Hey, there! Log in / Register
Developer is shocked board might think he's trying to evade city's affordable-housing requirements with Dorchester proposal
By adamg on Wed, 05/10/2017 - 9:20am
The Board of Appeals yesterday deferred action on developer Timothy Johnson's proposal for a four-story, nine-unit residential project on Clapp Street near Boston Street - right behind a similar nine-unit complex he built on Enterprise Street - so that he can talk with the BPDA about how to incorporate affordable housing in the plans.
Had Johnson initially proposed an 18-unit project on the parcel the board agreed two years ago to let him split in two, he would have triggered the city's affordable-housing requirement, which currently require 13% of units be marketed as affordable - or that the developer put an equivalent amount of money in a BPDA fund for creating affordable units. But nine-unit projects are too small for the requirement.
Board member Mark Ehrlich questioned whether Johnson was "gaming the system" by splitting a development in two and said the board takes a dim view of that.
Oh, goodness no, Johnson's attorney James Rudser said. Rudser said that when Johnson bought the property, the area was considered a risky place for new development and that his client couldn't have gotten financing for a larger project than what he built. Splitting the parcel in two was simply in reaction to that, so he could build the Enterprise Street units, he said.
But now, he said, the area is changing quickly, what with the new upscale South Bay mall going in on the other side of Enterprise Street, and lenders are willing to take a shot on projects in the area.
He added the new buildings would help the area by providing a sort of step-down buffer between the large new mall and the smaller homes nearby.
Rutser said Johnson has had preliminary talks with the BPDA. A BPDA liaison asked the board to defer action until the two sides could hold additional talks, and the board agreed, delaying a vote until Aug. 15.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
if this tax was based on the totality of an enities real estate
there might be less of that.
I suspect we would see a
I suspect we would see a rapid increase in the number of shell corporations
because of 15% corporate tax
or avoiding fees for affordable housing?
Well, wait, 15% of what?
Well, wait, 15% of what? Profits? Total revenue? Housing units built?
I meant that trumps 15%
I meant that trumps 15% corporate tax will creates lotsa shell companies
Minutes. Most recent Public Meeting of the Board of Appeals.
Minutes of the most recent Public Meeting of the Board of Appeals are available by email via
https://www.boston.gov/departments/inspectional-services/how-zoning-boar...
Board of Appeals
1) Christine Araujo, Chair
2) Bruce Bickerstaff
3) Peter Chin
4) Mark Erlich
5) Mark Fortune, Secretary
6) Craig Glavin
7) Tyrone Kindell Jr.
8) Kerry Walsh Logue
9) Anthony Pisani
A 9 unit building
And were demanding he accommodate lower income people by subsiding x units, that's not Gov overreach.
Well i demand City Hall cough up 20% of their building to the homeless.
So when can we see your name on the ballot?
If you don't like it, you're going to have to either run for office yourself or convince your city councilors and the mayor to change the requirement, which is neither new nor a secret to the sort of people who make their money putting up buildings in Boston.
Which requirement would he
Which requirement would he change? We don't require affordability in 9 unit buildings.
And I might add this is a sort of classic example of the kinds of market distortions that are caused by a badly designed tax. In fact developers are constantly doing exactly what this guy is doing all over the city, they're just usually smart enough not to try to put the projects right next to each other.
The problem is that when this 9 unit cutoff was first conceived, the affordability requirements were low enough that it was still profitable to build bigger even though it would mean having to subsidize a few of the units. But now that we're regularly asking builders of 10+ unit buildings to do 20-25% affordable, it is often more profitable to build small enough so as not to trigger the affordability requirement (and in fact that is exactly what's happening all over the city).
Developers splitting up projects to skirt the requirement was the inevitable and highly predictable consequence of trying to push the affordability numbers higher than what the market will tolerate.
It's Crazy How People are Complaining
About people complying with the laws. The regulation says 9 units don't need affordable so he's complying with the law. If you're going 54 mph in a 55 mph zone, you don't get pulled over for "gaming the system" to avoid a speeding ticket.
This guy is designing a project to avoid a punitive government tax/tariff (namely, being forced to give away 13% of your asset for below the cost it took to build it). They can call it whatever they want, but that is a tax.
In fact, it is a uniquely punishing tax. Most tax rates scale up. i.e. on your income tax,at say the $35,000 hurdle, you pay a higher tax rate on the income above $35k and the lower rate on the income below $35k. They don't make you pay the high rate on the total income once you go above $35k.
That would create a severe disincentive to earn more than $35k and you'd see a whole lot of people working to make their income $34,999.99. That's just common sense.
Yet here, developers acting rationally within the laws are treated like criminals.
Nice try
But he needed permission from the board to split the property into two lots. Assuming he had this scheme in mind to begin with, the board never would've given him permission to do so (I'm not saying he had this in mind, those blocks were kind of backwaters a few years ago).
The Problem is a Nebulous Ability
by the board to declare something one project and impose affordability.
So yeah, maybe he was intentionally trying to skirt this arbitrary regulation? Or maybe he was legitimately trying to take advantage of the increased value of his property and surrounding neighborhood now after being unable to do so a few years ago.
Either way, it seems troubling that there's no definition for what consitutes "one project" beyond the board's personal feelings of suspicion. There's no standard definition or requirement for evidence.
Ok, on this one, its neighboring parcels being developed 2-3 years apart. What if it were 5 years apart? Are they separate projects now?
And these parcels happen to be directly adjoining. What if they were across the street? Or diagonal? Or 2 houses down?
And this was the same owner 100% for both? What if he owned 100% of one and 50% of another? What if he only owned 40% of both with different partners?
I hate the idea of any kind of hard government tax without any strict direction on who it applies to.
you make a lot of very good points
and i don't see how anybody could argue that there should be, at the very least, strict definitions of what constitutes a project, etc, rather than whatever whims may come across the board.
having this in writing also makes it easier to keep things above board, imo. theres no reason to even bother being consistent if there are no regulations. oh, my buddy john is developing this property, well, i can assure you i'm feeling very much inclined to give him what he needs.
now this OTHER guy, doing the same thing, well, he didn't really come across as a guy I like as much.
I agree it is a tax.
And I think that it should be spread out to all landlords and new construction. There are a lot of ways to do it. There is a huge shortage of Sec 8 housing right now. Tons of people with certificates that can't find a place.
In cambridge, you can buy an affordable property from the city and they will buy it back from you when you want to sell.
An intolerant market? Rational ...
developers being criminalised?
Boo hoo!
Is that why...
they put up FIVE buildings on this parcel in Mattapan instead of one big one? Makes sense now...
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2718567,-71.0725538,3a,75y,89.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svgwVxr1sM0aZcCy2IOEH8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
is there any developer actually providing 20-25%?
I would like to see that
.
.
I wonder if anyone will ever
I wonder if anyone will ever challenge this stuff on 3rd Amendment grounds. The framers of the constitution were clearly against government's power to force citizens to give quarter. The wording is specific to soldiers, but I don't think back then the idea of government compelling citizens to host any other persons would have past muster with them either.
Third Amendment
The definition of "soldier" as contemplated in the Third is pretty narrow. The Third has almost never been litigated, but, a case came before a federal court in Nevada in 2015. It involved some police officers who set up shop in someone's house contrary to the residents' wishes, prior to a bust on a neighboring house. The court in that case ruled that municipal police officers could not be considered "soldiers" for third amendment purposes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/fede...
For what it's worth, I agree with the article's author. Professional police as we know them today did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written. The differentiation between "law enforcement" and "military" was not a sharp one back then. The Posse Comitatus Act (which prohibits use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement except under certain very narrow circumstances) was 100+ years off. And the militarization of the police—making them look, essentially, like soldiers, rather than the Officer Friendly of yore—is a phenomenon of the last 20-30 years.
lol Adam calm down...
lol Adam calm down...
Actually the city did house the homeless on Long Island
That was the reason that all those programs were there. In exchange for free rent they provided services. There was more than one shelter.
stop editorializing
When reporting a story, if you include lines like "Oh, goodness no," before reporting what his attorney says, it puts an unfair bias into the story. Let the facts speak for themselves.
If Rudser said it
It's not editorializing.
uhm pardon me
but how else will i know which opinion to not have if he doesnt implicitly state his?
Stop coming to UHub
You want to do it "right" according to you? Do it yourself!
If they city wanted separate
If they city wanted separate developments by the same person to count as one for this requirement, they should have put it in the law.
Plus he's not even building them at the same time. It makes perfect sense to build a small building, and if it does well, build another one in the same neighborhood.