Taking from the poor and unfortunate to give to...?
On March 4, 2013, the Trustees of the Amey Tucker Spencer Trust Fund (Spencer Trust) will have their second-ever meeting at the Barrington Town Hall. The recently appointed Trustees consists of the sitting Town Council members, plus Town Treasurer, Dean Huff.
The Spencer Trust is a multi-million dollar trust fund that came to the town eight years ago thanks to the generosity of the late Wilton Spencer. Mr. Spencer set aside the trust fund to help specified people - Barrington's "poor and unfortunate" residents. At last month’s first-ever Trustee meeting, Town Solicitor Michael Ursillo said that means the trust is to help people who are “under the federal poverty level".
The “Federal Poverty Level” is an annual income of less than $23,050 for a family of four.
Are there any "poor and unfortunate" people in Barrington? The 2012 US Census Factfinder income data shows approximately 10 - 15% of Barrington households qualify to be helped by Spencer Trust money. But this question is perhaps best answered by groups like the East Bay Community Action Program who generally use up what little they are provided from the Spencer Trust within weeks of receipt of the funds.
Since 2005, the bulk of funds from the Spencer Trust have not been used to help Barrington residents at the poverty level, but instead, have gone to benefit persons living at about four times the federal poverty level, most of whom were not even residents of Barrington.
How did that happen? It's a mystery. There were no Trustee meetings prior to 2013. In spite of the funds coming to the town in 2005, the legally required Charitable Trust Registration Statement for the Spencer Trust was just filed with the RI Attorney General's Office last month.
What has been going on? For more than two years following the time that the Spencer Trust came to Barrington (January 2005), not a single penny was provided to town residents who might have needed help. The very first check paid out from the Spencer Trust was on June 1, 2007 for $10,000 payable to Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage for a deposit on land that was later sold to West Elmwood Housing for one dollar for the “affordable” development known in town as Walker Farms.
About 80% of the disbursed Spencer Trust funds have been spent on affordable housing development for non-residents and not to help the poor and unfortunate people of Barrington. Beginning in 2009, funds were spent in large amounts on a proposed affordable housing development at 139 George Street. This project was described by Barrington Town Planner Phil Hervey as: "... to develop six to eight "cottage"-style housing units at 139 George Street to include a minimum of five LMI units".
In a 2012 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to the State of RI, Town Planner Hervey wrote: "The Town purchased the property in March 2010 for $275,000 using the Town's Spencer Trust fund". Mr. Hervey went on to say that the Spencer Trust Fund is "designated for the benefit of low income people". Mr Hervey goes on to point out: "The Housing Board of Trustees is taking the lead on this project".
In fact, those who could qualify for affordable home ownership in the George St. project can have income levels up to four times that of the federal poverty level. Using 2012 HUD income data as provided by RI Housing, a family of four can have an annual income of over $90,000 to qualify for home ownership in the proposed George St. project. Further, such applicants do not have to be a resident of Barrington, or even the State of RI.
According to the 2012 US Census Factfinder Data, close to half of Barrington's households fall into the affordable housing income threshold level. Did the late Wilton Spencer intend that the Spencer Trust consider half of Barrington's households as "poor and unfortunate"? Or that potential future residents be considered as "residing" in Barrington?
It appears that the Spencer Trust Fund has been misused. Instead of being directed to help poor and unfortunate Barrington residents who may find themselves on financial hard times, it has been used to promote an affordable housing political agenda.
The next meeting of the Spencer Trustees will be held on March 4th at 6pm in the Barrington Town Hall. Please attend if you can to show support for the new Spencer Trustees to put these funds back where they rightfully belong - to help the poor and unfortunate people of Barrington at the time the money is spent.
Lorraine F
7:27 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
My state pension is half that "affordable housing income threshold" amount.
Does this mean I can get financial help from the Spencer Trust?
Anon
9:38 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I think that anyone who moves to Barrington is a Barrington resident, no? According to what you've laid out, only people who move to Barrington receive any benefit. Since people who move to Barrington are Barrington residents, it seems like it all works out.
Is there some reason the funds can only help people who are previous Barrington residents instead of new Barrington residents?
Gary Morse
10:20 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Anon,
Page 3 of the Spencer will says: "to help the poor and unfortunate people of said Town of Barrington..".
Now I know there are those who might say things like a "family member" is the family of the world, and that's not a bad way to see things in life.
But it doesn't matter what either of us think, the question is what did Wilton Spencer have in mind when he used the words "people of said Town of Barrington" when the will was probated back in 1936.
More important to this discussion is trying to link those who can qualify for affordable home ownership as being "poor and unfortunate".
Most don't realize that the qualification process for affordable home ownership allows any amount of money to be in the applicants bank account. Any amount.
Only the annual household income is a criteria to qualify for an affordable home. How people flush with cash in the bank can be considered "poor and unfortunate" is what is in question here.
marina peterson
10:30 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I believe that the point here is that the money was intended to help Barrington RESIDENTS in need, not to provide funds for the Town to purchase property to build low-income housing, This is the most outrageous scam I have ever heard of! As Michael Ursillo said, that means the trust is to help people who are “under the federal poverty level" which is an annual income of less than $23,050 for a family of four. To take this money to build housing for residents who have an annual income of $90,000 is going beyond all standards of what is right.
I would assume that by "Barrington resident" it is meant that the person/people are already residents of Barrington. I do not see how it would apply to someone moving here from another area just to take advantage of the funding. Common sense would tell you that!
Mr. Ursillo seems to be involved in all of our "questionable" projects in the east bay. EBEC, Spencer Trust, the Sowams Nursery project.. to name a few.
Some people really know how to "work the system"!
Lorraine F
10:53 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Gary - The Spencer Trust money was spent back in 2010, but as far as I know, there is no affordable development in the Four Town Farms area (George St). What's the status?
Gary Morse
12:08 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lorraine,
Actually the spending from the Spencer Trust for the George St project began a year earlier in April of 2009 with a first payment to Fuss & O'Neill, an environmental engineering firm doing work on this project.
A total of $284,792 from the trust has been spent on this project since 2009, and as you point out, there is no affordable housing anywhere in Nockum Hill.
Currently, the Housing Board of Trustee's are searching for a developer. It has been suggested that before they move further along, they might want to have a review of this project with the new Spencer Trustees who are actually the decision makers.
There is concern as to how $284,792 in assets out of the Spencer Trust can be tied up for so long with little benefit shown. The Trust states that the funds (the generated interest from the trust) "shall be used annually".
It's hard to imagine that during the worst recession since the great depression (2008-2010), there were no financial hardship cases in Barrington that might have needed some financial help.
Gary Morse
1:06 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Lorraine,
One other point in response to yours, and the post above by Anon ("anyone who moves to Barrington is a Barrington resident")
It's an absurd stretch to say that it's proper to allocate the limited funds from the trust in 2009 to benefit a future resident who might be here sometime in 2015 when the project might be completed.
This would have to argue that there was no possibility that an existing resident could have benefited from these limited funds during the years 2009 - 2015.
The funds are supposed to provide benefit as the money is spent, not be squirreled away for potential future benefit.
Anon
1:35 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
It's not an absurd stretch at all. You just want to make noise.
It's not absurd because as soon as anyone moves into a development in Barrington, voila! They are a Barrington resident. Therefore, only Barrington residents can benefit from the development.
You argument presupposes that the trust money can only be used to benefit people who've been residents for a predetermined amount of time. Or only benefit people who were residents at a particular point in time. Anyone who moves into town now or in the future can't be allowed to benefit from the trust, according to you. That's the absurd stretch. Where did you come up with that one?
Also, didn't someone post something in another one of your dumb threads about how it's all a loan and will be (or already as been) paid back? Did you forget to mention that detail? If all the money's going to be paid back, then really, who cares!?!?!? What do you do all day besides bring up these ridiculous issues on The Patch?
Gary Morse
2:00 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Anon,
I'll leave it that we agree to disagree on who is a resident.
As to your assumption that the spending for the George St project is based on a loan, where did you get that information? It's not a loan according to the town officials I've spoken to. There is no document that any of this was based on a loan.
Where are you getting your information (on the George St project)?
Lorraine F
2:46 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Gary - As a resident living on a small pension, thank you for keeping track of our wayward town officials. Their view is that people like me need to sell my home and move out, or move into one of their affordable projects.
As for Anon's "dumb threads" comment, he/she always starts throwing insults when he / she begins losing the argument.
Anon
4:27 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Winning or losing, I throw insults. I just like to throw them at assenines. (take away the "enin" and you'll understand).
Speaking of which, perhaps you should take your small pension elsewhere. Things are cheaper in pawtucket and north providence. Lord knows I've been there. Moving the hell out sounds like a pretty good idea - you should do it. You'll have less to complain about. I'll be moving out as soon as I'm able. Moving into the affordable unit sounds good, too. Maybe if I wanted to stay in town I'd try it - but you barringtonites make me sick with your big smiles going into the starbucks and the bookstore to play keep up with the joneses, and then complaining about how bad you have it and how its so unfair that the town is so expensive. hypocrites. Try living in pawtucket or north providence for a while, then maybe you'll shut your mouth about this ridiculous garbage that Morse gets so upset about. He's just a blowhard.
But please do tell how, exactly, was I losing the argument? Morse's definition of resident is off base. A resident is someone who lives somewhere. Look it up. Morse just wants to circle the wagons so that only his dog-cutting buddies who've already been living in town can benefit from the funds.
As for the loan thing - I don't know where that information came from. I really don't care. Didn't some town counselor say something like that one one of the forums? it was $1, or it was a loan, or it cost the fund nothing? I don't really care.
Manifold Witness
4:36 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Anon, the facts are to be determined before-the-fact of the spending, not after-the-fact.
The Spencer Trust money is to be used ANNUALLY to help the poor AND unfortunate people OF BARRINGTON - poor AND unfortunate OF Barrington AT the time the money is spent. It’s not to be used to move people into Barrington and then later claim that it's ok because now they are residents. It's not to be used to benefit corporations. It's not to be used to benefit corporations that are not OF Barrington.
(Administering the money to help the poor and unfortunate people of Barrington - as Tap In might do, or as East Bay CAP does is not the same as the inappropriate "benefitting persons" described herein.)
The Trustees saved up the money (they didn’t use it annually)
and then they used a bunch of it
to BENEFIT PERSONS (including corporations)
who were NOT residents OF BARRINGTON at the time the money was spent.
Nor were (are) they “POOR AND UNFORTUNATE”.
The problem, Anon, is that those "persons benefitted" weren’t "poor and unfortunate" Barrington residents at the time the money was spent. The trust isn't supposed to be used to import people. Or to benefit corporations.
And the money that is owed back to the trust should not be used to “benefit persons” who didn’t qualify at the time the money should have been spent properly.
Because that would be yet another big bad wrong.
But we think you really do know all that already.
;-)
Anon
4:57 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
poor AND unfortunate OF Barrington AT the time the money is spent.
Oh? And where, pray tell, did you get that? The trust says "at the time the money is spent"? I think you're making that requirement up. The trust says it's not to be used to import people? I doubt that, too. Any charity imports people. It's the nature of charity. Do you know why Boston has more homeless than Providence? Because Boston has better services for the homeless - so they go to Boston. Build a charity and qualified recipients will immigrate.
Manifold Witness
5:14 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
We're supposed to believe that Boston's motto is "Import 'em and keep 'em homeless", right Anon?
Too funny, Anon.
We're not talking about just any Boston "charity" here. We're talking about the Spencer Trust. You know what it says. You know what it's for. You know that the requirements must be met at the time the money is spent. You know they weren't met.
Come on. We think you're a lot smarter than you pretend to be.
Lorraine F
5:26 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Anon,
Let's assume for arguments sake your premise is correct on the "who is a resident" debate. I'd like to know how you rationalize how people with money in the bank and making $90,000 a year can ever be considered "poor and unfortunate".
It's apparent you've never had to fill out a financial aid application for college tuition. They want to know where every penny is in your life.
Same for food stamps where the state wants to know each year what's been in your bank account.
You seem to be arguing that people earning $90K a year with undisclosed funds in a bank account should have the freedom to label themselves "poor and unfortunate" and dip into the Spencer Trust.
This is really about how the town officials have corrupted the intent of this trust. You seem to be working really hard to get that message off the radar screen.
Anon
1:02 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013
"Poor and unfortunate barrington residents" is an oxymoron. "Poor and unfortunate south providence residents." I'll buy that one. "Poor and unfortunate south boston residents." Same.
And oh - yes, I did have to fill out that financial aid application. But my financial aid was cut by bush who don't want to help others out and would rather pay for a war so that his oil buddies could get rich. So my pell grants went away and I wasn't able to finish college. (yet) They sounded a lot like you: we don't want to pay for entitlement programs. Just like you.
I thought about applying for low income hoousing. I probably qualify but I'm so sick of attitudes like yours in this town that there's no way I'll live here long term with you exclusionary, prejudice, hipocrites.
Lorraine F
5:37 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Anon,
To your point of my moving to North Providence, I moved away from North Providence to Barrington to upgrade my life. Many people work hard to make a change in their lives. It's what this town is all about.
You will learn about that when you get your wish and move away.
Anon
12:39 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013
So basically, you want the upgrade but you don't want to have to pay their high tax cost because you have a small pension. Is that about right? You would deny those same benefits to people who haven't been a resident long enough. Better circle the wagons so you can have your starbucks. You must be a sweetheart.
Lorraine F
1:06 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013
Anon,
I must commend you on your relentless twisting of other peoples words in order to make your own point. You don't seem the least bit embarrassed at your lack of command of the English language.
For this entire discussion, you've avoided the main issue which is how to classify any person earning $90,000 a year as "poor and unfortunate" and thus entitled to any benefit in any form out of the Spencer Trust.
You are good at one thing, and that's making the counterpoint effortless.
Manifold Witness
5:39 pm on Friday, March 1, 2013
Good news, Anon.
Anon, you are obviously a very, very smart and thoughtful person and given the way you weave those political issues into a sentence, well, you sound as though you already have a doctorate in poli sci.
You are very nice and you are obviously a very caring person to be so concerned about others when – as you say – you, also, are in dire need of help.
We can see that you are very stressed out right now. We're sorry.
There are places to go to get help - East Bay CAP, TAP IN, etc. There is free assistance of all kinds in RI, and some places have a sliding fee scale - they will see what you can afford.
The good news is that the Amey Tucker Spencer Trustees are going to have to have a legitimate application process for those who qualify for Spencer Trust money. You can apply and get the help you are entitled to. We wish you the best.
Henry Doyle
7:48 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
It's unfortunate that a trust left by someone trying to improve the lives of low income Barrington residents gets pilfered by the affordable housing mafia. The whole affordable housing concept is a ruse, a con, a grift. How about putting people in existing homes rather than feeding the machine that is the "affordable housing" grift.
CRG
12:51 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
If the Spencer Trust meeting is open, will there be an opportunity for comments and for the Board to be held accountable to the requirements of the trust? Are there mechanisms in place for maintaining the spirit and law of the Trust? If so, how do we best go about holding the Trustees accountable to their fiduciary and social responsibilities?
Gary Morse
1:37 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
The meeting notice does not have a place for public comment.
http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/6100/2013/138543.pdf
I do give credit to Councilor Speakman (the Chair of the Trustees) in that she is good about responding to residents raising their hand for a question or comment.
But crowd control is always an issue, so I know that she will appreciate comments that are to the point, and respectful.
Manifold Witness
3:43 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Someone could ask the Attorney General's Charitable Trust Division's Assistant Attorney General Division Chief Jim Lee to be present at the meeting.
Ts9x
6:35 pm on Saturday, March 2, 2013
Gary morse. Thank you !