Lynne Simonds for District Four
Lynne Simonds for District Four
I just wanted to again welcome everyone to our blog. Please make comments, ask questions, offer your opinions and views. I hope to use this as one of the many ways to introduce myself and to open a dialogue with those interested in learning more about me, why I am running for the District 4 Council seat and why I believe I am the best person for the position.
I have great concerns about many issues in District 4. For example, I am still upset about an 84% raise to the Council members. It was so unfair to the taxpayers of our city. I plan on not accepting the full raise maybe 5% and paying taxes on the whole amount but setting up an account to use the balance of the increase on projects in District rather rather than sending it back to the general fund to be lost forever. The money should be used in positive ways in District 4.
Job creation and increases in revenues are two ways that we can offset the continous increases in property taxes and fees. We need to help the taxpayers find relief. We need to encourage businesses to stay and come to Worcester. Just recently, two successful businesses have moved out of District 4. Curtis Cab and Woodmeister both growing and with potential jobs for our neighborhood, especially for people without transportation.
Why has Barbara Haller not been proactive on the development of the Wyman Gordan Parcel and the South Worcester Industrial Park. We need jobs and we need to increase revenues. Plus, we need to be supporting the businesses we have in District 4. The lack of commercial tax base development leads to higher property taxes. We also need to retain the jobs we have in our District
We also need to support the residents. They want housing in their neighborhoods but they want it to be affordable housing and owner occupied. Just a couple of weeks ago Barbara Haller against the will of the neighbors and the abutters in District 4 recommended that they should accept a 21 apartment building to be built on the old Citybuilders property. She did not hear their concerns or respect their strong and reasonable opposition. A comment from one of our bloggers noted that Barbara has a "pretty miserable record since Nadeau left" especially when it comes to no job creation but job loss and no economic development.
Lastly, I want to note I have great concerns about the appointment of Barbar Haller to the Land Use Committee and her being the appointed chair. I think it is an insult to the existing members that one of them was not appointed the chair. I would have not accepted the chair. I worry that Barbara will use her position on this committee to further attack social service sitings and she will use her position to try and hold up the process when agencies are trying to locate much needed services in our comunity.
Most importantly,
I see Barbara's appointment to the Land Use Committee as a potential for a major conflict of interest. Her housemate owns approximately 40 parcels and properties in the Main South area. At the very least she may have to recuse herself from many votes so I ask how effective can she be chairing this committee? All I can say is we better be vigiliant.
I am working on a brief profile of myself. I will post it soon. I want to thank all of you who have made comments to our blog. I want to be available and open to your views and opinions. So keep them coming.
Posted by Lynne Simonds @ 1:10 p.m.
posted by Lynne4District4 @ 1:15 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
The councilor's housemate owns 40 parcels in Main South??? How can you say something like that... No way can that be true.
Anonymous said...
Ms Simonds:
If you are really concerned about the lack affordable housing in Main South, I think you should look into the operations of Main South CDC. An friend of mine bought a 1/2 of duplex on Beacon St. and he only owns the house and not the land that it sits on. He has to lease the land. The price he paid for this 1/2 duplex house is way too high when you consider that it does not include the land. I can buy a 1/2 duplex in this area for 180,000 and it does include the land. What incentive does my friend have to keep up the property when local real estate agents have told him he will never be able to resell the house only ( no land) for anything close to what he paid for it? This is a ripoff especially when you consider how prices have risen since his purchase. If you think that Main South CDC produces affordable housing, then I Have some sorry news for you. Ask Mr Teasdale if he would ever buy so called real estate such as this. Ask a dozen real estate agents what one of these places will fetch. It isnt even real estate if one doesnt own the land. It's identical to a trailer park, but even worse because the "tenant" cannot even remove his structure as a mobile home owner could in a trailer park. Wait till a few of these places go into foreclosure and you'll see what they fetch. Whats Main South CDC's next venture, a community garden that is long term leased/rented to share croppers?
I anxiously await your response and also Mr. Teasdales, too. Surely he reads this blog. Thank you.
Anonymous said...
Kevin EXACTLY who authorizes the waving of these fees?.
12:42 PM
Kevin the 3 deckers that Main South rehabbed are absolutely beautiful looking buildings and ma the crown jewel of GKH.
But to spend 1/2 Million dollars each ($2M total) doing it is a waste of taxpayers money.
Give $2M to the for profit builder and the land for really short money and he will generate many more than 12 dwelling units.
Construction management should not be handed over to the politically connected. What exactly is Mr. Teasdale's background/ experience prior to his stewardship at MSCDC and could he land a job (at a $90,000 salary) at a for profit residential builder if MSCDC closed up tomorrow?
Answers: 1. Probably none and 2. NO.
And Worc Common Ground is the mirror image of MSCDC in this regard, too. Unqualified, politically connected hacks wasting my tax dollars.
12:56 PM
anonymous #2:
I have to say Main South CDC has been doing some pretty nice work as of late on Beacon Street and Hollis Street with Stutman. Although those Green Tech (think that was the name of them) modular homes seemed way too expensive and took longer then stick building. In fact I think the company is out of business.
YOu do make a good point of the land. Worcester Common Ground (http://www.wcg-cdc.com/) has a section called Land Trust, check it out. Does a CDC have to retain ownership of the land??? Since the person who bought half the duplex does not own the underlying land, who pays the property taxes on the land???
I agree not owning the underlying land surely hurts the resale value. Wonder if these first time home-buyers truly understand this.
Maybe we should require CDC's when selling a house that they need to sell the land??? Lastly does anyone know if there is a seperate tax bill for the land?
Thanks
Bill
0 alden st
1 allendale st
93 beacon st
4 castle st
5 castle st
6 castle st
8 castle st
9 castle st
10 castle st
12 castle st
14 castle st
16 castle st
18 castle st
32 castle st
34 castle st
36 castle st
8 dale st
14 dale st
16 dale st
21 dale st
31 dale st
32 dale st
6 davis
8 davis
5 lagrange
13 lagrange
17 lagrange
19 lagrange
21 lagrange
24 lagrange
800 main st
807 main st
809 main st
811-813 main st
27 oread pl
29 oread pl
Mr Randall: It seems Greentech is no longer in business at the Pullman St site they used to occupy. I do not know if they moved elsewhere. They were featured on wocester magazine a number of years ago and their plan was to make modular 3 deckers for builders in the worcester area. Maybe someone can pull them up in worc mag? It's been rumored they made the duplexes on beacon and did some work for placement in boston then closed up shop. kind of a bit unusual when you consider were coming off a huge real estate boom the last few years. Also oddly enough it appears another modulr manufacturer has taken over the space on pullman st they used to occupy. Pullman St is where the greendale price chopper is near the summit. It's also been allegedly rumored (per a former employee) they only did work in worc and boston for non profit community development firms b/c no one else could afford their product (so much for affordable houseing!!)
Yes Main south cdc does beautiful work, but they supposedly have and city state and federal money to burn. Who else could spend 1/2 million dollars each ($2M total) to rehab four 3 deckers and then sell them for about $175,000 each? Truly non profit,thats for sure. Oddly enough the 3 decker sales did include the land.
How do you think these guys are going to stay in business if they dont keep ownership of the land. They need this to point to justify thei existence when all the availabe land in main south is all developed. They may not be Harvard or Yale business school material but they know a lifetime job at great pay when they see it. Maybe they are clark business school grads as it rumored this main south make over is really more about clark univ expansion than it is about providing affordable housing.
If you can beleive the citys website, Main south cdc owns the land on beacon st where the duplexes sit but the duplex owner , who is not the land owner, pays the tax on the land. It s been rumored the old city assessor had to go to the state tax authorities in Boston to determine who and how to assess this land. then to top it all off it is also rumored that in addition to the non- land owner being assessed and paying the tax that the non land owner also has to rent or lease the land on a monthly payment. This truly a convoluted deal.
The folks at main south should come forward and explain this situation that seems on the surface to be contradictory and if not ,lynne should call them .
another unusual thing re these duplexes is that the city assessors map show no structures on its aerial photo of 181 to 175 beacon st yet there are dulplexes there last time i drove by baout 3 moinths ago and the duplex structure is assessed and this aerial map is updated very regularly.
Last Anonymous:
It is not unusual for the Assesor's map to be behind what has actually been built.. I would not be surprised if there is a map that shows nothing when it actuality a structure has been built. It will catch up.
How can the duplex owner be getting charged for land, that he or she does not own??? Myself I would think that the owner should pay real estate taxes on the building only not the land. If they were condos, it would be o'kay for the owner of the duplex to pay taxes on the land since they have ownership in the land via the condo association. How can someone (duplex owner) be charged property taxes on land that he or she does not own especially if they are also charged a rent???
I will look into this myself.
I understand that one of the 1/2 duplexes pays 50 per month rent and 20 per month fore taxes for the land that they do not own that their houses sits on. Almost like owning a car body and renting the frame the car rides on and then being taxed on it also. and I though cars dealers get a bad rap
My friend says he is thinging about calling John Contee and talking to him about this land rent and taxes and says he should not pay taxes if his house is not even on the city map. Lynn should get involved here
I support the CDCs AND Lynne. I think private developers need to be able to compete for sure. But I also see Gardner/Kilby/Hammond, and the idea of revitalizing a whole area of a city as the responsiblity of government, and maybe something that only government could pull off. There needs to be a mix of development. Worcester Magazine talks about problems with condos in the city (not enough prospective buyers). These homeownership opportunities need to be promoted, and the developers supported. When there was a hearing for University Condos - Haller and co. came out against them.
I think the best option is CDC and private developers getting support from the city. That and electing a new councilor for my District who doesn't bash other developers.
I want to thank all of you that have made comments and asked questions. I am going to respond to some of the comments to my latest blog.
The councilor's housemate owns 36 parcels and they are all multi units. If you look at the comment made to my blog at 2:21 p.m. they are all listed.
In response to the person who has a friend who bought a 1/2 duplex on Beacon Street. I am going to research the points you made and questions you asked. I would also like to talk with your friend. I have some questions. Please ask them to call me at 774-437-2134.
I have often thought, like you that the cost of the renovations by the CDC's are very high and often done by companies outside of Worcester. I also wonder what is the return on that investment? What does it represent on the tax rolls?
I think it is time we looked at our housing policies and evaluated what do we have in housing stock. We need a plan that is inclusive and developed with feedback from the CDC's, private developers, renters, home owners, the planning and zoning boards,looking at parking needs. What is affordable housing and how can we produce it so more people can benefit? How are we going to deal with homelessness, abandon buildings, and irresponsible absentee landlords to mention a few issues that impact a housing policy.
I agree that the government and those representing us need to be more supportive of plans for housing that make sense for the neighborhoods and are filling real housing needs. But the government needs to be creative with how the funds can be used.
There is a need of a mix of CDC and private development but we need to stop to see where we are and evaluate where we have been and then move forward. We need to make some changes and we definitely need a plan for future housing development in Worcester.
If we are truly a city moving forward then we need to do so with a housing plan that allows all of us to benefit from that potential economic growth. We need to have housing policy that is transparent, open, fair and available to all that want to participate as a home owner, a developer,or a CDC, etc. We need to eliminate conflict of interest and hidden agendas that set a tone of unfairness and are not productive to our neighborhoods and to our community at large. We need to move forward with policies that make sense, are fair and work for we the people.
Lynne:
Great points. I am going to look into the property tax issue myself and post.
Versus another housing study we should relook at the RKG study that was done a few years back. It was a very good study but it warned of relying too much on the CDC's and was attacked upon arrival and never really considered.
The CDCs are an inefficient means to produce so called affordable housing and too often once they produce housing they sell only the structure and not the land it sits on. This severely impedes the upward mobility of low income buyers because the underlying land is the asset that appreciates and not necessarily the structure which, while it may appreciate somewhat, requires constant upkeep (Money) to do so.
Also who owns the water and sewer utilities that service each site and who pays to repair them when they break or fail. I'll bet the feudal land owner owns the services and building owner pays when they need maintenance
Are trailer parks an allowed zoning use in RG5 zoning districts, because this IMO is the trailer parking of Beacon St. Someone please explain to me the difference between a trailer park and these 1/2 duplexes, except the structures do not have 3 axles under them.
Beacon St should renamed DoubleWide Drive.
Post a Comment
<< Home