Mayor Sarno Weighs Decision on Longhill Redevelopment Proposal
Posted on Wednesday, March 19 2008 by Heather Brandon
Letters have apparently been arriving in Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno’s office recently, either arguing the merits of or raising issues against a redevelopment plan (pictured) for Longhill Gardens Condominiums (unit interior pictured) proposed by Boston-based WinnCompanies. The site, currently boarded and vacant, has a troubled history.
Yesterday, the new non-profit group Springfield Forward held a press conference on the steps of City Hall, just prior to delivering a bundle of 300 letters opposing the plan. Earlier this month, representatives of the group made their opposition known during a public comment portion of a Springfield Finance Control Board meeting.
In a brief news item on the subject this week, 22News called the issue one of “stirring emotions” in the city.
Mayor Sarno is depicted in the news piece greeting Springfield Forward representatives at the front desk of his office and telling them he hasn’t yet made any decision about whether to approve the WinnCompanies plan. The proposal entails applying for state funding, which requires a mayoral green light and a letter to prove it. The deadline for application is March 20.
Republican reporter Peter Goonan quoted George Pappas (pictured) of Springfield Forward, in a piece on MassLive.com referencing the press conference, as saying, “We are not against redeveloping Longhill Gardens. What we oppose is the rush to accept the first offer put on the table. We believe Springfield can do better.”
Sarno denied any such rush to judgment. If anything, there has been a prolonged delay to judgment.
Earlier this month, the Forest Park Civic Association board of directors voted 12 to three to approve the WinnCompanies proposal for redevelopment for Longhill Gardens, which is located along the edge of the Forest Park neighborhood, close to the South End, in a poor area often referred to as lower Longhill Street (pictured last year). Upper Longhill Street, in contrast, is more affluent, with prominent historic mansions and sweeping views of the Connecticut River. Whether Longhill Street residents support or oppose the redevelopment plan has been an issue of much discussion in recent weeks.
On its Web site, the association urged residents to write letters of support for the plan to the mayor’s office, also providing a form letter (Word doc; text also available below) to get people started. “There are a number of people who are urging the Mayor to come out against this proposed renovation,” the FPCA noted, “which could cause problems for Winn in getting their public funding, so we need to counter this negative group.”
The board further noted that in the absence of a tenable offer, mortgage-holder Citibank might foreclose on the property and sell it “to another bottom feeder who may reopen it and and rent it to any warm body who applies, leading to yet another disaster in our area.” This is a reference to the poor management practices that have defined the perception of the Longhill Gardens housing experience in recent years.
Carol Costa, a downtown Springfield resident who is familiar with WinnCompanies and its effort to transform Museum Park apartments (interior pictured below) on Chestnut Street, recently wrote to the FPCA email list with a testimony about how the company approached redevelopment in her neighborhood. The association further provided her email in full online.
In response to arguments from city stakeholders who are upset about the idea that WinnCompanies would create more affordable housing in the city, which would potentially just attract more poor people, and therefore also more crime and disorder, Costa wrote, “It is pretty clear the city needs affordable housing. The problem is not with affordable housing itself, however, but with crummy landlords and management companies.”
WinnCompanies offered open house tours of three of its housing sites in Springfield earlier this month. On its Web site the FPCA board noted being impressed. “Board members felt that all are managed well and kept in very good shape,” the site asserts.
“They exercise good tenant selection (no arrests, no evictions and available income/job with a credit check) and take action immediately if there are problems. They make sure that there are no more people staying in the units than the rules allow. For example, two people are allowed to stay in a one bedroom unit and no more. Some board members checked the police records for these complexes and found them to be very clean. …In general, the board found them to be a very impressive company.”
Some in Springfield have apparently put forth the idea that the site should be razed, or kept in limbo while redevelopment proposals are solicited. Ideas have been floated that the site could be a location for 55-and-up housing, or maybe affordable housing for artists.
An article earlier this week in the Hartford Courant captured the notion that it’s been harder to attract the baby boomer generation to denser city living than it has been to attract 20- and 30-somethings not yet ready to purchase a home—and on that count, the promise for Springfield’s downtown could even be somewhat rosy, if anything along the lines of what Hartford is seeing is a predictor.
While demographic trends would indicate a growing need for housing for older populations, what remains an open question is just what kind of housing those populations are most drawn to, within the scope of aging northeastern cities. Many baby boomers are only just now considering whether to retire to one kind of housing or another, wanting city amenities but not feeling exactly like risk-it-all urban pioneers.
Still others have suggested, perhaps a bit off-the-cuff, that the housing site, built partially on top of a former landfill that has caused related structural problems, should simply be razed and left as “green space.”
In a blog post this week, Washington, DC-based urban advocate and consultant Richard Layman shared thoughts about what happens when troubled housing becomes deeply troubled, sometimes resulting in receivership, which is what happened to Longhill Gardens Condominums last year.
“Nuisance properties degrade our neighborhoods and abet disorder,” Layman wrote about his own city. “These ‘vacant’ buildings tend to be problems and eyesores—places for illegally dumped trash to pile up and for loitering, squatting, drug use, prostitution and the like.”
Just tearing it down doesn’t solve the problem, Layman wrote. “Not only does tearing down a property destroy unrecoverable assets, it creates a new nuisance in its place,” he added, “one even harder to abate.”
Cities will often employ what resources are available, slow-moving as they can sometimes be, to get an owner to clean up a property. “While it is true that housing inspections, ‘clean it and lien it’ and other fines and sanctions exist,” Layman continued, “such sanctions have impact only if property owners are truly interested in maintaining the building. If not, a property owner prefers to let it rot, and fines will have no impact. A property owner committed to ‘demolition-by-neglect’ can afford the middling fines.”
Layman put forward the idea that independent receivership can be a helpful solution in turning a property around. “Long term, receivership may be one of the best ways to preserve, stabilize, and revitalize our neighborhoods,” he wrote, calling independent receiverships effective, neighborhood-oriented and open to community participation.
For Longhill Gardens, receivership during most of 2007 was an approach that made it possible to get a better assessment of the housing complex’s financial and infrastructural condition, and it eventually led to total eviction. But now, receivership seems to be done, and the property is a huge question mark.
“The option of receivership,” Layman wrote, “with the ability to clear and award title to guarantee resale and habitation, would give residents and community organizations the ability to be proactive, rather than reactive and helpless.”
In this case, receivership apparently did not include such an ability.
Today, the Longhill Gardens complex (pictured last year, prior to condemnation) stands boarded-up, empty and vulnerable to illegal dumping, graffiti and vandalism of all kinds. Upper-story windows that are not boarded are looking beat-up, and some are conspicuously smashed.
However, Gilbert Winn of WinnDevelopment said 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.” He also shared the observations of someone monitoring the site. The buildings are secure, but some tree limbs had fallen and needed to be removed. More telling was the reported dumping of about two dozen mattresses, including box springs, on the site, which had to be disposed of properly, and not simply stowed in a basement where they would 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. WinnCompanies, to its credit, has been attempting to maintain the site without any ownership stake for the time being, in order to prevent a tough situation from getting any tougher.
The company won’t be able to apply successfully tommorrow for this round of state funding without a green light from Mayor Sarno. As with the Mason Square Library situation, which still appears unresolved, the mayor continues to assert a fence-sitting stance, as though there is plenty of time simply to think, reconsider, and weigh options.
The place needs a presence and a plan, the sooner the better.
Draft letter from Forest Park Civic Association
March 12, 2008
Mayor Domenic J. Sarno
City of Springfield
City Hall
Springfield, MA 01101
Dear Mayor Sarno,
Please consider this letter of support for the proposal for redevelopment of the Longhill Gardens complex by the Winn Co. of Boston, MA. This property has been troubled for many years, and has created many problems related to crime, trash, noise and litter. This is an opportunity for the Forest Park neighborhood to regain an attractive, less dense, well managed property.
The main points which the developer proposes are important for our neighborhood, and include:
- Demolition of 100 units throughout, reducing density of the complex by almost half.
- Single ownership of the complex instead of condominium ownership.
- On-site management, with appropriate tenant screening.
- 24-hour security monitoring via camera monitors.
- Off-street parking to reduce congestion on Longhill St.
- Playground facility for children.
- Total renovation of the remaining 111 units, to bring them up to code.
- Demolition of buildings on the west side of Longhill St.
While there have been several suggestions related to the use of the land, and to possible other uses, it is now understood that the mortgage holder of the $6.2 million mortgage, CitiBank, has been actively seeking to sell this mortgage.
This developer has an excellent track record with troubled properties, and can be counted on to have the resources to complete this project. Unlike the present and past two owners, the Winn Co. has demonstrated the ability to accomplish this job. Leaving the complex vacant and boarded is not a good option for our neighborhood!
Ralph Slate http://www.springfield-history.com
March 19th, 2008 at 1:59 pmCan someone explain the details of this transaction to me? I was 100% on-board when I thought the development would be mixed-use, with some fixed-income units and some market rate units. I have since learned that all of the units will be fixed-income units, so I’m no longer 100% in favor of this, although I recognize that well-managed fixed-income units are more desirable than poorly-managed market rate units.
I’d like to be able to assess the true danger of the units sitting vacant for years, or being sold to a group that is a worse property manager than Winn. How would Winn gaining control of the property? Would it be purchased from Longhill Omega, or would the bank sell it to Winn? What is the harm in exploring other options? I know the city doesn’t own the property, so how is the city and Concerned Citizens influencing the transfer of this property to Winn, and why can’t they beat the bush for a different proposal?
This proposal seems OK, but I’m getting troubled that not all the information is available, and I don’t understand the urgency as to why this must be dealt with “by tomorrow”, other than that being the deadline for a round of state funding. Won’t there be another opportunity for state funding in the near future?
VERITAS
March 19th, 2008 at 3:23 pmThe urgency in moving forward is that the funding application deadline for Federal Tax Credits is tomorrow, March 20, for the current round of allocations and that if Winn’s proposal is not supported in this round Citibank, which holds a $6.2M mortgage on 192 of the 211 units, can on July 1 sell its mortgage to the highest bidder among the bottom feeders.
The City could be faced with another in a series of majority owners who would not do the necessary renovations and tenant screening and on-going management that are needed to keep the site from becoming a serious problem again. The next tax credit funding round is probably slated for late Fall but Citibank’s mortgage would likely be in other hands by that time.
Winn has demonstrated the good performance in housing renovations, tenant screening and management practices that are needed at Longhill and we should not lose this opportunity for getting a responsible owner. Their properties - Museum Park on Chestnut Street, Northern Heights on Central Street and Eastbrook Apartments on Fernbank Road are all assets to their respective neighborhoods. People speak very highly of the Chicopee Townhouse Village units, the former Chicomansett Village, in Chicopee.
The cost of correcting basic structural problems (construction on land fill in the early ’50’s), lead paint, roofs, underground oil tanks, significant interior upgrading (kitchens and baths), security, etc. preclude Longhill from becoming market rate. The same holds true for “artist colony” even if the spaces were suitable.
It is my understanding that Citibank approached other well known quality developers, none of whom had any interest in taking on the job, and no other developers stepped forward during the almost six months since the Housing Court ordered the premises to be vacated. There has been more than adequate publicity about the site.
It appears that squatters have already broken into one of the buildings either for shelter or to rip out copper or both. This is a city-wide and even a country-wide problem that any vacant property will be vandalized in some way. The former decrepit garages on Edgeland Street were a good example of the problem of vacant buildings before they were demolished in 2005 - prostitution, drug dealing, car chopping, attractive nuisance
Time is short to seize this opportunity!
Ralph Slate http://www.springfield-history.com
March 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pmI still don’t see how one thing follows from another. If Winn gets funding for its project, does that mean that it will have a leg up in being the high bidder on July 1? And if it does not get funding, it will not bid as high and may lose it to another bidder?
How can Winn acquire the property simply by getting the state tax credits? That’s the part I don’t understand. Why can’t Winn bid on the property on July 1 like everyone else, and then apply for the credits?
VERITAS
March 19th, 2008 at 4:23 pmI omitted a key point, sorry. The understanding is that Winn has an option to buy CItibank’s mortgage, at some discount, through June 30. If the proposal goes through, Winn will exercise the option and then foreclose on the 192 units and buy out or foreclose on the owners of the other 19 units.
Winn would be unwise to buy the mortgage for some number of dollars and not have the tax credits in hand while the property continues to deteriorate. The tax credit situation, like much of the economy, is fragile and there’s no guarantee there will even be a Fall round or that Winn would be awarded the needed allocation.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
March 19th, 2008 at 4:41 pmGilbert Winn provided answers to some of the first questions you posed, Ralph. The text of an email he sent in response is below:
–
1) The current plan includes 100% tax credit housing. This means workforce housing (not necessarily Section 8 ) for families earning all the way up to $35,000. The original plan called for townhomes/mixed-income housing on the west side of the street. That option would still be available as Winn welcomes any group which wants to step forward to develop that future vacant land.
2) The answer to the 2nd set of questions is: Tomorrow is the date by which the funding application must be submitted to the State. While there is a Fall round Winn does not own the property but rather has an option from CitiBank and various condo owners. Winn would cancel its site option in July if not successful and the Bank would left to liquidate its collateral as quickly as it can. The majority of the units are still owned technically by a defaulted borrower. Winn simply has convinced CitiBank not to foreclose and auction until Winn has had a chance to try its best in securing the resources needed to heavily renovate and make safe, attractive and habitable for the long term.
Simply put, the community may get one chance at this before its over, I think Winn is that chance. Unsubsidized “market rate” housing is what got the project into this mess to begin with. Its all about quality project ownership and management and the required revenue stream to upkeep the property. In this case, since the market cannot support enough revenue (an undeniable fact no matter what “arm chair economists” tell you), the revenue comes from the State.
Ralph Slate http://www.springfield-history.com
March 19th, 2008 at 4:41 pmThat point has not been made in the media. The opposition group makes a very convincing argument of “why not wait”? This is the response — if we wait, Winn won’t exercise its option.
It’s a tough choice to say “I accept Winn’s professional management even though it comes with 111 low-income residents”, but if the other likely choices are 1) Property sits abandoned and deteriorating for years or 2) Property is bought by someone who is not going to manage it well as Winn, the choice becomes easier to swallow.
I would love to see this complex be Springfield’s equivalent of Bigelow Commons — professional housing — so I understand why people are angry that this isn’t being explored. Maybe people on the inside can show why that cannot economically happen here (yes, I know Bigelow was renovated using historic tax credits).
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
March 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pmThose who oppose the Winn option are new to efforts to rescue Longhill Gardens while CCS activists, who know the options inside out after years of looking for a solution to the complex problems presented by Longhill Gardens, support it. CCS’s opinion and the opinions of residents living closest to Longhill Gardens should be taken seriously by the Mayor as he thinks through his decision tonight. Those who know the most and have the most to lose support Winn,and that should be taken very seriously.
Opponents to the Winn proposal, on the other hand, are not only newcomers to this issue but they live outside the immediate vicinity of Longhill Gardens on Appleton Street, Washington Street, Fairfield Street, Forest Park Ave., upper Sumner Ave. and, judging from the photo in the paper, even across town in McKnight. Should their fears and arguments be disregarded? No, they should not, but they are less relevant to the Winn proposal for Longhill Gardens than as generalized expressions of concern for demographic trends in the neighborhood and the city as a whole. (And by the way, I haven’t heard of even one opponent who toured local Winn projects when they had the chance.)
If Longhill Gardens was to have had a future as a successful owner-occupied condo complex, this would have happened in the 1980s when it switched from rental to condo. The city was in better shape twenty years ago, the economy was stronger, and optimism was in the air, but Longhill Gardens was not able to ride that particular wave. Instead, those condos were bought by irresponsible absentee owners intent on maximizing profits by renting to anybody and reinvesting nothing in the buildings, and the downward slide began.
For anybody to simply throw out untested ideas and optimistic scenarios for Longhill Gardens at this late(!?) date is unrealistic and and even irresponsible because it distracts the community from the real choice which is thumbs up or down on the Winn plan, which confronts us all tonight, and most particularly confronts Mayor Sarno.
Let us hope that despite his loyalty to supporters who oppose the Winn plan, he is able to see that a vacant Longhill Gardens or a demolished Longhill Gardens will only present all of us with another set of problems.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
March 19th, 2008 at 9:36 pmBreaking: Mayor Sarno is said to support the WinnCompanies proposal. Mike Plaisance at the Republican has the story:
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pmThank you, Mayor Sarno for this wise decision. We know that it wasn’t easy to make this choice, and we are very grateful.
Longhill Gardens http://springfieldintruder.com/?p=1101
November 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pm“Sarno said that Citibank, which holds a mortgage on the property of about $6 million, has said it would make a deal with another bidder if WinnCompanies is unable to obtain funding for its plan”
Note it is worded “with another bidder” not find another bidder. Was there another bidder? Were the plans of that bidder better for the neighborhood and city. Why can’t the community get a meeting to address the questions of other options for Longhill Gardens. What about the press generated concerning Winn and Diane Wilkerson, Boston Connects air rights and Columbus Center.
http://www.masslive.com/forums/statepolitics/index.ssf?artid=17188
Urban Compass | Blog Archive | Public Meeting 12/17 on Longhill Gardens Redevelopment http://urbancompass.net/?p=1553
December 5th, 2008 at 4:11 pm[...] “Veritas” noted in a comment on a March 19 blog post: It is my understanding that [mortgage holder] Citibank approached other well known quality [...]