Link: Copy link
I don't think that.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.
How much are the rents again??Cathy (Admin) wrote:I don't think that.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.
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.
DM3194 wrote: I wish we could get some more input from Dianna Ploss on the Fuller issue.
And how much *affordable* housing will be created with that? Answer.0.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.
Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.Cathy (Admin) wrote: This has become so contentious, time-consuming and costly all-round. I just keep going back two years: the developers knew darn well the terms of the ordinance; they submitted an RFP stating that they elected not to include the affordable; the administration dickered on the price and accepted the RFP instead of saying, "No, that's not how it works. Try again."
HA! Seriously, they have trouble reading both our GZO AND calendars??? There's only 3 (maybe 4 if they meet on the day after Christmas) Council meetings until the new council is sworn in on the 1st... I don't expect a lot more movement on this project until the financial analysis is finished and submitted to the council... The sewer issue still hasn't been resolved to my knowledge... I kinda don't think they're breaking ground in January.Karly wrote: The developer said last night they hope to break ground in January 2018 I think.