Public Meeting 12/17 on Longhill Gardens Redevelopment
Posted on Friday, December 5 2008 by Heather Brandon
A public meeting on the pending redevelopment of the Longhill Gardens Condominiums complex in Springfield has been scheduled for Wednesday, December 17, at 7:00 pm, according to an article in today’s Republican.
The public meeting will take place at the Forest Park Middle School and will be hosted by the Forest Park Civic Association. The public is invited to “review and comment on the architectural plans for the site,” according to reporter Peter Goonan. Update: the FPCA provides site plans and elevations here for review.
This accompanies news of Boston-based WinnCompanies having submitted the lone bid (for $2.2 million) at an auction yesterday to sell a defaulted Citibank mortgage for a majority of the five prominent, boarded-up buildings. (Other entities and individuals own a small number of the condominium units; presumably these are being negotiated separately.) According to a published public notice (see bottom of post), the mortgage is assigned to Winn’s new entity for the purpose, Longhill Acquisitions LLC.
Winn had already secured Mayor Domenic Sarno’s support to pursue state and federal tax credits to redevelop; the credits were approved in August. The company was granted state program subsidies of $1.5 million, state tax credits of $1.75 million, and federal tax credits of $1.1 million for providing 109 units of affordable housing at the site. The federal credits are offered over a ten-year period; the state credits for five. The redevelopment project is anticipated to cost around $20 million.
There will probably be a good turnout for the public meeting, which has been long anticipated by many who are keeping their eye on what happens to the five buildings, which have been vacant for about a year now.
Supporters of Springfield Forward have been vocal in blog comments and MassLive.com forums criticizing supporters of the development proposal from Winn, asking why the city apparently didn’t approach other potential developers and consider market-rate senior or artists’ housing instead, for instance. The group opposed support for tax credits for the project, and has taken issue in particular with the deal-making process over the last year, viewing it as too inward-looking and not public enough, pointing to patterns of political connectivity leading to a prominent developer as shoo-in for the affordable housing project. Bill Dusty at the Springfield Intruder wrote in August about an effort of the group to contact state officials to complain and to set up a meeting with Winn representatives.
For its part, the Forest Park Civic Association, which held a public meeting to gauge community support for the project last winter, seems pleased with the results so far. Goonan characterized president Brian Sears as feeling “excited.”
A report this week by WWLP quotes Sarno saying the city has “committed” HOME Investment Partnership Funds to the project.
George Pappas of Springfield Forward was cited saying this means the city is using taxpayer funds for demolition, an aspect of redevelopment the mayor earlier asserted would be entirely footed by Winn.
Sarno’s statement to WWLP, unfortunately, did not clarify the matter very much and sounded largely like a reiteration of his letter of support for the project in March.
In the recent past, Longhill Gardens was in the news as a site for some of the most heinous criminal activity in the city. Considered decent middle and working-class housing through the 1960s and ’70s, it has deteriorated terribly in condition and has not undergone necessary updates to its 1950s structure. Winn has said it will demolish much of the complex, reducing the current 211 units by about half, creating more parking and providing other amenities. An initial outline of the redevelopment plan can be read here.
A March email from Gilbert Winn of WinnDevelopment noted the following:
The current plan includes 100 percent 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.
[March 20 was] 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. It’s 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.
Reader “Veritas” noted in a comment on a March 19 blog post:
It is my understanding that [mortgage holder] 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.
In an earlier blog post in February, Gerry McCafferty, Springfield’s deputy director of homeless and special needs housing, provided a reflection on the use of tax credits to provide affordable housing:
One thing that’s often misunderstood in conversations about affordable housing is that what “affordable” means has changed dramatically. What’s being built these days are buildings supported by tax credits, and this housing has rent structures like the ones in Winn’s proposal–with the lowest rents being over $700 per month.
This is very different from the old model of subsidized housing projects, which had “deep subsidies”–in this model, rents for all units are set at 30 percent of the household’s income, so the housing is affordable to people with extremely low incomes.
The federal government no longer has programs to produce deeply subsidized housing complexes. One concern with such complexes is that they cause concentrated poverty.
The current thinking is that it is better to attach subsidies to tenants–which is what the Section 8 Voucher program does–and allow tenants to rent where they choose. In theory, this promotes mobility, and deconcentrates poverty.
Unfortunately, the federal government has not set the rent levels high enough to achieve real mobility, so Section 8 tenants still tend to be concentrated in areas with lower rents. In addition, there have been no increases in the Section 8 program, so there are no new resources being devoted to the housing needs of the very poor. This tends to further contribute to the concentration of poverty because extremely-low-income people without subsidies are only likely to afford rents in distressed housing, found primarily in older urban areas.
Below is the public notice in the Republican this fall, emphasis mine:
MORTGAGEE’S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
By virtue and in execution of the Power of Sale contained in that certain Mortgage, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing (the Mortgage) given by LONGHILL OMEGA LLC, having an address of 82 Longhill Street, Springfield, MA 01108, to CITIBANK, FSB, a federal savings bank, dated AUGUST 8, 2006 and recorded with the Hampden County Registry of Deeds (the Registry) in Book 16107, Page 337, which Mortgage was assigned to LONGHILL ACQUISITIONS LLC, having an address c/o WinnCompanies, 6 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Boston, MA 02109, the present holder of the Mortgage, pursuant to that Assignment of Mortgage and Absolute Assignment of Leases, Rents, and Landlord’s Interest in Leases, dated as of September 29, 2008 and recorded with the Registry in Book 17522, Page 535, for breach of the conditions of said Mortgage and for the purpose of foreclosing the same will be sold at Public Auction at 12 o’clock, P. M. on the 4th day of December, 2008, at Longhill Gardens Condominium, 66-110 Longhill Street and 57-93 Longhill Street, Springfield, Massachusetts, all and singular the premises described in said Mortgage:
To wit: All of the units described in said Mortgage and their undivided percentage of interest in the common areas and facilities of the Longhill Gardens Condominium, as created by Master Deed dated September 21, 1987 and recorded with the Registry in Book 6630, Page 239 pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. chapter 183A, as said Master Deed was amended by that First Amendment to Master Deed dated October 7, 1987 and recorded with the Registry in Book 6646, Page 299, that Second Amendment to Master Deed, dated October 22, 1987 and recorded with the Registry in Book 6661, Page 74, that Third Amendment to Master Deed, dated January 27, 1988 and recorded with the Registry in Book 6742, Page 497, that Fifth Amendment to Master Deed, dated January 26, 2001 and recorded with the Registry in Book 11501, Page 111, and that Sixth Amendment to Master Deed, dated January 26, 2001 and recorded with the Registry in Book 11501, Page 113, which condominium is located at 10-60 Edgeland Street, 33-51 Edgeland Street, 66-110 Longhill Street, and 57-93 Longhill Street, Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts.
Premises to be sold and conveyed subject to and with the benefit of all rights, rights of way, restrictions, easements, covenants, liens or claims in the nature of liens, improvements, public assessments, any and all unpaid condominium fees and liens, unpaid real estate taxes, tax titles, tax liens, water and sewer liens and any other municipal assessments or liens or existing encumbrances of record which are in force and are applicable, having priority over said Mortgage, whether or not reference to such restrictions, easements, improvements, taxes, liens or encumbrances is made in the deed, all other provisions of the Master Deed, the Declaration of Trust creating the Longhill Gardens Condominium Trust, dated September 21, 1987 and recorded with said Registry in Book 6630, Page 275, any Bylaws of said Condominium recorded with said Master Deed or as later amended of record, the provisions of said Chapter 183A and in any instrument creating the estate or interest herein.
Terms of sale: A deposit of one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) by certified or bank check will be required to be paid by the purchaser at the time and place of sale.
The balance is to be paid by certified or bank check at the office of Murtha Cullina LLP, 99 High Street, 20th Floor, Boston, MA 02110 within thirty (30) days from the date of sale, which date may be extended by Longhill Acquisitions LLC in its sole discretion.
Deed will be provided to purchaser for recording upon receipt in full of the purchase price. In the event of an error in this publication, the description of the premises contained in said Mortgage shall control. Other terms, if any, to be announced at the sale. LONGHILL ACQUISITIONS LLC, present holder of said Mortgage By its Attorney, Deirdre M. Robinson Murtha Cullina LLP 99 High Street, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02110 (617)457-4000 (November 11, 18, 25)
Robert Cotto
December 5th, 2008 at 2:59 pmGood research. I’m not very familiar with the Springfield political scene. Two questions that I have are: What else has Winn built or “developed” in Springfield recently? What past connections does Winn have with the Mayor Sarno?
nnm http://springfield
December 5th, 2008 at 5:13 pmWe would like the same answers that Mr.Cotto asked! The taxpayer has been left out to dry on this deal. We have researched Winn C. and they say one thing but Kennedy Circle Ny had to call on armed guards.Mill Amherst Ma Valley estates(google pg.2-opinions of Mill Valley) 17 exresidents wrote of their terror under Winn…Springfield has too much good to say about Winn not to be in on it..a baby can find what they did from Wilkerson=Winn=Longhill.
blabbit
December 5th, 2008 at 5:18 pmA meeting AFTER the developer has already purchased the property and had plans drawn up?
That is in direct breach of Mayor Sarno’s “conditional support” letter which says: “Our support is conditioned upon Winn Companies coming to a reasonable agreement with the City and the neighborhood residents BEFORE MOVING FORWARD with the development plan.” (my emphasis)
The operative words being “BEFORE MOVING FORWARD.”
On Channel 22, December 3, 2008, the Mayor’s office confirmed that NO PUBLIC MEETING HAD BEEN HELD. So much for the claims that a public meeting was held last winter. A Civic Association’s annual meeting and pot luck dinner does NOT equate to a public meeting on this project.
No wonder the community is up in arms and there are HUNDREDS of “No Longhill” signs all over lawns in the neighborhood.
Holding a meeting NOW, AFTER THE DEVELOPER BOUGHT THE PROPERTY? What a sham!
But so goes the City of Springfield. Shame on the Mayor, shame on the Network (See Springfield Intruder article on “Springfield Forward… or Back” wherein the players are named.)
And as to a “public meeting” held last year? The neighborhood disagrees!
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
December 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pmBlabbit, I agree that an additional meeting or two - led by the mayor’s office, for instance - may have been very helpful earlier on, basically at any point. More could have been explained, discussed and hashed out about the status of Longhill Gardens and its potential.
Robert, I’m not familiar with any past connections between Winn and Mayor Sarno, or any previous mayor. After Gilbert Winn presented to the FPCA Board and then its general membership at a February 24 meeting, he arranged for three local Winn properties to be toured. From my February 28 blog post about that:
Downtown Springfield resident Carol Costa wrote up a kind of testimony for how she has viewed Winn’s management capacity, which can be read here at the FPCA site.
Longhill Gardensgate http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/MA-Amherst-Mill-Valley-Estates-New-Luxury.html
December 5th, 2008 at 6:24 pmThe meeting on December 17 may resemble a Time Share Sales Pitch more than it will a fair, open public meeting. One of the two community groups who support the Winn Longhill deal will host the presentation. Will they be impartial to questions from the many citizens with concerns about the proposal.
First and foremost, we should not be segregating and warehousing people on economic grounds. This has proven to be failed social engineering.
Decisions using public funds should not be made where public input is deliberately shut out. Questions had already arisen about Winn when research showed police incidents at their other Springfield complexes. Also, internet searches of Winn owned Kennedy Square Apartments in Syracuse and Mill Valley Estates in Amherst are not impressive. The arrests of Dianne Wilkerson and Chuck Turner and the subpoena of Winn documents and the stalling of the Columbus Center project also need discussion. Winn made a $500,000 contribution to a non-profit group Boston Connects for their support in expanding the Empowerment Zone in Boston. Have any contributions been made here in Springfield.
Lastly, I am concerned about any City Hall connections. Are Winn or Longhill Gardens in any way linked to past or present Housing, Economic Development or Code Enforcement employees or volunteers. Have all actions and decisions concerning Longhill Gardens been in the best interest of the city. Was condemning that complex the only option.
When $21 million in state and federal subsidies and tax credits are being used along with $550,000 of Springfield funds, the public has a right to question the development and the devloper.
blabbit
December 5th, 2008 at 7:45 pm$550,000 in City Home Funds are supposed to be for helping struggling citizens in Springfield bring their homes up to code, make necessary repairs, avoid foreclosure, keep a decent roof over their heads. In a financially strapped city, $550,000 of City Home Funds being given to a billionaire developer is nothing short of appalling.
While certain local groups keep saying that the community is behind this project, it only takes a drive down Forest Park Avenue, Riverview Street, Chase Street, Magnolia Terrace, Washington Street, Mountainview Street and other streets in the area to see the HUNDREDS of lawn signs reading “No Longhill”.
Heather, you have a great blog, informative, entertaining. “but Blabbit, I agree that an additional meeting or two - led by the mayor’s office, for instance - may have been very helpful earlier on, basically at any point.” misses the point. The Mayors own “conditional support” letter to MA HUD is a legal document and its conditions are legally binding, to wit: “Our support is conditioned upon Winn Companies coming to a reasonable agreement with the City and the neighborhood residents BEFORE MOVING FORWARD with the development plan.” (my emphasis)
BEFORE means BEFORE and making it a condition of the City’s means a public meeting was REQUIRED BEFORE MOVING FORWARD. The fact that this condition was breached is very telling. The fact that the Mayor’s office gave a public statement that the meeting has not been held is also telling.
The developer purchased the property on Thursday. Any meeting now is AFTER moving forward with the development plan.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
December 5th, 2008 at 8:45 pmIf Mayor Sarno required a meeting before certain decisions, and then made those decisions without having held a meeting, is he legally free to do that at his own discretion, or is he now technically accountable to the public in a way other than what the next election can carry out?
I remember learning late last year that Sarno was quite concerned with gaining community support.
“Before moving forward” can be interpreted a number of ways. Sarno seems to have interpreted in a way he sees fit. What do you think is revealed by the way he carried out his decisions, based on what we know? Does he seem invested in getting public input; has he been responsive to concerns about holding a meeting?
nnm http://springfield
December 5th, 2008 at 10:52 pmThe tide has turned against Mayor Sarno,By not allowing public input he has lost the support of hundreds of people throughout Springfield…not just Forest Park.This city will not forgive reverse Robin Hood tactics.
550,000 to a billionaire Winn when taxpaying seniors and disabled taxpayers cannot have what was granted to them.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
December 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pmTo see what Winn has in mind for a new and improved Longhill Gardens, take a look at the floor plans and elevations posted on the FPCA website: http://www.forestparkca.com . Text by FPCA president Brian Sears is on the right hand side of the home page, and below it is a link to a separate page where this material may be accessed.
Take a look and judge for yourself.
Good Intentions http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=opinion&sc=letters&sc2=news&sc3=&id=84173
December 7th, 2008 at 7:11 amI wonder what the original plans looked like for Riverview or 10 Chestnut Street. They all look good on the drawing board. What happens if Winn gets caught up in financial or legal entanglements. Will Longhill Gardens become another Columbus Center. Will the developer try to demand more funds once the project begins?
http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=opinion&sc=letters&sc2=news&sc3=&id=84173
blabbit
December 8th, 2008 at 1:46 amI am sure the floor plans at the Winn “luxury apartments” at Mill Valley Estates in Amherst are also quite lovely and spacious, with lot’s of light, nice kitchens, etc. But it only takes a bad tenant mix a short time to change everything. At apartmentratings.com, those who have lived in this “luxury” Winn Development, paying “luxury” priced rents for the fabulous aparments, don’t have many nice things to say. The developer received an 18% approval rate. 18%! OUCH! When the developer’s “luxury” apartments can’t get more than an 18% approval rating from people who lived there, that speaks volumes. Some former tenants have advised that you should live ANYWHERE other than Mill Valley Estates, while some said they would rather live in a tent. As to the tours arranged by the developer and its supporters: dog and pony shows. It is an entirely different matter to go check these places out on your own, unannounced. Northern Heights, touted as a “great example” of the developer’s managment skills is an absolute nightmare. Once the sun goes down, people avoid the place like the plague: drugs, prostitution, muggings, stabbings, etc. Actually, people avoid the place in broad daylight. Another OUCH!
THOSE are the things this neighborhood is worried about. That and the fact that a public meeting has been demanded for 10 months, and is only now scheduled for AFTER the developer has taken title to the property. As I read on a blog on MassLive, “If this is such a good thing, why all the secrecy? Why not a public meeting BEFORE - as required by the Mayor’s conditional support letter?” And what recourse do the citizens have? I think nnm must be a Springfield resident because I can almost guarantee that Sarno is a one term Mayor. Many Forest Park residents voted for him, but after this deal? He could not buy their votes at any price. And neither could the former mayor or his supporters, who have pushed this project through. Watch as support for the local non-profits continues to plummet. I guess they don’t really care though or they would not have brought this fiasco into the neighborhood to begin with. Hundreds of signs throughout the neighborhood don’t lie; there is not the community support we have been led to believe. The more we learn, the less we like it.
NoPolitician http://
December 8th, 2008 at 11:14 amI don’t have any first-hand knowledge of Mill Valley Estates, which seems to be a mixed-income complex. How many of those complaints come from college students who did not realize that they were renting at a complex that included income-restricted housing? It seems like Mill Valley Estates is being billed as “luxury housing”, and I have to believe that someone renting in such a place is doing so because they don’t want to live near “affordable housing tenants”, particularly when the rents seem to be in the $1,000-$1,500 range.
nnm http://springfield
December 8th, 2008 at 12:07 pmMill valley is billed as affordable housing and students deserve to live in peace and safety as do other tenents..You suggest students are not humans needing a good place to live…many go to school full time and work to pay their rent…Management has a duty to give all info to everyone renting ..If they don’t then this is what you get…
Belmont
December 9th, 2008 at 9:52 pmThe negative reviews on mill valley estates read like they are all written by the same person…same words used throughout…someone with an ax to grind.
Who files apartment reviews anyway? I would guess more often than not people who had a miserable experience for whatever reason, their fault or managements. I can’t imagine running around looking to post great things about an apartment complex online. Why would someone take the time to compliment an apt. complex? That’s like calling an 1-800 number on the back of a tractor trailor “how’s my driving” sign to offer compliments.
Anyway, the Longhill Plan looks good. It looks like it’s demolishing half the buildings, all of them on one side of the street, and bringing the whole place under control. I look forward to Winn putting some money into this property.
Anonymous http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/MA-Amherst-Mill-Valley-Estates-New-Luxury.html
December 9th, 2008 at 11:16 pmWill Winn use the same management policies at Longhill Gardens as they use at Mill Valley Estates. Springfield does not need more subsidized units nor another menace. If the same tenant wrote all of the bad reviews why are the dates spaced so far apart?
08/04/2008 07/04/2008 04/28/2008 04/22/2008 02/18/2008
01/27/2008 10/26/2007 07/05/2007 02/15/2007
http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/MA-Amherst-Mill-Valley-Estates-New-Luxury.html
Best way to NOT renew the problems at Longhill Gardens is to NOT reopen Longhill Gardens.
Belmont
December 9th, 2008 at 11:44 pmI’m wondering why people are going up to Amherst to try and find bad reviews of a complex in a college town (are there good complexes that rent to college students???), when we have reviews from neighborhood reps here in Springfield about properties they actually manage here in Springfield:
http://forestparkca.com/longhill%20Gardens/carolcosta_letter_%20winnco.htm
Why are the Springfield examples discarded, and the experiences that Springfield neighborhood folks had with this company discarded?
Input Locked Out http://springfieldintruder.com/?p=1101
December 10th, 2008 at 8:10 amThis statement is from the downtown resident quoted in the article posted by Belmont:
“I have to say that Winn
expended a great deal of time and energy listening to our concerns.”
So what is the point? Does this mean that if Winn allowed input from the community that an acceptable solution could have been (or still) be found at Longhill Gardens?
nnm http://springfield
December 10th, 2008 at 12:18 pmthe floor plans mean nothing…Putting a mask on the problem only hides the nature of this beast.Why would any sane person want to even think about resurrecting Longhill Gardens? It benefits no one.Forest Park cannot handle 300+ new reidents. There are no jobs and our services will be cut in Jan. There is no close shopping and you must walk to a bus.
Winn cannot control who visits..since Longhill closed peace has returned to my neighborhhood..we have regained many of our quaility of life issues..noise..traffic.no hypo needles..comdoms..cars idling and rocking up and down..hookers…Build and they will return..history does repeat itself.
TMTM
December 12th, 2008 at 9:24 pmALL I can say is I am sick and tired of feeding wealthy companies with my tax dollars and not just for builing projects, but the people in the project then use our tax money to pay the rent to the building built by our tax money and what do I get out of it? criminals, litter, drugs, prostitutes and worse!!! and another private company gets richer
I am sick of crooked scum, I am sick of keeping the Rich wealthy and the poor paid for off my breaking middle class back.
So much for. for the people, by the people
It is all about who you know and not what you know, who can make a buck and screw everyone in the process. Get rid of Greed and Social Status and BANG there you fixed the whole damn world.
MORONS
Belmont
December 13th, 2008 at 9:54 pmI agree TMTM, do away with social status, and you’ll do away with a lot of the project opponents. Rich people living in a well managed building would have been fine, poor people living in a well managed building is, well, protest-worthy. Makes sense, right?
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
December 15th, 2008 at 9:52 amSpringfield’s News and Information Leader, WHYN, has reported this morning that Springfield city councilors “will huddle this afternoon to talk about the city’s spending” of $550,000 toward Longhill Gardens. “City Council President Bud Williams says he wants to know why the city spent the cash and what it’s being used for.”
I have received no notice of a committee meeting from City Hall, but anyone interested in finding out in order to attend could contact the City Council office at (413) 787-6170.
Very Informative
December 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pmThe meeting in council chambers at City Hall was informative and productive. An overwhelming share of those in attendance were opposed to the Winn Longhill Gardens proposal. They were also opposed to the city giving $550,00 in HOME funds to Winn. Good questions emerged from the attendees, concerning the lack of a genuine public meeting, the shutting out of other proposals and developers, and the consensus that Longhill Gardens will reopen and have a negative impact on the area.
BIG question: Are local property owners being shortchanged by the city giving the $550,00 to Winn?
My Answer: YES, BIG time.
The City Council is to be thanked for for holding this meeting.
blabbit
December 16th, 2008 at 12:56 amWow! Heard at that meeting that the argument about how wonderful Winn was and how Winn would do such an excellent job of screening tenants was blown out of the water. Carl Deitz, the City’s Housing Director, after being asked several times by various Council persons, finally admitted that Winn will not have any control over who populates the project because it is being built with PUBLIC FUNDS - Federal HUD dollars and therefore “If a Section 8 tenant wants to move in, because the place is being built with Federal funds, they have to be allowed in.” and later on: “Winn will have no control over who moves in because they cannot discriminate. If mostly Section 8 voucher users ask to live there, then mostly Section 8 voucher users must be allowed to live there.” Channel 22 ran a piece where Carl Dietz admits the truth for the first time - so, it seems the folks who opposed this project were right all along …
Council also voted to write a letter to the Mayor demanding that a separate meeting, a PUBLIC MEETING, NOT sponsored by any civic groups, take place before the City considers the release of any monies for this project. Council stated in chambers that PUBLIC money required a PUBLIC meeting, BEFORE THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED, where the PUBLIC could vote on whether or not they wanted the project! Councilors stated that allowing the developer to purchase the mortgage before any public meeting was held was improper. Wow, the opposition got another one right…
Council also overwhelmingly stated: Springfield does NOT NEED ANY MORE LOW INCOME HOUSING. Some quotes given by Councilors: “This City is overwhelmed with low-income housing and we need to stop building any additional low-income housing now.” “We have more low-income housing than we can handle and it is time to build housing for middle-income, tax producing families”. “We need to find what the ‘best use’ is for this site and low-income housing is definitely not it.” “Why didn’t the City look at other options?” Another one the opposition got right ….
So, while I listen to the majority of my neighbors tell me why they don’t want this project and then listen to the same small group of supporters tell me why it is a great thing for the City, I can only come to the conclusion that the opposition has been right all along. Now how do we stop this train wreck?
NoPolitician http://
December 16th, 2008 at 1:20 amMore deception by the Longhill Opponents. They claim that because public funds are used, the owners can’t discriminate against Section 8 tenants.
Guess what: It is against the law in Massachusetts to refuse to rent to Section 8 tenants regardless of the source of funding. Proof furnished here.
Statements by city councilors preening for a camera are not statements of fact. Public money does not require a public meeting. Even though they may want it to be true, the facts are that the public has no direct vote as to whether a private party can pursue public funding for a housing project. Also, who acted improperly by “allowing the developer to purchase the mortgage before any public meeting was held”? Again, statements made in the ether, with no relation to reality. How does the public have the right to prevent a private party from purchasing a mortgage?
I’m sure that the opponents of Longhill Gardens are filled with passion. Too bad they don’t have facts on their side.
Passion + Fact
December 16th, 2008 at 10:21 amSpeaking of facts…
No one voted on this proposal except board members of Forest Park Civic Association and Concerned Citizens of Springfield. The general membership of FPCA and residents of Forest Park were shut out of the process. All we got was an announcement that the decision to support was made on an “emergrncy basis.” There never was wide spread support for the proposal from the community because community input was never sought.
NoPolitician http://
December 16th, 2008 at 2:29 pmIt’s easy to oppose. It’s a lot harder to come up with a solution, and even harder to pull the solution off.
It has been a year since Longhill Gardens was closed down. Springfield Forward has spent that entire time whining that no one “explored other options”. We didn’t hear a peep from them for the 20 years this place was a pit. We don’t hear any viable alternatives from them. Why should anyone take them seriously? Their sole function seems to be to complain and to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt using half-truths and innuendo.
nnm http://springfield
December 16th, 2008 at 8:27 pmthis is just plain nasty..Springfield Forward was threatened with a law suit by Dave Panagore if they looked into any other developers…..Period…….when a Springfield City employee threatens a law suit..What would you do… Also CCS would you donate 100,000+ you are making to the Homeless shelter? I doubt it!!!!
NoPolitician http://
December 16th, 2008 at 10:47 pmMore red herrings thrown out by Springfield Forward.
CCS stood to make money on a resale the moment they bought 5 units 3 or 4 years ago. If an angel dropped from the sky and wanted to turn Longhill Gardens into luxury condos CCS would make money on a resale. If the city took the property by eminent domain CCS would make money. Check CCS Form 990 — none of their directors takes any salary, and they have no paid employees listed either. No one is profiting here.
Whatever money CCS makes on top of their purchase price will be used towards their mission of renovating blighted properties in Forest Park — maybe even one on your street.
I don’t know what Panagore said, but I doubt he was personally threatening to sue Springfield Forward. He probably cautioned Springfield Forward from trying to scuttle the deal between Bank of America and Winn — because they have no right to interfere in a private transaction between two private parties, regardless of the future plans of one of those parties to use public funds.
blabbit
December 17th, 2008 at 3:59 amSorry NoPol. City Council just disagreed with you and demanded that a public meeting be held without the interference or sponsorship of CCS or FPCA. Why? Because City Council declared that there HAD TO BE A PUBLIC MEETING WHEN PUBLIC FUNDS WERE BEING USED TO FUND PUBLIC HOUSING. The quote I got was: “This is a democracy and when public funds are used to build public housing, the public has to be part of the process and the public gets to vote on it.” I do believe the CCS and FPCA were also called on the carpet for declaring themselves the voice of the entgire community when only 12 board members voted. I think that pretty much covers it. No, wait… there is more. b I do believe that several Councilors actually came up with other options and declared that they themselves would get the necessary funding for them. Yep, now we’re done.
NoPolitician http://
December 17th, 2008 at 10:05 amThe city council declared nothing because it was a not a full council meeting and no vote was taken. Individual Bloviating city councilors may have made statements which I doubt they will be able to follow through with, since they do not control the city’s budget. Let me guess — Jimmy Ferrera said those things, right? The weakest link on the council will say anything to win votes. Just shows how little he knows about the governmental process — the public does not get to vote on each expenditure of the government, we elect representatives to do that for us.
Why don’t you grace us with the “other options”. Was one of them a museum for the British Crown Jewels? Was one of them an indoor rain forest? Which city employees will they fire to make the funding available?
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
December 17th, 2008 at 10:35 amI’m working on getting a record of the notes taken at the City Council “huddle” or committee meeting or whatever it was on Monday afternoon.
Bob Arieti in the City Council office told me the person who took the notes is out for the rest of the week, and Councilor Bud Williams had a death in the family and isn’t very available right now either. Arieti said he would search for the notes. (Was there no reporter there?)
He also told me there is another public meeting scheduled for Monday, December 22, noon, at Museum Park, 70 Chestnut Street in Springfield. Those familiar with the saga of Longhill Gardens will recognize this as a WinnCompanies property. I am not sure who is hosting that meeting or exactly what the scope of it is, but it’s another chance for discussion and asking questions.
NoPolitician http://
December 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pmGee, a meeting at noon 3 days before Christmas? I’m sure that plenty of people will make that!
If this was the FPCA-scheduled meeting the bleating would be endless from Springfield Forward.
blabbit
December 18th, 2008 at 2:06 amTonight a meeting was held at Forest Park Middle School. I made sure I was there. Winn began the presentation by taking a shot at the community when he immediately insulted Springfield Forward and their supporters, and singled out particular board members by name. I guess no one has been given permission to object to this proposal. Shame on our neighorhood. Just who do we think we are? Citizens with rights? Not a very good beginning for Winn et al reaching out to the community.
The “mostly opposed to the project” audience was not very pleased with being insulted right out of the gate. This community supports Springfield Forward by a large majority because Springfield Forward has been leading the charge to make sure the community’s voices are heard. Rule # 1: Don’t insult your audience if you want to win them over. The only place to go from that declass beginning was downhill.
Winn spent about 20 minutes telling everyone just how wonderful he is, how wonderful his company is, how many awards they have won and how they are just the best darn developer in the state, “maybe even in the entire country!” No kidding, Gilbert Winn actually said that. What was omitted was a listing of the law suits against the company, the settlements made by the company, the fines levied against the company, police reports regarding crime at sites they manage, or comments from current and former tenants who live or have lived in their projects and don’t have good things to say. Once again, Winn cited the same supportive letter written months ago as proof positive of how incredibly fabulous they are. Unfortunately the letter writer lives in senior housing, not in a low-income only development. Apples to apples folks. When you want to use something as proof, use apples to apples, not apples to tangerines. When asked questions, most responses were vague, ever changing, non-committal and occasionally embarrassing. Union reps were in attendance and were unable to get a clear or concise answer regarding the hiring of either Springfield residents or union members for the project, where the general contractor would come from, how many laborers would be hired …. no clear answers anywhere. Additionally answers that were given at this meeting contradicted information which had been previously provided by Winn et al. Even the City’s housing director got in on the act by contradicting what he said at a Council meeting 2 days earlier - which statements were filmed and shown on Channel 22 news. Let the misinformation rondelay continue!
At least 5-6 times neighborhood residents needed to remind Mr. Winn that he was being sarcastic, condescending and downright rude. At one point when a person who lives directly around the corner from the project tried to speak, FPCA’s President told him to sit down and stop talking because “This is MY meeting, this is OUR meeting” (accompanied by a pound on the chest - tarzan style). The resident retorted - “This is supposed to be a PUBLIC meeting and I am a member of the public and I want to speak.” This type of exchange occurred several times where neighborhood residents were cut off, told to be quiet, told to stop talking, or ignored. The most unbelievable scenario occurred as one community resident was speaking about her concerns, and the entire FPCA and CCS group, along with the developer, just got up, put on their coats and began mingling and talking to each other. Unbelievable! They did not even having the courtesy to hear the woman out. Meanwhile residents who oppose this project remained seated and were decent enough to not only let her finish speaking, but demonstrated further courtesy by meeting and talking with Winn supporters afterward. Class will tell. Every time.
It may have been planned to be a dog and pony show, but the meeting did not go well for the Developer. Just refer to TV news coverage on 3 channels. This project just keeps looking worse, the community is getting more disgusted and more organized, Winn et al continue to prevaricate and shush those who deserve a voice. It does not help the developer to attack the community and the group representing the community, and accuse them of spreading misinformation when everything they have said can be backed up. It does not get any worse than scheduling what you publish as a “public meeting” and then telling the public to shut up and be quiet because it is YOUR meeting.
Thank you City Concilors for acknowledging your disgust at the entire farce.
Ahh, but good things come to those who wait (or have truth on their side). Someone called out for a vote of “those who oppose the project” and 60% of the hands in the room went up. A genuine vote of the community residents present - not 12 FPCA/CCS board members. A genuine vote eliciting 60% opposed.
Now, call me crazy, but I am willing to be the bank that the Winn folks are going to spin this into a “tied” vote or some other such fiction. They will of course, quote all the wonderfulness of Winn, and how fabulously well the meeting went for them. Happily, the news media and several Councilors were present who witnessed the overwhelming opposition to this project. I repeat - 60% of the community voted NO on LONGHILL GARDENS. Witnessed and recorded by the media and Council members.
So goes the saga. The majority community against the few and connected.
I give this post approximately 20 minutes before NoPol or some other fiction writer gets on and begins the spin. I am so glad I was there to witness it. I am so glad the media was present to witness it. I am so glad Council members were present to witness it. I am so glad that 3 separate television channels covered it.
Ok Winn folks, let the spinn begin!
NoPolitician http://
December 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pmThis was supposed to be a meeting to discuss details of the proposal and to address any neighborhood concerns.
How would you expect someone to address the concerns of someone whose sole position is “don’t build this” but who offers no viable alternative plan for the property?
It seems that by taking a ‘no prisoners’ approach, you have boxed yourself into a corner.
nnm http://springfield
December 18th, 2008 at 8:05 pmdo not count your chickens before 109 are hatched..you could be the one with egg on your face.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
December 19th, 2008 at 1:58 pmTo get two more views of what happened at the meeting, see photos, architectural drawings and floor plans at http://www.springfieldintruder.com and read through the meeting summary posted on MassLive.
FPCA President Brian Sears, after acknowledging the division of opinion on the Winn proposal, began by outlining a chronology of public presentations of this development. (FPCA annual meeting, 2 tours of Winn properties, names of groups and agencies that have given approval, site problems, place of this meeting in the process, announcement of next Monday’s noontime meeting at Museum Park, 70 Chestnut Street.)
Gilbert Winn began a description of their involvement, noting that since the February annual meeting of the FPCA, the same questions had been asked over and over and that he was willing to answer them again tonight. He ran through several elements of a PowerPoint presentation describing Winn’s track national record and all the awards they had received, including their support for the Boys and Girls Club and their practice of enrolling all children in their developments in the Boys and Girls Club. He also described how hard he was pressed by David Panagore and both Mayor Ryan and Mayor Sarno to put market rate or elderly housing into Longhill Gardens. He had just finished describing in detail the physical reasons this development is unsuitable for elderly housing (no elevators, remote parking lot at the bottom of a steep hill) when he was interrupted by Richard Carpenter and Mrs. Pappas.
Winn then resumed his PowerPoint, comparing the characteristics of the present condo use with their proposal. These include laundry facilities, security arrangements, a play area, structural soundness, maintenance, handicap units, landscaping, rent levels and payment of taxes. Rent levels under Longhill Omega were $550. and $750. while under Winn, they would be $500. and $820.
Site improvements will include demolition of the worst buildings and quadrupling the ratio of parking per unit over what is there now.
Carl Deitz of the city’s Office of Housing described the city’s fear that the building might be snapped up at auction by a straw man who would buy Shalom Segelman’s mortgage for pennies on the dollar or another “bottom feeder.” He also noted that 55% of Springfield families qualify to live in this building and that NO project-based subsidies will be used.
FPCA Board Member Jane Hetzel, who had passed out cards to members of the audience, started to introduce the question and answer period by announcing she would read questions from all cards, but was interrupted by opponents asking if this was “the normal process for a public meeting” and seeking to ask questions from the floor. When Brian and Jane were unsuccessful in regaining control, others challenged them and tried to respond to their issues. City Councilor Bud Williams moved to the front of the hall to point out that, while he did not support this project, this was “their [the FPCA’s] meeting” adding that “we have to have proper discourse” and “act like we’re mature.”
Opponents finally quieted down when Jane explained she would read all questions, grouping questions by topic. Here, in order, are most of the questions and answers raised at the meeting.
What is the source of funding? Federal and state subsidies in the form of tax credits or low-income loans.
Your claim the property cannot be turned into elderly housing is insulting.
Why do you need 4 parking spaces per unit? Is your security for the tenants or to protect the neighborhood from the tenants? What if your security system goes down and all the cops are baby-sitting Longhill? This question was shouted by an angry man standing on the sidelines who said he lives on Fort Pleasant Ave. and that things are much quieter since Longhill Gardens has been vacant.
What happens to working class housing because businesses leave Springfield because of tax increases?
Where’s the money coming from and why isn’t elderly housing appropriate? Winn cited parking problems and lack of elevators as cited before.
What about sidewalks? No information about city sidewalks; interior sidewalks will be repaved.
What about a driveway connection to Hazelwood Ave.? No answer.
What about lots on Edgeland where garages were? Winn will entertain proposals for reuse of this vacant land.
Please describe your tenant selection procedures. We’ll check for income, criminal history, number of people and we’ll enforce provisions of the lease in Housing Court.
[Shouted from the audience] What will you do about drug dealers who visit School Committeewoman Antonette Pepe asked this man to be quiet.
What parts of the job will be subbed out? Will workers have health insurance? Will you use local contractors? Winn said this project will create a lot on construction jobs; it’s worth $11million.
[Asked by a union representative] Is this a prevailing wage job? Will you commit to using 50 to 60% Springfield residents for rehab? Will workers have health care and retirement? Not a prevailing wage job; it’s not required. Winn will follow all labor requirements.
[Question about health insurance and workers comp asked by representative of the Carpenters Union 108] Winn provides full health insurance and workers comp.
City Councilor Jimmy Ferrera breaks in to ask whether Winn “can live without the city’s $550,000.” Winn explains that city matching funds are required for these projects, and that the city’s money will leverage $18million in state funds.
Will Winn be reachable locally? Yes.
What do you get in return? Winn isn’t just handed the money to use it any way they want. The project must remain affordable for 30 years, and Winn cannot sell it for 15 years.
Would it be possible to petition DHCS to allow the project to be market rate housing? Winn promises to write to the state tomorrow and ask to include as many market rate units as possible, possibly as many as 20 or 30.
Antonette Pepe breaks in to describe how promises made in the name of affordable housing destroyed the Hollywood neighborhood where she grew up.
Is there a problem with Northern Heights? Winn bought it four years ago and renovated it two years ago. Half the inherited tenants the tenants have been replaced through evictions.
What connection does Carl Deitz have with Kerry Dietz and Keith Construction? Carl Dietz has met Kerry Dietz a couple of times in the course of their work. They are not related; their families come from different parts of Germany where Dietz is a very common name. He has no relationship with Keith Construction.
Do you have a general contractor and who is it? Keith Construction from Stoughton MA. They have more workers involved with multi-family housing in Springfield than anyone else. [Someone interjects that their subs were underpaid on Pynchon Place.]
What income level will your tenants have? 60% of median income, that is $30,000. to $40,000.
Security will be off-site with on-site security to be added if it is needed. Winn added “I want this project to be attractive.”
Mrs. Pappas asks about the screening process for Section 8 tenants, quoting Carl Deitz saying that one “cannot deny anyone with a Section 8.” Winn promises to screen for credit worthiness and criminal history.
Elevators cost $4000. each per David Panagore. Why not use city money for that? Winn says, OK, well then I can do elevators, but not kitchens and bathrooms.
How will the security system help the neighbors?
Richard Carpenter asks about bail problems and the presence of sex offenders at Northern Heights
Taxes: Winn has paid back taxes for 192 units and will be returning this development to the tax rolls.
A man objects to Winn’s tone as condescending.
A woman agrees, but also says that members of the audience were rude and that their behavior was embarrassing.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
December 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pmThanks for the follow-up information from those of you who were there.
For further reference, the Republican ran an article, and CBS3 has a brief report including video.
WINN Hits The Fan
December 20th, 2008 at 12:19 pmSpringfield Forward and the residents opposed to the proposal are to be thanked for being persistent. They are the reason the meeting was held. The supporters mislabeled the FPCA Annual Meeting as the public meeting on Longhill Gardens. The supporters did all in their power to avoid and stall a full meeting on the proposal. Once pressure was on for this meeting to be held, they attempted to frame it as a meeting on “Finishing Touches.” The format was designed to limit audience participation. An FPCA member was to select and read questions from the floor.
Gilbert Winn began with comments that were critical of the posting of newspaper articles revealing the subpoena of Winn records in connection with Dianne Wilkerson and Chuck Turner. He said he did not like reading the stories of unfavorable references about Mill Valley Estates in Amherst or the arrests of Winn tenants of Northern Heights and Eastbrook Apartments. He then went on to belittle Springfield Forward and single out members. That is when audience members began to speak up.
That meeting allowed city officials and press members to witness the objections of community members to Longhill Gardens. It was interesting to hear that Carl Dietz had a prior connection to Winn. Identified as general contractor was Keith Construction, another financial supporter of Dianne Wilkerson. The Dianne Wilkerson situation was not addressed by Gilbert Winn. He also failed to explain how Longhill Gardens would be any better managed than Northern Heights.
The powerpoint presentation displayed numbers and narrative diffficult to read from the floor. Is a hard copy available for community review? Were those numbers and comments verified and certified by a CPA or are we just going by Gilbert Winn’s word?
blabbit
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 pmIf you just go by any of Winn’s words or those of this projects supporters you will be sadly disappointed. So far, every single piece of information provided has morphed and changed over and over again: Market rate with townhomes. Ooops, a mistake. Mixed income with some market rate housing… oops another mistake. Mixed income with some low income housing… oops another mistake. Low income only, but we will hold a public meeting to get community input. Ooops… another mistake, no public meeting necessary. Community agreement will be obtained. Oops, another mistake, no community agreement needed. Community does not like it or want it? Too bad! We’re doing it anyway because 12 of us decided for all of Forest Park. Can anybody say “lack of integrity?” Take Winn’s word for it? Are I’ve got this bridge …
nnm http://springfield
January 25th, 2009 at 7:56 pmp.s. today is Jan.25,2009
Today the Boston Globe reports that Winn development[ aka Arthur Winn] gave Dianne Wilkerson $10,000 concerning his Columbus Center
“the other Big Dig” and you can read all about!!!!
What were the works to Jailhouse rock???????????
blabbit
January 30th, 2009 at 5:58 pmJan 27th, Boston Globe advises that Winn’s California partners, the California Urban Investment Partnership and investors in Boston’s Columbus Center project, are reviewing their contract with Winn based on Winn’s breach of a clause (read: ethics clause) in giving Dianne Wilkerson a $10,000 “gift” when she was pushing for support and money for Winn’s Columbus Center project. “CUIP has a strict policy regarding contributions to elected officials and does not condone any contribution of this type” Chuck Berman, managing principal of the investment fund, said in a statement.” Looks like the California investor group is going to be distancing themselves from Winn pretty quick via a big: Cancel that deal!
Oops, another article, Jan. 29th, Boston Herald: it appears that the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is also having second thoughts about WinnDevelopment: ” ‘The commonwealth can’t afford any more ethical lapses’ said Mary Connaughton, a Turnpike Board member.” I predict another entity distancing themselves from Winn with another big: Cancel that Deal!
What I find amazing is that a local organization, Springfield Forward, has been fighting the Winn deal here in Springfield and everything they have said has been proved to be true! All the supporters blah blah has been proved to be congtrived propoganda put forth to further their agenda. When you own 5 units in Longhill and expect to make a killing when the deal goes through you might just say a lot of things that aren’t true in order to keep the public from discovering exactly what is going on.
Boston is unafraid of the local power moogs, so they print the story, loud and clear. Winn is unethical, and has now been outed as being unethical. I wonder how long it will take the local non-profit supporters and politicians to “get it” and walk away from Winn BEFORE THEY GET BURNED?
Oooops, too late for the local non-profits! Local politicians have already distanced themselves! At a press conference in front of Longhill Gardens on Monday, January 26, as shown on Channel 40, City Council members Bud Williams and James Ferrera, III and State Representative Cheryl Coakley-Rivera stated for the record that they no longer support the Winn proposal for Longhill Gardens due to the lack of any public meeting, the lack of local support (except for those 12 board members!), the community and City being kept in the dark, and no other options being explored. it seems some of the local powers that be have “gotten it”.
Last man standing with Winn gets a cell next door to him in the clinker.
nmm
February 1st, 2009 at 8:10 pmToday is feb 1,2009….
Mass. turnpike and the new backers of Columbus center in Boston have questioed and want to back out of support for Winn because of their unethical bribes to Dianne Wilkerson for favours in the State regulations.
Our State Rep Cheryl Rivera…and two city councilors recind their support for Winn on the Longhill matter.
What next?
Winn So Wrong http://www.springfieldmedia.com/SpringfieldToday.html
March 4th, 2009 at 7:01 pmRecently Gilbert Winn has expressed outrage at a Springfield City Councilor for siding with Forest Park residents and speaking out against Longhill Gardens. Winn has to realize this is more than just a line item on a balance sheet. Reopening Longhill Gardens will have a negative impact on the safety, life quality and home values for many Springfield residents.
Winn Is Not The Solution
May 10th, 2009 at 4:25 pmThese overflowing dumpsters at Winn’s Northern Heights are further proof that Mayor Dom Sarno should not be supporting the use of taxpayer funds to reopen Longhill Gardens.
http://www.cbs3springfield.com/younews/44303452.html