Longhill Gardens Redevelopment Discussed at Monday Meeting
by Bill Dusty
Representatives of Boston-based WinnCompanies met with City Councilors and members of the local community on Monday to go over Winn’s management plan for its soon-to-be acquired Longhill Gardens properties, located on Longhill Street in Springfield’s Forest Park neighborhood. The meeting was held at the Winn-owned Museum Park apartments, located on Chestnut Street in downtown Springfield.
At the noon-time meeting, which lasted just under an hour, WinnDevelopment vice president Gilbert Winn went over his company’s plans for redeveloping and managing the Longhill Gardens site. In his remarks, Winn reiterated that the redeveloped complex would be 100% affordable housing. He said the complex needed to be allocated 100% affordable housing in order to qualify for the state and federal funding Winn will be receiving for the project. He said that, following community input, his company had requested an allowance for about 20 units to be allocated for market-rate housing, but as of the meeting they were still awaiting word on that request.
The redevelopment plan for Longhill Gardens has been the subject of a great deal of debate in the Forest Park community since at least early 2008, when the neighborhood first started to discuss the Winn proposal. Supporters of the Winn plan have asserted that it is the only viable option for the property. Critics of the plan, meanwhile, say that the current process of alloting affordable housing subsidies to large apartment complexes effectively “warehouses” the poor, and that poorer, inner-city neighborhoods have historically suffered the most due to such allocations. The divide has pitted three Forest Park civic groups against one another, with the Forest Park Civic Association and Concerned Citizens for Springfield on the “pro-Winn” side of the debate and Springfield Forward – a group established just last February at the onset of the Longhill Gardens impasse – on the “anti-Winn” side.
In his presentation, Winn explained his company’s practices. “We’re basically looking for problem-child projects,” said Winn. He said his company offers the ability to seek out and utilize state and federal funding to get projects up and running. “Does that mean we solve all the crime problems in the city for that project? Does that mean that we create an economic windfall for everybody? No. What we do do is improve the neighborhood when we go in.”
Springfield City Councilor Bud L. Williams, who is opposed to the Winn redevelopment plan, expressed pessimism about locating more low-income housing in the downtown area. (The Longhill Gardens complex, though located in the Forest Park neighborhood, is nearby the South End district of the city.) “[Putting] low-income housing in the middle of downtown Springfield has been a disaster,” he said.
Springfield Forward member George Pappas asked about the feasibility of installing elevators at the complex to accommodate possible senior housing. Winn said that installing elevators for each building would be “very expensive,” estimating the cost of each elevator to be about $200,000 before adding on related expenses to each installation. Winn also asserted that Longhill Gardens was ill-suited for senior housing due to its overall layout. “This is a terrible application for elderly housing,” he said.
Under the Winn redevelopment plan, the Longhill Gardens buildings located on the west side of Longhill Street are to be demolished and the land left undeveloped. In response to a question on re-use of that land, as well as another unused parcel, Winn said that he has an “open book on that.”
“If somebody wants to purchase these two properties,” said Winn, “we’re willing to entertain [that].” He added that the company would not sell the properties for “anything more than our costs.”
Winn also said that his company would be changing the name of the Longhill Gardens complex after the final purchase of the property.
Winn said his company will formally acquire the 192 Citibank-owned units at Longhill Gardens by the end of January, 2009, and is negotiating for the purchase of the other nineteen units at the complex that are not owned by Citibank. He said his company is negotiating separately with each owner. One of those owners is Concerned Citizens for Springfield, which purchased five units at Longhill Gardens back in 2005.
Besides the Museum Park apartments, Winn currently manages four other apartment complexes in the area: Chicopee Village, in Chicopee; Northern Heights apartments, in the South End of Springfield; Eastbrook apartments, in Springfield’s Boston Road/Sixteen Acres neighborhood; and Allen Park Apartments, in Sixteen Acres.
PDF
12 Responses for “Longhill Gardens Redevelopment Discussed at Monday Meeting”
Comments are closed
ADVERTISE AT THE SI
 |
 |
In addition to Bill’s excellent account, I posted earlier this afternoon in a comment on his account of last Wednesday’s meeting. I tried to capture as many of the questions and answers as I could.
Great job Bill!
Can someone answer me just what WINNS business model is? The big dog in the room wants to know if these guys are section 8 hounds. Thats the “not so obvious” question?
Section 8 is guaranteed market rate money buy the government. And unfortunately we know all too well the negatives of section 8 housing regardless of well intentions.
Another dog and pony show, presented by Winn. I reiterate my comments from the previous article: at a meeting held on Wednesday, December 17th, where the community finally got an invite thanks to Springfield Forward blanketing the neighborhood with flyers, 70% of neighborhood residents, white, hispanic and african american, voted against this proposal. The community said: No more low-income only projects. Elder housing CAN be done at a cost of approximately $100,000 per building (Winn’s data) and additional parking can be located where buildings are being demolished. For $20,000,000 of government money you can find a way to put in elevators and build senior housing! As to Mattyroc’s question: This complex will be accepting Section 8 tenants. Absolutely. If Section 8 tenants show up with vouchers, they MUST be allowed in. It is illegal to discriminate against Section 8 voucher tenants at any complex being developed with Federal dollars. So, give it less than a year or two and it will be another Section 8 warehouse. Shame on everyone involved in this dog and pony show.
Winn is afraid of “bottom feeders” getting the property? How about a company that uses $20 million in government money to buy a property, government money to develop a property, gets government (guaranteed) money for the rents, gets to own the building (all paid for by our government – taxpayer dollars) and builds low-income only housing in a neighborhood where the majority of residents have said they don’t want it? This is top of the line? This is a good company doing us a favor?
Think it through folks. If this is such a good deal, let the developer use $20,000,000 of THEIR OWN MONEY to build here. Want to bet THAT never happens?
And why would they? The object of this game is to avoid using your own money (or little of it) if you always can…you get your profits/returns, so do others who provide it for you. Win-win.
Government grants/loans @ low cost? Great!
Private entities/investors? Awesome.
Tax credits? Perfect.
You honestly think Winn has $20 million floating around they can just dump onto this property? No one does. That’s why they go secure it…as would anyone else.
Winn like many other private companies and investors take properties like these that they realize have potential/fit their criteria, and turn them into viable, livable, revenue-producing entities. Otherwise this place would still be abandoned today and who knows when someone would come along interested in it…before it hits the demolition stage because it would be far too costly to renovate/rebuild.
Keep telling the HAVE to accept anyone with a Section 8 Voucher while leaving out the important part of the sentence, here is the whole truth (not just the guerrilla warfare)…
They can not discriminate against anyone with a Section 8 Voucher; therefore, if the applicant meet all of their criteria that they set (i.e. certain credit scores/history, no criminal record, income levels, and more) than they can not deny them on Section 8. Why would you? If they have good credit, no criminal record, and a job than sounds like a good gamble on a tenant to me.
On the other hand, if a person comes in with a criminal record or outstanding debts to housing related entities (gas co, elect co, previous landlord) than they are DENIED – Section 8 or market renters.
Brian, maybe you need to edit your post for clarity. It is pretty confusing.
Sorry – here we go again…
You don’t have to accept everyone that applies simply becausde they have a Section 8 voucher.
All applicants can, and will, be screened (credit, criminal, landlord reference).
If an applicant passes all of your screening methods, you can not deny based on them getting Section 8.
One final note…
I would hate for this belittling of each other to go on. I really believe that most people will be on the same side for many zoning and important issues in the neighborhood. I am afraid that if this continues the way it is that we are going to end up with the Hatfield-McCoy feud here in Forest Park.
I am asking everyone involved to please take a step back, breathe, and try to stick to the issues and not belittle individuals or the two groups on either side.
I have contact George Pappas and we will be meeting with George next week. This has gone on long enough.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or what ever you may celebrate.
Enjoy it, enjoy your family, and have a wonderful new year.
Please let’s move on, but if we need to keep going on this issue than please stick to issues and let’s act civilized.
Thank you,
Brian P. Sears
Again, Brian is attempting to stifle dissent, and defy the clear will of the citizenry.
I urge each and everyone to visit this topic with their acquaintences over the holidays, and then we can all mutually exert our combined influence to permanently derail this train wreck of a plan, and let Sarno know he is responsible to all of us, not the other way around.
Merry Christmas everyone. Peace and Happiness for the New Year.
If this proposal goes through what will be the immediate impact of demolition and rehab work. I mean the noise, dust, rodents, traffic and utilities etc. What will be built in the space where buildings are torn down. The FPCA should be demanding that these concerns be addressed instead of protecting Winn from the community.
Actually, at the meeting, Gilbert Winn kept reminding us all that his is a “billion dollar company.” So, if this is such a great project and he is such a great developer looking out for the good of our community, why not invest his own money? He’s got billions! He told us so!
Let’s see:
$22 million of government funds to rehab
$thousands of gov funds monthly in subsidized rents
$thousands of gov funds for further maintenance and repairs
AND Winn ends up owning the entire property for an investment of less than $83,000.!
Oh yeah, this is a reeeaalll good deal – for Winn.
Unfortunateloy, it is not such a good deal for the neighborhood, for the City, for the soon to be warehoused tenants, for the taxpayers, for the social services that will be drained, for the tax base or economic growth of the City, for the overburdened school system, for the overwhelmed and understaffed police department and the overburdened court system.
But really, really, REALLY good for Winn and those who sell their units to Winn. I think they are known as our local non-profits!
So, I reiterate: If this is such a GREAT deal, why isn’t Winn INVESTING in this city, in this site, by putting in their OWN money?