CEDAC NOT MENTIONED: Diehard neighbors vow to fight homeless housing

March 05, 2012
Diehard neighbors vow to fight homeless housing
By Adrian Walker
Walter Pollard is clearly a man who’s not used to losing. That is a problem right now, because Pollard is in a battle in which victories have been hard to come by.
Pollard leads a small band of Jamaica Plain residents bent on stopping a popular project: a bid by Boston Health Care for the Homeless and the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development Corporation, both nonprofits, to build 20 units of housing for sick and homeless people at the site of the old Barbara McInnis House on Walnut Avenue. The property is to be managed by the Pine Street Inn.
The project is backed by many neighbors, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, and the mayor. A lawsuit by Pollard’s group was summarily rejected in January by a Suffolk Superior Court judge who dismissed it as speculative and unsubstantiated. Pollard, a downtown banker and lawyer who moved to the neighborhood in the 1990s, plans to appeal.
“This has been characterized as people who want to help the homeless versus people who don’t,’’ Pollard said last week. “That is patently false.’’ He said he and his friends would gladly raise money for the house, as long as it was sited somewhere else.
The idea of building permanent housing came in part from doctors and nurses who found that instability in the lives of the homeless greatly complicated caring for them.
On a visit a couple of years ago to the South End headquarters of Health Care for the Homeless, I met a young doctor named Jessie Gaeta who told me that the biggest reason her patients seldom saw sustained improvement was because their lives did not allow the consistent routine that chronic illness required.
The McInnis House has offered short-term care, usually a few weeks, but the idea was to make it a place some patients could call home. Since homeless people had been getting care at the same site for years, organizers assumed the neighborhood opposition would be minimal.
They were wrong.
Pollard works at the investment firm of Brown Brothers Harriman. He and his wife have painstakingly restored their residence, an old nursing home. He decries the popular characterization of opponents of the McInnis House project as heartless NIMBY nitwits.
Fair enough, but I believe he and his friends greatly exaggerate the negative impact of the project. And I believe they are wrong to use their considerable resources to try to wear down the supporters of the project and encourage them to look for another site.
In a January ruling, Superior Court Judge S. Jane Haggerty methodically demolished the plaintiffs’ various claims that the project would damage their property values, cause an unfair spike in traffic, block their light, or violate the zoning code. (Actually, it does violate the zoning code, but the BRA granted it a variance, which the judge said it was right to do.)
There are other neighbors, of course, and they see the project as a plus. Among them is Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission.
The neighborhood has already lost needed programs to help the most vulnerable, she said. “When I moved in, there was a nursing home on the corner and a facility for DYS kids who were aging out of state care, and both of those are gone. It feels almost unconscionable to me that this is being held up because a handful of neighbors want some other kind of housing there.’’
Pollard says that the project will degrade the quality of life in the neighborhood. Maybe that depends on how one defines quality of life. Perhaps who is kept out of a neighborhood is far less important than whom a neighborhood is willing to embrace.

© 2012 NY Times Co.
URL: http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-05/metro/31121780_1_homeless-people-zoning-code-pine-street-inn/

SourceBoston Globe

Infrastructure Investment Begins with Children

Infrastructure Investment Begins with Children
Spring 2012 Issue
by Mav Pardee, Children’s Investment Fund
Spring 2012

When the topic is economic development, most people think about construction of roads and bridges and the effective functioning of capital markets. That’s why many were surprised when economist Arthur Rolnick of the Minneapolis Fed declared that early childhood development was really economic development—economic development with a very high public return.[1]

Rolnick and economists Rob Grunewald and James Heckman reviewed three carefully controlled studies of highquality early-learning programs for children from birth to five. From those studies, the economists calculated high returns for children at risk, and even higher returns to the public in reduced spending on special education, social welfare, and health care.[2] ( See “High-Quality Early Childhood Education Spending.”)

Nevertheless, there is an enormous disparity between the value of these programs and the funding needed to ensure high quality, which generally includes teacher qualifications, class size, good teacher-child ratios, a supportive emotional climate, curricula, cultural competency, and a safe and healthful physical environment.

Community-based nonprofits or small businesses operate most early-education and out-of-school-time programs. They exist at the margin of financial viability, especially programs that serve children on public subsidy, which are the focus of many efforts to close the achievement gap and reduce health disparities in America.
True Quality

In 1995, the “Cost, Quality and Outcomes” study garnered nationwide attention for its finding that only 14 percent of child-care centers provided a sufficiently high level of quality to support children’s development. Twelve percent were rated as poor quality, and 74 percent were judged mediocre.[3] The report deserves much of the credit for subsequent “quality improvement” categories in federal and state subsidized-care allocations.

Over the past decade, policies for childcare subsidies have continued to evolve, influenced partly by brain-development research showing the critical importance of the first five years of life. Even the terminology changed—from “child care,” a support to help low-income single parents enter the workforce, to “early childhood education,” which emphasizes child development and learning.

Simultaneously, a parallel movement to raise teacher qualifications has emerged, with a growing emphasis on program accreditation and Quality Rating and Improvement Systems nationwide. The standards generally have four or five quality levels—for example, curricula, staff qualifications, learning environment, family involvement, and program management. Independent evaluators do the measuring, and participating providers receive technical support and incentives to improve.

Massachusetts Facilities Inventory
Early Childhood & Out-of-School-Time Facilities Percentage facing problems
One or more classrooms without windows 20
Elevated CO2 levels in indoor air 22
Lack workspace for teachers 22
Inadequate heating & cooling of the space 34
Lack indoor active play space 54
Lack technology for teachers 65
Lack classroom sinks 70

Source: Building an Infrastructure for Quality, by Mav Pardee, Children’s Investment Fund, 2011

Unfortunately, scant attention is paid to the design, layout, and functionality of the facilities that house the programs. Factors such as size, density, privacy, defined activity areas, a modified open-plan design, technical design features, and the quality of outdoor play spaces are known to correlate with children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development.[4] Noted Italian educator Loris Malaguzzi emphasizes that a well-designed environment is the “third teacher”—an understanding that American policymakers have been slow to adopt, especially for programs serving low-income children.

Use of in-kind space—including below-market rentals—is one of the most common strategies for managing operating costs.[5] Low-cost space and difficulty paying for facility improvements highlight a fundamental problem. Public subsidy rates are established by state and federal regulation. Even with the income-based parent co-pay, rates do not cover the cost. The federal government recommends setting subsidy rates at the 75th percentile of market rate, but those market rates are already artificially depressed through payment of low salaries, minimal benefits, low occupancy costs, and careful spending on other expenses.[6] Consequently, programs must raise additional resources if they hope to achieve the level of quality Rolnick and colleagues cite.

High-Quality Early Childhood Education Spending

Source: Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation, by Robert G. Lynch, Economic Policy Institute, 2007.

A 2010 report by the Urban Institute made a link between financial stress and quality, noting that “classrooms with the lowest observed quality were typically in centers characterized as struggling financially.”[7] The discrepancy between public subsidy rates and the cost of quality are common nationwide. In Boston, reimbursements for early childhood services have fallen from 52 percent of market rate to 43 percent since the last report in 2009, and a similar rate structure is found statewide.[8]
First-Ever Report

This year, Children’s Investment Fund released “Building an Infrastructure for Quality” on the first comprehensive inventory of early-childhood-education and out-of-schooltime facilities in Massachusetts.[9] It examined whether existing learning environments support educators’ and policymakers’ educational goals for children at risk—or whether some spaces might interfere with running a high-quality program. The Fund commissioned the inventory to review the effect of physical space on children’s health and safety, behavior, physical development and cognition, and how adult workspace either enhances or impedes staff effectiveness.

First, evidence-based program-facility standards were compiled to measure space across three categories: regulatory, professional, and best practice.[10] The inspection protocol measured 268 items that cover regulatory compliance, site elements, the building envelope, mechanical systems, and environmental health, plus a detailed review of children’s activity spaces, adult work space, and outdoor play space. The Wellesley Centers for Women and a team from Boston-based On-Site Insight selected a random sample of 182 sites and made field visits to each to collect data.

The inventory found that many sites faced the combined challenges of poor layout, outmoded features, and deteriorating conditions. Between 15 percent and 26 percent failed to meet current Massachusetts building-code requirements. And only one program—a center built the preceding year—met all accessibility guidelines.

A number of building deficiencies undermined the quality of teaching and children’s learning, or presented health or safety concerns. (See “Massachusetts Facilities Inventory.”) Moreover, given widespread childhood obesity, it was discouraging that few sites had appropriate space for indoor active play in inclement weather. Many outdoor spaces lacked sufficient space for physically strenuous play. They also lacked trees or plants.

Another concern was the lack of adult workspace and the absence of appropriate technology, impeding the goal of developing a highly qualified workforce and possibly undermining other quality-improvement efforts.[11]

It is true that Massachusetts, like other states, has invested significant private and public resources in quality improvement for early care and education and out-of-school-time services, particularly for low-income children. But quality—and the physical infrastructure to support it is critical to fulfilling the state’s aspirations for these children, and clearly, the resources to fix problems cannot be found in program operating budgets. Children’s Investment Fund has therefore begun to pursue options for improving facility quality, some near term, some longer term. It is working with the business community, public officials, community development organizations, and funders to ensure that early care and education and out-of-school-time programs can make improvements. The following are among the strategies being pursued:

Ensure that repairs and hazardous conditions are addressed by making small grants available to nonprofit providers.

Encourage green environments by working with utility companies to address energy efficiency that can generate operating savings and create healthier indoor spaces.
Work with community development resources to identify capital for ensuring that community infrastructure includes early care and education and out-ofschool-time facilities.
Work with public officials, researchers, and advocates to expand the definition of quality to include the physical plant as the foundation of other quality initiatives related to children’s health, development, and education.

The issue is so urgent and the potential benefits so high that we need to find the public will to create affordable and sustainable financing to improve the buildings where the most vulnerable Massachusetts children spend their childhoods. There is no better public investment.

Mav Pardee is the program manager at the Children’s Investment Fund. She is based in Boston.
Endnotes

[1] Arthur J. Rolnick and Rob Grunewald, “Early Education’s Big Dividends,” Communities & Banking 19, no. 2 (spring 2008): http://www.bostonfed.org/commdev/c&b/2008/spring/Rolnick_early_education_pays.pdf.

[2] “The Science of Early Childhood Development: Closing the Gap Between What We Know and What We Do” (white paper, National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007).

[3] “Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers” (technical report, University of Colorado, 1995).

[4] Gary T. Moore, “Ready to Learn: Towards Design Standards for Child Care Facilities,” Education Facility Planner 32, no. 1 (1994).

[5] Monica Rohacek, Gina C. Adams, Ellen E. Kisker, Anna Danziger, Theresa Derrick-Mills, Heidi Johnson, “Understanding Quality in Context: Child Care, Communities, Markets, and Public Policy” (white paper, Urban Institute, Washington, DC, 2010).

[6] In Massachusetts, full-time preschool teachers earn on average $33,400, according to U.S. Department of Labor May 2010 data.

[7] In low-income neighborhoods, space is chosen for size, cost, and location on commuting routes. Few providers can afford more than $10 per square foot. More experienced providers seek $6 to $8 rates: churches, community buildings, Boys & Girls Clubs, residential buildings, former schools. In our sample, only 13 percent of centers were designed for child care.

[8] October 2011 data from the National Women’s Law Center on state child-care assistance rates.

[9] Mav Pardee, Martha McCahill Cowden, Theresa Jordan, Carl Sussman, “Building an Infrastructure for Quality: An Inventory of Early Childhood Education and Out-of-School-Time Facilities in Massachusetts” (report, Children’s Investment Fund, Boston, 2011), http://www.cccif.org.

[10] “Program Facility Standards for Early Care and Education and Out-of-School Time Programs” (white paper, Children’s Investment Fund, Boston, 2011), http://www.cccif.org.

[11] The sample was drawn from communities with many low-income families. No programs were from Nantucket or Norfolk counties, for example, where fewer than 3 percent of families are below the poverty line

SourceFederal Reserve Bank of Boston's Communities & Banking magazine, Spring 2012 Edition

CEDAC NOT MENTIONED: Easthampton Zoning Board to continue Parsons Village affordable housing hearing

Saturday, February 25, 2012
Easthampton Zoning Board to continue Parsons Village affordable housing hearing at monthly sessions
By Diane Lederman,
The Republican

EASTHAMPTON – The developer for the Parsons Village project presented plans at a the first of many Zoning Board of Appeals meetings last week while, the City Council Finance Committee voted 1 to 1 to rescind community money for that project.
Valley Community Development Corp. Executive Director Joanne Campbell presented an overview of the 38-unit project and the Zoning Board of Appeals took comments.
In January, the developer filed a request for a Chapter 40B permit to build the affordable rental housing at 69 Parsons St. after the Planning Board rejected it last year.  
A comprehensive permit allows the Zoning Boards of Appeals to approve affordable housing with more flexible rules – essentially to circumvent local zoning – when a community has less than 10 percent of its housing as affordable.  
Just 6.3 percent of the city’s housing is affordable.
The process is expected to be a lengthy one, said zoning board member John Atwater. “There is no quick process,” he said.
The board will hold hearings once a month on the second Tuesday of the month for two hours beginning at 6:30 p.m. It will take comments at some but not necessarily all those meetings.
The board has up to 180 days to conduct the hearing from the day it began Feb. 21. The board then has 40 days in which to file its determination.
That takes the process into the fall before a decision would likely be made, he said.
The full City Council, meanwhile, will decide whether to rescind the $200,000 it approved for the project.
The Finance Subcommittee discussed the proposal and heard resident concerns at two meetings. But with just two of three members present last week, the vote was 1 to 1 with chairman Daniel Hagan voting to rescind the funding and Daniel Rist voting against it.
Council President and committee member Justin P. Cobb, who brought the proposal to the council, was absent from the meeting.
Both Hagen and Cobb oppose the project Rist supports it. With the tie vote, the project goes to the council without a recommendation, Hagan said in an email.
“I had numerous issues that led me to my vote, among them: language within their application, the fact that the project was turned down by the Planning Board (creating a change in the project), and the lack of clear case law in this matter.
I felt it important that all 9 Councilors have the opportunity to weigh-in and vote on this matter,” he wrote.
By a 6 to 3 vote in October of 2010, the council supported the funding recommended by the Community Preservation Act Committee. Committee members oppose the council measure to rescind it.

SourceThe Republican (MassLive.com)

CEDAC NOT MENTIONED: Easthampton housing project opponents fight in new venue

February 24, 2012
________________________________________
Easthampton housing project opponents fight in new venue
By Rebecca Everett
EASTHAMPTON – Supporters and opponents of the proposed Parsons Village housing development were once again at odds as a second round of public hearings on the project started Tuesday.
The Valley Community Development Corp. is seeking a comprehensive permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the 38-unit affordable housing development, which was rejected by the Planning Board in September.
A state law, Chapter 40B, allows developers to bypass zoning bylaws and receive a comprehensive permit when building affordable housing projects in communities that have less than 10 percent affordable housing.
At the hearing, Valley CDC Executive Director Joanne Campbell and project designers presented their vision for the $10 million, six-building development, which includes 52 percent open space. To prove that the development is a good fit for the area, they also offered the results of a traffic impact study and a map they created to compare the density of the development to that of the surrounding neighborhood.
As at the Planning Board’s hearings, opponents argued that the development would be too dense, would not fit the character of the neighborhood and could negatively impact neighbors by increasing traffic and water runoff.
Kirsten Morra of 25 Federal St. said she and her neighbors were not thrilled to be back in the conference room at the Municipal Building fighting the developer all over again.
“We didn’t want to come back, but we’re all committed to this,” she said. “What we have to remember is that the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals haven’t heard anything that we’ve said over the past year, so we have to say it again.”
Erica Flood of 61 Parsons St. said the CDC has not made much of an effort to respond to neighbors’ concerns throughout the two-year process. “They repeatedly ignored residents’ plea to drastically reduce the density,” she said at the hearing. “Forty units to 38 units is not a reduction.”
Project designer Peter Wells, of the Berkshire Design Group, noted that while neighbors decry the project as being too dense, it is nearly half as dense as the current apartment complex abutting the parcel to the south, which has more than 16 units per acre.
Jackie Brousseau-Pereira of the Easthampton Housing Partnership said her organization supports the project because the city’s master plan says the city must create more affordable rental housing.
Morra said the master plan also mentions creating owner-occupied affordable housing, and neighbors would prefer that Parsons Village include at least some owner-occupied units.
“I feel that creating stakeholders, not only for the area, but for the city, is paramount,” she said. “We’re setting a precedent for the city.”
Amy Heflin of 10 Pepin Ave. said she is concerned about the accountability of the future owners of Parsons Village, who could be “absentee landlords.”
“Who will our neighbors be?” she asked. “We were told investors, rich investors, probably from out of the area.”
Heflin asked the board members to consider the 40B application to be “unfriendly” because more than 100 residents of the New City section of Easthampton signed a petition opposing it, and to remember that the Planning Board denied it for a reason.
“The most glaring thing is that this has been presented # and it was reviewed and rejected,” she said.
The next hearing will be March 8 at 6:30 p.m., followed by a site visit on March 10 at 9 a.m.
Board Chairwoman Margaret Solis said the public hearing will be open for no more than 180 days, and hearings will be held on the second Thursday of each month from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. until Aug. 16. After the hearing is closed, the board has 40 days to either deny the permit, approve it or approve it with conditions.
Under Chapter 40B, the board has limited authority to deny the permit. For example, the ZBA could deny it on grounds that it violated health or fire codes or state regulations, but not for violating zoning, Campbell said.
If the permit is denied or approved with conditions, the CDC can appeal it to a state board.
The City Council is also considering a motion from Council President Justin P. Cobb to withdraw the $200,000 in Community Preservation Act funds the council approved for the development in 2010. Cobb argued that because the developer is seeking a different type of permit, the project has changed enough to warrant another vote.
The City Council will hold a public hearing on withdrawing the funds at 6:15 p.m. March 7.
________________________________________
Source URL: http://www.gazettenet.com/2012/02/24/easthampton-housing-project-opponents-fight-in-new-venue
Daily Hampshire Gazette © 2011 All rights reserved

SourceGazetteNet - Daily Hampshire Gazette

Bay State’s First 40T Project Finds Home In Cambridge

Monday, February 20, 2012
Opening The Door
Bay State’s First 40T Project Finds Home In Cambridge
Despite Being Two Years Old, Untested 40T Finds Early Success
By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
The state’s newest affordable housing law – Chapter 40T, passed in 2009 – recently chalked up its first victory, helping to preserve 25 affordable units in a 50-unit apartment building in the heart of Harvard Square in Cambridge.
The statute has several provisions aimed at giving tenants of affordable housing plenty of notice and resources if their landlord decides to pursue conversion of the property to market rate.
Perhaps the most important – from a development perspective – is a provision in the bill giving the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) the right of first refusal when a building with affordable units comes up for sale. DHCD doesn’t aim to buy the properties outright; instead it has a pre-approved list of affordable housing developers with whom it works to help acquire and manage the property.
Despite the fact that the law is more than two years old, the tight, slow, declining market has largely kept multi-family owners on the sidelines and state pocketbooks firmly buttoned – leaving untested a law many owners regarded warily, fearing state involvement could only delay a sale.
“A lot of the sellers were unsure [about the law]. They love to have a free hand when they want to sell their property,” said Peter Daly, executive director of Homeowners Rehab Inc., a Cambridge affordable housing developer brought in by DHCD for the Harvard Square project, located at 122 Mt. Auburn St. “I think sellers were anxious about the 40T legislation – would it work, and would it work with the timetable that they need.”
But this first 40T deal proves the statute can be used in a way that meet seller’s expectations, Daly said.
“It was a deal that was fair to all sides, and we had the resources held in reserve to help the buyer perform,” he told Banker & Tradesman.
‘A Foot In The Door’
It certainly didn’t hurt that the project was in Cambridge, a community with a long-time commitment to affordable housing preservation – 80 percent of the city’s federal Community Protection Act grant funds are dedicated to that goal, according to the city.
“The unified purpose of the Cambridge City Council was always to protect and preserve affordable housing in the city of Cambridge,” said Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy.
The deal required an $8.1 million acquisition loan from Community Economic Development Assistance Corp. (CEDAC), a quasi-public finance agency which aims to help community groups fund economic development projects. CEDAC created a dedicated $150 million loan pool and a list of expiring-use projects to help make non-profits and community development corporations aware of potential 40T sites in their area.
“The law is very strict in terms of the timeframes that DHCD and its designee are allowed to complete a complex purchase transaction,” said Roger Herzog, executive director of CEDAC. “CEDAC has the ability to move very quickly to meet those constraints.”
According to Herzog, the Harvard Square project was first put on the market in April 2011, at which time DHCD notified the sellers in of their interest. HRI was designated in May, and by December they had acquired the property.
This first implementation of the program has attracted watchful eyes from around the country, with representatives from national affordable housing network Neighborworks, a partner of HRI, attending a recent ceremony held to mark the successful deal.
Affordable housing advocates said they hope it will prove a model for future acquisitions. The bill “gave us a foot in the door…and that’s what we needed to move forward. Without 40T, I’m not sure this project would have been preserved,” said Daly.
http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/news148706.html

SourceBanker & Tradesman

Easthampton housing project may lose Community Preservation Act funds

CEDAC NOT MENTIONED
February 15, 2012
Easthampton housing project may lose Community Preservation Act funds
By Rebecca Everett
EASTHAMPTON – The City Council is considering rescinding $200,000 it pledged to the proposed Parsons Village affordable housing development, just as the project’s developer makes a second attempt to get a permit from a city board.
The Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 21 will review a comprehensive permit request, known as a 40B, for a 38-unit rental development proposed by Valley Community Development Corp. for a vacant lot at 69 Parsons St.
The permit would allow the Valley CDC to complete the project without the Planning Board’s approval, which is a 40A permit, and which the Planning Board denied in September.
Meantime, the project may be out $200,000, as the City Council is considering rescinding the Community Preservation Act funding the council and CPA Committee approved for it in fall 2010.
At their meeting tonight, councilors are expected to discuss City Solicitor John H. Fitz-Gibbon’s warning that such a decision could land the council in court.
Council President Justin P. Cobb suggested at a Feb. 1 meeting that the council rescind the funds, saying that the project had changed from a 40A project and become an “unfriendly” 40B project.
“I see this as a significant change from what was approved,” he said. He said he is concerned that allowing funds to go to an altered project could “set a precedent.”
But Joanne Campbell, executive director of the CDC, disagreed with the characterization of the project as unfriendly.
“A friendly 40B is one that is keeping with the needs, goals and objectives of the community,” she said. “Just because there is some opposition does not mean it’s unfriendly.”
Chapter 40B is a state law that lets developers in communities with less than 10 percent affordable housing bypass certain zoning to obtain a comprehensive permit to build subsidized affordable housing. Easthampton has 6.3 percent affordable housing.
The CDC’s 40B application is for a six-building development on the 4.3-acre parcel, estimated to cost approximately $10 million. The buildings would include 38 rental units, ranging in price from $555 for a studio apartment to $1,000 for a three-bedroom unit, for tenants in the $26,000-to-$50,000 income range.
The city solicitor advised the council it could rescind the funds, but if the CDC can prove that its rights have become “vested” in the earlier vote, there would be grounds to take the council to court.
Campbell said Tuesday that the nonprofit is counting on the funds.
“We have relied on that appropriation in accessing funding from the state and also in negotiating with the property owner,” she said. “We’ve borrowed pre-development funds, paid architects and hired designers.”
A matter of ‘process’
Fitz-Gibbon also said that the council should consider whether or not the project has changed significantly. “The fact that the current application is under 40B, rather than 40A, is a question of process rather than of substance and this alone would not be sufficient to justify a vote to rescind,” he wrote.
Campbell noted that the CPA Committee and the City Council approved the funding for “long-term affordable housing at 69 Parsons St.,” which included no other specifications.
“When they voted, it was just a concept. We didn’t even have plans drawn up yet,” she said. “So you can’t really say the project has changed.”
Mayor Michael Tautznik has the right to veto any denial of the CPA money, and he said he “probably would,” although the council could override his veto with a two-thirds majority.
Cobb said he thinks the council must consider rescinding the grant. “I think it is our responsibility, as stewards of the taxpayers’ money, to have a full and open discussion about this and if we still want to support it,” he said.
Campbell noted that the City Council, CPA Committee and Easthampton Housing Partnership have all voted in favor of the project in the past, “so it isn’t like the city is fighting it.”
She noted that Cobb, as a member of the CPA Committee, the City Council and now the City Council’s finance committee, has been a vocal opponent of the project.
Long haul
Advocating for the project has been a long ordeal, Campbell acknowledged. After receiving the support of the CPA funding, the CDC defended for nine months its proposed development at a series of Planning Board public hearings where sometimes 100 residents attended to oppose the project. They said it was too dense and violated zoning, and expressed fears that it would bring crime, traffic and flooding problems to the neighborhood.
After the permit was denied because one Planning Board member voted no, the CDC appealed the decision.
The litigation is ongoing, but the CDC filed a 40B comprehensive permit application with the city Jan. 30. That application includes one more unit than the one the Planning Board denied, and also proposes traditional pavement, as opposed to the porous pavement that neighbors raised concerns about during the public hearings.
The ZBA’s usual seven members are down to four following former Chairman Sam Charron resignation last week. According to City Clerk Barbara LaBombard, the ZBA needs a simple majority of three votes to pass comprehensive permits.
Campbell said the CDC is “slightly disadvantaged” to not have a full board, but is still feeling good about its chances.
“Chapter 40B gives the ZBA less leeway to deny the permit, as long as it meets basic regulations like health and fire,” she said. The CDC could go to the state appeals committee if it is denied.
“We’re looking forward to getting a permit for the development, which we think is a good and well-needed project,” she said.
Rebecca Everett can be reached at reverett@gazettenet.com.
______________
Daily Hampshire Gazette © 2011 All rights reserved
Source URL: http://www.gazettenet.com/2012/02/15/cpa-funds-questioned-for-project

SourceGazetteNet.com (Hampshire Gazette)

Amherst seeks funds second time for affordable housing project

February 11, 2012
Amherst seeks funds second time for affordable housing project
By smerzbach
AMHERST – A second application for state and federal tax credits that would help pay for construction of a 42-unit affordable housing project was submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development Friday.
HAP Housing is planning the Olympia Oaks project on 13 acres of a town-owned site off Olympia Drive. If funding comes through in this round, the homes could be built and ready for occupancy in October 2013.
Peter Gagliardi, executive director of HAP, said Friday that the second application comes after HAP learned in October that its initial request for the One-Stop tax credit was not awarded.
Gagliardi said he remains confident that HAP will be successful in receiving the tax credits and funds from the state’s Affordable Housing Trust and Housing Stabilization Fund.
“We’re competing for scarce resources, but we have been in before,” Gagliardi said.
Building the housing and resurfacing Olympia Drive is expected to cost around $8.5 million, Gagliardi said, with the cost rising to $10 million when other infrastructure work being done by the town is included.
Gagliardi said state officials could make a quick decision on the funding request, within three to five months, because of the jobs housing construction provides and the spinoff benefits to local businesses that will provide materials and supplies.
The Select Board last month sent a letter of support, signed by Chairwoman Stephanie O’Keeffe, explaining that the town is committed to moving the project forward. This has been demonstrated through a 99-year ground lease, supplying $200,000 in Community Development Block Grant money and up to $140,000 in Community Preservation Act money and the issuing of a comprehensive permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
“The Amherst Select Board strongly encourages the Department of Housing and Community Development to approve HAP Housing’s application and award the tax incentives and other funding requested,” O’Keeffe wrote. “The Olympia Oaks projects has overwhelming local support, and your support would be most welcomed as well.”
The site where the housing will be built has been cleared and graded, with water, sewer and other uitilities, as well as drainage work, all part of an investment by the town.
Gagliardi praised Amherst for what it has done to make Olympia Oaks a reality.
“The town has been extraordinarily supportive and we’re pleased to have been selected to do work on this project for them,” Gagliardi said.
Two of the 42 units at Olympia Oaks will be set aside for homeless families as the result of a $100,000 commitment from the Interfaith Housing Corp., an organization that built and operated Village Park Apartments and has been committed to investing money into affordable and low-income projects.
Olympia Oaks has already received money from other non-town sources. Last April, $400,000 in Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation predevelopment bridge funding and $40,000 from the NeighborWorks America arrived. Keith Construction of Stoughton has been selected as the general contractor.
Olympia Oaks will be the newest affordable housing stock built under a comprehensive permit. The most recent was Butternut Farm on Longmeadow Drive, which opened last June.

SourceGazetteNet.com (Hampshire Gazette)

Grant aids Acton housing plan

Grant aids Acton housing plan
GateHouse News Service
Posted Feb 09, 2012 @ 12:27 PM
Acton, Mass. —
The Community Economic Development Assistance Corp. has announced today loan commitments or increases totaling $390,000. Included in these commitments is a loan to the Acton Housing Authority for new affordable housing in that community.
“We are encouraged to see a community like the town of Acton addressing the need for affordable housing,” said Roger Herzog, executive director of the organization, also known by its acronym, CEDAC. “There are many communities across the Commonwealth that struggle to provide quality affordable housing. The Acton Housing Authority is providing community development leadership in an area of the state that will benefit tremendously from it.”
CEDAC approved a predevelopment loan of $120,000 to the Acton Housing Authority for the McCarthy Village II project. The development will be twelve new affordable rental units that include nine 2-bedroom and three 3-bedroom units.
The Acton Housing Authority is reserving six of the units for households with incomes below 30 percent of the area’s median income. Additionally, three of these units will be dedicated to homeless families coming directly from shelter.
The project will be designed to LEED for Homes Silver certification and is to appear as a natural extension of the existing surrounding homes. The architectural treatment blends seamlessly with the existing duplexes at McCarthy Village I. The project specifications will conform with EnergyStar guidelines for building envelope, lighting and energy efficient appliance selection, the press release said.
CEDAC is a private-public, community development finance institution that provides technical assistance, pre-development lending and consulting services to non-profit organizations involved in housing development, workforce development, neighborhood economic development and capital improvement to childcare facilities. To learn more, visit www.cedac.org.
Copyright 2012 The Beacon. Some rights reserved

Read more: Grant aids Acton housing plan – Acton, MA – The Beacon http://www.wickedlocal.com/acton/news/x574398952/Grant-aids-Acton-housing-plan#ixzz1mYiYhIOi

SourceGateHouse News Service Wicked Local, Acton

Residents welcome new elderly housing on the Neponset River

February 8, 2012

Residents welcome new elderly housing on the Neponset River
By Patrick D. Rosso, Town Correspondent

HYDE PARK, MATTAPAN: Senior citizens in Mattapan and Hyde Park cheered Tuesday as Mayor Thomas Menino cut the ribbon to the Residences at Neponset Field, a $10-million affordable housing development.
“This property is great,” said Thomas Tibbs, a 55-year-old Mattapan resident who lives in the new building with his wife Sarah. “We came out of a house that was hard to keep up with and this new building is wonderful. Everyone deserves a house and a home.”
The 31 affordable units on a 3.5-acre site along the Neponset River are meant to provide elderly residents with a stable community at an affordable price.
The building, which is LEED certified “silver”, cost approximately $10 million to construct. Workers officially broke ground in 2010, but the project has been in the works since 2007.
“This is advancement for the city to make sure we provide affordable housing,” said Menino. “We will always continue to provide housing in Boston.”
The new space, which sits on a once-vacant lot, provides residents with amenities such as elevator service, laundry and common rooms. Construction for the project was funded in part by the city of Boston, the state of Massachusetts and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The units, which have all been filled, provide rental units for residents 62 or older who are earning at or below 50-percent average median income.
According to the city, the project provided 72 construction jobs and three new permanent jobs.
Future plans for the site include the creation of a single family or townhome development, but at the end of the day many who live at Neponset Field were ready to kick back and enjoy their new home and community.
“When I came here I met people who truly cared about me,” said Sarah Tibbs, 63. “There is a real community here and it is just so wonderful.”
Email Patrick D. Rosso, patrick.d.rosso@gmail.com. Follow him @PDRosso, or friend him on Facebook.

SourceBoston Globe

Community Foundation awards $100K in work force grants

January 29, 2012
Community Foundation awards $100K in work force grants
GateHouse News Service

The Community Foundation of southeastern Massachusetts recently awarded $100,500 in work force development and early literacy grants with funding from the Polaroid and Acushnet Foundation funds.
This is the Community Foundation’s sixth year of managing the New Bedford-area grants program of the Polaroid Fund under contract with the Boston Foundation. The Polaroid Fund distributes up to $100,000 each year to support organizations or collaboratives that focus on work-force development and early literacy. The foundation’s Acushnet Foundation Fund also provides up to $12,500 for early literacy programming.
Nine local organizations received a total of $73,500 in grants from the Polaroid Fund for work force development programs, with an emphasis on advocacy and capacity building, as well as english for speakers of other languages, adult basic education and general education development classes. They are:
— Bristol Community College, $15,000 for Education in Employment Project, whose goal is to design and implement an employer-driven program for education.
— Catholic Social Services, $7,000 for Future Education and Adult Learning, a program that will provide ESOL, GED and citizenship classes for Spanish and Portuguese speakers.
— Community Economic Development Corp., $12,000 for a pilot project to recruit and train ESOL tutors titled the ESOL Capacity Building and Advocacy Project.
— Commonwealth Workforce Coalition, $10,000 for professional development and training for workers from Greater New Bedford organizations that provide ABE, ESOL and literacy programs.
— City of New Bedford Community Literacy Project, $1,500 to provide transportation and child care services for the Shining Lights/ESOL: Community Literacy Project, as well as off-site education programs at sites such as the public library and city hall.
— Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School/Adult ESOL Program, $5,000 to provide ESOL services to non-English-speaking parents of GNB Voc-Tech students.
— Immigrants Assistance Center, $10,000 for the ESOL Capacity Building and Advocacy Project, which will offer ESOL classes with citizenship preparation.
— Mass. Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, $8,000 for the English Works/New Bedford Campaign, to provide leverage for the recently funded AmeriCorps New Americans Integration Program to build a volunteer brigade, compile data and sustain advocacy.
— PAACA, $5,000 for INSIGHT Youth Services, an effort to increase the educational attainment of out-of-school youths with no high school diploma.
An additional $27,000 was awarded by the Acushnet Foundation and Polaroid Funds to four Early Literacy Programs:
— ArtWorks!, $7,500 for Learning Studio, an interactive arts experience.
— Catholic Social Services, $5,000 for the Early Literacy Program to offer ESOL, ABE and parenting classes at the Donavan House family shelter.
— New Bedford Public Schools-Pregnant and Parenting Teens, $7,500 for Emerging Readers, which will offer early and family literacy services to teen parents and their children.
— PACE Family Center, $7,000, which will enable the Family Center Literacy Program to provide ESOL and family literacy services for 10 to 15 families at Dottin Place and Satellite Village.

URL: http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x842390817/Community-Foundation-awards-100K-in-work-force-grants#ixzz1kx66jGQN

SourceThe Herald News

Search

Author: Dilia Ramirez