Fuller Watch

drinkycrow
Joined: 10 May 2007, 13:48

11 Oct 2017, 20:19 #681

DM3194 wrote: I wish we could get some more input from Dianna Ploss on the Fuller issue.
LOL!! Yeah, Why not!
Reply

drinkycrow
Joined: 10 May 2007, 13:48

11 Oct 2017, 20:20 #682

Cathy (Admin) wrote:
drinkycrow wrote: Bottom line. This a move by the developer and the city to keep those people out. Anyone who cant see this is willfully blind or complicit.
I don't think that. 

From the ordinance:

"Preference for City Residents and Persons Employed within the City : Unless otherwise prohibited by a federal or state agency under a financing or other subsidy program, not less than seventy percent (70%) of the affordable dwelling units within the development shall be offered to eligible households who are current residents of the City of Gloucester or who are currently employed in Gloucester."

As I understand it, if there is no state or federal money involved in a development, 70% of the affordable units must be offered to eligible households who currently live or work in Gloucester.  So if the developer provides affordable on-site (or maybe even off-site), that would apply.  If a contribution is made to the housing trust and used to leverage federal and state money to provide other affordable housing, the City has no, or little, control over the occupancy.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
How much are the rents again??
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

11 Oct 2017, 22:59 #683

Estimated rent for the affordable units:  $1289/mo for a 1 BR and $1485/mo for a 2 BR.

The developer, indeed, does not want to include the affordable units, on-site, in a "luxury" rental development and has made that clear from day one.  However, Dolben, a seasoned and successful developer, has met affordable requirements (including 40B) at other very similar developments and makes it work, so I don't know why they are so adamant about it at this location.  While I do not think that the City is out to keep anyone out of the development, I don't have an answer for why the administration, and some of the decision makers, have just rolled over on this issue from the very beginning - from accepting a response to the RFP that included the statement, "in an effort to maximize the purchase price to the City, we have elected to include only market-rate housing in our proposal" (if that's not grounds to toss the response right then and try again...) to agreeing to take the in-lieu "contribution" out of the purchase price.  Even more than allowing the in-lieu, the contribution deal is such a big wtf.
Reply

drinkycrow
Joined: 10 May 2007, 13:48

11 Oct 2017, 23:25 #684

DM3194 wrote: I wish we could get some more input from Dianna Ploss on the Fuller issue.

Wealthy communities don't get refugees. Working class communities do. Towns that build low-income housing, become refugee magnets.  Dianna Ploss
Reply

drinkycrow
Joined: 10 May 2007, 13:48

11 Oct 2017, 23:33 #685

Cathy (Admin) wrote: Estimated rent for the affordable units:  $1289/mo for a 1 BR and $1485/mo for a 2 BR.

The developer, indeed, does not want to include the affordable units, on-site, in a "luxury" rental development and has made that clear from day one.  However, Dolben, a seasoned and successful developer, has met affordable requirements (including 40B) at other very similar developments and makes it work, so I don't know why they are so adamant about it at this location.  While I do not think that the City is out to keep anyone out of the development, I don't have an answer for why the administration, and some of the decision makers, have just rolled over on this issue from the very beginning - from accepting a response to the RFP that included the statement, "in an effort to maximize the purchase price to the City, we have elected to include only market-rate housing in our proposal" (if that's not grounds to toss the response right then and try again...) to agreeing to take the in-lieu "contribution" out of the purchase price.  Even more than allowing the in-lieu, the contribution deal is such a big wtf.
And how much *affordable* housing will be created with that? Answer.0.
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

11 Oct 2017, 23:36 #686

So far the response from councilors on having a third party opinion of the hardship request has been good...and I have a lot more to hear back from.

BTW...why is there not contact info for Planning Board members on the city website?  Three have phone numbers, no emails and nothing at all for three of them.  They do kind of make important decisions!
Reply

Karly
Joined: 20 Feb 2010, 02:12

12 Oct 2017, 00:56 #687

So is this decided before it even gets presented to City Council?  A peer review which does not include hardship?  Shouldn't the Council have something to say about this?  Or will they be able then to commission a further review?  Seems like it should be coordinated.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... edda8.html
Reply

flounda
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 05:22

14 Oct 2017, 15:42 #688

I still don't understand why we didn't tear down the Fuller school and build a new one on the same site. We did it at West Parish. We also could have moved the school admin and pre school there, thus , not having to rent space for them.
Reply

tyu12
Joined: 10 Jan 2008, 01:26

16 Oct 2017, 14:39 #689

There is nothing wrong with the schools we have now. We don't need to spend millions on another school (don't know if any can verify that there are leaks and cracks in the new multi-million dollar school just built)

Do we need or want 200 units at fuller and 40 at the Y and another 30 on main st the Y should be made to give up their old building so the city can get some tax money out of it. The addition of all these units is going to put a burden on all city services.

Someone above mentioned the sewer for the fuller site aren't we already having problems with the sewer plant not being big enough? Also if this goes through I hope the city charges a sewer connection fee for every unit and not give sweetheart deal that the pond view got only paying for one connection. (costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars) when the people of Riverdale and Lanesville had to pay a fee for each unit in the home or lot that the sewer went by/
Reply