affordable housing plan and is meeting housing needs, and the proposal is inconsistent with the affordable housing plan; (B) the proposal is not consistent with local needs, including, but not limited to, the needs identified in an approved comprehensive plan, and/or local zoning ordinances and procedures promulgated in conformance with the comprehensive plan; (C) the proposal is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan; (D) the community has met or has plans to meet the goal of ten percent (10%) of the year-round units or, in the case of an urban town or city, fifteen percent (15%) of the occupied rental housing units as defined in § 45-53-3(2)(i) being low and moderate income housing; or (E) concerns for the environment and the health and safety of current residents have not been adequately addressed.
Gary Morse
3:15 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The actual record of sales to date at Walker Farm are that out of the seven homes sold, two buyers were from Barrington, five were not (one of the five was actually from Westport Mass).
They began selling in mid 2011. Since then, there has been no rush by Barrington residents to purchase these homes.
I suspect the ratio on the rentals will be much higher on the "not from Barrington" side.
This is a contrived problem created by bureaucrats.
Manifold Witness
4:54 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
"Local" means municipal as evidenced by how the word is used throughout the statute when it refers to the "local" board and the words "city"/"town".
And please see Gary's most excellent response, below.
Seth Milman
9:36 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Well, we're talking here about reasons for which the Planning Board can deny an application. Item (B) lists "consistent with local needs," which has a very specific definition in the statute. It's not based on whether particular residents have moved into the home. Rather:
(4) "Consistent with local needs" means reasonable in view of the state need for low and moderate income housing, considered with the number of low income persons in the city or town affected and the need to protect the health and safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or of the residence of the city or town, to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, or to preserve open spaces, and if the local zoning or land use ordinances, requirements, and regulations are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing. Local zoning and land use ordinances, requirements, or regulations are consistent with local needs when imposed by a city or town council after comprehensive hearing in a city or town where:
Seth Milman
9:38 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
(continued) (i) Low or moderate income housing exists which is: (A) in the case of an urban city or town which has at least 5,000 occupied year-round rental units and the units, as reported in the latest decennial census of the city or town, comprise twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the year-round housing units, is in excess of fifteen percent (15%) of the total occupied year-round rental units; or (B) in the case of all other cities or towns, is in excess of ten percent (10%) of the year-round housing units reported in the census.
(ii) The city or town has promulgated zoning or land use ordinances, requirements, and regulations to implement a comprehensive plan which has been adopted and approved pursuant to chapters 22.2 and 22.3 of this title, and the housing element of the comprehensive plan provides for low and moderate income housing in excess of either ten percent (10%) of the year-round housing units or fifteen percent (15%) of the occupied year-round rental housing units as provided in subdivision (2)(i).
neil buck
3:34 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
48 units, 50 million dollars? Over 1 million dollars per unit? Did I read that right? How
many houses could they buy around Barrington for 50 million dollars? Probably
about 200. Ready for lease. Is a $1,042,000.00 considered affordable?
Seth Milman
4:11 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
I think that might be a misprint. I'm pretty sure the developer estimated the cost at 13-15 million.
Gary Morse
4:27 pm on Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Seth,
Thank you for pointing out the statutory language above, being - "if city or town has an approved affordable housing plan and is meeting housing needs...".
We have an approved affordable housing plan, and, based on the actual measured results, there has been little demand from residents for Sweetbriar apartments, or Walker Farm homes.
The actual record on this matter shows clearly that the town is meeting it's own affordable housing needs.
So why hasn't the Planning Board told RI Housing that the record clearly shows that residents are now being forced to accept an unnecessary burden which rises to the level of an unconstitutional burden?
Where are the thinkers on the Planning Board?
In the moment
8:12 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Is there any time or room for public debate on this project? Have seen nothing in BT on this in last few weeks. How to get message out to at least advise people of this projects potential impact?
Seth Milman
8:30 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Hi, In the Moment:
Yes, there will be opportunity for public debate. As mentioned in the article, the pre-application meeting was open to public comment. Once the applicant makes a formal application, the comprehensive permit process before the Planning Board will proceed as follows:
1) Planning Board will review the applicant's "Master Plan." The review will include an open, public forum where anyone can comment.
2) If the master plan is approved, the Planning Board will review the applicant's "Preliminary Plan," which is a more detailed plan. This review will also include a public forum.
Also, between steps 1 and 2, the applicant will likely go before the town council and the environmental regulatory bodies to allow them to review the project, and to ask for particular waivers. For example, at the pre-application meeting, the applicant indicated they will ask the town council for a waiver on property tax sometime between steps 1 and 2. I do not know if those meetings will include public forums (I am not aquainted with the details of the other boards' procedures), but I think they most likely will.
I encourage you to attend, or to write letters to the boards. The boards can only make decisions based on evidence that is on the record (i.e. evidence presented at a meeting or sent to the board via mail or email). So if you have any information that can be used by the board, please put it on the record.
Seth Milman
8:43 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Also, I don't know the dates for any of these meetings yet because the application has not yet submitted a formal application.
Seth Milman
9:10 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Make that: the **applicant** has not yet submitted a formal application.
Gary Morse
9:35 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Seth,
Two affordable housing questions came up that had the appearance of a cover-up by the lack of answers. The questions were: 1) What percentage of people living in Sweetbriar are prior Barrington residents, 2) What percentage of people on the current waiting list for Barrington apartments are actually from Barrington?
This is a big deal and the Planning Board members were like deer in the headlights when the EBCDC rep said they didn't know. There was no response by the Planning Board to say that the Planning Board would get the answers.
This is important given the reality that if nobody from Barrington wants this type of housing, then there is no local affordable housing needs. If there are no local needs, then why isn't the Planning Board addressing this reality with town officials and RI Housing?
Barbara Donovan
11:20 am on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Yes Gary - That is exactly what I was aiming at when I mentioned that at the meeting.
The gentleman from EBCCD made mention in his opening comments that there were "many" Barrington residents who would benefit from the affordable housing units proposed for Palmer Pointe.
At a prior meeting he had made it very clear that he" had a long waiting" list for the
units.
Can we get a copy of that list?
I have never heard anyone talk about how to sign up on such a list.
I wonder how many people would know the answer to that question.
Barbara
Seth Milman
1:08 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Hi Barbara,
It was an excellent question. You may not have been able to hear it at the meeting, but after you asked your question, the Board asked the applicant to gather and provide that information. I don't think there was any cover up, I just think no one had that information readily available when the questions were asked, and that it was hard to hear in that room.
Lorraine F
2:27 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Mr Milman,
To your point that this was an "excellent question", it might be helpful if the Planning Board had answers to "excellent questions" when they are asked.
Seth Milman
4:04 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Thanks Lorraine. Please call me Seth. I agree. It would be helpful to have the answers to everyone's questions readily available, as soon as the question is asked. But it sometimes doesn't work out that way. That's why we have the process, so that we can use it to gather relevant information before making any decisions.
And I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I've been working on trying to have all the answers for a while now. My wife recently told me that even though I sometimes "think" I have all the answers, I really don't. So I guess I have some more work to do. Maybe one day I'll get there. :)
Lorraine F
4:42 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Seth,
You have been responsive on these blogs (thank you) and I have tried to keep up with all the comments.
For myself, there is the sense that this entire affordable housing issue has been accepted as "fait accompli" by our town officials, and to heck with what's best for the community.
What I know is that those in a position of authority, such as the Planning Board, aren't asking the same questions that residents are asking.
I'd like to understand exactly why I have to subsidize property taxes for someone with more than me. I lost much of my pension benefits because the state said they passed a law.
That was challenged in a court of law and guess what, the law may be ruled unconstitutional. Please explain the difference here. Just because you can quote lots of statutes, it does not mean it's lawful?
You seem to be listening too much to the cheerleaders of affordable housing, which in my opinion, includes the Ursillo / Teitz gang.
Why hasn't the Planning Board challenged this? In even a lay persons view, this appears wrong. The Planning Board needs to start asking the same questions residents are asking. Start pushing back!
Seth Milman
5:04 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Hi Lorraine,
First, let me explain why I quote the statutes. It's because it's safe for me to do so. I am an attorney in MA, but I am not admitted in RI. People on these forums know that I'm an attorney, and sometimes ask me to provide a legal opinion regarding the RI statutes, or try to help them understand the RI laws. I can't do that. Because I'm licensed in MA and not RI, I am concerned that if I were to provide anything resembling an opinion on RI law, and someone relied on that opinion, it could be considered an ethical violation. So I just quote the statutes and try not to comment on them too much. Sorry, I can't do more than that.
What I can say is that, a lot of times, the RI statutes really limit what the board can and cannot do. Many times they also limit what the board can and cannot factor into its decisions. This is especially true of the Low and Moderate Income laws.
Also, the Planning Board's role is to review and approve or deny comprehensive building permits. (There are other duties, but this is the main one for the purpose of this thread). We have to review the application objectively and make our decision legally. That's why these statutes become important. For example, if an applicant comes before the board and complies with the comprehensive plan, the zoning laws, the state laws, etc., it is very difficult to deny the application. Doing so would result in a lawsuit. [to be continued]
Seth Milman
5:30 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
[continuation]
which could cost the town even more money, especially if the applicant IS in compliance with all those rules.
So the Planning Board really only has authority to review the application and approve/deny in this situation. It doesn't have authority to challenge the RI laws. (At least I don't think it does, I'll ask about that - but I think that would be a town council thing). And although the laws limit the rationale for denial, the Board can still deny the application if it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, zoning laws, etc. But one thing the Board cannot take into account is the tax burden.
You asked why you have to subsidize property taxes for someone with more than you. Believe me, I feel your pain. I moved back to town because I was laid off a few years back and the high taxes here have really been a hindrance to getting my family back on its feet. And I wish the Planning Board could take taxes into consideration, but it legally can't. However, some of the statutes I quoted earlier might provide insight into the things the Board CAN take into account, and might help you make strong arguments before the Board.
Also, the Applicant stated on Tuesday that it will go before the Town Council to request property tax relief if the Planning Board approves the master plan. You may want to keep a lookout for that TC meeting because I think they can take tax burden into account (though I'm not 100% sure of that).
Lorraine F
8:02 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Seth,
With all due respect, I see that the Planning Board wrote Barrington's Comprehensive Community Plan (admitted I didn't read it).
Doesn't the Planning Board have authority to recommend amendments to that Plan?
What it appears you are describing is a rigid process executed by form filing bureaucrats, not intelligent thinking residents of Barrington.
Residents want some ideas, not excuses.
Seth Milman
7:47 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
This is true. The planning board wrote the Comprehensive Plan. Note also that the Comprehensive Plan was mandated by the RI Low and Moderate Income housing laws, and that the Comprehensive Plan has to be approved by the State as compliant with the LMI laws (which it has been). Also, although I came in on the tail end of that process, I witnessed the Board negotiating very strongly in the Town's interest on a lot of sections of the comp. plan. So there is certainly an element of rigidity - an element of the State shoving these laws down towns' throats, as some people have commented. But that doesn't mean that the towns are completely hog-tied. We just have to find a way to work within the rules in the best interest of the town.
Sometimes, if a proposed development not in line with the rules or the comp plan and they ask for too many or too severe waivers, the board can completely deny a proposed development. For example, the Board recently denied an application to develop LMI on George Street. But, if the applicant does not ask for any waivers or if the waivers are reasonable, there is often no grounds for denial. Sometimes this means that we can't completely stop a development. That's just the nature of the game. But when we can't, we work with the developers to make sure that the development has the least impact possible on the town.
CECLA
8:47 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Where is the paid "Town Planner" on this issue? The council decided there was a need for a full time planner, this is the type of issue he should be focusing on. Yes, he is good at chasing down grants for sidewalk projects and a new beach pavilion but these affordable housing projects will have long term impacts on the future of the town.
Seth Milman
7:49 am on Friday, January 18, 2013
Phil's very involved in the process but he doesn't vote on whether to approve or deny comprehensive permits.
Gary Morse
7:40 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
As far as affordable housing, and what our paid Town Planner is doing to help residents, it seems to be a good deal only for the developers.
In the Walker Farms project, instead of our town planner working on behalf of residents, he was out obtaining grants on behalf of West Elmwood Housing. His time was spent securing a $500,000 grant to purchase the Walker Farm land in 2007, which the record shows was later sold as town owned land to West Elmwood Housing for one dollar. West Elmwood got the benefit of Mr Hervey's time, not residents who are paying his salary and benefits.
Why was our paid Town Planner not working this project to put up senior housing?
And why is the Planning Board not providing oversight that serves town residents?
Seth Milman
9:21 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
I'm sorry, Gary. I don't know if you're asking for a response or posing those questions rhetorically. But this will be my last comment on The Patch because I find it very difficult to reason with others' ideology. If anyone would like to substantively discuss these issues with me, I'll be happy to do so over a cup of coffee. My email is sethmilman@gmail.com.
Gary Morse
10:25 am on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Seth,
The importance of this affordable housing discussion is based on the importance of the issues themselves:
- the rapid destruction of our limited remaining open space;
- town officials rewriting the Spencer Trust fund to benefit affordable developers;
- handing over for $1 town owned land without any notice to town residents;
- a Barrington Comprehensive Plan that wrongly portray's affordable housing as filling a "local need";
- property taxes that are already the highest in the state on a per capita basis;
Discussing the issues and facts openly in this public forum serves an important public purpose. It's the new town hall, It's not a discussion based on ideology, it's based on common sense.
Gary Morse
12:09 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Correction - I meant to say "deed restricted" affordable housing above:
- a Barrington Comprehensive Plan that wrongly portray's "deed restricted" affordable housing as filling a "local need".
steve martin
12:48 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
As a member of Barrington Housing Board of Trustees, I feel compelled to weigh in and address some of the issues, statements and charges made in this blog. My intention is not to lobby for or against but to correct some false statements.
The Walkers Farm land was purchased by the town using a $500,000 bridge loan from RI Housing @ 6% accruing until pay off. There was no grant, Spencer Trust funds, or other local funds used for this purchase. The purchase and loan were approved by the town council. After being selected to develop Walkers Farm, West Elmwood Housing purchased the land from the town for $1. This transaction was approved at the financial town meeting as required. The reason for this price is West Elmwood was required to pay off the loan and all accrued interest. There was no cost to the town.
Funds from The Spencer Trust have not been granted to West Elmwood Housing. WEH requested a subsidy to help sell the remaining three homes but the request wasn't granted.
I agree with Gary, this forum is the new town hall and these discussions are important. As I see things, one of the real issues is that not enough residents have been engaged and paying attention. Our group has been meeting since 2006, working on these very issues and rarely if ever have we had any members of the public attend our meetings to offer their thoughts. Only since the summer of 2012 have we really had any attention from the public. We welcome the public input and hope it continues.
Gary Morse
2:34 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Steve,
I question your "facts". My facts were provided from Barrington town officials and are:
1) The property was paid for with a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to the Town of Barrington, not to West Elmwood Housing.
2) RI Housing loaned the money for the closing costs and the CDBG program paid that loan back.
The CDBG grants are monies to the town, not to West Elmwood Housing, and the CDBG program is run by the Town Planner.
This is what I've been provided from the town. If you have documents that state otherwise, I'd like to dig further.
Manifold Witness
1:07 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
Minutes posted to Secretary of State’s website January 2, 2013-
TOWN OF BARRINGTON, HOUSING BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 7:00 PM
Present: Steve Martin, Chairperson
Steve Boyajian, Molly Lee, Lori Rose, Kenneth Satterley, Linda Testa, Michael Winitsky
Also present: June Speakman, Town Council Chairperson, Kate Weymouth, Town Council Member.
MINUTES OF MEETING
• Mr. Martin called the meeting to order. Mr. Martin announced that Lori Rose was joining the committee. Other announcements were:
o East Bay Community Development Corp will be holding a public forum in the Barrington Library on Wednesday, November 28th on the Sowams Road development. At the meeting Katy Bassinet will present their initial proposal to the abutters.
o Two (2) more ranch style homes are under contract at Walker Farm Lane. That leaves just three (3) homes of the original eleven (11) constructed.. The three (3) unsold homes abut County Road.
• Mr. Martin stated he would table the vote on the October minutes until the next meeting.
• Mr. Martin asked Ms. Lee to report on her meeting with the Town Planner’s office in her capacity as the liaison on the Bluemead development::
o Ms. Lee stated that the Planner’s staff seemed unaware of the decision to have a liaison present at the meeting with the developer. Ms. Lee commented that the developer was not fully aware of the state’s mandate requiring 10% of any development be classified as affordable.
(cont.)
Manifold Witness
1:08 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
(cont.)
Therefore, the developer will re-submit their site plans in January with more units overall, and will propose three (3) lots as affordable.
o The challenge will be to build affordable homes in an enclave of new upscale houses. Mr. Martin suggested that the developer use the 3 lots to close off Chachapacassett Road and open up Rumstick Road to gain access to the property. Locating the 3 lots on
Chachapacassett Road would give a builder the opportunity to design homes compatible with the style of homes in the Chachapacassett Road neighborhood. Mr. Martin did stress that the logistics of the project will be the developers responsibility.
o Ms .Weymouth informed the committee that Phil Hervey has given the developer suggestions regarding the development, but that these suggestions have not been accepted well.
• Mr. Martin asked if anyone would like to attend the meeting on Wednesday to help explain the town’s Comprehensive Plan:
o Ms. Weymouth felt that the town’s council members should not attend, as their presence may give the appearance that they endorse the project. Ms. Lee felt that the committee members could be helpful if issues arise but not to endorse the project.
o The question was asked, if the committee was planning to attend, should that information be posted.
(cont.)
Manifold Witness
1:09 pm on Saturday, January 19, 2013
(cont).
• Mr. Martin spoke about the new affordable housing bond that was approved by the voters. The voters approved a bond totaling $25 million spread over a four (4) year period:
o Mr. Martin questioned whether the George Street project could be a recipient of some of that money.
o Ms. Testa would like to explore more single or multifamily owned units. Although the committee felt that it would be difficult to meet the 10% goal with single or two (2) unit apartments.
• Mr. Martin next discussed the George Street RFQ. Having received the Walker Farm Lane RFQ he would like to use the experience gained from this RFQ to draft the George Street document:
o Mr. Martin expressed his desire that the committee exercise more control on the various aspects of the development, starting with the RFQ. Therefore, he plans to draft the RFQ which then can be reviewed by the committee.
o Ms. Lee requested that we keep exploring the idea of single or multi- family units, rehab or tear downs. Mr. Martin said we include that as part of the George Street FRQ. Committing the developer to rehabbing a single or two (2) units dwelling if we can gain site control.
• Mr. Martin called for a motion to adjourn the meeting, Motion made by Ms. Lee seconded by Mr. Winitsky, vote was unanimous to approve.
Next meeting is scheduled for December 18, 2012 at 7pm
(First in a series.)
Lorraine F
6:32 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Mr Martin,
The affordable housing questions you present in your above post as "a member of Barrington Housing Board of Trustees" are somewhat self serving. People like myself did not realize until recently that this affordable housing issue was actually an agenda being set by bureaucrats in town.
This agenda is NOT good for our town and we are only now realizing it. I admit that I haven't read the Comprehensive Community Plan, but I plan to. I want to find out for myself why a need such as senior housing languishes, while at the same time, affordable developers are being given red carpet treatment.
I'd like to know - did our town planner secure a $500,000 Barrington grant for the Walker Farm land?
Local residents wouldn't have a clue if handing this land over to West Elmwood Housing later for $1 in the Financial Town Meeting was a good thing because we expect our local committees to be doing good work on behalf of residents.
We should not be expected to look over your shoulder as you suggest.
Lorraine F
7:38 am on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Seth,
I am disappointed on your above post that you will no longer be publicly posting on the Patch.
There still remains Barbara Donovan's "excellent question" still outstanding from the meeting on the 16th as to what percentage of residents in Sweetbriar were prior Barrington residents, and what percentage on the current list waiting to get in are Barrington residents.
May I suggest that residents belief that the answer to both questions is at, or near zero, confirms belief that this affordable housing provides no benefit to the town, only liability.
I doubt the Planning Board will do the right thing and post both answers to this excellent question, a question the board should have had the answer to on the 16th, confirming residents belief that there is no real local need for this.
Seth Milman
1:53 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Hi Lorraine,
I think this forum has the potential to be very useful if it is used constructively. However, there seems to be more sniping than discussion and I don't think it's a productive use of time, despite the fact that some substantive issues come through the angst.
I volunteered to work on the planning board because I really like this town. I grew up here. I've lived most of my life here. I currently live in house where I grew up. And my family has a long history here - my great (great?) grandfather was the town blacksmith on Maple Ave. After a year on the planning board, I can tell you that every member of the board feels the same way about this town and that the board works very hard to make decisions in the town's best interest. There is no anti-resident agenda as some have suggested.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss any of these issues, but not on this forum. The internet seems to bring out contention in people, so I suggest a discussion over coffee. My schedule is open most evenings and I thoroughly enjoy having a good conversation at Starbucks.
steve martin
1:13 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Hello Lorraine, I did not intend to suggest that you need to be looking over our shoulder. Everything that the housing trust does is in public meetings and public comment is always welcome. Please keep in mind, our mission is to make progress toward bringing the town into compliance with the state's affordable housing mandate.
The town planner applied for two CDBG grants, with approval of the town council, (totaling $500,000) for this project. The grants were specifically applied for affordable housing creation and were used as part of the subsidy for Walker Farm. Also, the project received $100,000 in Home Funds and $700,000 in RI bond money. Total of $1,300,000 of subsidy ($600K was federal, $700K was state). RI Housing provided a bridge loan to purchase the land and this was repaid.
The Walker Farm land was purchased by the town for the creation of affordable housing, and the sale to West Elmwood for $1 was authorized by residents at the financial town meeting.
I would encourage you to attend our meetings, they are always the third Tuesday of the month at 7pm on the second floor of the library. I hope I have answered your questions.
Lorraine F
5:08 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Seth,
I'm sorry that you think the affordable housing matter has been reduced to "sniping". From residents standpoint, it is a very serious matter, and a matter regarding the future of our town.
In reading Mr Martin's above two posts, first he stated with confidence that:
"The Walkers Farm land was purchased by the town using a $500,000 bridge loan from RI Housing @ 6% accruing until pay off. There was no grant",
He stated this to "correct some false statements".
Now he changes his story saying in the second post - "The town planner applied for two CDBG grants, with approval of the town council, (totaling $500,000) for this [Walker Farm] project."
My earlier point was to ask why senior housing is languishing, while affordable developers are being given red carpet treatment. That question remains unanswered.
If the town planner used his time to set up grants for the town of Barrington to purchase land, and then handed that land off for the sum of $1 to benefit West Elmwood Housing, I think residents would see this as a problem.
Being approved in the circus environment of the financial town meeting does not make this OK. And It's hardly sniping.
Seth Milman
5:51 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Thank you for asking these questions. I agree that you have not been sniping. I can't really comment on the Walker Farm thing because I was not involved in that and don't know much about the details. You also asked:
>>>My earlier point was to ask why senior housing is languishing, while affordable developers are being given red carpet treatment. That question remains unanswered.
The short answer is because of the RI LMI Laws. Here's the problem:
The Rhode Island LMI laws require the town to develop up to 10% low and moderate income housing in town, but there are no laws that require development of senior housing. These laws make federal (I think federal) and state (definitely state) money available for LMI housing, but there is hardly any money available for developing senior housing. So when a developer comes in, they're going to go where the money is and develop LMI. Because there's no money for senior housing, developers do not want to create senior housing because it is not profitable for them. It's a big problem.
Additionally, the state-mandated comprehensive plan, which was written in order to get the town in compliance with the 10% LMI laws, says that any development with three or more units must include LMI housing. If a developer comes in and complies with the comp plan and with zoning, we almost have to let them proceed with their plan - or we'll get sued, and we'll likely lose the suit. So basically, the state has rolled out the red carpet for LMI.
Manifold Witness
5:32 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Thank you Mr. Martin & Mr. Milman for this insight into your thought processes.
You seem to think that you are complying with “the law”. We’re not buying it.
Mr. Martin, you are a “Trustee” of what? According to town officials?
“Of nothing”.
Your Board minutes are late or missing. The “Trustees” rarely vote on anything. You don’t comply with your stated duties. You and Mrs. Weymouth dictate to the other Trustees.
Mr. Milman, Lorraine F (& many other taxpayers) can't afford to sit around Starbucks sipping coffee and chewing the fat with you. The fact that you don’t care is a big part of the problem. That you term Lorraine’s expression of her concerns “sniping”? Also indicative of the problem.
The Amey Tucker Spencer Trust Fund annual income of about $80,000 “shall be used annually to help the poor and unfortunate people of said Town of Barrington”. That’s what the testator, Mr. Wilton H. Spencer intended. Maybe for food (via Tap In, perhaps) and other necessities? Things like that.
How has the Amey Tucker Spencer Trust Fund money been used?
For things like a no-interest loan to West Elmwood Housing Development Corp to fly balloons over the state of RI for advertising. And $9,114.14 to Ursillo, Teitz & Ritch, Ltd. for “George Street Property”. And like that.
This town is heading toward of a budget of $60,000,000 for 16,000 people.
How much more do you think the taxpayers of this town can afford to subsidize?
Lorraine F
5:48 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Manifold,
Where are you getting your information that a "no interest loan" was granted to West Elmwood Housing? How much was the loan?
Seth Milman
6:14 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
Thank you for your comments, Janice. I'm sorry that you think I don't care. I care very much about this town - it is my home.
Manifold Witness
6:30 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
So, Mr. Milman, you are caught without any legitimate explanations.
And so your answer now is to offer some lady's name.
"Janice". "Janice, Janice, Janice". It does have a nice ring to it.
Like "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia".
You hope to expose some lady?
You're the one exposed, Mr. Milman.
You obviously have no legitimate answers.
And this "Janice" must be a very smart lady if you would associate her with the things that I write.
She seems to have beguiled many a man in her day.
Many a man seems obsessed with this goddess, "Janice".
Ode to Janice,
they all want to write.
With their fancies of flight.
Whenever something brilliant is said,
the name "Janice" is flung about.
What a woman she must be.
The stuff of which legends are made.
That's it, Mr. Milman.
Utter the name "Janice"
when you are caught.
And you are the one exposed.
Seth Milman
6:41 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
I'm sorry. This is exactly why I cannot participate on this forum. The offer still stands if anyone would like to chat over coffee.
Manifold Witness
6:52 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
You can't participate because you have no legitimate answers.
Lorraine F
10:47 pm on Sunday, January 20, 2013
The affordable housing debate belongs on this public forum, not at Dunkin Donuts.
The "excellent questions" posed by Barbara Donovan are still not being addressed, and the controversy on financial stewardship has only grown in scope.
I had no idea things were actually this bad in our town.
Gary Morse
6:44 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
The affordable housing problem is nailed down with the previous comment by the Chairman of the Barrington Housing Board of Trustees, Steve Martin:
"Please keep in mind, our mission is to make progress toward bringing the town into compliance with the state's affordable housing mandate."
This isn't the mission of the Barrington Housing Board of Trustees, they have simply morphed themselves into this mission.
http://www.ci.barrington.ri.us/housingcomm.php
The problem is that we have many town officials who have morphed into an extension of RI Housing, where RI Housing is a regime with policies that are more destructive than they are helpful.
Consider cities such as Woonsocket, who initially were happy to receive the second highest share of federal money in the state from the Public Housing Capital Fund Program.
http://woonsocket.patch.com/articles/affordable-housing-in-city-gets-2m-boost
One year later, Woonsocket is crying for more state money to help pay for the ongoing burden of low property taxes from all that "deed restricted" housing rehabilitation.
http://woonsocket.patch.com/articles/council-asks-state-legislators-to-rally-support-for-woonsocket-causes
This is not good public policy at a time when RI has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, and Barrington is the highest taxed in the state on a per capita basis (note - summer colonies of Block Island and Jamestown excluded).
Barbara Donovan
9:33 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
Dear Manifold -
What does RFQ stand for ? You mention it several times in your Jan.19th comment. I have been trying to figure it out since then - it is probably something simple and I am going to feel foolish when I fine out ---- but --- it is bothering me.
Also - why all these petty conversations - we need each other - we need to stand together - our voices are important and we can succeed.
If there are needy people in Barrington we should help them -
and -
I know there are needy seniors in town and we should help them.
Let's get it done !!
Everyone I know is talking about the situation - it is all over town and I have not heard ONE word saying we are wrong.
Let us focus on our goal and work together! Barbara Donovan
Seth Milman
11:20 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
Dear Barbara,
Despite the assertions, there is nothing sinister about my offer to sit down over coffee. I talk to a lot of people about these issues and would love to hear your input. I just think that in-person communication is more productive than this forum. If coffee doesn't suit you, I'll be happy to talk before or after a Planning Board meeting, at my house (if you can handle the kids running around), or anywhere that is convenient for you. I agree that we can work together.
Thanks,
Seth
Lorraine F
11:45 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
Seth,
I disagree entirely that this affordable housing discussion should go "one-on-one". It should be discussed in the forum that best reaches the most residents of town with the most information.
Taking this one-on-one defeats the purpose of an open debate on a issue affecting all of Barrington's residents.
To date, I've gotten the most valuable and trusted information on this subject from this blog, and not from town officials. I want it to continue!
Seth Milman
12:12 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Hi Lorraine,
I'm not suggesting that the debate should go one-on-one. I think the debate should go on publicly, and I will continue to monitor it so that I can make informed decisions while on the Planning Board. But if you want me to participate, it will have to be on a less hostile forum where we can have more productive discourse. My suggestion was coffee. If you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears.
Thanks,
Seth
Manifold Witness
3:44 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
What is is Seth? What are you trying to tell us? What is it?
(It's like waiting for Lassie to say where Timmy is.)
Bottom line, you obviously don't have any legitimate answers to the important questions.
Seth Milman
3:51 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
You may be right. I may not yet have answers to a lot of these problems and questions. But I'm willing to discuss the issues to try to find solutions. I'm just not willing to be a punching bag on this forum. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
Manifold Witness
4:42 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Thank you, Seth.
Seth, you say you won’t be commenting any more. But you’ll be watching the debate.
We’re watching the videotape of the Town Council 3/12/12 meeting, item 15 at the 1 hour 7 minute mark, & comparing that to the will, the bylaws, the minutes, etc., & we're reviewing the issues related to how the Amey Tucker Spencer Trust money has been spent. Because there are poor and unfortunate people of said Town of Barrington who need help. That's what the $80,000/yr "shall" be used for.
We’ll continue to raise the important questions that need to be addressed properly right now. Because the Barrington taxes are too high. The budget is fast approaching $60,000,000 for 16,000 people. That’s about the budget of Bristol & Warren combined, yet Barrington has fewer than half the people.
Barrington residents are losing their homes. No joke. There are folks who are “underwater” & they can’t sell them for the assessed value. Yet these folks are part of the shrinking tax base that is supposed to subsidize hundreds more “affordable” housing units for people who do not live here right now – even though some of the existing “affordable” housing is empty (indicating a lack of local need for more) & there are already about 2,000 affordable homes in Barrington - affordable but for the high taxes.
"Big picture", Seth, thank you for your efforts as you work to understand, assess, & address the implications of these important issues.
Peace.
Seth Milman
11:42 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Thanks MW. I'll comment on the LMI bit. I'm not involved at all in the trust that you mentioned - it's not a planning board item - so I don't know much about it.
You said: "even though some of the existing “affordable” housing is empty (indicating a lack of local need for more) & there are already about 2,000 affordable homes in Barrington - affordable but for the high taxes."
I agree. I think most people agree with that. The problem with that argument, though, is that it buts heads with the LMI statutory language. And statutes have very thick heads. Your definition of "affordable" is any house that is low cost. Unfortuantely, the statute defines it as dwellings with 30 year deed restrictions. Your defintion of local need is based on occupancy. The statutory definition is not - it appears to define local need as the town's need to meet the 10% LMI limit. You can cry foul all day long about how we don't have a local need, and how we already have affordable housing, but that argument will fail because the statute defines those terms differently. The statute says "You must have 10% apples." The argument that "We already have oranges, and nobody in town likes apples" isn't going to work - it's a policy argument. The laws won't listen. On top of that, RI laws also require (REQUIRE!) towns to take 8% of rent in lieu of property taxes for these types of LMI developments. (See the Woonsocket article posted by Gary Morse). This creates the huge LMI tax burden. [to continue]
Seth Milman
11:58 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
[continued]
Any LMI developer that comes in with a proposal knows how these statutes work. If a developer complies with all these statutes, and we deny the application anyway because we decide to use a different definition of "affordable", i.e. because we already have oranges, then we will get sued. And, the developer will likely win that suit.
The way to battle these statutes is to convince the state legislators to change them, or show that they are unconstitutional. The latter is probably the more difficult route, in my opinion, or at least riskier. The other option, is to work within the statutory framework to minimize the impact on the town.
In an earlier post you said my mindset was that we complying with the law, therefore everything's OK. That's not my mindset. What I was trying to do is show the laws we are bound by. They are unfair, but we are bound by them. Simply arguing that we don't like them and we'd rather do something else isn't going to work, and it's a very costly proposition. We need to find a way to work within the statutory framework to achieve what is best for the town, or to come as close as we can to achieving what is best for the town. This is a much harder problem, but (at least in my experience) it is what the planning board strives to do with every application it sees.
I don't have a legitimate answer for how to avoid the LMI statutes. I don't know if we can. But we can continue to try to minimize the impact.
Seth Milman
1:27 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
At least until the LMI laws can be changed. Again, a very difficult problem. It seems that other towns are also burdened by these laws (again, the Woonsocket article where Woonsocket pleaded with the state for relief). Perhaps a coalition of towns could petition the legislators to change the laws. I personally don't think that Barrington should petition the legislature or otherwise try to battle the LMI laws on its own.
Manifold Witness
1:28 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Seth- thanks for continuing to spend time & energy on these issues.
Please read Barbara's astute comments.
We are starting with the premise that seniors should be able to retire in their own homes in this town. If they cannot afford to do so in this town, then we need to rethink our priorities to include a way to make it affordable for seniors to retire in their homes.
"Big Picture" -Florida shouldn't be the only option for the over-65. It's not good for our state & it's not good for Barrington.
Statutes can be changed, Seth. And some obviously need to be. The impact of the "affodable" housing statutes in practice is clearly not what was intended.
Some of the intended results of the "affordable housing" statutes are noble and deserving of our respect, yes. But now we can see the costly, bad unintended consequsences of these statutes as they are being implemented.
It is time, now, to come to terms with this- via an appropriate political process.
Laws, ordinances, etc., have to be changed through the proper means.
Folks who serve on boards and commissions (we sincerely thank you very much) maybe should ask themselves:
What's my authority?
Where does it come from?
What am I doing here?
When you have some time, do some independent thinking. Think about the inter related financial implications of various laws, ordinances, policies, practices, etc.
The Amey Tucker Spencer Trust issues will be addressed.
We thank you for doing your duty.
Manifold Witness
10:08 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
Hi Barbara-
Nothing you say is foolish. But, rather, you are very wise.
RFQ is a request for quotations.
The Amey Tucker Spencer Trust Fund generates about $80,000 a year in income that "shall" be used annually to help the poor and unfortunate people of said Town of Barrington. The 6 Trustees are the Town Councilors plus the Town Treasurer. They are supposed to have been meeting at least annually since about 2002, but their first (public) meeting is on January 28, 2012. Watch for the agenda. Please attend as they have a number of important issues to address related to how the money has been spent thus far.
The Town Council voted in 2012 (without the Town Treasurer) to adopt the first set of bylaws for the Amey Tucker Spencer Trust fund - but those bylaws state that the money can be used to "benefit" "persons", rather than "help" "people". This was an important error because "persons" includes corporations, but "people" does not. So (after the fact of a fair amount of spending) 5 of the Trustees voted that the money can be used to,in effect, benefit corportions. But that's not what the testator said so that's one of the problems that the 6 Trustees have to address when they have their first meeting on January 28.
It certainly begs a lot of questions.
Forget the expensive coffee shops where, for the price of admission, a public official will whisper the plan to a lucky few.
Government officials should say the plan
right out loud now.
Thanks, Barbara.
Gary Morse
10:14 am on Monday, January 21, 2013
Barbara,
As far as the affordable development for George Street, an RFQ (Request For Quote) is an informal way to get a project going by finding out who may have an interest in the project, and approximate costs.
At the moment, the Housing Board of Trustees have an RFQ floating for development of the George Street property, but they may have a slight problem.
The record shows that money may have been used out of the Spencer Trust Fund. That trust can only be used to benefit people (i.e. residents) of Barrington. But it appears the Housing Board was unaware of this.
At the meeting we both attended on Dec 18, 2012, you may recall Chairman Martin's comment about giving financial assistance to West Elmwood Housing out of the Spencer Trust, saying: "that's the purpose of the Spencer Trust".
The Housing Board didn't know that this is not the purpose of the Spencer Trust because the town's legal counsel changed the language of the original trust document.
Now that the Housing Board will be aware of this as of January 28 (the date of the first Spencer Trust meeting), they will understand that development can only be used to benefit Barrington residents, not non residents as is being done in Walker Farm (e.g. the "no interest loan" to West Elmwood).
I know it's getting hard to follow, but this is what our town has transformed into to expedite affordable development.
Manifold Witness
12:00 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Point of clarification, Gary, the language of the original trust document was not actually changed, despite the 4 to 1 vote of the Town Council on March 12, 2012 based on those new bylaws that were proposed by Mr. Ursillo.
More on this later.
Barbara Donovan
6:17 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
Manifold - thanks for the clarification - now I feel like I am an "in" person knowing the "lingo".
I do think I understand the business surrounding the Trust because I was at the Housing Trustees meeting the evening it was brought up and Gary has been kind enough to explain it to me.
And Gary, I believe at that trustees meeting that you reference, Linda Testa did bring up the fact that she understood that the money was not intended to "bail out" the developer. Chalk one up for the good guys !!
I also understand that the Town Council and the Planning Board and all the other boards we have in Town are filled with volunteers. Folks just like you all and myself who are trying hard to do the right thing for all of us.
It is a hard job and we, the people, are here to help them by letting them know what our concerns are so they can be guided by us as to our needs.
That is our responsibility as citizens of this Town !!
I also see no reason not to talk to each other one-on-one if there are issues that are confusing or we lack knowledge of. We are all grownups - and are working for the same cause which is to SAVE BARRINGTON !!!
Now, I also would like to make another statement about the meeting held on Jan.15th. If you recall - at the very beginning of the meeting,the representative
from EBCDC made a comment about the waterfront.
If they ignore us and our needs, they need to be replaced. Plain and simple !!
Barbara Donovan
7:05 pm on Monday, January 21, 2013
(cont) - please ignore the last sentence - it is out of context - it should be after the sentence beginning "It is a hard job --------.
Now to continue my thought about EBCDC's comment. Mr. Spinella their representative stated that he wanted to "mention" that the question of the waterfront access was "not clear". It was a quick comment that I picked up on - not sure if anyone else got it.
A little later in the evening, a gentleman from the audience spoke up and said "I have lived in the" Meadows" many years and there was never access through that property to the water".
I (me) lived in "the meadows" on Fireside Drive from 1965 until 2001. I raised 4 children in that house. One of them told me a few weeks ago that when they were in high school, the kids used to "go down to the water through the nursery property lots of times. There is a path".
We are giving one of our most pristine spots to a developer - where is the "long list of possible occupants from Barrington" ?
Where is the need from Barrington residents - it is the senior population !!! Barbara Donovan
Gary Morse
7:17 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Barbara,
As far as the Planning Board and Housing Board volunteers, you need to get perspective on the fact that volunteer representatives have been posting information here since last Tuesday's meeting, but your "excellent question" regarding how many Barrington residents are on the waiting list to get into Sweetbriar has gone unanswered.
The two questions residents were told answers would be provided were: 1) how many current residents at Sweetbriar were from Barrington, and 2) how many on the waiting list are from Barrington?
That question has been buried in the noise, as I suspected it would.
You will not make sufficient progress on senior housing until our town volunteers understand that they have been part of the problem in sweeping the senior needs under the rug by focusing on policies that favor residents from other towns, and other states.
The boards need to refocus before it is too late. The land at Palmer Pointe has still not been rezoned to accommodate the EBCDC Palmer Pointe project. Pressure needs to start on an initiative to rezone it as an affordable seniors project.
To push through seniors only affordable zoning will require seniors to get organized and start showing up at these meetings. The seniors are NOT well organized relying instead on the efforts of just a few.
steve martin
9:12 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Gary and Barbara, I agree with you, I would like to have the two questions answered. We certainly don't have that info, I don't know if EBCDC would provide it and I don't know if it is public information. If your name was on the list would you want it made public? But we can ask them by asking the town planner to request it.
For all those advocating for a senior development at Palmer Point I ask this; there is zero federal or state subsidy money available for senior housing. Palmer Point, as discussed on 1/15 is relying on approximately $14,000,000 of federal tax credits to make the project viable. Are you willing to spend at least $10,000,000 of Barrington taxpayer funds for an affordable senior project? Short of a benefactor of comparable size, the project doesn't otherwise work !
Gary Morse
10:03 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Steve,
We haven't been focused on a seniors project in this town for over a decade. When the money was available, and the town was required by law to write a comprehensive community plan, and the land at Sowam's might have been purchased with grants, town officials were sitting on their hands.
The town needs to make senior housing a FIRST PRIORITY, not an after thought.
It is more difficult now, but not impossible. The math you speak about leaves out the long term carrying costs by the town for all the new liabilities Sowam's will create.
The town planners are working without a long term impact study, and have tunnel vision. That needs to be fixed. But residents have to get engaged, particularly the seniors. Short of Barbara Donovan, they have been AWOL on this issue.
This can be done if the seniors themselves will get engaged.
Barbara Donovan
11:09 am on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
I am thinking --- how do you get seniors to show up at meetings ???
Most of them don't like to drive at night -- some never drive at night.
Many of them are alone - women don't like to be out at night alone on the road. Especially in the winter.
Single seniors try to keep a low profile for safety sake.
Seniors are vulnerable - that is why we depend on our Town officials to help us.
There will never be a meeting at night where you will see a majority of seniors attending.
I believe the meeting held on Jan. 16th at the library was representative of how the town feels about the Sowams project. If you recall, most were young people with just a scattering of elders, who probably got a ride with a neighbor.
I look around me and see many seniors who cannot afford "senior living" in private local facilities, move out of town. In doing so, many lose their long time friends and support system because of distance. They are lost among strangers because they had no place to go in their "home town".
Barrington is not a poor Town. We have resources and a strong tax base. A school system that draws new residents from far and wide. A first class Donald Ross golf course, a yacht club with waterway that leads into Narragansett Bay. A new modern YMCA facility, parks, beaches and lovely open spaces that can be enjoyed by all ------ until you get old.
Then you are shown the door. Barbara
Barbara Donovan
1:21 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Actually, this includes seniors who can afford independent condo living. So, there is really no place for ANY seniors in Barrington !! Barbara
Lorraine F
4:40 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Day 7 - Planning Board has not answered the "excellent question" asked at the Jan 15th Planning Board meeting.
Seniors patiently waiting!
Ignorance is not bliss
10:58 am on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Ask the affordable housing questions at the forum with State Representative Joy Hearn on Monday February 4th. Ask Joy where she stands on the affordable housing mandate. Has she talked to other towns who also feel the mandate is unfair and unnecessary? There are articles on Patch about Woonsocket, Charlestown and Richmond. I am sure there are other towns who would rally behind changing the mandate. http://barrington.patch.com/articles/hearn-to-host-constituents-forum