Springfield Forward Opposes Longhill Gardens Proposal
Posted on Tuesday, March 4 2008 by Heather Brandon
At yesterday’s Springfield Finance Control Board meeting, two Forest Park residents—both members of a brand-new non-profit organization, Springfield Forward—participated in a public comment period to voice their opposition to WinnCompanies‘ proposal for redevelopment at vacant Longhill Gardens Condominiums (pictured).
“Our community has made the commitment to reach out to all of you,” George Pappas (pictured), of 44 Westernview Street in Forest Park, said to the board, “to express our concern with a current proposal that has been rubber-stamped by the Forest Park Civic Association board of directors, and I’ll repeat that phrase, rubber-stamped—because we, as citizens, and as residents, had no clue until ten days ago that this very issue was even before the civic association, but now we do.”
Pappas said WinnCompanies’ plan is a continuation of crime, prostitution, and drug dealing. “This is a net cancer upon this city,” he said, “and we’re here to try to find better alternatives to the extent that we can.”
Nicola Manion (pictured below), also of Springfield Forward, and a resident at 98 Forest Park Avenue, told the board, “There are so many houses in Springfield with yards, fences, that could be used for people so that they could live in a situation nicer than what they’re used to.”
“Our plea— my plea,” Pappas said, “is to find, with your cooperation, any opportunity to find more time, to seek out stakeholders that may want to develop a better project in Longhill Gardens.”
In a report by Lesley Tanner for CBS3, asked if there were any interested developers for the creation of office space or moderate-income housing, as Springfield Forward would prefer to see there, Pappas said, “We are reaching out to stakeholders at lightning speed. If you ask me the same question in two weeks we’ll probably have one or two names.”
Meanwhile, ideas have been circulating regarding ways to create low-income artists’ housing at the site, possibly even restricted to just one building.
In comments on a post mentioning WinnCompanies’ open house tours of its existing low-income housing in Springfield, Forest Park resident Jeremy Cole wrote, “I would like to suggest an alternative use for the buildings, one which retains the affordable housing but targets the space to artists. The building that they are going to tear down could provide outdoor space for an artist’s sculpture garden.”
“I call your attention to these two sites for more information: Art Space USA and FHLBoston,” Cole continued. “With a slightly different rehab of the building to take into account the need for living/working space, the building could have a completely different feel to it, one in keeping with the [Urban Land Institute] report.”
Elizabeth Krupp of WinnDevelopment, upon receiving Cole’s suggestions, emailed to thank him, saying she would look at the sites he forwarded. She added that WinnDevelopment will not build new construction or change existing unit configurations at all. Because the housing units are small, she said, they may not adapt well as live-work units for artists. Cole said he’s happy Winn is considering any discussion at all.
Forest Park resident Pat Triggs noted, in her letter to the editor published Sunday in the Republican, “Did anyone notice that the previous two owners and present owner of Longhill Gardens did not even bother to come to the neighborhood association to tell us of their plans? If anyone did notice this, perhaps you would have been as outraged as we were at the scandalous treatment of the residents and the total disregard for the most minimal standard of community responsibility.”
Below is a transcript of the comments Pappas and Manion shared with the control board on this subject. Similar sentiments can be found in a February 25 article in the Republican by Elizabeth Roman depicting some reactions at a community meeting where plans were introduced.
Springfield Finance Control Board Public Comment
Monday, March 3, 2008
George Pappas: Good morning to the financial control board. I’m sorry I don’t know you individually. I’m a new resident of Springfield, and I moved here by choice, with my wife and children. But thank you for letting me speak. And to Mayor Sarno, I wanted to extend a thank you to you, and to your services, and to your office, with respect to the issue that is very important to myself and my neighbors, dealing with the Longhill Garden question in the Forest Park area. Your office has given us an opportunity, and I believe the community, an opportunity—
City Council President Bud Williams: Could you speak up just a little bit? That doesn’t amplify, so, sometimes we have a hard time hearing the residents in here.
Pappas: I apologize. But your office has given us an opportunity to buy more time, perhaps, and seek out stakeholders. I am speaking as a member of Springfield Forward, a new non-profit organization that was formed last Friday. And while Springfield Forward is looking at this particular issue, it is not going to stop with Forest Park. There are too many important issues around the whole city that need citizen involvement. Our community has made the commitment to reach out to all of you to express our concern with a current proposal that has been rubber-stamped by the Forest Park Civic Association board of directors, and I’ll repeat that phrase, rubber-stamped—because we, as citizens, and as residents, had no clue until ten days ago that this very issue was even before the civic association, but now we do.
And because we know it’s in front of us, we are getting involved. This is an important issue, because the current proposal is a recipe for the same that’s been at Longhill Gardens. It’s going to be a continuation of crime, prostitution, drug dealing. This is a net cancer, it is a cancer upon this city, and we’re here to try to find better alternatives to the extent that we can. And our plea, my plea, is to find, with your cooperation, any opportunity to find more time, to seek out stakeholders that may want to develop a better project in Longhill Gardens. I don’t know if you’re familiar with this area of Forest Park—it’s actually a beautiful area of the community—but it represents an opportunity for Forest Park to take back not only a neighborhood, but perhaps the beginning of a city.
If we can bring in stakeholders that can develop professional opportunities, mixed income opportunities—anything that doesn’t utilize taxpayers’ money—the current proposal wants to borrow, maybe even receive, $14 million, to bring back the same old recipe: crime, drugs, and prostitution. Our police in Springfield are overburdened. Mayor Sarno, I think you wanted to hire another 50 policemen—and I hope you can. But if we keep building these types of dead-end solutions, 50’s not going to be enough. Thank you very much.
Williams: Sir, just a comment, through the chair, Mr. Chairman? I concur, and agree with you… what we need to do in Springfield, which we’ve gotten away from, is to create more moderate housing. Everything we do is low income. When you create low income housing within a city you end up with a lot of poor people. And nothing against poor people, because the good lord made a lot of them. But certainly we better be very careful, very mindful in this city, that there’s a balance between low and moderate [income housing]. When we have the balance, it kind of, like, works. When we don’t have the balance, it doesn’t work. So I really have to concur with you. Hopefully the council and the mayor can work with the Forest Park Civic Association and the developer to create low income housing, not nearly, we don’t know exactly, which path that’s going to take. Thank you.
Mayor Domenic Sarno: [Difficult to hear, but roughly: The Sarno administration has been very methodical, taking a step back, negotiating, bringing out the neighborhood, and will continue, working on what's best for Springfield.] I appreciate your comments.
Nicola Manion: Good morning. My name is Nicola Manion and I am also a member of Springfield Forward. And we have suffered so intensely in my neighborhood. I live on Forest Park Avenue. And because of just the boarding up of the buildings, the last two months we’ve seen a tremendous decrease in the traffic and the crime. But also, too, we know that it’s time for Springfield to try and do something more for the people. They need to have—not congregated in one spot. It’s a stigma to the people. It’s a project. It means they’re put in a place where they can’t develop. And people need to have—there are so many houses in Springfield with yards, fences, that could be used for people so that they could live in a situation nicer than what they’re used to. And I am here to really beg your help, in helping us, try to find a better and more community-oriented use for that land. And thank you very much.
Spfld Volunteer
March 4th, 2008 at 10:27 amMaybe because this “Springfield Forward” group was started by residence and not consultants something might come of it. Maybe the city council will listen to them.
It would be great if they could spearhead a whole city vision. Like what types of development belongs on what streets and in what neighborhoods. Where does high rise, low rise, and low density belong. What areas can support high density that don’t currently? What areas are attracting development but not in a cohesive way? For example in the North End there is endless construction of medical facilities, but there is no over all vision for the area. Or in the South End off the highway where historic buildings are being knocked down because there is development pressure there.
It would be nice if as a city we were less reactionary when it came to developments and really had a plan of what we wanted to see, not just wait around to find out what will happen.
NoPolitician http://
March 4th, 2008 at 11:27 amI think this type of discussion is healthy for the community. Although the board of the FPCA seems to think that Winn is the best proposal for this property, they still need to sell this to the community, to convince the community that they are not just “settling”.
There is obviously some risk to the city and neighborhood with the Winn proposal, although I believe that the risk is probably smallest of any applicant due to Winn’s reputation. There will still be 100+ rental units on that site. To be sure, 100 units is a lot better than 200 units, but the potential still exists for them to become run down again, for example, if Winn’s corporate philosophy changes, or if they decide to sell them.
Springfield has a lot of large apartment complexes, and unfortunately, the vast majority of them have declined in quality, even those that have been “rehabbed to market-rate”. I can see how people might think that an empty lot is a better option, or who might think that single-family homes would do better. It’s not often that Springfield residents get to be at a decision point such as this, to oppose a big tenement. We have seen building after building go through the 20-year cycle of subsidized rehab, general decline, slumification, abandonment, and then subsidized rehab again. The financial incentives are not lined up for anyone to do this without subsidies, or perhaps the financial incentives with subsidies are simply too attractive.
I think the inclusion of subsidized units is what is spooking people here. Everyone recognizes that Springfield has plenty of subsidized housing, yet we still see project after project adding more subsidized units to the city’s inventory.
Why is this happening? Because this complex probably cannot be rehabbed properly at market rents, the developer needs government funding, and taking that funding leads to guaranteeing that a percentage of the units (20% or 40% in this case) will be rented at lower rates to persons not exceeding certain income levels.
The question is, will the presence of that 20% or 40% lead to the other 60-80% of units being undesirable, to the point where the entire complex turns into, well, “Longhill Gardens” again? Why can’t we do like other communities and peg the subsidized units to elderly housing? Is there a way to give more certainty that this complex is not going to be overrun by drug dealers, the chronically unemployed, murderers (and there have been more than a handful), etc.?
I guess the answer is, “it depends” on the details of the proposal.
I’m encouraged by the fact that the project is mixed income, not 100% low-income. I’m unsure if the proposal is for the “20% must have 50% or less of the median gross income”, or it is for “40% must have 60% or less of the median gross income”. Seems like the lower percentage is better since the income tradeoff is somewhat trivial ($6-8k per year).
But the answer also depends on the quality of the apartments, whether they will be rehabbed into something desirable to non-subsidized renters. From what I understand, past rehab jobs have been sketchy and minimal.
Has Winn put forth a proposal for the interior, including layouts and design? How about exterior design? Will the buildings be visually attractive (they are not now)? Can some of the units be made larger and better to give a little “laddering” effect, to perhaps encourage stability by creating a waiting list for current residents to rent them when they become vacant? Will the market-rate units be designed to be desirable to renters?
These details must be fully vetted before the community can be expected to accept this proposal.
Sheila McElwaine
March 4th, 2008 at 1:02 pmSpringfield Volunteer, your dream of a new and improved zoning ordinance for the city (that’s what your specific ideas boil down to) is in the works. After many hours of work by citizen volunteers and a seasoned consultant, the new draft zoning ordinance is about to be presented to the community for review and comment.
Whatever its merits (and NoPolitician is exactly right that a robust debate about the future of Longhill Gardens can only be a good thing), a newborn grassroots group like Springfield Forward is not in a position to do the kind of heavy lifting involved in re-visioning the city or revising the zoning ordinance.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
March 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pmThis is a rare opportunity to start over, for sure, and I agree it’s good to have the conversation and that more can be done to weigh the pros and cons of various options. Certainly I’ve tried to allow this blog to be some kind of forum for that, and it can be done better.
It would be nice to have more design details (I’d publish them if I had them) but at the same time, this is all speculative at this point for Winn. It’s not an enormously lucrative project; rather it depends on subsidies to make it break even, as far as I understand. As far as the Springfield market goes, my view is Winn is more or less an ideal developer to see walk into this situation and take the property, because it has such a proven reputation and a lot of experience, and a presence in the community already (ergo familiarity with its challenges).
The key is not so much how many of the specific units are low-income versus moderate-income, in my thinking, but rather who is managing these properties and are they going to do a good job. Do they have the resources to secure the place? Are they able to fix it up, hiring licensed contractors and going through the proper permitting processes? Do they understand the neighborhood setting? Are they willing to hear the neighborhood residents? Can they have a good relationship with the city government and its departments? Do they have to be taken to court to get something done, or will they be more responsive? What is their track record; do they appear to care about the living conditions of the poor or disenfranchised, and the importance of community-building in housing contexts?
Winn has been monitoring the property already, ahead of any potential acquisition. Gilbert Winn mentioned this at the FPCA meeting. He said today in an email, “It’s not a coincidence that the property has not become a squatter haven or a trash dump. We have been taking care of it free of charge in advance of our funding application.” This in the hopes that the company will be able to go forward with the project, and better maintenance now means few problems later.
In that email Winn shared the observations of someone monitoring the site. The buildings are secure, although some tree limbs fell and need to be removed.
But much more telling is the reported dumping of about two dozen mattresses, including box springs, on the site, which have to be disposed of properly (not stowed in a basement where they become a fire hazard).
Skillful maintenance and management of the property will help it become a livable place, as long as the redevelopment plan is reasonable.
A much larger problem is the broader context for the site in the first place, and its nature as a kind of dumping ground, literal and figurative. My personal view is that it doesn’t benefit the city or the neighborhood to try to take what was housing of last resort and transform it into something upscale. Maybe one day it can be desirable again, and the community might work with Winn to lay the groundwork for that. Such change can happen, maybe incrementally, but the context of such change in Springfield right now makes it something the city can’t necessarily attain in two steps. Maybe more like 22.
For now, how about something dignified, inexpensive, safe and livable that establishes a public stake in the location once again, rather than allowing it to remain like a neglected, festering wound?
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
March 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pmP.S., Springfield Forward sounds great. I look forward to learning more about their plans to provide more well-maintained, legal, affordable single-family housing in the city for working and poor families so poverty doesn’t have to be so concentrated in certain areas, and long-time residents of the city along with newcomers can really establish themselves and begin to build stable, happy lives thanks to sustainable housing solutions in harmony with the city fabric.
Regularly updated comprehensive plans for both the city overall as well as each neighborhood would help.
The zoning ordinance revision will help us see the bigger picture as well.
These are long-term endeavors.
Spfld Volunteer
March 4th, 2008 at 1:59 pmI think zoning changes are limited to what they can do, I think it takes a non government group made up a good representation of the community to step up and really look closely at what we want as a community.
I’m not saying that the zoning update isn’t important, I definitely feel it will be a great improvement, and I thank anyone who has spent all this time working on it. It sounds like it has been a daunting task. I just hope that there is more involvement from the community on development in the city. Right now we only get groups forming to react to projects. It would be nice to see a group form to look at the future of development in the city. A group that actively looks to change the city for the better when it comes to development.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
March 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pmI agree, those are good aims to have. My “dream” has been to see a coalition of neighborhood groups come together, with municipal government support, as exists in Hartford. The neighborhoods are divvied up into what are called NRZs, or neighborhood revitalization zones, and they’re an effective way (from what I have gathered thus far) for people at the grassroots level to enter the foray of development discussions and visioning the future (as well as a dose of crisis management to spice it up).
Something else I learned recently is that the city of Hartford actually contracts with a private company to advocate for itself at the state level. It’s not a task left only to legislators and other elected representatives.
The Urban Land Institute recommended Springfield consider downtown development success to as a driver of neighborhood development success. Thus the technical assistance panel from ULI-Boston that came and looked specifically at downtown, and then recommended a whole bunch of stuff regarding the way development structures are set up.
One big take-away from their presentation was the idea that there is no single advocate for downtown in the way downtown needs it. Administrative restructuring is one way to address the challenge, and it has to include an eye toward how funding is achieved and ways projects are sought, vetted, approved and followed up. Who will pick up the mantle and carry out some of these recommendations? It’s a lot to face, and it is also a critically important set of tasks, in order for the city to get on a path toward being able to thrive.
Also, Spfld Volunteer, what’s your impression of the status of the city’s civic associations? They are city-funded, but composed of neighborhood residents, and they are the structure in place for handling neighborhood-based development decisions. Are they effective in doing any of what you’re talking about wanting to see? How can they be improved? Are they relevant?
Sheila McElwaine
March 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pmActually, Heather, only about a few (10 by my count) of Springfield’s neighborhood organizations get any city-funds. The rest are self-funded.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
March 4th, 2008 at 3:08 pmI’m curious as to how they are arranged and why the ten get the funding they do.
Sheila McElwaine
March 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pmFor the exact reasons which are historical and date back to the Model Cities program of the 60s, ask David Panagore or, even better, ask some really Old Hand down at City Hall. ( If I had a name, I’d give it to you, but nobody comes to mind.) I think this practice started as a way of telling residents of neighborhoods where changes were in the works what was up and, these being political appointments and the amounts of money being fairly small, nobody since then has had the nerve to pull the plug on them. The reasons (passivity, political pressure, distraction on the part of city officials) aren’t much different from the ones that kept the city from closing down the old Chestnut School despite all of its serious problems.
Brian P. Sears http://www.forestparkca.com
March 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pmI would like to set the record straight on a couple of items.
First, this was not rubber stamped. The Concerned Citizen’s group were asked to meet with Gilbert Winn in December when the WinnCompanies stumbled upon the Longhill Gardens property. After Concerned Citizens had their meeting with WinnCompanies (Concerned Citizens voted unanimously in favor of endorsing this proposal), the FPCA was asked to meet with WinnCompanies to discuss the plans - as the Mayor Elect had stated that he would not sit with WinnCompanies until they had the support of both Concerned Citizens and the Forest Park Civic Association. The FPCA held an emergency meeting and had approximately 20 board members and 10 neighbors present for the presentation. After the presentation, the board and residents asked WinnCompanies a number of questions regarding the proposal and then asked WinnCompanies to leave to the Board could discuss the proposal and vote. The Board voted overwhelmingly (only 1 board member voted against) in favor of endorsing the plan and encouraging the Mayor Elect to endorse the plan as the Priority redevelopment proposal for the City of Springfield. In addition, the topic was further discussed at the January, 2008 FPCA Board meeting which was posted and described in the Springfield Republican. From there the FPCA requested that WinnCompanies give a full presentation of the updated proposal at the FPCA Annual meeting so that the entire neighborhood could be brought up to speed and ask any questions they had. As a result of the Annual Meeting, it was clear that their was some concern by a minority of residence about WinnCompanies and their management style. Due to this concern, an open house was organized as quickly as possible with an open date on Thursday (2/28) and Saturday (3/8). The FPCA at their expense has sent out a mailing to all 429 members and friends in the database with an update an invitation to attend the Open House on March 8th (the invitation was mailed this morning and should arrive tomorrow) and the March FPCA monthly Board meeting. The FPCA Board will again further discuss the proposal at their March 9th monthly meeting which will be held at Trinity Church at 361 Sumner Ave.
Second and just as important - The FPCA is made up of individuals who live and work in the Forest Park neighborhood. The FPCA has done an amazing amount of good things for the neighborhood, mostly by people other than myself (I have only been a member of the civic association for the past five or six years since I moved back to Springfield in 2002). To disparage their names and reputation over a disagreement on a possible solution to a problem is amazing to me. I have three main issues with the opposition to the WinnCompanies proposal. First, the idea that 60% median income households means prostitution and drugs is not only inaccurate but frightening to think of that prejudice. Second, that people under 60% median income will not support the Forest Park retailers is also inaccurate as the business at the X and in the Forest Park neighborhood are currently mostly used by lower income families. Higher income families are shopping at Big Y in East Longmeadow or Whole Foods stores. Third, the idea that boarded up buildings are better for the neighborhood is very confusing to me. I would like to see the study that concluded that boarded up buildings are a positive for any community.
Third, WinnCompanies has a business model that they follow. They use government subsidies to rehab trouble properties. They do not create artist villages, build schools, or buy six million dollar buildings, tear it down, and build single family houses that don’t make financial sense. They are not the bad guy here - the current owners are the bad guys. WinnCompanies happens to be the only people expressing any interest in the property. I also feel that the proposal is a solid B+ - it may not be an A+ or a really creative way to revitalize the neighborhood, but it is a solid B+ proposal that will greatly enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood (as the current owner was running the property at a solid F for the entire time he has owned the property).
Fourth, the entire neighborhood owes a HUGE debt to Concerned Citizens for spending countless hours and dollars over the past two years to get the current owners to take responsibility for the building. Concerned Citizens bought units at Longhill Gardens so they could make the current owners accountable. It was Concerned Citizens that got the courts to appoint a receiver for the property. If it was not for the hard work and many dollars of Concerned Citizens that building (all 211 units) would be occupied today by the people that we do not want in the neighborhood. As I said, a HUGE debt is owed to Concerned Citizens for making the current owner accountable.
Lastly, there has been some talk that Sears is somehow making money off of this proposal is flat wrong. Sears Real Estate, Paul Sears, myself or any relatives of ours are in no way connected to the WinnCompanies or the Longhill Gardens property. We are not making a dime off of this transaction.
Sheila McElwaine
March 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pmI’m not sure what are you reacting to, Brian? Can you tell us?
Brian P. Sears http://www.forestparkca.com
March 4th, 2008 at 4:21 pmThe comments by “the opposition” at the control board hearing and the comments made at the Annual Meeting.
~ I am offended by saying that the FPCA rubber stamped the proposal.
~ I am offended about comments made about that 60% median income families = prosituition and drugs.
~ And a number of people have told me that many people have circulated rumors that Sears is for it because Sears will be making money off this.
NoPolitician http://
March 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pmI think it’s important to remember that Longhill Gardens was *market rate*. “Market rate” simply means “non-subsidized”.
The problem with Longhill Gardens was that the conditions were so deplorable that the target “market” was effectively “the poorest of the poor”, with few exceptions. And Longhill Gardens had a *hugely disproportionate* amount of crime. With the exception of Hollywood, I know of no other section of the city more synonymous with “murder”.
In that sense, “subsidized” is probably a positive thing, even though that word typically has negative connotations. The only way these properties can be rehabbed to a decent standard is via a subsidy (tax credits). In exchange for that government money, the owners have to agree to cap the amount they charge. I doubt that middle-class single family homes would be built on the property because it’s just too close to other undesirable housing such as lower Fort Pleasant Ave.
There are three other things to realize. First, based on the table provided a few articles back, it appears as though the capped rents are currently *above* fair market rents in the Springfield market. For example, the post said fair market rent for an efficiency was $556, and the rent at 60% of median income was $752.
The second point to realize is that rents *will* be capped here, which means that there will always be a certain percentage, be it either 20% or 40%, or lower-income residents. And the cap is the *maximum* income — lower is also welcome. In theory (though I doubt in practice), the former owners of Longhill Gardens could have pursued the exact same subsidies and run the complex as badly as they had. Winn’s reputation is the only difference.
The third point is that the “60% median income” is the cap. It isn’t the floor. That’s why people are skeptical, because although 60% median income people aren’t disproportionately murderers and prostitutes, the complex has already established that it’s possible to attract a group that are disproportionately so.
What’s the absolute best end game for this neighborhood? A wildly successful development that is desirable enough to command middle-class renters at rates *above* “fair market rent”. I recognize that is somewhat elitist, but in order for Springfield to return it needs more middle class residents — professionals, perhaps people who are now occupying Bigelow Commons or people who will come to work at the Baystate expansion.
While many lower income residents support local businesses, the mix of local businesses isn’t going to improve until there are more higher income residents. How many people do their regular shopping at Food Zone International? Why not? Because there are not enough middle-income people shopping there, so they don’t stock items that middle-income people buy.
Until more middle-income residents come into the neighborhood, the neighborhood will have dollar stores, nail salons, pizza joints, discount markets, mortgage brokers, and other businesses tailored towards low-income residents, and therefore largely unattractive to most higher-income residents.
So again, the end-game should be to make the market-rate units as desirable as possible to non-subsidized renters. Winn should be supportive of that goal — they will make more money.
In order to get to such a place, I think it is important for residents of the Forest Park neighborhood to work *with* Winn. Winn knows how to run subsidized housing complexes, they’ve shown that in the city. Does Winn have any experience turning one into desirable housing so that the rent caps actually kick in? I don’t know. Does Winn know how to make this an attractive complex for Forest Park residents? I don’t know. Is it even possible to get onto the upward spiral versus the downward spiral? I don’t know.
Maybe people from Springfield could give Winn any expertise about what might make this complex desirable to non-subsidized renters. Even something as obvious as providing amenities to people who gravitate towards the park, like a bicycle storage area. Or more parking in closer proximity to the units. Or certain interior designs and layouts geared toward the middle-income group that the neighborhood thinks is most likely to occupy the housing.
It’s easy to see why some conspiracy theorists are out; this project *was* a surprise to people not closely following the issue, in the media it was “Complex Closed” and then “Winn will be the developer”. And while the relationship was characterized as “Winn stumbling upon the project”, I don’t see any evidence of other proposals being entertained. Isn’t it reasonable to ask if this is the best that can be done here? If you don’t even look for someone to develop this into something better, then how can you know that the best is being proposed?
Erica Walch
March 4th, 2008 at 5:56 pmIn the “be careful what you wish for” department, people should carefully examine any proposed housing for artists. The Artspace development in Hartford is subsidized housing. The firm that did that — or another firm that wanted to replicate it (can’t remember) — was planning on doing the same thing in the Gemini building (before it burnt down). They give first preference subsidies to people who describe themselves as artists and are eligible by income for subsidized housing. If they cannot fill the housing with self-described artists, the housing goes to anyone else who qualifies for subsidized housing.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
March 4th, 2008 at 6:00 pmKerri Provost reflected a little bit about how ArtSpace in Hartford has been going, in a post dated August 2007.
Tina Quagliato
March 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pmBrian, I agree with you that the neighborhood owes quite a bit of gratitude to Concerned Citizens, but my personal opinion is that you overlooked a couple of people who also are owed a huge debt of gratitude:
1. Attorney Lisa deSousa and her legal team who went above and beyond the work required of City employees and interns and worked late nights, early mornings, weekends and holidays to tirelessly to ensure the enforcement of the state sanitary and building codes. Not to mention the building and housing inspectors who view it as “all in a days work” to enter a property like Longhill Gardens that was not only dangerous but was maintained in conditions that could at the very best be called substandard and fought to bring about compliance, as they do everyday from absentee owners/property managers.
2. Paul and Jeff Oldenburg of Valley Real Estate and their entire team who without the blink of an eye stepped up to the plate as the receiver of Longhill Gardens, when they had nothing to gain and plenty to lose and rapidly and admirably put an end to the atmosphere of lawlessness at 59-95 Longhill Street and oversaw the orderly and safe closing of the entire complex with minimal funds.
3. The Housing Court and Judge Abrashkin who spent countless hours presiding over what continues to be an endless and extremelly complicated case, but who conscientously and fearlessly did what they believed was best for the property and for the residents of the complex and Springfield.
Brian P. Sears http://www.forestparkca.com
March 5th, 2008 at 9:35 amTina - you are correct. I overlooked all three in my “rant” above. There have been many people that have done a lot of work to help clean up Longhill St and better the Forest Park neighborhood over the past two years. There is no question that Forest Park is better off today than it was one year ago due to the hard work of many people, especially Concerned Citizens, Atty Lisa deSousa, Valley Real Estate, the Housing Court and many others that have had a hand in making the current owner accountable.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
March 5th, 2008 at 10:04 amThe process of examining/assessing the Longhill Gardens site and working to improve it, I think, has been very instructive for a large number of people, some in a position to put that new knowledge to work at other locations as well, if need be.
Such information, sometime in the future perhaps, could be collected and compiled into a kind of handbook, a condensed guide for residents. There are useful constants that can be applied again to work on properties that are not meeting state sanitary code guidelines for example.
Documentation of how Concerned Citizens of Springfield carries out its work is useful, if those lessons can be distilled. These are often stories that have no particular end point, but are simply ongoing matters of neighborhood concern that offer tremendous challenges and opportunities. What if CCS had a blog for sharing that info? It would be a great way to let the public know what’s going on, and how it can assist (if at all), before things reach the kind of crisis level that gets the “real” media attention and not often enough context to help residents understand what led to it, and what can be done to help other properties not get to that point.
Another critical piece of this, in addition to holding the owner accountable, is working to maintain standards, among all parties concerned with keeping properties up to code, not to let properties slide into some dark abyss, as though it’s okay to care more about some parts of the city than others. The contrast between federal housing code and MA code was an issue regarding the Longhill Gardens site and allowed room for confusion, which is an issue for inspectors and courts as well as the social service agencies, and of course the residents, who may not know they have a right to demand a higher standard.
Sheila McElwaine
March 5th, 2008 at 1:16 pmCapturing and sharing the experience of CCS and other successful community development corporations sounds to me like an important and necessary task,but one for an entity with an educational or empowerment focus. One of CCS’s strengths (and it has many) is its focus and the concrete, incremental way it sets about fighting housing blight and neighborhood deterioraton.
NoPolitician http://
March 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pmEveryone did a great job on this effort. How many years was Longhill Gardens a nightmare for the city? It was a brilliant strategy to fight the problem from within.
I think we’re going to have a lot more such fights on our hands in the next few years. The real estate market has dried up. People will be walking away from properties, and those properties may sit abandoned for a long time due to a lack of buyers.
Take a look at the foreclosures taking place, it’s scary. A lot of the people losing houses seem to be out-of-town investor landlords. We need to figure out how to get owner occupants into those properties, perhaps by pressuring banks to turn the properties over quickly, even at a loss. Many properties were priced out of the price range of people in this area to begin with, so a correction is probably good for the city, as long as we get owners into those houses.
Sheila McElwaine
March 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pmIf members of Springfield Forward toured the Winn sites, I’m wondering what their opinions are now. Were they reassured by what they saw? Did what they found at Fernbank, Northern Heights and Museum Park allay or confirm their fears?
What did others who toured the sites see there? Does Winn look like they would be a good neighbor?
» Springfield Forward… or Back? Pioneer Valley Central: Local Stories from Local Writers http://pvcentral.net/?p=198
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am[...] so, Springfield’s newest civic group (Springfield Forward formed just after a February 24, 2008, meeting on Longhill Gardens) vows to continue the fight for balanced housing [...]