* - - - UPDATED - - - *
The "complete" version of the Bettencourt Plan was presented to the City Council and it includes specifics such as income requirements and the need to be current with all City charges. The problem still is that this is using money already earmarked for a different purpose... and using it to duplicate many programs and services already offered to those in need from federal, state and local programs. Read the Salem News article here. And... a Salem News editorial is here.
Ted Bettencourt and the whole City Council want to spend AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONEY, after scolding the City for NOT using it to build new units, to help people pay their heating bills.
Read the Salem News story here.
Now, don't get me wrong... I have been accused of being so liberal I make Obama seem like a Republican (I would dispute that but there you go) and as a champion of the less fortunate, I would gladly support helping people in need during the cold winter months.
But the utter disdain that the City Council has for both the rule and spirit of the law is quite startling. This money is supposed to be used by the City to create AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. It should NOT be used to install new backstops at the ball fields; it should NOT be used to buy the Fire Department a new engine; it should NOT be used to pay for A FULL ROUND OF DRINKS at the City Council Christmas Party.... AND IT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO FUND A CHARITY.
I am all for charity - heck I have given to the local institutions every year since I can remember. But this money IS NOT and CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be used for this purpose.
And wouldn't you agree that this is just a tiny bit disingenuous. Less than 6 weeks ago, the City Council voted to REMOVE the ability of the City to collect just such a fee from developers. The reasons for doing this?
The inclusionary zoning buyout option was intended to give flexibility to developers and the city, which could use payments to fund affordable housing programs or directly develop housing for low-income residents. But City Council President Arthur Athas highlighted its limited impact during a meeting last week. "We have actually nothing to show for it," he said. ...Councilor Rico Mello said he could see the advantage the buyout gives developers but not the benefit it offered the city. The vote was 8-2, with Dave Gamache and Barry Osborne objecting. Getting something was better than nothing, they both said. "We might as well take the money," Osborne said.
I guess a whole lot can happen in 6 weeks time.
And don;t even get me started with the way the brain trust of some on the Council works... You come up with a tiny fragment of an idea... and instead of researching the rules and regulations, instead of seeing the feasibility of such actions... instead of DOING YOUR HOMEWORK LIKE YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO...
You make a grandiose proposal in order to garner LOTS OF ATTENTION ON YOU... and then hand it off to someone else to put the lipstick on your pig.
And if they bother to point out all the PROBLEMS you never even bothered too address... well then THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH.
Such 3rd grade politics. I opine for the days when Peabody was considered an actual hotbed of political energy and was filled with politicians worth of the public trust.
7 comments:
Jorge and PI you are both a couple of boobs. You both post the same thing with different view. I was on both sites after Midnight last night and neither post was there. Now PI's post was posted at 11:15 or so last night. Jorge you posted yours at 10:53 or so last night.
I know you can change post time to what you want.
Run the blog and stop competing. You are both driving away your readership. Comments are way down on both sites.
Hi Anon:
On Fridays my schedule is such that I can't get back on my computer until late in the evening.
That is why my posts were not up until then.
On other days I have the luxury of a few minutes here-and-there during working hours to read the news and post articles on issues I think people will find interesting or at least might care about.
Now, you are entitled to your opinion of me (or Jorge) of course, but I see a major difference between our sites...
On The Peabody Patriot you have a stated interest in posting rumors and gossip concerning Peabody officials. Here, I try and post items of interest to Peabody readers with my personal opinions and insights... and especially WHY I have come to those conclusions.
I hope you will find the time to still check out both these sites. You are certainly welcome back here any time.
Oh and this too...
I actually have never "changed the post time" on any of my posts nor do I know how to do it. But I might look into it if it becomes necessary for some reason.
PI please tell us the last time we could trust our elected officials? Also why use any of this money to create housing that will not be able to be sold in this current market? I say help those that have to chose between food or heat. I think this is a great use of this money at this time. Also this is not taxpayer money. It is a buyout from a contractor. So why not use this to help our current residents and keep them here in the city.
Anon:
I totally agree with your sentiments.
And I knew I would be taking an unpopular stance against this plan.
But the bottom line is that this money is in response to a specific legal requirement that the City Council passed and it is part of the City rules.
The City made these rules into law and can't just go and break them.
What if the City enacted a law charging a $2.00 extra fee on every parking space within the Downtown for the purposes of building a City Garage. The City could not then just use those funds for any old reason that came along... not when they are legally bound to be used to fund a garage.
This is the same thing. The rules say we can force developers to build a certain portion of large projects to have a certain percentage be classified as AFFORDABLE. BUT... we also allow them to choose a buy-out provision that gives the City money FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING instead.
Now, Community Development has recently taken a page from the Torigian (and Mavroules too) Centennial Park playbook. Jean Delios proposed using these funds as a revolving credit pool to assist local developers to purchase and rehab derelict, foreclosed, and/or abandoned properties in the City. The City would NOT be the primary lender (too much risk) but they would be a secondary holder and as such would REQUIRE THAT A PORTION OF THESE UNITS BE AFFORDABLE.
Then... when the borrowed amount is repaid PLUS INTEREST (low interest), it becomes available to loan out again. And in this way we create new affordable housing within the City AND clean up these derelict properties that are ruining the quality of life for many Peabody residents.
Trust me. I am all for helping out those in need. But this is not the correct way to do this. This is simply shifting the burdens from one pocket to another... and if you are asking "But who is it gonna hurt if we lose that money?" The answer is EVERYONE. Because if Peabody does NOT get more affordable units into the mix, we are subject to the HORRORS of 40B PROJECTS.
NO ONE IS BUILDING!!!!!!!!
Just wanted to make sure you understand that. I do not care what it is for. Real Estate is done for now. No one is buying anything not because they do not want to. The banks are not loaning money. And before you mention the bailout money we are 6 months away. I hope everyone knows nothing will get done until Obama is sworn in. Paulson can no longer be trusted no one is going to allow him to spend any of that money.
It would be nice if we had that money back from spring pond. Or the 400k from the city hall windows. Oh and how much is Endicott clean up going to cost us.
Actually... people are still building... especially when they are remodeling existing multi-family homes (think apartment houses).
With the availability of credit lower than it had been, many folks who were in the market for a home purchase will need to rent instead. Real estate business folks know this. And they also know the time to build (or renovate) is just when the demand (and thus price) for construction is low - as it is starting to trend towards.
Also, the credit crunch is not really the giant change you are implying here. And I am certainly not blaming you - the news media can't seem to stop reporting about the terrible credit crunch.
But the reality is that the credit markets have simply returned to the way they USED TO consider credit worthyness about 10-15 years ago. So if you have too much debt already... or not enough income... or have too many 'bad marks' on your credit report... you are going to get no (more) credit.
Now I will agree with you that very little is selling right now. But some properties are... one on Lowell St. just sold, and I know a young couple who just bought in Danvers... so it isn't dead, just seriously soft.
And again, these places are not going to be sold, they would most likely be rented.
Mass DHCD(as of September 9, 2008) has Peabody just above the dreaded 40B threshold of 10% (10.4%) But this is updated monthly and just a few more or less might make all the difference.
Post a Comment