In Gloucester we need every possible Affordable unit we can secure whether at 80% of Area Mean Income- (AMI), 60% or 30%. Our working class population and those of even more limited income deserve no less. The attempt of the current developer of 8 townhouses at 116 East Main St. to side step the prior commitment to have one of those units be Affordable is a case in point.
The original developer committed to one unit being Affordable as part of his agreement in securing the permits for 8 units rather than 6. (Eight units was the trigger for the inclusionary zoning standard at that time; it’s now one unit for every development of 6-9 units, then 15% for ten or more units.) There was no discussion of payment in lieu of or of use of an alternative site.
Having made that commitment and secured permitting for 8 townhouses, this commitment, in our opinion, ought to be preserved. The current developer was well aware of this commitment when they purchased the project from the original developer.
Sign this letter to insist that this unit be made available via a deed restricted, Affordable agreement.
Submit this letter campaign to email City Councilors, especially your Ward Councilor and those on the Planning & Development Committee – Jason Grow, Val Gilman, Tracy O’Neil to share your opinion that the original agreements should be adhered to. Have some extra time? We encourage contacting your councilor via phone call as well!
Additional Background:
The developer now wants to claim” hardship,” and wants to make a payment in lieu to the Affordable Housing Trust instead of providing the unit. While this is allowed under the current and past ordinances, it needed to be negotiated at the time of permitting. While we are aware of the increases in construction costs we also recognize there are 7 units at market rate, plus the designated Affordable Unit, which will also generate income, though not at the market rate. We, therefore, believe the initial agreement ought to be adhered to.
Furthermore, given the enormous need for a wide range of Affordable Housing in Gloucester, we believe it is bad precedent for the City Council to even be considering letting developers back away from their commitments. Our permitting and inclusionary zoning need to be facilitated, not weakened. Developers need to be encouraged and incentivized to create a range of affordability within their projects. This project, as permitted, also demonstrates that affordable housing can be built in all neighborhoods of Gloucester, not just downtown, and thus create and sustain economic diversity throughout the city.
On a different note, the developer wants us to believe that the payment in lieu of which they have offered – $415,000 – will provide 2 units of comparable housing at a different site. How?
Note for example, that research demonstrates that the Total Development Cost of a single unit at the $12.6M Harbor Village project on Main Street came to roughly $420,000+ for each apartment! Thus, you can see, it’s absurd to assert that $415k paid into the AHT would create two new townhouse units elsewhere. It might fund one. It is also deeply disingenuous to claim, on the one hand, that costs are causing economic hardship such that they can’t afford to provide even one affordable unit in an eight unit project - and then in the next breath confidently claim that they or someone could construct two new affordable units elsewhere for less than $208,000 each.
We, Housing4All Gloucester, firmly believe that one more unit of affordable housing, soon to be available, is more valuable than money in the account of the Affordable Housing Trust. Don’t misunderstand. Funds into the AHT surely have enormous value for future uses. But this unit, available soon, is of more value than undesignated funds into the AHT, which has no current plans for creating housing.
Thus we need to assure that the inclusionary zoning regulations are adhered to in this and every other project now and in the future.
Join us in delivering this message to Gloucester City Council before the Planning and Development Committee (not the Planning Board) takes up this issue again on June 21st.
