It’s Good to Be Prepared.
By Jim Conley • October 26th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
Remember the St. Aidan’s housing project that is, “going to begin construction during the last week of October?” And remember back in June when the Brookline Selectmen threw another $1.7 million at the project to bring the total public funds commitment to over $6 million? And remember how the Boston Archdiocese said that those additional funds would help shore up the project’s financing?
Remember that?
Well, on October 30th Brookline’s Housing Advisory Board is meeting and listed on their agenda is an item that reads: “St. Aidan’s: preparing for closing (on construction loans).” Well, they’ve been preparing for closing since June and I don’t see that they’re any closer to financing this project.
And what pressure has been brought to bear by the project’s chief lender and investor (the Brookline Selectmen)? None. Maybe the Selectmen are just not prepared to start demanding a return on their investment. It’s what happens when you blow a (housing) trust on a risky venture - you suffer silently in fervent hope that your luck changes before you have to account for the loss to the trustees.
Update: The Globe has a story in today on the deepening crisis in the housing market [read here]. Will this change the assumptions made by the Boston Archdiocese and the Brookline Selectmen on the project’s finances? Hardly. The market’s been slumping for some time, and the sales and revenue assumptions for the project remain wildly optimistic.
See, the problem in doing business with faith-based organizations is that they tend to rely a bit too much on, well, faith.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
This may end up as the Brookline Selectmen’s own “subprime mortgage” debacle. The “in lieu” payments (in place of requiring developers to provide affordable units on site) were “bundled” to position the Selectmen as heroes rescuing the St. Aidan’s project with huge investments. Where is the accountability for the “subprime” performance of our Selectmen? Keep in mind that pre-Jesse Mermel this past May, there were four (4) attorneys serving on the Board; their paying clients may be wondering ….
The Town’s affordable housing policy allows builders to make cash contributions to the affordable housing trust fund instead of building onsite affordable units. So, the town effectively swaps a diversified portfolio of sure-thing units, for one or two concentrated gambles on big risky housing projects.
Another consequence of the town’s misguided housing policy is that affordable housing is concentrated and segregated rather than integrated throughout out the community. But, I imagine some policy-makers see that as a good thing.
Hey Roger Blood! I know you are reading this. How about writing in to explain why you champion a housing policy that promotes socio-economic segregation. You’re the Chairman of the Town’s Housing Advisory Board. Why are there no affordable housing opportunities in YOUR neighborhood?
Selectman Bobby Allen and former Selectman Donna Kalikow were the moving forces behind the St. Aidan’s housing project. I am sure they will both be there for the groundbreaking ceremony (which will take place after the unceremonious demolition of historic buildings).
My neighborhood, the St. Aidan’s neighborhood, already has 3 major housing projects, so don’t accuse me of being a Nimby. But, you two, Bobby and Donna, affordable housing advocates that you claim to be — your neighborhoods have no affordable housing opportunities. Why?
I know why, but I am afraid to say it.
Paul Krugman’s column in the NYTimes yesterday (10/26/07) titled “A Catastrophe Foretold” available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul%20Krugman&oref=slogin
on subprime lending and its abuses can be read and appreciated in considering and analyzing the investments of our Selectmen on behalf of the Town in the St. Aidan’s project. Subprime lending has had its winners and losers. This applies to the St. Aidan’s project and the Selectmen’s several decisions to invest and reinvest in this project in the name of affordable housing.
The big winner of course was the Archdiocese which got its price for the sale of the site plus, via a subsidiary, became the project’s developer. The attorneys, real estate consultants, etc, who served the Archdiocese are also winners with the fees they generated. St. Mary’s Parish in the Village is a major beneficiary. (Who can identify other winners?)
As for the losers, the general losers are the residents of our Town. The specific losers are the families eligible for affordable housing who would have long been in affordable units if instead of “in lieu” payments from developers, such units had been required to be provided onsite in their developments. Also big losers are neighbors of the St. Aidan’s project area who did not want to have another Dexter Park/Apartments spring on their side of Pleasant Street. Residents spent a lot of time, effort and expense by stressing the historical significance of the Church, succeeding in having its edifice remain as part of the project. I have long suspected that many of these residents were not as much concerned with the historical significance of St. Aidan’s but rather as a means to stop or reduce the project’s size. It has been many years since this project started. It remains to be seen if the project will actually get off the ground. Perhaps the project may have to be changed to attract the money required to proceed. (Who can identify other losers?)
Besides the winners and losers, we should also focus upon the enablers, such as the various Town boards and agencies involved, including especially the Selectmen. As time goes on, the story will unfold in greater detail. The sad part is that a number of eligible families have been deprived of affordable units that could have long been in place but for the “in lieu” payments. Even sadder is the fact that the same enablers continue in place, with very little accountability. Who knows what they may do next?
A major reason for the lack of accountability on the part of the Selectmen is Representative Town Meeting form of governance. The Selectmen are elected for staggered terms such that a new member Selectmen can tell complaining residents, “I was not serving at the time.” But then this new member Selectman starts to think in terms of how can i effectively challenge the other Selectmen when it could end up four against one. (Does anyone recall Michael Sher?) Then the new member Selectman becomes comfortable with his/her position and perhaps considers reelection. But reelection might require the support and endorsement of - guess who? - the other Selectmen. For some Selectmen, serving as such is intended to inflate his/her resume for professional reasons, including not only the favorite of a law practice in Town but higher political office. (Does anyone recall Debbie Goldberg?) But serving in a minority position on the Board of Selectmen can be uncomfortable. (Since Michael Sher, how much dissent has there been on the Board?) So in this fashion each individual Selectman may be able to say from time to time, sometimes even honestly, that the problems residents complain of are attributable to the other Selectmen, not me. Circular reasoning such as this belongs in the circular file. So do some of our Selectmen. Perhaps this might justify the refuse fee we pay.