September 16, 2012

Blistering report takes city, CDC's to task

Headline in today's newspaper.  The thing that is interesting about this headline, and what I have been saying for years, is that the city is partners with the CDC's.  In fact not only partners, but the buck actually stops with the city (the PJ - Presiding Jurisdiction), not the CDC's.   Let me explain.

Mr McGhourthy after requiring three years of documentation.  Wait a second, three years of documentation??!!
  • Does this mean money was given to them without any documentation?
  • How can this all be Jackie Vachon Jackson's fault when she was not there three years ago?
Evidently money was given out without documentation and now we are asking for three years of receipts and financial audits.   Jahn, imagine running a business like this??  We will give you whatever money you request for three years and then we will ask for the reports later.

Then he goes on to say "If we are unable to justify certain costs disallowed by HUD, the impacted sub-recipient will be required to pay the disallowed cost."   Although these sub-recipients may show net asset value, they typically do not have much CASH, especially when their Executive Directors receive compensation in the mid-$100,000s.  If the sub-recipient does not have the cash, who pays HUD back?
  • In the words of Bruce Almighty , if you said the PJ, the presiding jurisdiction, or the City of Worcester
  • BINGO Yahtzee .   You are right!!!
There is a great chart in the newspaper showing the average cost per unit of 6 different projects averaging about 350,000 per unit and that is all Jackie Vachon Jackson's fault too?  Hey, why not blame George Bush while we are it.  Don't get me wrong she was involved with some questionable dealings, of which we are sure to hear more, but she surely is not responsible for this scathing audit.

I could go on and on about this, but it is a beautiful Sunday morning and the Pats first home game today. At  the same time you got to love the quote from Mullen Sawyer "The city does not build affordable housing, we build affordable housing".  That's great then you do not need the City of Worcester giving you any more money then?     

Lets hope this audit sheds some light on the systemic problem that has existed in the City of Worcester for at least the past ten years.
  1. An over reliance on CDC's as the developer of choice in the City of Worcester.
  2. We need to evaluate, if we really need more low income housing when we are well above the target set by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Lets hope also that the new RKG Housing Report, that will be coming out soon, will be listened to this time unlike it was ten years ago. 


Jahn said...

Sorry cant ruin my nice sunday afternoon over this. Maybe Monday morning. However:

Two words not found anywhere in the article.....forgive me, i did speed read it!

Jim McGovernment In their place Joe Obie and Mr Petty.

Anonymous said...

I asked for Joe Petty comment today at start on the street, and he hadn't yet read the article.

SO it will be interesting what he says on this.


Jahn said...

I really can not take all the time it would require to comment on this alleged low income housing construction debacle which has been brewing now for years.

It appears the jist of it all is that it might cost 125,000 in actual direct costs to create an "affordable" low income housing unit but the CDC's charge off and fund all their overhead to their low income housing projects when in fact it s/b charged to other places w/in the CDC. Yes, they are entitled to a constr/management fee for the time of their employees who are involved in managing low income housing constr, but to anywhere near the extent that they do.

T&G shows "The We've Been Hadley'ed Project" at Main & Madison at a cost of 515k per unit and next line shows 543k in public funding per unit? If we funded it at 543K per unit and it only cost 515K per unit......well what am I missing here. Maybe there is an explanation? What became of the 28K difference in cost vs. funding?

Lastly, no one can answer my question re do CDC's use union labor on these projects?

jahn said...

Here's what I call some illogical, subsidized, circular CDC "logic".

In 2000 and 2001 Main South CDC moved 4 gutted out 3 deckers on Gardner and Beacon Sts about 100 yards to Hollis, Kilby, & Gardner St intersection. Today 10 years later they still look exquisite.

FWIW, it would have been much cheaper to knock them down and build exact replicas OR OR OR just gut them out on site and not move them. But who is counting when it aint your $$$$.

THEN THEN THEn, 9 to 10 years later Main South CDC builds new 2 family houses where the four 3 deckers used to sit? Think of it a 2 family for 3 family exchange. WTH not just have built the new 2 families at Hollis, Gardner , & Kilby vs moving the four 3 deckers there?

If I could draw up a schematic of what I am saying, it would be much more clear. A schematic of this particular CDC boondoogle in Sundays T&G would have really drove home the point of CDC's wasteful ways with taxpayer $$$$.

The frosting on the CDC cake is that each moved 3 decker was about a $500,000 project (thats' a 1/2 million big bucks there Big Daddy!) Would anyone care to guess what these four 3 deckers were sold for to aspiring low income homeowners/ landlords?


Jahn said...

$160,000 to $170,000.

I wonder if any of these 3 deckers have been re-mortgaged... a.k.a. cashed out of?

Next, Sutner should look into an almost completed Habitat for Humanity "duplex" project in Worc that MAY have a tricky "Halloween" component to it. Worc has to lose these low income habits. Looks like the college kids have been at it off & on this Habitat project all summer.

Lastly, I was on Mason St about 3 weeks ago...maybe just b4 Labor Day weekend???.....and I see what appeared to be a private company giving the lot a haircut and a de-mattressing. Not bad....huh Big Daddy??? How many years and court orders did it take?

Big Daddy said...

City paid for clean up of 48 Mason Street.....putting lien on property for clean up costs.

If this property was on Councilor Rushtons side of town there would be rage....okay on our side.....his version of urban renewal....always in others hoods