Rolling Green Apartments, 204 units
The Amherst Select Board seems to have simply thrown up their hands and quit the fight to maintain our 10% minimum threshold for Subsidized Housing Inventory, a vaccine against a Chapter 40B mega-housing development being shoved down our throats.
Currently with 1,035 affordable units out of a total of 9,621, the town stands at 10.8%. Rolling Green's 204 units represent 20% of our total stock of affordable housing, so once lost the Town's overall SHI drops to 8.5%.
Town officials have known for a half-dozen years that Rolling Green Apartments would be eligible to go to market rate because their federally subsidized loans were closing out.
The 50 year old complex is currently valued at $9,119,200 so an eminent domain taking is unlikely. Town Meeting showed little stomach for eminent domain action last spring, rejecting the idea of taking Echo Village Apartments or the "development rights" of the property in northeast Amherst now slated to become "The Retreat" student housing development.
Almost three years ago Town Meeting appropriated $25,000 for a study pretty much specifically targeting the Rolling Green situation. With the deadline now a mere three weeks away, it would appear Rolling Green is a lost cause.
Not overly "affordable"
And clearly Select Board Chair Stephanie O'Keeffe is not happy about the pace or focus of the process thus far.
You also have to wonder how uncomfortable this makes about-to-be-displaced tenants at Echo Village feel? Their situation came on suddenly, as Jamie Cherewatti only bought the property in January and then immediately jacked up the rents.
Plus, unlike Rolling Green, the 24 Echo Village units do not count towards our affordability index, so town officials have a little less to lose with their instant transition to market rate. And in Amherst, "market rate" is EXPENSIVE.
The Feds lump Amherst in with Springfield when setting maximum allowances for Section 8 housing vouchers. But since Amherst rental units are so expensive (median rent of $1,108 in 2010) those vouchers go elsewhere. Currently only half the 400 vouchers administered by Amherst Housing Authority are used by clients living in Amherst.
Fortunately the town recently commissioned a "Housing Production Plan" to shed light on this chronic housing problem, so the state allows a one year reprieve from an unfriendly Ch40B development.
Maybe now town officials will get serious.
I don't know what a Housing Production Plan is but FIRST Amherst should allow more property to be developed. Amherst leaves much land unable to be developed and then wonders why it has section 8 problems and problems with the astronomical price of homes. The lack of understanding of the most basic economic theory by all our leaders is, and many of our citizens, is staggering.
ReplyDeleteLarry, check your facts -- and, if necessary, double check them because this is bull.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Rolling Green went "market rate" in the late '90s. The subsidized tenants were given a specific form of Section 8 voucher which met the difference between what they had been paying and the market rate -- it was called a "community preservation plan" by HUD.
Now those vouchers are portable - tenants can (and did) take them elsewhere. But I fail to understand this "deadline" thing.
And then remember that less than a third of the Section 8 vouchers in Amherst are through the AHA. Other housing authorities issue them, as do nonprofits such as HAP.
I don't know what Princess Stephanie and the rest are talking about, but I do know the facts. Rolling Green hasn't been "affordable" in this century -- three owners ago. And I would sooner believe that Larry Kelly was advocating Drunk Driving than believe that Rolling Green could possibly raise its rents any higher than it already has.
BTW -- Amherst is at 120% of the Springfield Metro "Fair Market Rent" rate. You will see that somewhere on the HUD webpage if no one in the AHA is willing to tell you that.
If you can't afford to live here, get the hell out. Nobody owes you anything. That will clean up the school system.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately that will not clean up the plague of an administration found in the Amherst school system.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't afford to live here, get the hell out. Nobody owes you anything. That will clean up the school system.
ReplyDeleteAnd if fewer of the rentals in town were occupied by UM students, more of them would be occupied by folk who live on public assistance...
"If you can't afford to live here, get the hell out. Nobody owes you anything. That will clean up the school system."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad there is still one sensitive person around. Restores my faith in my fellow man. Gives a person a warm fuzzy feeling.
"if fewer of the rentals in town were occupied by UM students, more of them would be occupied by folk who live on public assistance.."
ReplyDeleteA SLUMLORD SPEAKS
FOLLOW THE MONEY...
Well, Anon 12:26, just because you "fail to understand this deadline" doesn't mean it's "bull."
ReplyDeleteDo you really think they don't know the issue here?
A SLUMLORD SPEAKS
ReplyDeleteUmmm... No....
Understand basic economics -- any landlord (including slumlords) only gets a return on *rented* apartments -- vacant units loose money.
One doesn't have to be a slumlord (or landlord) to understand that vacant units don't make money - and hence they will be rented to *someone*.
Do you not understand this?
Do you folks not understand that notwithstanding the "costs" the college kids give you in terms of police/fire/ems (much of which you actually recover in fees/fines from them), its a hell of a lot less than what you would be paying for their children to go to the Amherst schools...
Look at it this way: Fabricate some wild figure of how much each UMass student household is costing the town. Would $5000 be enough to satisfy you?
(At $5K/unit, there'd be millionaire firefighters & gold-plated police cruisers -- it's a LOT less than this!)
OK -- then double it. Triple it.
Yes -- $15,000 -- and then look at what it costs you to educate just one child.
Three years ago, it was $17,116 for K-6 and &17,916 for 7-12. It's more now. And figure 2.5 children per single mother on Section 8 -- figure $20K per apartment in K-12 costs.
You simply *aren't* paying $5K per student rental residence -- but you will be paying $20K if they go Section 8.
You don't have to be a slumlord to understand this.
I have to agree. I don't think we owe anyone a cheap apartment. It looks like a lifestyle for a lot of these people. Public assistance is a leg up, not a way of life for generations.
ReplyDeleteWell, Anon 12:26, ...
ReplyDeleteDo you really think they don't know the issue here?
Either they don't or Larry K doesn't -- it's a matter of public record that both Rolling Green and Puffton IV were financed with a program that required subsidized units for some period of time -- and it has expired -- more than a decade ago.
Now, possibly, this is now happening at either Village Park or Mill Valley -- which also have tax credit/subsidized units.
Now, possibly, the Amherst Selectboard hasn't got a clue as to what they are talking about. It wouldn't be the first time with that august body.
Now, possibly, lots of things.
All I know is that I would sooner expect to see Larry Kelly tapping unregistered kegs on his front lawn and handing out free beer to passing motorists than I would expect to see any Rolling Green unit become more expensive.
Actually only 41 of the Rolling Green apartments are "affordable" meaning they still fall within the (max) allowance of Section 8 vouchers.
ReplyDeleteBut for some weird reason the town is allowed to count all 204 units as "affordable" even though 163 are far from it.
And the other problem with Section 8 vouchers is they are an "all-or- nothing" proposition:
The individual who receives one cannot make up an increase over the max out of their own pocket.
For instance the maximum allowed for a 3 bedroom unit is $1,4000.
If Rolling Green ups the rent this August 20 to, say, $1,500 (and I hear it will be W-A-Y more than that) the person cannot simply chip in an additional $100 per month to make up the difference.
They would simply have to move.
Probably to Holyoke.
Actually, while Section 8 requires tenants to pay 30% of income, HUD allows them to pay up to 40% if they wish.
ReplyDeleteEquity may be talking about rent increase -- but it would have been announced in June because they have a lot of students who will have signed leases under the old rate and would be stuck with that.
More than this, though, whom do they expect to rent to?
I believe the vast majority of tenants displaced by the fire last January (and the one killed) were UMass students.
ReplyDeleteThat should give you a clue.
BINGO! IT WAS A SLUMLORD SPEAKING.
ReplyDeleteMAX $ LOCALLY COME FROM UM STUDENT RENTALS. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE $ FOR SAFELY FAR AWAY SLUMLORDS.
QUALITY OF LIFE RANKS HIGH IN THE CALCULUS FOR NOT SAFELY FAR AWAY NEIGHBORS OF METASTASIZING UM STUDENT RENTALS. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT THE $ FOR THEM.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
I may be many things but a landlord is not one of them.
ReplyDelete"I may be many things but a landlord is not one of them"
ReplyDeleteATTORNEY OR OTHER KIND OF HIRED HAND, EH?
FROM THE TOP...
MAX $ LOCALLY FROM UM STUDENT RENTALS. IT'S ONLY ABOUT $ FOR SAFELY-FAR-AWAY SLUMLORDS.
QUALITY OF LIFE RANKS HIGH IN THE CALCULUS FOR *NOT* SAFELY-FAR-AWAY NEIGHBORS OF METASTASIZING UM STUDENT RENTALS. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT $ FOR THEM.
FOLLOW THE MONEY