Agenda Text
title
Ronald Cavallo submitting further comments re: #205250, a proposed Clarendon Hill Public Housing Project Home Rule Petition.
body
Official Text
To the Honorable Board:
My positions re: West Somerville Proposed Development$57k, which is my calculated land cost for the developer ($16m divided by the proposed units) is a bargain for land for rentals in West Somerville and I believe too low. I do not have any trust in the developer and would consider that the appraisal be scrutinized by multiple parties.I do not like the developer or his track record. I do not like their interactions with the community. I do not like their history of development which is jaded.I am vehemently opposed to the density which I consider to be completely inappropriate for the site. I have little faith in the traffic reports. I believe the density will create enormous traffic issues that are not addressed by the studies or properly addressed by proposed changes.I support renovation or upgrading of the existing apartments. I do not know if alternative plans were reviewed. I only know that the density for such a small site in such a congested area is very wrong for my neighborhood.I am aware that State chapter 40 B allows greater density than local zoning allows. However, I have seen projects scaled down that were proposed under 40B. I have also seen many infractions under the 40B program and as we speak am providing consulting to the Inspector Generals office regarding infractions on a 40B project on the South Shore. I do not trust the developer. I do not like the developer. I think that the developer has interfaced with the community poorly. I am surprised that the City has chosen this developer out of the three that chose to bid on this project. I think the project is very poorly conceived. I do not know what is available on the federal grant side for such housing projects. What I do know is that the buildings are low rise, dense as they are currently and I believe are solid buildings that I believe could be effectively renovated and made aesthetically pleasing. I have seen it done a number of times.I do not have a sense of what the neighbors would like for the site. I think everyone thinks the project is outdated and not attractive. However, I do not get the sense that the neighbors hold the developer in high regard. Great disdain was expressed this evening and great distrust of the developers methods. This City is opening up this project to a 40B. The City is not obligated to open it up for a 40B. I am surprised that the City has done so. I am certainly surprised that the City would consider such a density for such a small site.I wish to repeat that $57k land cost per rental unit is a bargain in this market. A development cost of $300k per rental unit for a 99 year lease is also a bargain. The numbers are complex to understand and there are many variables. But two points: I have seen many 40B projects that go forward and have seen many developers lie at the end on their construction costs by inflating them in their reporting back to the State. Point two: The developers on 40B’s have fixed profits. Any profits over and above the projections are to be turned back to the State. This motivated developers that are unscrupulous to lie about their profits. Given the history of this developer, I have further reluctance that they will operate honestly.But all of this is a mute point for me. I feel very strongly against the proposed density. It the proposal is horrific and poorly conceived. The density is completely wrong for the site. I would propose that the City not allow this to go forward as a 40B site. I am available if you wish to chat.Best,Ronald J. Cavallo