I have to file this under "different rules for different people"... Here is what I can figure.If I am reading this right Main South CDC has received 2 of 3 loans (which are really grants)granted for Neighborhood Stabilization to the tune of $3,400,000. I was told just the opposite that these Neighborhood Stabilization monies were suppose to be funneded to private property owners not just the CDS's.
In addition the Worcester City Economic Development
Over the last two months it looks $3,800,000 has gone to Main South CDC. What credit crisis? Ironically the Chandler Business Association, who has done ever thing that we were suppose to do regarding our NRSA, can get no monies for Year 3 funding when we have nearly $300,000 representing some 25 projects lined up.
A member send me a message today. Maybe we should call ourselves the Chandler Street CDC and we would get whatever we want? Starting to think he is right. Just another example of the unfair playing ground between the developers of low to mod income housing and the private developer in the City of Worcester.
Worcester's latest low-mod income property development. According to the website: This project is designed to serve single residents or couples through the construction of 12 one bedroom apartments on floors two to four at affordable rates in addition to providing 4 commercial/studio/retail spaces on the street level. There is a deficit of both in this target area.In other words in the 3,200,000 - 3,300,000 million dollar range. Please note this project has absolutely no off street parking. Ironically I am listening to the D4 Councilor at the City Council complaining how a project on the corner of May/Woodland that has provided off street parking, but the tenants are parking in the street not the said lot, thus putting a strain on the neighborhood.
Where do you think the people who live at 1-7 Piedmont Street will park, when in fact there is no off street parking at all? ZBA waived all parking requirements here. Just another example of the double standard between private developers and developers of low to mod income housing.
So far so good. Bottom line it is mortgaged to the hilt. Here is where I get confused there is a 4th mortgage
5. Book 43505 Page 365 Mortgage 66,519 from the City of Worcester
Jahn, help!!! Here you have a property sold for 130,000, but now has 4 mortgages in excess of 200,000? Bottom line it appears to me that the Main South CDC can sell a unit for $130,000 get it 100% financed and then get the city of Worcester to kick in another $66,000!!!! Bottom line Main South CDC gets about $200,000 for a unit that they sell for $130,000???
Same with 8A Kilby on 12/22/8
In total it looks like both side of this duplex were sold for $130,000 each, but the Main South CDC received about 400,000, not 260,000,, since the City of Worcester gave out over $132,000 in HOME funds? Worse part is that these mortgages helld by the City of Worcester are in last position. If the mortgagee ever goes into default on any of the "hard" mortgages and a non low to mod income person takes title during the affordability period, the presiding jurisdiction (City of Worcester) needs to pay back the HOME funds.
Maybe this is a good time for the City of Worcester to review the whole direction of our Housing Policy. In 2003, we paid RKG some $25,000 to do a Housing Study and it was awesome. They nailed it and told the City of Worcester it was over-reliant on the CDC's and their quest to build low to mod income housing developments everywhere. RKG even suggested that we tear down three deckers to provide off street parking for the neighborhood, versus spending $600,000 to rehab a three decker.
At that time their conclusions were attacked, by those with a vested interest to see the current policy continue, and the City of Worcester caved, disregarded all the recommendations in the study and continued to do everything that RKG told us not to do. Check out my map. City Manager O'Brien and the City Council should not pay for another study, but merely dust off the RKG study, read the conclusion and change the whole direction of our Housing policy.
Lastly get ready for the wave of people, the same ones who attacked the RKG Study without knowing any of the facts that need the gravy train of Federal and State monies to keep building more low to mod income housing to support their livelihood, come to Scott's defense .
Bueller??
Bueller??
On a serious note maybe we should consider letting people who do not live in the City of Worcester serve on boards? The only requirement being that they must be a tax-payer in the City of Worcester.
Too bad restaurants could not sign up and off a discount if you use the WooCard?
Two months later Mason Winfield transferred 48 Mason Street to one of the minority owner stake-holders (Worcester Common Ground, a non profit entity) for $10,
Since that time Worcester Common Ground has received a grant in the amount of 170,000 from the EPA BCRLF to remediate 48 Mason Street. Since Common Ground is a non-profit they (Common Ground) will not have to pay the 170,000 back. It is grant.
Some four years later not a thing has been build on 48 Mason Street. Since this property was dispensed via an RFP (Request for Proposal), there must be a corresponding LDA (Land Disposition Agreement), which spells out the timeline of development that the buyer agreed to honor.
Lets hope the terms of the LDA are enforced.
A family of 4 earning under $66,156, even one of substantial wealth, qualifies for Commonwealth Care. These plans have good benefits and great rates, much less then the private marketplace. This has been wildly successful and far exceeded estimates with nearly 200,000 subscribers. The cost to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, however, has been hundreds of millions per year now rumored to be close to 1 BILLION dollars in the read, also far beyond initial estimates.
The Federally run public option will even have a larger pool of applicants since it increase the guidelines to 400% of the Federal Poverty limit! If 200,000 members costs the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1 BILLION, what will 6 million members cost the Federal Government. Now keep in mind that the 6 million will most likely be 20 million, since the rates are cheaper then the marketplace and a person earning up to 400% of the Federal Income limit, without any regards to net worth, can qualify.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. The public option will merely see a huge migration from the private marketplace to a tax-payer subsidized option costing the Federal Government hundreds of billions of dollars.
