Note: This tread was originally posted one week ago and has been moved up as a reminder.
The second input session for the Austin Street project will be held at the Newton North High School cafeteria is tonight Monday, July 28 from 7-9 p.m.
This session will include a summary report of the input received at the firstcommunity input session as well as a presentation and discussion of the Greenman Pedersen Inc. (GPI) parking study conducted in the Newtonville village area.
As usual, after the meeting, come back to Village 14 and continue to talk about it here.
wait, didn’t they go through the parking study last time?
How many endless uneventful and useless public meetings do residents have to attend before we realize that the city is going to build it anyway? It’s impractical for me to believe that public input on this sort of thing really has any impact on actual decision making.
It’s natural to be cynical Janet but the last two big projects — Chestnut Hill Square and Riverside — that have been approved (one built, one to come) underwent significant down sizing and compromises through the public process.
I happen to think that both projects were diminished in the process but it would be incorrect to claim that resident input did not play a role.
While the Riverside development might have been downsized from the original proposal, I feel that the community ultimately was robbed because the agreement which was reached between the developer and BOA was to downsize and only include a 15% inclusionary affordable housing component. If the City had pushed for a larger 20-25% affordable housing percentage then the entire 290 units would have counted towards Newton’s affordable housing quota and we would be closer to getting out from under the pressure of these monster 40B developments. And because the city hasn’t put an HPP in place to date and has effectively no say on where 40B’s should be placed, Auburndale now faces yet another monster development with Rowe St which is going to completely crush our schools and add upwards of $750,000 in costs to the city annually to service the development. Business zoned areas are too valuable a tax asset to have them converted to residential developments.
Peter, you are incorrect. Market rate units from Riverside are not eligible for inclusion in the city’s subsidized housing inventory because they were not created under 40B and the project was not subsidized by a subsidizing agency as required under the affordable housing statute. The fact that 15% are affordable rather than 25% is totally irrelevant. And, for your information, if the developer had chosen the 40B route, it would have built 500-600 units of housing on the site instead of 290, and would not have been required to contribute over $6 million in mitigation funds as required by the special permit granted by the Board of Aldermen. And the city could not have required much of the roadwork that is required by the special permit.
In addition, in order to be exempt from 40B, the city would have to have a certified Housing Production Plan (HPP) AND would have to add at least 162 units of affordable housing a year under the HPP. Merely having an HPP, albeit necessary, is not sufficient.
Ald Hess Mahan — Just as clarity to what Peter has said, aside from Riverside which definition is clear from your answer, there are in fact certain cases where 100% of the units in a development would be counted toward the district’s 10% affordable goal, even though the great majority of units are not subsidized units. I believe that 25% = 100% funny math applies to the Austin St project for example. Is this correct? If so, how about Wells and Rowe?
FYI for others — anyone interested in the technical aspects of this extremely technical 40B stuff should set aside some time to view the great production sponsored by Waban Area Council. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo4J6Xiq-8Y&feature=player_detailpage
@Hoss, 100% of the units in a 40B residential development which contains rental properties may be included in the subsidized housing inventory (SHI) provided they meet the other requirements. The department of Housing and Community Development has guidelines that explain the requirements for inclusion in SHI which should answer your questions. Austin Street is not a 40B, so only affordable units that would count under the local initiative program for local action units are eligible for inclusion in the SHI.
Ald. Hess-Mahan: BH Normandy originally proposed a 600-unit 25% affordable rental 40B for Riverside where all units would count on the SHI. I believe the Board of Aldermen talked them down to 290 at 15%, where now only the 44 affordable units will count which given that 290 units are added means nothing. Could you have instead talked them down to 290 or 300 or 325 at 25% and gotten them to do a friendly 40B so all units would have counted? That in my opinion would have been in the best interests of Newton.
I also question your comment stating that a 40B project has to be subsidized by a subsidizing agency. Dinosaur Capital for 70 Rowe St is not taking any funds – Scott Oran stated that very clearly at the public meeting last month. Isn’t all that’s required that the Newton Housing Partnership send a letter of support for a project?
The $6 million in mitigation funds and the roadwork are not required under inclusionary zoning or under friendly 40B, but I believe could have be negotiated under either? Also, quite honestly, $6M is nothing compared to what it’s going to cost the city to service this property over the decades to come.
I am looking forward to this meeting tonight!!!
Ted, so what you are saying is that the Austin Street project is like a 40B housing project in that it is a high density housing project with “20%-25% affordable housing units” yet because it isn’t being under 40B, only the affordable housing units qualify are eligible for inclusion in the SHI?
Talk about getting the worst of both worlds. No wonder why Bob & Geoff Engler spent $15,000 of their own money and $12,500 through the Newton Community Development Foundation, of which Bob Engler is president. In his defense, he’s just protecting his cash cow.
I’m confused. Newton community development foundation (NCDF, owned by Bob Engler) owns Houghton Village (assessed at $28 million until 2010 and is now assessed at $8m) of which 20 of the 50 units are affordable, Casselman House (assessed at $6 million) and Weeks School Apts and all three are classified in the assessor database as NOT TAXABLE so they do not pay city of newton real estate taxes. I know Casselman and Houghton Village pay something via a 121A program but I believe it’s based on net income of the entity. Why would an entire property be tax exempt if more than half of the units are market rate? And how is it that newton community development foundation is a non profit but making profits on market rate units, exempt from real estate tax and able to use non profit org funds (as stated in Joshua’s post the Englers used $12,500 of NCDF funds) to promote another for profit project?
Weeks is assessed at $10 million and classified as “municipal”. Houghton Village is not taxed. Casselman House was taxed on a value of $200k up until 2009 and then it was changed to $0 and no tax assessed since 2009.
Without accusing me of promoting a conspiracy theory for simply stating facts and asking for clarification, can anyone answer the following questions?
Why is Weeks classified as a municipal building when it is owned by Bob Engler’s non profit organization?
What is the exact amount NCDF is paying (if anything) in lieu of real estate taxes for the nearly $50 million in rental housing it owns in newton?
Why is Houghton Village tax exempt when the majority of its units are market rate?
Is it wise to have a non profit like NCDF as the property manager of the new Austin Street development? I believe that a well established “for profit” property management company would be more effective. Will NCDF seek to make this development real estate tax exempt and if so, is it in the mayors purview to approve tax exempt status?
Do the alderman have to vote to approve the conversion of a property to tax exempt? Or will the property remain tax exempt like Weeks School still is twenty years later? Will the alderman intervene and prevent this from happening with Austin Street? Or is it done without alderman approval?
Was tax exempt status discussed at tonight’s meeting?
Peter, in order to be eligible under 40B, a residential project must receive a “subsidy” which is defined as “assistance provided by a Subsidizing Agency to assist the construction or substantial rehabilitation of Low or Moderate Income Housing, including direct financial assistance; indirect financial assistance through insurance, guarantees, tax relief, or other means; and non-financial assistance, including in-kind assistance, technical assistance, and other supportive services.”
As for Riverside, no one ever attempted to negotiate a 40B of any sort with the developer. Indeed, some aldermen argued that we should approve a special permit to prevent a 40B. The special permit included 290 residential units as well as 225,000 office space and another 15,000 retail. Economically, it would have made no sense for the developer to do a smaller residential project and no office or retail. The lease payment for the site is $1M a year, and 300 residential units might very well not even cover the rent. Under 40B, a developer is allowed to make a profit of up to 15%. Since the city has less than the 10% minimum affordable units, it had no leverage to negotiate a smaller 40B project. Moreover, it would not have gotten over $6M in mitigation funds as well as roadway improvements out of the developers with a 40B.
Joshua, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. Allowing a community include 100% of 40B residential units in the subsidized housing inventory as an incentive not to fight a project is already a major bonus. The downside, in my view, is that only 20-25% of those units are actually affordable.
Audrey, I cannot answer all your questions but I do want to correct one misconception. Bob Engler does not own NCDF (Newton Community Development Foundation), which according to its website “is a private, non-profit developer and manager of affordable housing located in Newton, Massachusetts. NCDF was founded in 1968 when priests, ministers and rabbis from the Newton Clergy Association joined forces with the Church Women United Organization to address the community’s need for affordable housing.” Bob Engler is the President of the NCDF Board of Directors. I am not sure, but I believe it is a voluntary, unpaid position.