Fuller Watch

Fuller Watch

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

19 Feb 2017, 02:15 #1

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... 4a9df.html


There was a joint Planning Board/P&D Thursday night regarding the mixed use overlay at the Fuller site that I was hoping to make, but didn't.  Glory be, the Times covered it.  Jason Grow's comment on the article (which I could have written, lol) is spot on.


I don't really care if they build a Trump Tower G-Town there, but I do care that the administration enforces the affordable housing ordinance.  Whatever your stance is on the affordable housing issue, you should care that Mr. Developer follows the law.


Affordable housing at the current Y location is an interesting option and if the numbers shake out so that it works per the ordinance, I don't have a problem with it.  I will have a serious problem if the developer somehow gets a pass.
Reply

flounda
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 05:22

19 Feb 2017, 02:30 #2

Excellent comment, right on the money.
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

19 Feb 2017, 07:52 #3

The 48 units at Powder House village are ALL AFFORDABLE about $850 to $1200 for one, two and three BR units. Rent includes a $95 Y family membership, hot water AND HEAT! On 23 acres.

The Y manages and regularly inspects tenant proper use, few complaints. New stores are on their way a Hardware Store just opened next to PHV.

But at GxING 200 market rate? Market rate? 200. Really 200? Wow. Out goes Market Basket, Msrshalls and Dollar Tree and in comes Whole Foods, Lord and Taylor and the dreaded Star Bucks. (Yes I know - Cape Ann Coffees is better).

Ray ... ya sure 200 isn't a misprint?
Reply

gloman
Joined: 25 Jan 2008, 05:11

19 Feb 2017, 16:26 #4

33, you sound like a Trumpster! Anybody who has a few dollars and an education is a snob and wants to ruin our city, right. Has gentrification ruined Lanesville or East Gloucester? We need affordable housing no question! We also need a mix of social and economic groups. We need to stop having such low expectations. If we want the good paying jobs of the future we need good housing at all affordability levels. Good schools, library, etc. We need to honor the past but look to the future.
Reply

tyu12
Joined: 10 Jan 2008, 01:26

19 Feb 2017, 16:29 #5

Why not make the old Y in to city hall? I would think with some work it could fit all  city hall employees and cut out the need for renting CATA. I know some people are against taking down the city hall building but if it was taken down it could be made into a parking lot for city hall employees.

Do we really need 200 more units in the city? remember the hard time they had at pond view village where they could not sell all the units.
Reply

Dun Fudgin
Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

19 Feb 2017, 16:38 #6

tyu12 wrote:
Why not make the old Y in to city hall? I would think with some work it could fit all  city hall employees and cut out the need for renting CATA. I know some people are against taking down the city hall building but if it was taken down it could be made into a parking lot for city hall employees.

Do we really need 200 more units in the city? remember the hard time they had at pond view village where they could not sell all the units.
A parking lot could not generate the taxes multiple unit housing could. I agree 200 new units is going to be a tough sell without a proportional increase in local jobs. One certainly needs the other but without extensive planning and execution of a plan to increase employment, 200 units is just too much to work.
Reply

gloman
Joined: 25 Jan 2008, 05:11

19 Feb 2017, 16:44 #7

Tyu, teardown city hall! Do you want Prudence Fish and her merry band to have the big one? They went nuts over tearing down a building with NO historical significance for a state of the art library.
Reply

tyu12
Joined: 10 Jan 2008, 01:26

19 Feb 2017, 16:52 #8

Dun Fudgin wrote:
tyu12 wrote:
Why not make the old Y in to city hall? I would think with some work it could fit all  city hall employees and cut out the need for renting CATA. I know some people are against taking down the city hall building but if it was taken down it could be made into a parking lot for city hall employees.

Do we really need 200 more units in the city? remember the hard time they had at pond view village where they could not sell all the units.
A parking lot could not generate the taxes multiple unit housing could. I agree 200 new units is going to be a tough sell without a proportional increase in local jobs. One certainly needs the other but without extensive planning and execution of a plan to increase employment, 200 units is just too much to work.
If you were to put 40 units in the old Y where would the people park their cars? City Hall is way past its usefulness where would you put a new city hall if not at the old Y?

I don't know how many units are at pond view but I would like to know how many were sold and how many are city and state funded and how many are rented outright.

  
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

19 Feb 2017, 17:10 #9

gloman wrote:
33, you sound like a Trumpster! Anybody who has a few dollars and an education is a snob and wants to ruin our city, right. Has gentrification ruined Lanesville or East Gloucester? We need affordable housing no question! We also need a mix of social and economic groups. We need to stop having such low expectations. If we want the good paying jobs of the future we need good housing at all affordability levels. Good schools, library, etc. We need to honor the past but look to the future.
See? You can do it when you try....

Decent post.
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

19 Feb 2017, 17:20 #10

Pond View is a silly comparison to make, regarding new housing in town (which Gloucester Crossing essentially is) - affordable or otherwise. It is miles from anywhere without any services other than the MBTA station. 200 new units, if priced properly would be filled pretty quickly - between locals who need housing and people moving here from elsewhere. which happens all the time, people need to get over it.

The suggestion of pulling down City Hall for a parking lot is just baiting. As is the assumption that everybody living in downtown has or even wants private cars. Car ownership is beginning to fall per capita, especially amongst millennials and people living in cities/town centers. The Y building is not big enough to replace both City Hall and the CATA and other places - perhaps it could be used for the offices now at CATA, and maybe even bring the City School Department offices downtown to the Y space, too.
Reply

tyu12
Joined: 10 Jan 2008, 01:26

19 Feb 2017, 17:56 #11

battlingignorance wrote:
Pond View is a silly comparison to make, regarding new housing in town (which Gloucester Crossing essentially is) - affordable or otherwise. It is miles from anywhere without any services other than the MBTA station. 200 new units, if priced properly would be filled pretty quickly - between locals who need housing and people moving here from elsewhere. which happens all the time, people need to get over it.

The suggestion of pulling down City Hall for a parking lot is just baiting. As is the assumption that everybody living in downtown has or even wants private cars. Car ownership is beginning to fall per capita, especially amongst millennials and people living in cities/town centers. The Y building is not big enough to replace both City Hall and the CATA and other places - perhaps it could be used for the offices now at CATA, and maybe even bring the City School Department offices downtown to the Y space, too.
It is big enough for 40 units but not big enough to fit the city hall employees?

Car ownership is beginning to fall per capita, especially amongst millennials and people living in cities/town centers

is there a new subway system and buses in downtown Gloucester that I don't know about and people do't need cars anymore?

I disagree that the pond view is not a good comparison. I think that people at both places would require a car.

  
Reply

tyu12
Joined: 10 Jan 2008, 01:26

19 Feb 2017, 18:00 #12

gloman wrote:
33, you sound like a Trumpster! Anybody who has a few dollars and an education is a snob and wants to ruin our city, right. Has gentrification ruined Lanesville or East Gloucester? We need affordable housing no question! We also need a mix of social and economic groups. We need to stop having such low expectations. If we want the good paying jobs of the future we need good housing at all affordability levels. Good schools, library, etc. We need to honor the past but look to the future.
We already have good schools and library. I don't think you will see high paying jobs come here at the end of the line same reason we will not see a Walmart here.

  
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

19 Feb 2017, 18:00 #13

tyu12 wrote:
is there a new subway system and buses in downtown Gloucester that I don't know about and people do't need cars anymore?I disagree that the pond view is not a good comparison. I think that people at both places would require a car.

It's not all about right now, tyu....oy. And you are completely missing my point about Pond View vs. downtown/Glos X-ing.
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

19 Feb 2017, 22:15 #14

NOTE CORRECTIOk:

xYCEO Meany mentioned the Fuller project had a cost of $67M divide by 200 yields an average of $335K per luxury unit. My post originally was incorrect stating these are purchased - but I think the $335 average cost would

======================

PLEASE OMIT

I didn't see any market rates but if you divide $67M by 200 units = $335,000 average per unit, or in the range for someone with decent credit making $75,000 to $100,000 per year. That's time 200 units.--

Construction with 6"x2" or steel is best with poured concrete slabs. Without this there will be NO PRIVACY!

Condo fees and utilities are up in the air. for these probably $450 - $600

=====================

If these were rental units the Y would pay for some or all utilities plus a Y membership (worth $95/month)
Last edited by Leland33 on 20 Feb 2017, 15:40, edited 3 times in total.
Reply

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

20 Feb 2017, 02:15 #15

Shoulda coulda woulda ...


A deal is on the table.  The deal includes 200 luxury (as described by the developer) rental apartments.  The developer has made it clear that he is not open to including the 30 required-by-ordinance affordable units on-site and is not open to contributing more in lieu.


The purchase offer was 5.1m plus a deal made with the administration for a $500,000. cash contribution to the affordable housing trust in lieu of providing those 30 units.  "“We responded to the RFP (request for proposals), and worked out a deal on the purchase price that we thought was best for us and for the city, and this was the deal,” Dolben said. “I can understand that some people maybe wanted a different deal, but this is the deal.”"  The administration has no authority to make such a deal.


http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/loc ... 4aeac.html


The ordinance is clear - the developer must prove that providing those 30 units (either on or off site) would create a hardship before the Planning Board/City Council approves a cash contribution in lieu.  The ordinance also provides a formula for calculating what the cash contribution should be.


The administration has proposed that the City back $1m out of the purchase price and make an additional contribution to the housing trust, saying that we can just call the purchase price $4.1 mil and the housing trust will get a million five.  That is not how it is supposed to work.  There is a purchase price and any approved cash contribution in lieu is in addition to the submitted purchase price.
Last edited by Cathy (Admin) on 20 Feb 2017, 02:19, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

20 Feb 2017, 02:35 #16

Keep at it, Cathy. We are getting screwed.
Reply

tyu12
Joined: 10 Jan 2008, 01:26

20 Feb 2017, 03:01 #17

I was under the impression that the sale was already a done deal and the city is going to take a portion of the money and put it toward affordable housing. Is that the case or has the sale of the property  not gone through.

It doesn't make sense that they would buy the property without having the plans already approved.
Reply

tyu12
Joined: 10 Jan 2008, 01:26

20 Feb 2017, 03:03 #18

battlingignorance wrote:
Keep at it, Cathy. We are getting screwed.
How are we getting screwed.

  
Reply

Leland33
Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

20 Feb 2017, 03:24 #19

Cathy - thank you, so it's more like Powder House rental 48 on 23+ acres of affordable vs 200 on 5 acres luxury. NO COMPARISON TO POND VIEW.

Is there a rough rental cost for luxury housing of this type of housing?, utilities included, Y

What is the $67M the former Y CEO Meany quoted. Surely not $335K/per unit to construct? Very roughly a new stand alone house is half the value of the a standard lot.

Would the Y get stuck with carrying unrented units? Is this the NorthShore Y 's first luxury rental - seems a little different from Y staff that I know promoting health and community giving, etc.
Reply

jasongrow
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 10:15

20 Feb 2017, 03:27 #20

Excellent summation Cathy -- I don't blame the admin for working the deal the best they could under the circumstances of having only a singular respondent to the RFP. That being said, while there may be a "deal" on the table, that deal is only contingent (as they always are) on the successful rezoning/overlay AND the granting of the Special Council permits. They are free to walk away at any point in the process losing only that money invested in the application process. The important thing to remember, as Cathy has pointed out, is that the ordinance specifically defines the permit granting authority as the body that can offer relief from the zoning requirements, not the administration. They are of course perfectly within their right to support and promote the deal as it has been presented, but the Council is not beholden to granting relief unless they are convinced of legitimate economic hardship. Keep in mind that Dolben Co. has over 50,000 rental units up and down the east coast. These are not amateur knuckleheads trying to do the oafey dofey, gosh we didn't know there was an affordable housing component to your ordinances. These guys are seasoned, big-money, big-project developers - they know the terrain and they know the drill. They will do the absolute minimum they need to do to maximize their project and their profit. It is up to our Council to do the same with regards to the city and in my view, that includes holding firm on the affordable housing component. I had a retired commercial developer outline to me exactly how valuable he estimated that property to be, especially for the residential component, and I'm willing to be that if Dolben doesn't want to do the affordable units and decides to walk, there will be a developer out there that will step in their shoes.

Leland, to your question, the YMCA is NOT the residential property developer in this project -- they are one tine of the triad: YMCA, Dolben Co., Sam Park Co. (with Windhover in the mix as the contractors). The Y will not be managing the property. Ironically, affordable housing is actually one of the mission statement planks of the YMCA, which makes this evasion of the affordable component by one of their partners so disconcerting. Once the overlay has been granted, each of the partners in the deal will effectively be operating on their own volition - though they may need to cooperate on certain things.  If you're looking at the rental rates, just search Dolben Co. / Beverly -- they have three complexes for rent there. Rents run from a low of $1600/1b up to $2600 for 2bws. 
Last edited by jasongrow on 20 Feb 2017, 03:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reply