Housing, Housing, Housing..................................

OOOOps double entre!!

That is a wonderful idea Matt.

I am just not very clear on why it is that $465K is considered "affordable" housing. Not sure who can afford that. And people being through some significantly tough times, who has the "sterling" credit that is needed to be able to obrian a mortgage that would cover it.

Why couldn't Nantucket Housing advocates take the near $2,000,000 and develop the property entirely themselves.  Leverage the fund$, obtain a loan, and replenish it as units are sold.  Habitat could have more than a few lots, all the units could be "affordable", and individual on-island builders could be put to work, cycling the money throughout the Island economy.  

An example exists.  This was the pro-forma initially written for the 2 FGR property projected revenue nuetral, including the initial purchase price.  Yeah.  I know it was likely tossed in the circular file, when town officials pushed through the park next to their desks, suburban, municipal office park.  That doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea on many levels though.  

Matt 

So true and it was shamelessly well executed!  The question in my head this morning is how was the CPC able to make an informed decision when they didn't even have a pro forma for the project because it didn't exist until well after they granted the second round of money...I guess it is more about the CPC mission as an ideal rather than the economic realities of the project....

As long as young moms with cute babies on their hips stand up at town meeting and express a need, the town will always vote in favor of this funding. 

I learned today at the ZBA meeting that the Housing Assistance Corporation of Hyannis (HAC) via the Nantucket Housing Authority (NHA), the developers of Sachem's Path, will most likely be submitting another application for an additional $500,000 to the CPC in addition to the well over $1,000,000 they have already received putting the total, if granted and voted in at the next town meeting, well over $2,000,000.  This money was built into the pro-forma months ago and was only just revealed today that they would most likely be going back to CPC for this money....funny I don't recall them mentioning that as I was getting my a$$ handed to me at town meeting for trying to make HAC/NHA more accountable for performance and risk.  Fortunately the ZBA was very assertive to take care of some of my major concerns in today's hearing but I really feel mis-lead on this new information - even the ZBA chairman said that this was not made clear at town meeting.

"Keep the dream of home ownership alive for Nantucket's working families"

This ironic quote comes from the bottom of the ad (paid for by the developer) in todays I&M trying to sway voters to vote for the Sachem's Path project.  The 7 island families whose foreclosure notices were also in the paper were far more compelling to me why we don't need it. 

The ad goes on to state that the units will be priced up to approximately $465,000.  At Meet the Candidates, we were told the maximum would be $400,000.  The price went up 15% in the past two weeks.  I wonder if it will go up again over the 10 year build out period?

Regarding the homes for sale at the same prices as this project, we were told: 

"They are zero ­bedroom condos on the second floor with no private yards. They are run-down houses that every­one has looked at and no one wants because of the cost involved with renovating in an undesirable location. They are tiny cottages that are suitable for summer rental, but not for raising a family."

Please click on the link below to see what is on the market.  This home is fee simple, lower priced than Sachems Path will be and located 900 feet from the proposed site.  How can you think we need to construct 40 homes within a 1/4 mile of this house that will cost more than this one?

http://www.trulia.com/property/1087337917-9-Miacomet-Ave-Nantucket-MA-02554

If you are still on the fence about this, please watch the "meet the articles" discussion of Sachem's Path now available on NCTV (which is a cool new addition BTW).  I think the 2 proponents do an excellent job outlining the many flaws in this project.

They make it very clear that the project is based on old data that are no longer relevant to today's market.

Regarding demand, they could only point to a meeting held several years ago that had good attendance.  I find it very hard to get past the fact that they have not indicated that they have any families who have committed to the project.

They state the median income on the island is $103,000 and that the project will be available to those making up to 150% of this.  They go on to say that only incomes up to $120,000 will be considered for the project...Hmmm.

The proponents state that all the units will be priced under $400,000, but the pro forma recently issued by HAC says the highest priced units will be "Approximately" $460,000.  I have a feeling this means closer to $500,000.

They state that only 2 houses on the market in this price range are "suitable."  As of today there are 23 homes on the market in this price range that I would consider "suitable," 10 of which are fee simple ownership.  If this thing gets funded, it is likely that many of these families will go into foreclosure.

New Property Tax bills will be issued on April 2, 2012!!

More funds for the Community Preservation Fund to distribute next year. I wonder if the Sachems Path project is depending on future disbursements also?

I find that Matt Mulcahy is an excellent chair. This particular FinCom is made up of some very dedicated and smart people.

I heard back from the Chairman of the Finance Committee:

"Mr. Willauer,

Letter to FINCOM:

http://www.willauer.com/LetterToFINCOM.html

Fincom probably will change their mind, due to simple political correctness. I am sure thay have received plenty of pressure. This whole Affordable Housing subject is almost untouchable.

Whoever calls this at Town Meeting is going to get a whole ration of crap. It has been easy for all of us to spout off here on YACK, but it will not be so easy on the Town Meeting floor. The CPC and the various housing advocates seem determined to spend our money withour regard to reality.

One of the MANY problems with the methodology used by our "affordable" housing groups is how they determine Median Income and Median Home Sales Price.

The Median Home Sales Price is computed using all transactions that take place on the island including the large ones made by extremely high net worth individuals who do not live here.

The Median Income is computed using only the annual income of those people who live here and excludes those high net worth individuals whose transactions are skewing the data higher.

The "Affordable" housing lobby is including the sales price of multi-million dollar homes, but is ignoring the incomes of the people who buy them.

While the Median Sales Price of Nantucket Real Estate may well be around $1,000,000, the Median Sales Price for Nantucket Residents is probably less than half that.

Their data are intrinsically flawed as is the Sachem's Path project.

Although I did not attend yesterday's FINCOM meeting it was brought to my attention last night that pressure from the CPC and others is being applied to the the FINCOM regarding their motion not to support the funding of Sachem's path in article 31. If this is true, and the members of the FINCOM are considering changing their motion to recommend the CPC funding of Sachem's path I would suggest looking at past issues I&M in which, even though op-eds and letters showed up essentially not supporting the FINCOM's motion, there was an article talking about how real estate sales in volume and dollars were down significantly in 2011 from 2010 and in every issue there are always several foreclosure notices with threat of significantly more on the way.

Adding to this, one of the arguments that has been put forth for the development is that the average house price is $1.5 million. Well, I bought my house in 2006 and its most recent assessed value puts it as 52% less of what I paid for it so essentially I am 'underwater' and am beginning to question what the actual average house price is on Nantucket especially if you exclude the occasional very large transactions of a significant waterfront properties which always proves to skew the numbers.

This project is problematic on a lot of fronts which have been exhaustively discussed here but the FINCOM can change their mind so I encourage anyone who agrees with the original Article 31 motion to attend this coming Tuesday’s FINCOM meeting at 4:00pm.

I don't have a clue why we have three different groups all working on the same non-existent problem.

As I understand it, here is what each group does:

Housing Nantucket:

They operate 26 rental units that are available to people making less than the Island median income of $103,000 for a family of four.  These units are rented for approximately $300-$400 per month less than they would cost on the open market.  

The annual value this provides is easily quantifiable as 26 units X $400 month X 12 Months.  So, the Town realizes an annual benefit of $124,800 in rental assitance from this group.  They receive approximately $500,000 annually in state and federal grants.  As I see it, we get about one dollar in value for every four we put into this group.

To be fair, HN also facilitates the "covenant program" which was a good idea, but it has pretty much dried up since there are no buyers for houses in the $300,000-$400,000 range.  Ask yourself again why we are building 40 houses in this price range at Sachem's Path.

Nantucket Housing Authority 

They operate the subsidized housing units on Norquarta, Benjamin Drive and Miacomet.  They have no website and I cannot determine who funds them.  They are also the driving force behind Sachem's Path as they own the 9 acres in question and want to essentially give it to the developer.  I'll bet the Land Bank would buy the 9 acres from them and they could use the proceeds to actually help people buy affordable homes.  They also own an additional 15 acre parcel in Tom Nevers that may be the site of much larger version of Sachem's Path. 

Housing Specialist at the Planning Board

This position is a TON employee who is part of the Planning Staff.  I believe they were the driving force behind the cutting into thirds of an Easton St. home with the intent of moving it to the new police station to be used as subsidized housing units.  That house sat at the Easton Rotary for the winter and wound up being given to a private citizen.

But it's not just these three groups.  Keep in mind we also support Habitat for Humanity, the "Teacher Housing" on Cow Pond Lane and a rental assitance program.

I believe that someone explained earlier (in this thread, or maybe another?) WHY we have three "Affordable Housing" entities:

Housing Nantucket

Nantucket Housing Authority

and

a Housing Specialist associated with the Nantucket Affordable Housing Trust,

but I can't find it.  Can someone post the link to the explanation?

10-Q!

QC

The influx of seasonal renters is upon us. It is amazing how our population increases drastically each year when Spring arrives. Housing for this seasonal population has always been tough. Of course, the more subsidized publicly funded housing options we continue to create for full time year round residents, will undoubtedly make the empty private sector rentals more available for this large seasonal population. I wonder if Nantucket's Housing advocates unofficially have this in mind.

Unfortunately, the seasonal 6 to 7 month rental received for these private sector housing options often does not cover the total annual costs of owning them for many private sector landlords. I am guessing that many private sector landlords that are right on the edge of almost losing their properties, are more than happy to receive the seasonal rental income available now, that will disappear in the Fall. Will they be able to rent these units in the Fall to quality desirable tenants that have the ability to pay the rent and utilities? Maybe. Is the pool of quality desirable year round tenants that can simply pay fair rent getting smaller and smaller? YES!

Sachems Path will create publicly subsidized homes that will be sold competing with private sector homes. This is definitely unfair to those private sector home owners that are trying to sell in the same price range. My list below proves this, and does not even include foreclosures and short sales that will continue to come up. Ironically these private sector owners paid into the CPF when they paid their property taxes:(

Now, as far as Private Sector homes available for sale, may I offer the following list of current homes available on atlanticeastre.com:

21b Park Circle 3/1.5 325k

78 Arkansas 2/2 324k

97b Goldfinch 2/1.5 345k

23b Park Circle 3/2.5 350k

1 Polliwog 2/1 379k

9 Miacomet Ave 3/2 399k

11 Nobska 2/1 419k

5 Green Meadows 2/1.5 425k

4b Goldfinch 2/2 449k

60 Arkansas 3/2.5 449k

36 Evergreen 2/3 450k

8 Celtic 3/4 495

9R Miacomet 3/1 519k

30 Miacomet 2/2 539k

11 Teasdale 2/3.5 540k

I enjoyed the two letters to the Editor prominently featured in Today's I&M.  

The first letter from the President of Habitat Nantucket seems to rely on a "a survey" that indicates that none of the lower priced properties on the market are "suitable."  I'm fairly certain he is referring to either the data generated in 2006 or the information given by a real estate broker 2 years ago.  Either way, today's market is full of "suitable" properties priced lower than the proposed homes at Sachem's Path.  If it is funded, the Sachem's Path site will look like an abandoned construction site for the next decade.  (Please visit the Rugged Scott project to see what I mean.  Sachem's Path will look like a low budget version of this.)  No one is going to buy a 2BR home at Sachem's Path that is deed restricted and unable to appreciate when there are more desirable homes for sale for less money, in better neighborhoods that CAN appreciate with the market.

The second letter from a CPC member is essentially about nothing.  It says to me "The CPC wants this, so ignore the FinCom and get with the program."  It also seems to think that the fact that they will be building this for the next 5-6 years is a positive because the HAC has a "desire" to hire some locals.

What both of these letters ignore is the complete lack of demand for this project.  Even if there were some tepid demand (which there is not), can you imagine the ill effects of making it impossible for property owners to sell homes priced under $600,000 for the next 6 years?

Oh yeah, there are 7 new foreclosures in the same newspaper.  Three of these are apparaised under and will sell for well under $500,000.  

The only people who want this thing built are the CPC, the developer and the affordable housing lobby.

http://mommaterial.blogspot.com/2012/03/where-heart-is.html

http://mommaterial.blogspot.com/2012/03/where-heart-is.html

Fortunatly the voters, especially property owners, will have thier chance to vote the wisdom of the FINCOM at town meeting.

duplicate

From today's Op-Ed in the I&M regarding the Sachem's Path funding:

"There has been much discus­sion about the demand for homes in the highest income category and the supposed availability of exist­ing homes. We’ve visited many of these potential options, and here is what we’ve learned:They are zero­bedroom condos on the second floor with no private yards. They are run-down houses that every­one has looked at and no one wants because of the cost involved with renovating in an undesirable location. "

This is just a bunch of untruths.  Kudos to the FinCom for seeing through this.

The homes for sale today on Newtown Road, Quail Lane and Green Meadows are all in very good shape.  Further, they are all far better locations to raise children than Sachem's Path would be if it is ever built.  If the "affordable" housing lobby is able to appeal to emotions at ATM and get their funding, they will succeed in creating the most "undesirable" neighborhood on Nantucket with Sachem's Path.  BTW, telling the people who are paying for this that their neighborhoods are not good enough for residents of this project is not good strategy.

I think it speaks volumes that the only people speaking in favor of this funding are the people whose budgets depend on the funding-not those who would supposedly benefit from it.  Further, it is illustrative of the whole process that the CPC member quoted in the I&M did not mention the demand for the project (there isn't any), nor the financial benefit it brings the town (there isn't any).  The reason he gave for supporting the project was the completeness of the application.

Where is the letter to the editor from the local family who simply cannot afford a home unless Sachem's Path is built??  Where is the outrage from local residents that we are not providing for the next generation??

Since buyers for this property do not exist,there is no outrage, no heartfelt plea for the project.  It's just a bunch of "affordable" housing people trying to enlarge their fiefdoms and ram through a project that doesn't make sense.  

There are very few local families presently in the market to buy homes.  Further, those who are in the market are all smart enough to buy the one on Newtown, Quail and Green Meadows that are not deed restricted and able to appreciate as the market goes up.

I everyone. I am late to the discussion. Just want to say, Will, that no, we were not aware of the Sachem project, and we abutt it directly... We were aware that something was in the works, but had no idea of the scope of the project being proposed. I'm frankly horrified. And I am fully prepared to speak against it at Town Meeting.  And I will go to the hearing on March seventh, as well...  

'

This is a prime example of why legislation needs a sunset provision so that decisions are not made by default or because "we've always done it that way"  Buzz

I wonder if the discussion here had any impact...? Hmmm...

FYI: The FinCom voted Monday on the CPC warrant article w/ the grant award for Sachem's Path http://www.ack.net/sachempathfunding022712.html

I can't help but wonder if $3.3 million is going to be given to a developer, wouldn't it make more sense to make 10 duplexes, and use that to rent to some of our younger families who don't have the credit to or the downpayment for buying?  Many of whom are leaving the Island due to the cost of living?  So many people still remain on a waiting list for Miacomet Village, there are people who can't pay $1500 plus a month.  If the developer can use the 3.3 million to build something that people could actually use, any money made on a rental situation would be in the clear, and should go to the Town.  The reason this doesn't make any sense to me is that if people could get mortgages and have downpayments, then I think a number of the foreclosed homes would be bought.

I am all for using the current foreclosure inventory, but there are very few people who can qualify for a mortgage in this market.  There are many more who have the ability to rent at a reasonable cost. If Habitat for Humanity can build a house and have a more than reasonable mortgage on the same, then I am quite sure the developer can figure out how to still make a profit and we could add to the affordable rental market.

According to the Developer's Pro Forma:

In addition to the bargain price of $50,000 for 9 acres of open space, the developer is also counting on $1,100,000 in additional funds from the Mass Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

So, it's actually $3,300,000 in combined local and state taxes they will receive.

That's $330,000 per "affordable" unit.  That is WAY over what any rational municipality should subsidize per unit, but the real crime here is that the developer then gets to SELL the unit.  It's like HAC gets paid twice for every house they build.

Town meeting will be during the day on Saturday, March 31, 2012 starting at 8:30am.

I just wish they could come up with things that would benefit the entire community, not something that benefits an extremely small segment (in this case likely only 4 families) while giving a large segment of the year round community a nice kick where it hurts the most at the worst possible time in the last 30 years.  It seems they have a very narrow and concentrated (59% of this years CPC money) focus on one thing without regard to the consequences to others in the community.  The "community" in CPC is supposed to be the WHOLE community.....thats what community means!

I have nothing against Habitat for Humanity, if people want to donate their time and money that is fine, it is for a good cause, kind of like 'barn raising" in the old days.  But when it starts sucking up tax dollars by the millions, it is no longer a private non profit, it becomes another government program.  We all know what happens to government programs.  

I likely will not be able to attend the first night of town meeting, so I hope someone calls this.  I think they really need to go back to the drawing board on this.  It might be well intentioned (I'm sure it is) but I dont think they see the harm it will do on the other side.

It is actually 40 houses which may go down by one or two to accommodate an updated access and egress.  Hopefully the FINCOM will give this piece of the CPC funding a thumbs down so there is opportunity to look at how to save existing homeowners and/or the use of existing inventory can be utilized.

So there arent really any "market rate" homes slated for this land at all.  All 36 units are limited to a max of 150% (130% actually, or 461K max "final price") of median income.  ALL of the units' selling prices are limited, not that it really matters given the current market conditions. As far as market dilution goes though, this actually makes things worse than I thought, a lot worse. The "developer" in this is not the 'builder", or "contractor".  The Housing Authority is the developer....of the WHOLE thing, not just a few affordable units.  Habitat for Humanity is doing 4 of the 36 units, the Housing Authority is doing the remaining 32, hiring an off island contractor to contract out the work, who earns 14.5%.  They couldnt find anyone on island to do this contracting ? really?? some community benefit there huh?  

In the good way, its not quite as crazy as I thought.  Its not an off island private developer that bought the land and the taxpayer is making his entire development financially feasible by paying for the affordable part with tax dollars  It IS still tax dollars though, and a lot of them. 

This will affect many regular year round Nantucket homeowners in a really bad way.  The effect of only 6 (as was talked about earlier) additional units in a market of 26 can be quite devastating.  Just like it only takes a small disruption in the oil supply (or even the threat of it as we see with Iran) to raise prices, it also doesnt take much excess supply to crater the price.  A 36 unit dilution in a 26 unit (under 500K) market will collapse the price of that market.  They dont have to be all built and ready for sale.  The mere fact of their availability affects how the market sees supply.  This would have a massive negative effect on low end property values, whether or not they are even built.  This would also blow a big hole in the assumptions in actual selling prices in this project (as prev discussed), making it doubtful that anything not funded with tax dollars will ever be built (which means they will be back at the trough every year).  

Which means we will most likely have spent 2 million tax dollars on 4 Habitat for Humanity homes, while possibly shaving $100,000 or more off the the now $500,000 price of a low end Nantucket home.  Thats great for the 4 Habitat families and bad for the 4 Nantucketers presently renting to them.  Its good for the perspective low end home buyer (unless another development like this pops up right after they buy!), but really really bad for those dedicated long term Nantucketers ever thinking of selliing their home if its in that category, or anywhere near it.  This will also affect the value of homes up the ladder, although the effect wanes as you ascend the price level of the market.  Dont think because your home is worth $1 million that this wont effect its value, it will.  There are many members of the community in this segment (homeowners), many who are already significantly underwater.  Arent they worth "preserving"?  This project completely throws them under the bus in a very big way.  This is classic redistribution of wealth, only the regular Nantucket homeowner is the donor, not some rich Wall St guy we're supposed to hate.  

I dont think the people of Nantucket quite had this in mind when they signed on to the CPC idea, I sure didnt, I thought it would be much more spread out. The more I look at it and read meeting minutes, the more the CPC looks like an annual 3% override with 9 people deciding on what pet projects it gets spent on.  Would we vote for a $1million override for affordable housing every year or a near half million dollar override for more playing fields (plus their never ending upkeep costs)?  I doubt it.  Yet thats essentially what this is.  I think individual articles at town meeting, decided by all attendees, would be a much better way to go.  We would lose the state matching (which comes from US too!  It doesnt fall off a tree!), but I think it would be worth it to regain control of this significant amount of money.  As it is, I dont think this money is largely being spent in a manner that would pass town meeting, which may be the very reason for this concept's creation.

The land used to belong to the town and in I believe in 1984 it was voted in town meeting to be given to the Nantucket Housing Authority and there is a line on the Pro Forma for $50k for land:

http://www.willauer.com/SachemProForma.PDF

All the houses in the developement will share the same infrstructure.

Its not really "free" land if it costs a million for infrastructure.  Who is this free land being transferred to?  From who? Is this infrastructure the same infrastructure that the market rate units will use?  Are WE paying for the developer's market rate unit's infrastructure?

The next installment from CPC is for $990k to build the infrastructure with an additional $200k to go to build the four Habitat for Humanity houses in Sachem's which are included in the low end calculation.  Don't forget about the essentially free land...

The next meeting should be interesting as the waivers with fees attached are going to be discussed i.e. sewer, water, etc.

So the $2 million is for infrastructure only???   For 6 houses?  $333,000 each for infrastructure???   So we could see $2million spent on infrastructure and no demand for the units, so $2million tax dollars spent for pavement and pipes and it ends up not putting a roof over one human being?  This gets crazier by the minute.

I was thinking the developers risk was the costs of the land plus infrastructure, but now its sounding like WE are paying for the infrastructure for the entire development.  Then the affordable buyer pays for the construction of the house, plus some.  I can only imaginge there is some "plus some" because these prices are more than just reasonable (affordable, remember?) construction costs. So, where does the "plus some" go?  To Hyannis?  To the developer?  Back to the taxpayers of Nantucket?

What ends up being the total cost per unit? $333,000 plus building cost?  Between what the taxpayer and buyer is putting into these units, they really could be on Hulbert Ave.  They could find no better use for this money?  Really?

The money they are getting from CPC is to build the infrastructure, the buyers will be borrowing the money to build the houses with the purchase of the more expensive houses subsidizing the less expensive houses and HAC makes there money by contracting the project with no investment or risk on their part.  Yes, I agree that the CPC money would be better used to assist people buy existing inventory with a big upside in that no money has to be spent until the actual demand is realized.  The problem with Sachem's is that they really do not know what the demand is, they are hoping that 'if they build it they will come.'  At the last ZBA meeting it was made abundantly clear that HAC does not know what the demand is because it was revealed that they were operating on information from one real estate broker that they had last spoken to a year and a half ago AND they asked the board if there was any thing they could do to speed up the process - in essence, in my opinion, an attempt to 'ram' it through.

Will thanks for keeping us updated!

The question I have here is, after dumping $2million in tax dollars into this (6 units, $333,000 each, right?), is there any contribution to the affordable units left for the developer to make or did we take care of all of it for him?   Geez, $2million could give TWENTY families a $100,000 downpayment on any of the existing 26 (or so) properties in the 500K and under category.

"not in desireable areas"????????

Pretty soon we'll be saying  "its on Hulbert Ave, what more do you want?'

and the reply will be "Well, its not on the water side..."

This whole deal has such a pervasive foul odor, I don't know how anyone on Nantucket could be in favor of it.

This whole deal has such a pervasive foul odor, I don't know how anyone on Nantucket could be in favor of it.

Another thing that was brought up by the ZBA in I believe the discussion about the risk of failure was that the HAC has "No Skin in the Game" meaning obviously they are getting the land for almost nothing, being paid by the property tax dollars through the CPC grant to build the infrastructure and the buyers esentially buy the houses with money they borrow.  Not too shabby if you look at the projected "Developer's Overhead and profit."

http://www.willauer.com/SachemProForma.PDF

If there were not already many homes for sale at prices less than the "affordable" units will cost at Sachem's I would agree with you.  However, there are and I don't.

Home ownership is a great thing and a fine goal.

Using tax dollars to build homes that are priced higher than existing inventory is wasteful and shortsighted. 

One thing I forgot to add is that the HAC stated there was no neighbor opposition so if there are any neighbors who oppose this or if anyone know a neighbor to this project it is likely they are uniformed that this is going on so let them know!  Perhaps they don't care then so be it but I'll bet that once ground is broken people will start to say "What's Going On?"

Your example is great Zelda, but the same example can be used by the affordable housing advocates.

In the movies that Susan Witte created supporting affordable housing on Nantucket, some of the occupants in the movies say something like "the great thing now is that I am not paying somebody elses mortgage I am now paying my own..................."

"Not throwing snowballs............."

I attended the special ZBA hearing for Sachem's Path last night and the highlights regarding the site plan that I recall are as follows:

(1) Post and rail fences are going to be installed to separate the lots from the open space buffers that surrounds the development.

(2) Asphalt sidewalks are going to be installed on one side of the street with 'Cape Cod berms' on the other.

(3) What is to be used to delineate lot lines is yet to be determined.

(4) Cluster mailboxes are going to be used and wide speed bumps are going to be installed.

The hearing then turned to demand and the Pro Forma and here is what I recall:

http://www.willauer.com/SachemProForma.PDF

http://www.willauer.com/SachemMultiplierCalculation.PDF

After some long back and forth the ZBA asked HAC (Housing Assistance Corporation of Hyannis) to come up with hard demand numbers other than simple saying that there are 7 families on board (as yet to be qualified) and 15 more that have expressed interest. One suggestion give to HAC was to speak to Housing Nantucket.

http://www.housingnantucket.org/homeownership.html

http://www.housingnantucket.org/CovenantStatistics.html

The ZBA also asked for Comparable projects of which there are none on Nantucket so the HAC was going to see what has been done on Martha's Vineyard.

The ZBA also pointed out that the existing available inventory of market rate houses in this price range was vastly greater than the figures HAC was using, those houses had been on the market well over a year and that realistically they sell for much less than asking which dips even more houses into the HAC range. It was also pointed out the source that the HAC was using for real estate data had not been contacted for a year and a half so perhaps the data was out dated.

Of course HAC and NHA (Nantucket housing Authority) again stated that the condos and co-ops to qualify for low low income deed restricted mortgages, that the existing houses need too much work, are in undesirable locations, etc., that the new houses in Sachems would not suffer these problems, etc. because they would be new and efficient and that banks are not selling the foreclosed houses in their inventories below market rates at this point – this needs to be clarified.

Other things that were discussed was how the risk of not being able to sell the higher end units which is necessary to build the lower end units will be managed and would it be possible to relax the rules down the line. The response I think I heard was essentially yes as long as the 40B minimums were met - that needs to be clarified.

I realize that the ZBA is not the appropriate place to voice this and a lot of this had been spoken to and was reminded as such to both but towards the end I spoke up and stated again anyway that there is still a huge mortgage crisis and asked if there was any hard information or if anyone knew whether or not Nantucket was about to be handed a minimum of 60 new foreclosures and if so how willing are the banks going to be to lend and if loans are granted aren't more people being set up to be foreclosed upon given the current economy? Further, if the economy improves, who is going to want to buy a deed restricted house in the higher end of the development? HAC replied that the foreclosure rates were lower on subsidized low income deed restricted mortgages because the qualification process was much more stringent and that the HAC would be there to assist the candidate to prepare to qualify. The HAC further stated that banks still are lending while foreclosing - there were not any bankers in the room to support this claim but the HAC did state that they had spoken to Cape Cod Five and apparently were told that it would not be a problem as long as the buyer qualified.

The hearing wrapped up with an appeal from the HAC to see if there was anything they could do to speed up the process as it is taking to long and the ZBA said no. The ZBA also pointed out that the money for the consultant to the project Ed Marchant was running out and that the town was not going to pay any more and that the project could not go forward without him. HAC is going to look for a way to resolve this problem.

The next meeting is scheduled for March 7, 2012 at 5:00pm at 2 Fairgrounds.

I will not be attending ATM this year.

ZELDA WROTE:  "...I hope that someone calls this at ATM and at least broaches the topic.  I know this thing is pretty much a foregone conclusion, and that the "affordable" housing people have their fiefdoms to expand, but I don't think we can afford this one, nevermind the next one."

How about YOU?

The example you have given is a perfect example to show how we have cheerily given away the proverbial farm.  Share it at Town Meeting.  Please.

Just from watching the last 14 years while in office, here's what I've observed:

1.  "One of these days" ends up being NONE of these days.  Ever.

2.  ""Someone," or "Somebody" usually ends up being NOBODY.

3.  The vast majority of people in this Town will make a snowball, but very few will throw one.

QC/Catherine Stover

Its worse than that. This is throwing $2 million in property tax money at the part of the project that was ALREADY REQURED of the developer.

Thats the deal with the 40b, make a certain percentage of the development affordable (making less/no money on that portion), and we'll let you bypass all the zoning laws the rest of us have to obey.  What the CPC is doing is simply plopping all that cash in the developers pocket.  If this project is ever to happen, the affordable units would have already been paid for by the developer.  At $300,000 per unit taxpayer contribution, I would say they are more than completely paid for, leaving the developer's financial responsibility toward the affordable portion of this development at zero.  The rest (ALL of it to the developer) is gravy.  

At least we will get sewer hookup fees from the market rate units and help with the new sewer plant..  Oh wait!  We gave that away too! (did I really read that right???  really???)

The charge of the CPC is to appropriate these monies in a responsible mannor.  I guess we will see at town meeting if the voters think putting 59% of CPC money into housing in the weakest rental market in decades, much of it going directly into an off island developers pocket, is doing so.

Will someone please tell me how I'm crazy?