December 27, 2008

Anoymous Comment

Been busy, but I had to post this anonymous comment:

the best thing about this article is that it goes againgst EVERYTHING everyone on this site has said about low-mid income housing! Thanks for posting. Integrating income levels IS the key to a vibratnt neighborhood. Im just not sure what the motivation was for posting this. If anyone things that Longhill Gardens, at well over 200 units compares to City Builders at 30 units you are dead wrong. Longhill was segregating, CB is integrating. Its just too bad the neighborhood gave so much opposition to the original plan. CB would have been much mcu MUCH better if it was mixed income as originally proposed. The neighbors (as always) had to fight a great proposal to get what they wanted, and ended up with the opposite. Oh well. still, though, 30 units of lo-mid income housing is still not "warehousing" and will overall be a positive thing for Canterbury ST.

You got to love this post. I love these guys who defend the project then post anonymously. For the record the neighborhood strongly supported the original plan which called for 25 owner occupied townhouses, of which 17 or 68% were for low to mod income. Let me stress this again. This original proposal had the neighborhood support!!!

It was only when this original proposal were replaced by a single 25 unit apartment with 100% low to mod income was when the plans were opposed. How is this integrating? Lets for arguements sake, say a professor at Holy Cross or a machinist from a local manufacturing company making 100,000 per yeat wants to live at Southgate Place, they do not qualify and will be turned away.

How can anyone say 25, not 30 units, of low to mod income housings is not "warehousing"? For the record I do feel Longhill Gardens does in fact compare with City Builders. What difference does the number of units make, whether it be 200 or 30. They are the same projects, based on the same model financed with tax payer monies. The only difference is the number of units.


Anonymous said...

Re: the new ordinance, I read in T&G that the police were the 1st line of enforcement with a warning and that they had the means (a computer?) in their patrol car to determine who the responsible party is re: the unshoveled sidewalk.

Chalk it up to failure to ascertain the correct property owner.........laziness??................apathy ??????.................maybe rushing to get to an off duty detail??


Did anyone notice 2 topics missing from Mr Nemeths crystal ball predictions for 2009 in todays Sunday T&G?? (Clue, they both concern what could generally be called real estate in the city?)

Bill Randell said...

The police are enforcing this ordinance? I personally do not think that this is efficient use of police time... It would seem to be more a code problem falling under the nuisance team?

Have not read Nemeth today but I will the guess 1) the airport and 2) city sqaure.

Anonymous said...

As I remember the meeting going, S Worc residents liked the owner occ townhomes, but had many problems with setbacks, lack of parking etc. Is this correct?

Bill Randell said...

The South Worcester abutters had no problem with the set backs or any other variance when we were discussing owner oocupied opportunities. The neighborhood would support these variances.

The objections came up when the prospect of 20+ rental units in a single building solely for low to mod income people was proposed. The neighborhood would not support these variances since the underlying project was not wanted.


Anonymous said...

Correct Bill. No comments from Mr Nemeth on Airport or City Sq.

BTW has anyone been following the news re: comm. real estate........empty stores in Malls.......banks refusing to lend for new constr unless the new property has firm rental commitments.....etc...........etc.

Are we going to start off '09 with some good news re: City Sq. and UNUM maybe? dittos for the airport.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I had meant the second proposal...11 townhomes and a 21 unit apartment building. This seems more than reasonable for an urban neighborhood. Were the 11 townhomes still to be owner occupied?

Bill Randell said...


You have a very good understanding of this project. You must be very close to the development.

This was not supported because of the 21 unit apartment building and the there was no promise as to when the 11 owner occupied townhouses would ever be built.

If fact the whole owner occupied element has been dropped and the only thing to be built is a 25 unit, not 21 unit, apartment building.

Bill Randell