Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
After going through all the details with a fine tooth comb, the Somerville Board of Aldermen approved the controversial Home Rule Petition for the Clarendon Hill Project.
By Jim Clark
The Somerville Board of Aldermen’s Legislative Matters Committee of the Whole met last Thursday, May 31, to discuss and take action in regards to the reconstruction of the Clarendon Hill housing project.
The first order of business concerned the Director of SPCD advising the Board on any conditions to be imposed on the developers of the Clarendon Hill housing project regarding property ownership and land use, relocation of tenants, local and state approvals, financing and construction, occupancy requirements, and project design.
Ward 7 Alderman and Board President Katjana Ballantyne explained that the project was viewed as one single development to protect the affordable units as a group. The letter with conditions of award for the $10 million that the city is proposing to contribute to the project was intended to identify and make clear various pieces of the development so that they can be monitored for developer compliance by the city.
Ward 6 Alderman Lance Davis’ question about what would happen if the market-rate units were turned into condos led to a lengthy discussion about representation, voting rights and access to common areas and amenities.
Ward 2 Alderman J.T. Scott stated that he could not see a practical way to give voting rights to the residents of the affordable housing units.
The Committee was told that Redgate is not contemplating converting any units to condos but having the option to do so is desirable should market conditions change. The presumption was that should a conversion to condos occur, more than likely there would be a single owner controlling a block of votes for the non-market rate units. All parties stated that they had not contemplated what would happen if units were converted to condos.
It was pointed out that public housing cannot be converted to condos, by law, and that alternate language should be more precise, however the Committee felt that it was not necessary.
The Committee was cautioned against putting restrictions on public housing units, as it was not inconceivable in the future that the state may want to sell them. It was noted that unless the state decided to change something, the units would be protected in perpetuity.
Alderman At-Large Mary Jo Rossetti and Alderman Davis questioned the term “developer” in one section of the agreement that deals with the reconstruction of the roadway and rotary and Alderman Ballantyne explained that the intent was to make it clear that the city would not be responsible for the cost of any road work described in the plan. Alderman Davis proposed a language change to the section by replacing the word “developer” with the names of the development team parties. This was approved unanimously.
Alderman At-Large William A. White Jr. questioned why a time limit to secure the ruling from the State Department of Labor Standards (DLS) on whether the market-rate housing developer Redgate would need to pay prevailing wage wasn’t included in one section.
It was suggested that language could be added to allow a period of “within 180 days of the signing of the agreement.” The committee was told that Redgate would proceed “at risk” and draw up plans while awaiting the ruling from DLS on prevailing wage.
Alderman Ballantyne commented that the property belongs to the state and it was her understanding that the SHA would not look for another developer if this plan falls through. The Committee was informed that the responsibility for obtaining the ruling falls upon the SHA. Alderman White proposed an amendment to the section that provides a time period of 180 days and places the responsibility upon the SHA, as discussed above, which was approved unanimously.
After even more detailed analysis and amending of the final document, the Home Rule Petition to authorize the Housing Authority to reconstruct the state funded Clarendon Hill Public Housing Project was voted on and approved as amended.
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
It’s really sad that there is so much complicated discussion when it comes to housing projects. If there was a priority over making affordable housing over making high-end housing that makes more money for the city, it’s likely these issues would be over with a lot faster.
We really don’t need more living space; what we need is cheaper living space. There are already plenty of people here, many of whom are living by the skin of their teeth in order to be able to stay here.
Encourage landlords to rent at lower cost by giving them some tax incentives. Encourage developers of existing buildings to lower their rents by giving them tax incentives.
It’s just too bad the city is trying to grab as much money as they can from everyone. Nobody wins, except those that are lining their pockets at our expense.
LindaS, we will not see affordable housing in Somerville, at least the way it used to be affordable, unless/until Boston and the surrounding areas are in a deep recession, and even then it will be tough to afford if for different reasons.
The value of the land here is such that there will only be luxury housing from now on. There may be some assistance available and a few landlords who keep their rents low, but those will be fewer and fewer.
On the supply vs demand side, increasing the supply to try to meet the demand is about the only way to keep prices from going up even faster. So adding as many new units as possible can only help keep price inflation down, if only by a little. More smaller studios and one bedrooms would also be preferable as the idea a family will move into a four or five bedroom is a joke, it will be bought by an absentee landlord who will cram six or seven working millennials in for a grand or more per bedroom.
As much as everyone everywhere thinks they pay to much in taxes, Somerville’s are lower than all our neighboring towns and with 311 and and other services, we get a lot more for that money than most of our neighbors do. Our streets are better plowed than Medford, snow is cleared from Squares relatively quickly, try parking in Harvard Sq three weeks after a blizzard. Taxes could not be much lower and even if eliminated would drop rent by maybe a few hundred dollars per unit. Which means that an $1800 a month one bedroom on Highland ave might drop to $1600, which I do not see being a big help to a working parent who is sleeping in the living room so their kids can have the bedroom.
There is not much that will make Somerville affordable again and most people would not stand for the changes that would. Rent in the 80’s and even early 90’s was not bad. All you had to put up with was 4-5 murders per year. Drug dealers in pretty much every square. Not to mention the volume of casual muggings and assaults that were a daily part of life.
At the current value of land, rental units might be affordable if every house were torn down and everything replaced with five story apartment buildings. Those might even allow for enough density to have some more open space for parks made available. Say clump six current lots into one building and leave two lots as green space. Near squares allow 14-16 to be combines if they open up eight lots as a larger park/playground.
DatGruntled – wow, solid assessment of the situation on the ground.