Dear Citizens of Gloucester ... (high density building)
Dear Citizens of Gloucester,
After attending the most recent ZBA meetings concerning the 30 unit subsidized housing project, Harbor Village, I noted a sparse showing vs. the Aug. 27th meeting. I think many of you think Harbor Village is a done deal as presented. It isn’t - you need to show up to the ZBA meetings to voice your concerns. This is a large project and we need not to act impulsively to reach our affordable housing goal.
Before criticizing my comments, I ask you not to shoot the messenger. I’ve worked many years finding affordable housing for city residents living in Boston. I have seen more of these housing projects fail versus succeed. I define failure by not delivering quality living to these residents because of poor management, overcrowding, parking issues, and lack of onsite outside space. Financial failure of for subsidized housing projects is unlikely for they receive a guaranteed rent check for each unit monthly.
Over the years of helping a diverse population, I have become educated about the true endeavor of 40B developers. It is not as altruistic as you may think. Posing as a nonprofit developer brings enormous benefits to the development team. An article which sheds light on this is ‘Report Bolsters Town’ on Boston.com. Though there are project cost limits set by the Commonwealth, former Inspector General Gregory Sullivan cites the overstating of expenses due to the “lack of arms-length relationships...” between the developer and their partners. Overall, the name of the game is money; maximizing profits for Action, NSCDC and their private investors such as ICON. For those of you are unaware, ICON is an investor of the project.
There were people, some city officials, who plead their case before the ZBA board on Feb. 2nd as to why this project should go forward – As Is. The need for affordable housing in Gloucester is a mute point – we all recognize and agree about the need. What inadvertently is not thought out by these people who want to fast track this project is the core function of our ZBA which is to protect the property values and similar uses in a designated district; hence, in this case, high density with building mass and height are in question. A scale model vs. computer generated images would be helpful. Many Gloucester residents were surprised about the true size of our new hotel once constructed. A scale model in that case would have given our city a clearer picture of the building’s mass after its completion. The building has been described by many as being shoehorned onto this small lot and they are surprised to learn that it can legally house up to 108 people. It is common within housing projects for occupancy to eventually exceed the limits. Occupancy is very hard to enforce.
Additionally, an attendee stated, “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” regarding the Seaport Condos. Six units built within the three story limit is no comparison to a 30 unit complex. These geese that paid $300K to $400K for their units have a reasonable expectation to believe that a high density building with shadow would not be built next door. It is reasonable to expect a building with 15-20 residential units whether affordable or not to be within the realm of current use.
And ironically, the goose who sold them their condo is the same goose who sold Cameron’s to Action. A family member does reside on Action’s Board of Directors. The analogy does not apply.
Because this is a 40B project, it doesn’t mean that the city loses the right to demand for certain requirements to be met. Why shouldn’t the above requests be addressed when we the taxpayers have given Action Inc. financial assistance through our CPA funds. Does the attitude of 40B entitlement prevail? I asked Michelle Apigian, an ICON team project manager, about keeping the height within the zoning bylaws. She replied, “three stories won’t work for us”. How about considering what will work for the people who live here? How about pushing back the giant rear wall back three feet so windows can be installed? Future Harbor Village residents deserve more windows and central AC. And, consider what it would be like if you were a homeowner behind the project who has to look at a 4 story wall with a giant mural. This would be considered an adverse factor on a residential appraisal. These homeowners have every right to file for a tax abatement.
Gloucester officials need to question how will Harbor Village prioritize affordable housing for Gloucester residents. Will this project increase our affordable housingstock?
Gloucester residents who are in need of affordable housing will not be the preference if the ZBA does not include Gloucester’s inclusionary housing rule as a stipulation. This clause requires 70% of the units to be inhabited by Gloucester residents. The developer indicated that they will ask the State for a Gloucester preference. It takes more than asking someone. Housing data such as input from the Gloucester Housing Authority and MAPC (Metropolitan Area Planning Council) have to be submitted. Will this project be voucher based? If not, then it has adds nothing to Gloucester’s affordable housing stock. Why? The voucher is not ‘city housing specific’.
Gloucester is in dire need of affordable one bedroom units. The aging population who do not fall into the ‘family category’ is growing significantly. This was cited at the Jan. 28th Housing Production Plan meeting. According to the Gloucester Housing Authority, there are currently 53 applicants waiting for a 4 bedrm, 107 for a three bdrm, 266 for a 2 bdrm and a staggering 401 for a one bdrm. There is no help for a non-disabled single person. The GHA asked Action Inc to add more one bedrooms.
Where are these Gloucester citizens who I consider to be Gloucester’s unrecognized population to live other than rooming houses or at the Action Shelter. Harbor Village made a small concession of increasing the number of one bdrms units from seven to ten. Family housing is usually the focus which is a reason as to why the housing need of a single non-disabled person is lost.
And to a final point, to the people who think that an affordable housing project located in the heart of a downtown district is a good idea, you have not factored in the economics of what makes downtown businesses thrive when competing against malls and online shopping – moderate disposable income by local residents and destination trips by outsiders. This is downtown economics 101 and not an ‘elitist theory’.
Many people do wonder as to why the Board of Action’s directors did not discuss a plan to develop an affordable housing project prior to this particular purchase with our city officials. There could have been other possibilities to purchase a larger site more conducive to families, and one with less concerns. With the help of the MAPC, Gloucester will be able to reach its housing goal. In the meantime, let’s not miss the boat with this project and approach our affordable housing dilemma prudently to eliminate the possibility of any future regrets.
Alicia DeHaai
Gloucester, MA 01930
Related:
https://www.mass.gov/doc/gloucester-housing-production-plan/download
https://northshorecdc.org/properties/harbor-village-206-main-st
