Wringing Out 2007: A Saintly Scam.
By Jim Conley • Dec 29th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
When it comes to care for those on the margin, Brookline town government couldn’t be bothered. But every once in awhile, an opportunity comes along that allows our town hall team to present a charade around the public trust while advancing the interests of real estate developers.
Such is the case with the housing project at the former St. Aidan’s Church. The Brookline Selectmen have given over $6 million in loans and gifts to construct this dud. But after years of bullying local residents, the selectmen and the Boston Archdiocese have yet to break ground at the site (financing is right around the corner, don’t you know).
Let’s forget for a moment how this project shows that when you don’t give a hoot for providing affordable housing - but you have $6 million to spend on the cause - you can throw it at an ill-conceived project instead of more worthy pursuits. (In fact, the town’s housing manager Fran “The Snitch” Price seems to have given up on affordable housing to spend a portion of her day ratting out the residents who were plaintiffs to a lawsuit.)
All this on a project that crosses the line drawn between church and state.
St. Aidan’s is the ineptitude of Brookline town government, writ large. There is no meaningful housing leadership in Brookline, and it’s impossible for the selectmen to admit that they wasted $6 million in public funds by throwing it into this sinkhole.
Though assurances to the contrary were made to residents, we see that the developer is utterly incapable of removing hazardous materials from the church property. We see a Brookline Preservation Commission that has rushed in to stay the demolition of a Thorndike St. tenement but can utter nary a word concerning the demolition of the rectory at St. Aidan’s (one of Brookline’s oldest buildings).
And guess what? Next year we’ll see more contempt for the public trust by the board of selectmen and the church/developer.
We’ll learn the identity of investors who will benefit from nearly $3 million in public funds given to the Archdiocese for the construction of “low income rental units” at the project. What’s that? You thought the public funds were being used to make home ownership attainable to those frozen out of the Brookline housing market? You never thought for a moment that public funds might be used to create millions in rental income and tax credits for investors?
Well, chump this is Brookline. And just because you’ve been told something, it doesn’t mean that that is what’s actually going down.
Stay tuned.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
BREAKING NEWS or BREAKING WIND?
Which can we expect to hear from the Selectmen on this project, and when? Meantime, the project’s soft costs harden into serious fees for lawyers and other consultants even before BREAKING GROUND. When can we expect to see on the TAB’s front page a picture of our Selectmen with their hard hats and shovels on the project’s site? Of course, our Selectmen are currently using their metaphoric shovels looking for a pony in the pile that this project has created. Mounting soft costs and political hard hats have ruined many a project: Time is money - and it may be afleeting, absent a miracle.
The lack of affordable housing in Brookline has been obvious as demonstrated (until only recently) by escalating housing prices. The current slump in home prices will not make housing more affordable because of the credit crunch accompanying the price declines.
Brookline’s zoning bylaw addresses affordable housing but it has been ineffective because of the small percentage of affordable units required in multiple housing developments. Further, the zoning bylaw permits for “in lieu” payments as an alternative to providing affordable units on site. As a result, most developers opt to make “in lieu” payments most likely for what are perceived as marketing purposes; tranlation: who will pay the big bucks for market rate units if even a few of the units would be occupied by persons falling within the “affordable” category? In fact, this is how the Town was in a position to “loan” several millions for the St. Aidan’s project. I have asked Town officials through comments on this Blog to tell us how many affordable units would have been in place, and for how long, if the zoning bylaw required (as it once did) that the affordable units be provided on site. But Town officials have not bothered to answer.
Chapter 40B has become a problem for Brookline since rent control was eliminated, with the result that Brookline fails to satisfy 40B’s requirements for affordable units. 40B has served the Commonwealth well by forcing communities to provide for multiple housing zoning or else pay the price by overriding zoning with 40B developments. But Brookline has long provided extensive multiple housing in its zoning bylaw. Just ride, or walk, through North Brookline to observe all the apartment complexes. Then the Condominium statute was adopted, thereby reducing renters, except for those protected by rent control. Rent control did not apply to new multiple housing developments which could be condo-ed. But with the end of rent control, in combination with condo conversions, the supply of affordable housing shrank significantly. While the threat of 40B may work with respect to smaller towns that try to use zoning to avoid multiple housing, it serves in Brookline not as a shield but as a sword. Established Brookline neighborhoods can and have been negatively impacted by 40B projects especially in North Brookline which already has (drum roll!) extensive multiple housing (condos and rentals). 40B developers in Brookline are ready and willing to cash in wherever.
There is a recognition that 40B needs to be revised, especially for communities such as Brookline that do provide extensive multiple housing. It is not Brookline’s fault that housing prices have (until recently) escalated. How 40B might be revised is a serious matter, politically and economically. But one thing is clear: To properly address affordable housing needs, it will require attention at both the federal and state levels; cities and towns lack the means to do so.