Longhill Gardens Opposition Heats Up
by Bill Dusty
State Representative Cheryl Coakley-Rivera Joins Opposition
SPRINGFIELD – Opposition to the redevelopment of a low-income housing project that has been long-considered a done deal has mounted considerably in recent days.
A Springfield civic group, two city councilors, and a state Representative have all let it be known that the fight to turn back a plan for building over one hundred low-income housing units in the Forest Park section of the city is not quite over.
Springfield Forward – a civic group created early last year in response to a plan by real estate developer WinnComapanies to transform the former Longhill Gardens Condominiums, on Longhill Street, into a 111-unit affordable housing complex – has sent out two official letters of protest in the past several days. The first was a re-filing of an “Objection to the Release of Funds” notification, sent out to the Office of Community Planning & Development on January 22, 2009. That was followed up by an addendum to that re-filing in response to assertions allegedly made by City of Springfield’s Deputy Director of Planning & Economic Development, Philip Dromey.
The letters first addressed the issue of public notice, where Springfield Forward said that since it has long been known as an “interested party” in the funding issue, the City should have delivered a copy of its notification of intent to use Home Funds to their group. Instead, according to Springfield Forward, on November 28, 2008, the City only published a notification of the allotment of funds in the Republican newspaper.
From the letter:
While the City of Springfield may have published a public notice with respect to a release of funds pursuant to 24 CFR 58.43 (b), it overlooks two important issues: 1. 24 CFR 58.43 (a) states expressly “as a minimum the responsible party must sent the FONSI notice [to] individuals and groups known to be interested in the activities.” (emphasis added) Note the regulations strees the word “must.” Had the regulations stated “may” or “shall,” the City of Springfield could have relied solely on 24 CFR 58.43 (b), but the regulation taken on a strict and literal construction requires the City of Springfield to send a FONSI notice, in this case, to Springfield Foward, Inc., since we were unequivocally identified and known as an interested party by the City of Springfield.
Springfield Forward also took issue with the city publishing the notification on the Friday after Thanksgiving, when they say many people would be out of town or otherwise preoccupied with the holiday.
… How disingenuous for the City of Springfield to publish an important notice, that will utilize over $20 million of tax credits and subsidies on the Friday after Thanksgiving when most folks are out of town. the publication date of the City of Springfield’s FONSI notice [November 28, 2008] while perhaps within the bounds of 24 CFR 58.43 (b), does not square with the Federal Law wherein Federal Law trumps the city’s reliance on Federal Regulations. To wit:
The U.S. Supreme Court geld in Muulane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. 339 U.S. 306 (1950) “Notice of judicial proceedings must be reasonably calculated to reach those who are known to be affected by such proceedings.” (emphasis added) While this ruling cites a judicial proceeding per se, the court’s rationale is clear and relevant in our objection to the City of Springfield’s FONSI notice. It is Springfield Forward’s contention that by posting a FONSI notice on the Friday just after Thanksgiving Day, during Thanksgiving weekend, in the Republican Newspaper is anything but reasonable since this is the time when most people may not be reading their papers, and in fact may not even be in town.
The addendum letter goes on to take issue with the Mayor of Springfield, Domenic Sarno, for “appointing himself as Certifying Officer with respect to the Release of HUD funds.” While an executive order of the Springfield Finance Control Board specifically gives the mayor the authority to execute “all documents pertinent and necessary to secure Federal funding on behalf of the City of Springfield” (according to a quote in the letter), Springfield Forward asserts that the Mayor was acting to release Federal funds to a company, WinnDevelopment, rather than the City of Springfield.
The addendum further goes on to criticize an environmental study that was allegedly cited by the City, but was in fact, according to the letter, performed for the developer, WinnCompanies. And Springfield Forward also took issue with the public meeting process, which they say clearly shows that the meetings were in fact regular meetings of a neighborhood civic association, and that the meetings included membership votes and planning for organization events. “Citing Civic Association meetings where they hold pot luck dinners and discuss plans for Christmas parties as evidence of a public meeting to determine the validity of a project of this magnitude and at such tremendous taxpayer cost is astonishing,” the group wrote in the letter.
Springfield Forward’s campaign to reverse the tide of low-income housing in its neighborhood is also becoming somewhat less of a lonely battle these days. On January 27, 2009, Springfield City Councilors James J. Ferrera III and Bud L. Williams delivered a joint letter to Robert Schumeyko, of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The letter stated that only two City Council meetings were held to discuss the Longhill Gardens redevelopment issue – and that these were both held in December of 2008. “We feel that there have been inadequate meetings in that there have only been local civic association meetings,” reads the letter, “whereas there should have been a full public meeting involving the whole neighborhood in this process.” The two City Councilors objected to the release of $550,000 in City Home funding for the redevelopment deal, according to the letter.
Adding to the opposition’s side of late has been state Representative Cheryl Coakly-Rivera’s reversal of her earlier support of the Winn-proposed redevelopment plan. In a letter dated the same day as the Ferrera-Williams letter (January 27, 2009), Coakley-Rivera writes: “Having listened to the representations of local residents and community groups, I believe the re-development plan proposed for the Longhill project site is not in the best interests of the Forest Park Neighborhood or the City of Springfield.”
Coakley-Rivera cited the city’s failure to hold public meetings on the issue, its failure to complete an environmental assessment of the property, and the failure of the city to consider input from residents, as well as alternative ideas for the Longhill Gardens site – including taking the property by eminent domain for use as park land or new school construction – as reasons for her change of heart on the issue. “I am asking Mayor Sarno of the City of Springfield to freeze any and all action by Winn Development in regard to the Longhill Project and request that the city take this property by eminent domain,” Coakley-Rivera wrote. “Future plans for this site should be explored through community meetings which are open to all resident input to determine the future of this project.”
Coakley-Rivera has squared off with Sarno several times before this issue. She also insisted on several amendments to a proposed relief bill for Springfield that was going through the Statehouse earlier this year. The bill passed and was signed into law by Governor Deval Patrick after Coakley-Rivera agreed to some compromises to her amendments.
WinnCompanies said last month that they would take formal ownership of the Longhill Gardens properties by the end of January, 2009, and that negotiations were ongoing for the purchase of several other units owned by other individuals and groups. WinnCompanies was the high-bidder at an auction held late last year on behalf of CitiBank, which owned 192 of the units at the site.
PDF
13 Responses for “Longhill Gardens Opposition Heats Up”
Comments are closed
ADVERTISE AT THE SI
 |
 |
tHE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE OF THIS lONGHILL GARDENS UTTER ASSAULT AGAINST THE PEOPLE NOT BEING HEARD.
THANK YOU FOR SEEING WINN FOR WHAT THEY ARE……………..OPPORTUNISTS AND CROOKS!
P.S. WINN GAVE$10,000 TO WILKERSON TO VOTE HIS WAY ON COLUMBUS CENTER IN BOSTON…..I WONDER WHO GOT WHAT IN SPRINGFIELD?
LET”S SEE COULD IT BE THEIR UNDYING SUPPORTERS?
It is not that support for the project is erroding, it is that there NEVER WAS support to begin with. The community was locked out of the process and kept in the dark and the supporters did everything possible to keep it that way. Once Springfield Forward flyered the neighborhood to let residents know what was going on, opposition soared. Most folks still thought it was going to be market rate townhomes! How is THAT for misinformation? No wonder certain groups did not want any public meeting – they knew once the truth was told the community would be up in arms against this back room deal, and up in arms they are. Now we read about WinnDevelopment’s Arthur Winn giving a $10,000 “gift” (bribe?) to Dianne Wilkerson, Winn’s California partners backing away from the Columbus Center deal, and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority reviewing their support of Winn, due to Winn’s unethical behavior. The smart money is distancing themselves from Winn.
All in all, this Longhill Gardens is the bad deal that Springfield Forward has been saying all along. It is nice to see our public officials stepping up for the community and stating in writing that NO PUBLIC MEETING was ever held, NO OTHER OPTIONS were explored, and the community is overwhelmingly against this project. AT LAST! FINALLY! The truth about this back room deal is finally making its way out into the public arena. Thank you Bill Dusty! Thank heavens Springfield has at least one investigative journalist.
The California Urban Investment Partnership and Mass Pike officials have recently questioned the ethics of the Winn-Dianne Wilkerson connection and the $10,000 gift. The Republican stays mum. They have given little coverage to the widespread community opposition against developing Longhill Gardens as an all low income project. Never questioned by the paper was the unfairness of public meetings denied or the conflict of interest of a group owning units in the complex claiming neighborhood support.
Some interesting news updates from http://www.springfieldforward.com that dovetail on the above article.
IN THE NEWS
Boston Globe – January 25, 2009: WILKERSON ADMITS SHE TOOK AT LEAST $70,000
. . .
“Wilkerson disclosed her acceptance of the cash and checks in a recent interview with the Globe, saying she took individual financial contributions of up to $10,000 to help pay off mortgage and federal tax debts.
. . .
Despite Wilkerson’s assertion, one of the people who gave Wilkerson the full $10,000 gift was Arthur Winn, one of the developers of the controversial Columbus Center project in Boston …”
Boston Globe – January 27, 2009: COLUMBUS CENTER INVESTOR QUESTIONS WINN GIFT
“A schism is developing in the management of the $800 million Columbus Center project after the disclosure that developer Arthur Winn gave a $10,000 gift to former state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, who was arrested last fall on bribery charges.
An executive with the project’s largest investor, the California Urban Investment Partnership, said yesterday the gift could constitute a violation of its’ contract with Winn’s development company. …
‘CUIP has a strict policy regarding contributions to elected officials and does not condone any contribution of this type … If in fact, these allegations are true, CUIP would find this to be a serious breach of its partnership agreement with Winn.’ ”
Boston Herald – January 29, 2009: MASS PIKE OFFICIAL HITS $10G GIFT TO DIANNE WILKERSON
. . .
“The commonwealth can’t afford any more ethical lapses” said Mary Connaughton, a Turnpike board member. ‘If the allegations are true, it casts a pall over Columbus Center and will influence our decision-making about the development going forward.’
Reports that Arthur Winn gave Wilkerson $10,000 to defray her delinquent tax and mortgage bills are just the latest issues facing the controversial mixed-use development.”
Boston Globe – January 30, 2009: MONEY TO SPURN
. . .
“The juiciest issue in the story Sunday is the allegation that the developer of Columbus Center, Arthur Winn, generously wrote a check for $10,000 before she (Wilkerson sic) spent years trying to pry loose tens of millions of dollars in state subsidies for his project. … ”
* * * * * * * * * *
Read it and pass it on so we can share the news is finally getting out about this disasterous deal known as Longhill Gardens redevelopment by Winn. The more news that gets out about this project and about WinnDevelopment, the more people recognize just what shenanigans have been going on with this deal. No wonder our local civic groups did not want to have a public meeting. Once the public gets wind of the details, there is community-wide outrage. We saw some of that outrage at the Civic Association meeting in December when those present overwhelmingly voted against this project and had to shout in order to be allowed to speak.
This community does not want this Winn project. It now appears that many of Winn’s partners don’t want to do any more Winn projects either. Note in the articles how they are setting the scene to break off all connection with Winn. Keep your eyes on the news …
WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD!
Yes, A new day is coming when the sheep are no longer being a flock of followers. Yes Question what we need and want for our neighborhoods because we have been used for to long as a dumping ground for the city of Boston. Now Boston’s finest wants to profit more from our tax dollars by letting the Winns have it it all for nothing. Let the Winns develop market rate housing then I will say okay. The Winns have turned every project into a low income, subsided existence, in this city. No More Gilbert, take a cue from what you should do and give back a little and make life worthy instead of taking!!!!
Thw Winn family is well known for buying their way with policitions .No doubt they bought their way in Springfield back a couple or three years ago…and now ruination of Forest Park..we are so drenched with low-income housing..we cannot take care of what we have and more to come..Where is the outrage against those who have been running this city behind closed doors?
Thank goodness some of those “elected” by the people not board members or appointed people are speaking up.. Where have the rights of the American people gone? It seems the “chosen few” run the show but these days will soon be over and the common man will have a say in how to govern properly ..This city is as corrupt as Chicago or New Orleans….I’ve lived it !!!!
We have a new head of Hud ..Shaun Donavan fron NYC.42 years old and lauded for his new innovations on “affordable” housing..the old project {mistake} way .is done.. The future is bright. Look for a new wave of change in the way Massachusetts has done section 8 business.
I cannot wait!!!! time to change everyday corruption in this state..We have the worst problem with political crime in all of America.
The criminals do not even feel shame..Mantra:
I’ve done more good than bad for the people so…………………I must be good..????
I just read this hysterically funny satire piece on MassLive – about what life is like with the Longhill Gardens rehab completed in 2010. It was LOL. However, when I went back to read it again, it was gone! MassLive seems to remove any posts on this issue which expose what is really going on with Longhill Gardens – even funny ones. What are they afraid of … truth in journalism?
In the newspaper world: The Globe has cut pages, the Herald has shrank page size and the Republican has eliminated mention of any of the negative aspects the Winn Longhill Gardens proposal.
My concern is crime and the number of arrests generated by the Northern Heights stretch of Central Street, the development which WINN cites as an example of their excellent management and screening techniques.
5 arrests in 11 days. This past year arrests for caches of weapons (guns), prostitution, drug dealers, stabbings. Great screening and management Winn!
http://www.springfieldpolice.net/police/fileadmin/Police_Dept_files/acrobat_files/forms/acrobat_forms/arrestlog-60.pdf
Winn Developemnt should not be rewarded at the expense of taxpayers to build another project in Springfield. They own several other projects in the city. In recent months, Winn’s Northern Heights on Central Street has had numerous residents arrested for serious crimes including drugs and guns. Lately, dumpsters at the complex have been overflowing with trash.
http://www.cbs3springfield.com/younews/44303452.html
Finally the real truth is coming to light!!!! Even now the FPCA and CCS continue to hand out false stories and so ends the mystery.. as they say follow the money….
I find it hard to believe that they can hold their heads up..
What a group of misinformed and how could they still be stuck back in the days when what they said and did mattered.
Cities come back to life with fresh new ideas…
Time to retire people.
This is for the poster who thought the piece was LOL but was dismayed when it was removed.
•BREAKING NEWS
Springfield MA – Spring 2010
The former Longhill Gardens, now renamed Forest Park Condominiums (how’s THAT for a joke!) – a 100% low-income only subsidized warehouse, has recently been completed and opened with much fanfare. The entire working, tax-paying population of Forest Park neighborhood has moved to Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, Wilbraham and the surrounding region, while the remaining Forest Park neighborhood has gone low-income only and become the crime center of Western Mass.
Everyone shouts out a BIG “THANK YOU” to the FPCA, CCS, Mayor Ryan and his cronies, Mayor Sarno and his cronies, Winn Development, Winn’s “gift” recipients, and The Republican newspaper, for destroying the entire Forest Park neighborhood quicker than a New York minute.
And citizens need not be reminded how to show their appreciation to Senator Buoniconti, Congressman Richie Neal, Councilman Pat Markey and David Panagore, without whose assistance and diligent work on behalf of Winn Development, this low-income only warehouse could not have become a reality.
When asked by this reporter for comment, the FPCA, CCS, Ryan, Sarno, Markey and The Republican newspaper responded “We don’t understand how this could have happened!” Winn, reached at Rikers, declined to comment.
Next up: Springfield repeats the process neighborhood by neighborhood until entire working, tax-paying population of the City moves to Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, Wilbraham and Agawam, finally leaving Springfield the dead City it has been striving to become for the past decade.
Local politicians have packed their bags in preparation for travel in order to seek their “golden eggs” elsewhere since they have, at long last, killed the golden goose.
Update: Holyoke, Chicopee, Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, Wilbraham and Agawam obtain restraining order against FPCA, CCS, Ryan, Sarno, Markey, Winn (when he’s released) and The Republican editorial staff, prohibiting them from coming within 5 miles of their Cities.