As a Somerville resident who goes way out of her way to support local businesses, I would like to know WHICH 20 businesses were so opposed to having local working families earning as much as $55k a year move into "their" neighborhood that they would sign a petition against it.

With the increases in housing prices over the last two decades, probably every family in Somerville is stretched making the rent or mortgage, irrespective of income. Why do we privilege a few people who are winners of the section 8 lottery, or who make $55k instead of $57k? That's the wrong way to handle the issue.

Somerville already has a far bigger percentage of "affordable housing" than the vast majority of communities in Massachusetts; why are we the only ones who do this? I also worry about the loss of community buildings, which will be very hard to replace, and the parking - if they're going to add residence units, they should make part of the building a parking structure for those units.

I agree with Warren Dew. "Affordable housing" simply sets aside arbitrary thresholds. No matter what the threshold, the residential units will be unaffordable to some, while many others will have incomes that are too high to qualify and too low to afford market rate. Finally, market rate actually goes up because there are fewer units available at market rate. In the end you create a city with more drastic divides. Residents will be either from lower middle class (and maybe even lower) and upper middle class (and maybe even higher). "Affordable housing" essentially prices out the actual middle middle class. Is that REALLY what we want?? I don't think so.

Senior housing, another warm and fuzzy name for welfare housing. Goes well with Workforce Housing, subsidized housing, public housing, supportive housing, Section 8 housing, HUD housing, etc... If it is means tested - it is Welfare Housing. Period. Another case of somebody getting their bills paid by somebody else who had to earn the money but cannot spend it on their own family. Not fair no matter what you call it. I am a senior who saved and planned for retirement. That meant going without some things along the way but I went without those things and now I get taxed to pay for other people's housing while paying for my own housing. What part of that is fair?

The real problem is that nearly all of the Boston suburbs have zoning policies that limit the supply of housing, and drive up the cost. Their so-called "snob zoning" requires 1/2 acre or 1 acre lots, and effectively prevents less-costly and more energy-efficient multifamily housing from being constructed.
Somerville zoning is the exact opposite of this. but we're just too small to make much difference in area housing costs, and we're too poor (as a city) to be able to support more than our share of affordable housing. We have met our state 40B quota (by area) for affordable housing. Let wealthier cities like Cambridge with huge tax revenues from commercial property go beyond their quota if they choose .

I was at the meeting, and I would add a couple of points.

First, there was not a split down the middle of the room. Supporters outnumbered opponents by about 2:1, and people lined the walls and sat down every aisle. It is very heartening to see that so many people in Somerville support affordable housing and that together opponents and supporters represent a very highly engaged community.

Second, I'd like to highlight that this is a mixed-income development. Many of the "affordable" units are set for the large market of working class Somervillens who today can find private (though often substandard units) but who will likely be priced out as gentrification proceeds. A smaller number of the units are more deeply affordable for lower-income people.

Also, as a city planner, I would wager (since traffic studies are forthcoming) this project would IMPROVE traffic in the area. Adding a number of residents and commercial activity at a wide, under-developed strip of road will calm the traffic on both Washington St and Boston St. It will extend Union Square's walkable, urban feel to this end of Washington Street. If and when McGrath comes down, that effect will be even stronger.

While James is correct in saying there were more project proponents than opponents, the vast majority of the proponents did not live in Union Square or Prospect Hill. None were business owners. Most of SCC's staff and Board of Directors were in attendance and I'd guess accounted for 20 or 25 of the "pros". Apparently SCC invited only their supporters, since opponents who attended the two previous meetings did not receive any notice from SCC regarding this meeting.

I agree that getting people on the sidewalk is great way to calm traffic, and a larger daytime population is needed to boost struggling Union Square businesses. I disagree as to how best to achieve this.

I'm not sure that the vast number of proponents didn't live in the neighborhood (as I do - living on Vinal Ave). There were a ton of us neighbors there in support. And please don't confuse wearing a blue shirt as having any legal relationship with SCC. Some board members were there. Not most. Anyway, their board is made up of local residents with an interest in a strong vibrant Somerville. That's why they joined the board to being with. As one speaker noted, I'm not sure that's fully relevant. This is, in part, about the future of the City as a whole and who we want it to be and what we want it to look like. Regarding density: If that is someone's primary reason to oppose this, unfortunately, that ship has sailed. The City voted in this new zoning option for Union Square a year (or more?) ago that encourages more density. That was strategic to boost development in the Square. I admit, I have mixed feelings about it. I don't want it to fuel gentrification and I adore my neighborhood on its current scale and hope it doesn't change into something that I don't connect with. However, SCC's proposal is a small building! 40 apartments in a City of nearly 80,000 residents is hardly adding much to density and will hardly add anything to traffic.

If the city officials wish this project to move forward, it will. It does not matter who opposes it or why. The fantastically dense Capen Senior Housing recently erected in my neighborhood was heavily protested by the neighbors but that did nothing.

Their property, their plans, you just live nearby.

All you wealthy gentrified folks looking to keep out the working class: why didn't you step up and buy the building yourselves?

Funny K Chef, I was going to say the oppposite, that if they want to kill it, it will die, despite the fact the SCC is fully within their right to build property they bought. No private contractor would ever deal with this.
And people can pretend that the overhwelming numbers in support of this are somehow not from this city. From my perspective, most people in opposition to this project aren't from Somerville, save the wanna be hack Nionackis. The rest are a bunch of yuppies that moved into the neigbhorhood, and now the people around them are suddenly intolerable to live with. The only thing worse than that are the landlords that live in Wayland and act like they care about anything except cashing in on the Green Line.
In the end, the opposition doesn't have a any legitimate complaints: affordable housing doesn't cause a drop in property value (Google it), the SCC bought the building fair and square, and it is completly within all zoning requirements. So what complaint is left besides Not in my backyard?

Why do folks constantly deny the fact that Somerville is changing or declare that change is bad. Somerville is no longer a community of blue collar workers and day laborers.

Consider who moves here today, not counting the students, it is primarily people who want to be close to Boston, want a safe community and cannot afford Brookline or Cambridge. The way supply and demand works is when more people want to live someplace it gets more expensive. People who pay more want it to look like what they paid for it... so say goodbye to the chain linked fences and Virgin Mary statues..

Change is neither good, nor bad - it is inevitable and up to us to decide its path.

I am also pro-mixed-income housing, keeping it mixed helps prevents the creation of ghettos and gated communities while helping people understand that it is very easy for all of us to live together!

I really hope the people who are concerned about "their" tax money subsidizing shelter for others aren't taking income tax deductions for their mortgage interest.

Matt C - with all due respect, Somerville is still home to thousands upon thousands of people whose incomes who are blue collar workers and day laborers or who earn way below what is needed to reasonably rent a decent apartment. Yes - there has been a lot of change - and a lot of it is fantastic...but it's just not right and I wouldn't feel as at home, if it became a place for wealthier people only. Also, to imply that 40 apartments in a city of 80,000 people, occupied by households who will be making $40,000 or $50,000,a year is a ghetto is ridiculous. If it's so easy for all of us to live together, then please don't send the message that you want everyone who makes less than you to leave. These homes will be prioritized for people already living or working in Somerville...it's just that right now, they can't make ends meet. In affordable housing, they can stabilize their lives and have enough money to be customers of local shops and active citizens in the community. The creation of this development is a tiny attempt to make our community mixed income! It's gone too far in the other direction (with regard to home prices) and this helps balance that.

Matt C, no one is denying the city is changing. In fact, it is that change that makes it necessary for us to preserve housing for working people. And if we want to talk about supply and demand why don't we talk about a thing called property rights? As in: I bought something, so I can do what I like with it. Funny how that applies to anything except good causes. If these were condos they would have been built last week.
One last thing: I appreciate your logical argument, but when you tell us to "say goodbye to the chain linked fences and Virgin Mary statues," it sounds incredibly condescending. I'm sure you meant nothing by it, most yuppies never recognize their own arrogance.

joyce junior: I hope your name-calling doesn't drag these comments down to the level of the usual online right-wing hate-speech.

You've chosen to conceal your identity here - what would we learn about you it you hadn't? (In the case of Erica Schwarz, Google tells me she's Executive Director of WATCH CDC, the Waltham Alliance To Create Housing.)

Are you also in the affordable housing business too?

@Erica, I agree it is and will continue to be, however that demographic will continue to shrink. My point about ghettos is to state that mixed income housing is better for the overall community because it allows for more vibrant (diverse) neighborhoods all over the city rather than pockets of wealth and poverty, not to imply that 40 moderate-income housing units make a ghetto.

@Joyce - It isn't about doing a good cause, if that were it we should probably put in a park, because i am sure everyone would agree we do not have enough green space in the city. This is about defining the future of what Somerville is, some people want it to be low income, moderate income, high income, targeted at artists or small businesses. Unfortunately,the only time we as a community talk about this stuff is in these conversations. My condescending comment was meant to describe that people not from the city often see Somerville as a sea of triple Deckers surrounded by chain lined fences with a virgin in the bathtub sitting on the paved "lawn" and that picture of somerville is changing, not just in certain neighborhoods around davis sq. but everywhere.

My family has been in Somerville over 40 years and I have lived here for close to 10, I decided to buy a home here, because it was a place that i could afford and the vision and fortitude to transform it into what i wanted. As members of the community it is our duty to help the city become what WE want it to be.

There is nothing wrong with living where you afford to live, we all make choices and sacrifices to live and work where we do.

I guess it irks me because I don't understand why for a family of four, that makes about $56,000 +1$ have to pay market rates ($1900-2200/m) on a new 2br in union sq vs their neighbor gets it for $1200. The numbers that are picked as guidelines are almost arbitrary.

We as a society need to figure out a way to "assist" people without making them dependent on entitlements. In the case of the subsidized rent, saving $500/month on my rent would significantly affect my lifestyle and ill make an assumption that it would make a big difference to 90% of people reading this. It would be VERY easy to become dependent on that money. Assistance needs to be transitional and it needs an end date, increasing the number of units available without addressing the fundamental problem.

And as for yuppie sure - I'm in my 30s, first generation in the US, put myself through undergrad and then grad school by working full time and taking loans. I'm am successful, I like the change i have seen in the community and want to see more of it, fault me as you will.

Matt C, were your loans private loans? Or were they federally guaranteed loans? Did you go to a state university? Public schools? Do you think the families earning $56k a year aren't working as hard as you do? Making help available to them doesn't penalize you. It just increases the number of healthy engaged diverse citizens in the community, and it very directly stimulates the local economy.

Erica, I don't know who you spoke to at the Ward 3 meeting, but I wasn't there.
I didn't mean to imply that you would benefit from this project. I do think that your interests and professional experience and resulting world view exemplify the echo chamber that SCC tries to represent as genuine community engagement. SCC needs to really listen to a diversity of views, and give extra weight to those who will be most affected by this project. In my opinion, committing to buy this property before talking with the neighbors was arrogant and disrespectful. Maybe the reason there was no outreach is what Fred Berman told me after the meeting, (paraphrasing) "the neighbors just would have been opposed anyway".

@Leslie, I never said that I work harder than anyone else does, however, I may have made different choices in my life and another day, in another forum we can discuss those. If you read what I said, I am not against making help available to people - I said help should be transitional, not institutional.

@ Erica - I appreciate the work you do, I worked with an organization similar to yours in western ma, and I am glad you understand my perspective and I would be surprised if we did not share many common views. I do think that these discussions are important. The residents of Somerville are the ones that should determine what its future will be an need to drive towards that. Without open open forums to discuss we all loose!

Why would any local Union Square business oppose this? It brings them new customers, who have more money to spend in the square because they don't have to spend as much on rent. It's all good.

I do hope that whatever is built here has active commercial and retail uses on its entire first floor, since it is at the edge of a business district.

Jim McGinnis: my identiy is not concealed. You can Google me and learn all you like. You can also Google "affordable housing lowerss property values" and see what that says. I searched you and find that you do good work on the Green Line Extension. So you must know how the Green Line will increase the rent as well as density in Union Square. So you either don't care about affordabilty or you don't care about density. I'm banking on affordability. And please can the "right wing hate" BS. Joyce Junior is on the side of the people, of all people threatened by the landed gentry, regardless of race. It is you that is full of hate, your hate is just veiled in NIMBYism.

I do not support this project. If the issue is keeping “Somerville” affordable why does SCC only care about affordable housing in or around East Somerville? I live here. I have owned a home here for the past 15 years. I grew up in East Somerville. I love my neighbors and neighborhood. Our neighborhood developed over the years organically. Nothing was force in under the guise of “it’s a good thing”.

God forbid you having a dissenting opinion. Then the calls of elitist or even more ridiculous, racist start to fly. I have 2 children a wife that just recently returned to the work force after being laid off last year. We are far from well off and even further from what most would call “yuppies”.

I am also tired of hearing that this is a case of NIMBY. That clearly shows that a majority of the commenters do not live here. Most of the East Somerville residents that I know love any new development. This area of the city has been largely overlooked and ignored for years. So when we see something happening we get truly excited.

One other thing, one of the comments I was reading earlier alluded to the fact that SCC owns this property and can do whatever they want with it. I have trouble with that. Does any of the SCC funds come from government sources? Are there any tax dollars used or tax breaks given for their developments? If the answer is yes to any of the above questions than we (the people that are funding it) have some rights to have a say in the use of it.

I said in and around East Somerville. But I see you are just interested in splitting hairs as normal. I never mentioned that it would harm my neighborhood. I simply stated that this should not be shoe horned in. But since you asked, how does it help?

Ron: How does this project help avoid people from being forced out due to rising rents and home prices? If you set aside 40 units for a certain group of people, *somebody* is being forced out. So either you (1) let them go at market rate, and those that can afford them can stay, or (2) you set aside for people at a certain income threshold and only 40 of those can stay. In either case, there are lots of people being forced out. In (1), those that can't afford market rates are forced out. In (2), those that are above income threshold and can't afford market rates are forced out. In (2), MANY people that are within income threshold still are forced out because there are a limited number.

Also... Why was rent control eliminated in the 90s? Isn't affordable housing similar to rent control?

I'm not against affordable housing. However, as a self-employed person with a lot of big ideas and an investment in my neighborhood, I'd be way way way more excited to see something innovative happen in that space.
We could really use a modern small business shared/coworking office space with some class - something like Workbar in Boston. A facility that could be use by local entrepreneurs and shared with local schools - a place to work, conduct training classes and seminars...in short, a place where the next gen can do something NEW to change things. The old boy real estate games haven't exactly fulfilled on any of their promises, have they?
The whole division of opinion on this issue is so old hat - if we want to be "for people" and "for Somerville" we can do that by being more immaginative with our ideas and initiatives.
Sad to see such division in a town with SO much potential.
We can do better than this.