This is a terrible comment to say about the protesters - how much do you know about them? You live here almost 50 years - some of the protesters live here over 50 yeas too. Why does living here longer mean that you have more rights to accuse people of different opinions the bad guys?

Affordable housing is not wrong. What is wrong is the SCC's approach: try ti railroad the project and deprive the residents' democratic rights to participate in the decision-making process, to speak out their concerns.

There is nothing wrong with affordable housing. What is wrong is when a private developer like SCC, posing as a "community" organization, tries to railroad their project through while ignoring the democratic process. "Community" is SCC's middle name, but "Corporation" is its last name.

SCC will make a huge profit off of this project. This fact is lost on SCC supporters, who don't seem to understand simple economics. The same SCC organizer who called Alderman Tom Taylor a liar claimed, "SCC won't make a profit -- we're a non profit organization. All the profit goes back into SCC."

D'oh!

Danny LeBlanc, head of SCC makes over six figures in salary in bonus. So jo, if you're looking to demonize people as 'yuppies' look no further than the head of SCC. If you think 'rich people' are making Somerville unaffordable, look no further than Danny LeBlanc. By your reasoning, he's the one pricing people like you out of the city.

Something is terribly wrong here. SCC is profiting off the backs of poor people. They use their status as a 'community' organization and a 'non profit' to fool people like you into thinking they're the good guys and they're 'for the people.'

Do us all a favor and take a closer look. SCC loves useful idiots like you. Look it up on Wikipedia if you don't know what that means.

What's wrong putting a housing development where it can be easily absorbed by the community? Putting a 5-story building with 20% *fewer* parking spaces than required by zoning regulations (how did they manage that?) on one of the most congested traffic avenues in the area is insanity. Their "traffic study" methodology -- from what I heard last night -- is so flawed as to render it 100% meaningless. The architect apparently looked at the highway and one building across the street to come up with his "design" that looks more like public housing project circa 1978 than a building that fits with the character, style, and aspirations of this *small* neighborhood (Victorian, Mansard roofs, bow windows, two stories, brick). That is going to be the gateway to Union Square from the new T stop? I used to walk past the D Street projects on my way home from work every day when I lived in Southie, and I promise you nothing will kill the vitality of an emerging neighborhood more than a monstrosity of an apartment building looming over the very path that all the foot traffic will take. This whole plan is a disgrace, and I'm looking forward to Tim Toomey's forum to make sure that everyone who actually lives on the doorstep of this proposed place actually gets heard.

Jasmine, you'd benefit from learning a bit about the development of affordable housing c. 2012. This "profit" you speak of is a standard part of nearly any affordable housing development in the United States in an era when there is very little public subsidization of such development. That "profit" is not profit because it doesn't go to shareholders but to fund subsequent development and operating costs. This is not unique to the organization in question here. I'm really saddened to be reading about Somervillians opposed to 40ish units of housing for families making up to about fifty thousand dollars, and comparing a five-story building to midcentury so-called "projects." Any stigma around affordable housing is not some inherent quality but forms because of really myopic protests like this one. This kind of thing makes it impossible to built affordable housing anywhere. If people in Somerville protest what amounts to moderate income affordable housing, imagine how difficult it is to construct *real* affordable housing in pretty much any community nationwide.

Jasmine's letter is one of the best I've read about SCC and their proposed development. Building a 40 to 45 unit building of low-income housing is anachronistic. I thought low-income developments of this scale were discredited by sociologists and community planners decades ago. Somerville deserves better and so do low-income Somerville residents.

How else would affordable housing get funded in an increasingly expensive market but through subsidy? And if SCC's goal was to make lots of money, as you say, why wouldn't they just develop market rate housing? There is more money to be made in that, I assure you. Affordable housing is not a very lucrative form of development. Those subsidies go to fuel costs, electricity, maintenance, operations, repair, etc.

Brian,

Not so... What the SCC does has zero risk compared to building market rate housing. By obtaining subsidies there is absolutely no risk that units could possibly sit vacant. Getting a guaranteed 10 percent developer fee from this 15 million government subsidized project is not a bad living from a so called "non-profit".

SCC is a wolf in sheeps clothing!

That 10% development fee is not a profit though, it is a development fee. It pays salaries, operating costs, administrative costs. It doesn't go to investors or shareholders; it is not allocated as part of a revenue sharing plan to employees. That is a standard fee in any affordable housing development in the US. You can call it a profit if you want, but it is definitionally not a profit--any social service organization in this country gets an overhead fee of some sort for the service it renders. Look at the economics of CDCs anywhere in the country and you will find the same arrangement. You can object to salaries of the non-profit's employees, but that is a purely subjective call. I don't have a problem with non-profit directors earning in the high five or low six figures. That doesn't bother me.

You'd do well to learn a bit about affordable housing finance. "Government subsidized" is a term that neglects two important facts: the LIHTC was a Reagan-era device developed to skirt the federal role in affordable housing provision. It is funded by investors. You can argue that the tax break provided to those investors is a government subsidy, but I will remind you that taxpayers subsidize all housing in the US. The most expensive federal housing programs are the mortgage tax deduction and the insurance that the government provides on your home mortgage. Given that homeowners get assistance for their housing, I have no problem with help for people who need affordable housing.

Brian,

I will call it profit because that's exactly what it is... At least if there are shareholders involved there is some oversight and accountability. Non-profits can just roll it back into their oversized salaries and call it "non-profit accounting" and no one should question it... Danny's words, not mine.

Tim, if I had been living here in Somerville at the time these zoning laws were changed, you bet I would have been out there protesting that as well. This is all news to me, as I'm a relatively new resident that SCC supporters seem to fear and abhor.

Perhaps now that we are growing our strength in numbers, it is time to revisit these ridiculous zoning statues. 55 feet high is bad enough, but other locations in the Square are zoned for well over 100 feet, which makes no sense.

Does the city want to turn Union Square into Manhattan? They're dreaming.

The mayor has taken a lot of credit for Somerville's growth, but the fact of the matter is that most of that growth has come simply from overflow from Cambridge's astronomical rise on the back of the technology and biotech industries.

Somerville needs to do more to attract cutting edge business to our city. They city has been talking about this for years. Where is the action. It is a shame that they seem content with Cambridge's crumbs and subsidized rental developments.

Private developers are not getting money from tax payers to do their business. The SCC case is apparently different here.

Also, all private developers have to include certain percentage of affordable housing units. Why does the SCC project have to be 100% subsidized housing without including market-rate units? Answer: because they can't get those units rented out if they don't get guaranteed money from the governments.

It has been proven that such approach is a doomed failure - it segregates/label the people who live in the project from the community. A mix of market rate units and subsidized units will eliminate the issues - but again, SCC doesn't want that because they can not get GUARANTEED money for those market-rate units.

1. The zoning is not the issue. If a private developer wants to build a similar size building, they will have to communicate with the neighbors and all the questions (parking, traffic, safety) will be asked and will needed to be answered (do you know that the proposed project doesn't even have enough parking space based on the zoning requirements?)

2. Affordable housing is not an issue here either. The new laws has required all new buildings to include certain percentage of affordable housing, So as long as Union Square continues to grow, there will be more affordable housing.

What we are opposed to, is such 100% subsidized project that benefits mainly the so called "NGOs".

That's a fair question, Tom.

Some of us were involved in zoning issues. However, several of us didn't live in the area at that time.

As for my situation: after attending years of innumerable Union Square design charettes, Green Line meetings, meetings to preserve Somerville's historic architecture, traffic meetings, and so on, I was burned-out and occasionally discouraged, especially when it came to the Green Line development.

It takes a huge level of civic commitment and activism to flourish here. Unlike city or SCC employees, we are not paid for our efforts.

I'd like a single-family Victorian on Prospect Hill, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to build one at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood. Popular neighborhoods are expensive, and expensive neighborhoods are popular; that's the way of the world.

Why aren't you looking at Medford, by the way? I have three friends who bought houses there and they all love it. Meffid is growing its own local community, as Somerville did.

Hi why do you like Somerville over Medford? Because all the nice restaurants and investments people living here made over the years, and that's why there are more demands for housing in this area. But if you continue building more and more 100% subsidized projects like what SCC is trying to do - eventually you are going to drive away businesses and development, and a poverty pocket. At that time, will you still want to live here when you are worried about your daughter's safety because of all the crime verdicts, drug addicts and people with mental health issues ? The true case just happened - a 7 year old kid in our building caught a guy who tried to break in our condo building in mid-day. The father was so concerned and felt unsafe in the neighborhood. Is the situation going to be better because of all the subsidized housing and section 8 tenants? Of course not!

We have rented an apartment and saved for over 20 years to eventually bought a small condo we call home in Union Square. Now with all the worries for kids' safety, we don't even know if we should continue living here....

James, if living in Somerville is your dream, I hope you achieve it. But if you can't find a place to live that you can afford, don't waste time pining for something that's unattainable for the present. I would advise you to move to a place you can afford and invest your time in creating the community of your dreams. You're young and have more opportunities that you can imagine. Don't look at your inability to settle in Somerville as a negative. Instead, look at what you can realistically achieve, DO NOT listen to people who tell you you're being excluded from success.

I understand where you're coming from, as I once felt as you do. But after I got over the fact that I couldn't afford my first choice, I made a commitment to where I could afford to live, which was Somerville. We had a downpayment for a condo, but we couldn't get a loan from the first 2 banks we approached. That's what a bad risk purchasing property in Union Square was 17 years ago!

It took a while to build equity, but eventually we sold that property and bought a house in Somerville. We plugged away and took part in creating a vibrant community. We also tried hard to respect the residents who came before us and did our best to be good neighbors.

The most important thing is you don't become discouraged or lament what you don't have. There are opportunities out there for you--you just need to look for them and have an open mind.

Lynn you are 100% right! Thank you for so eloquently stating the position of many of us. Find a place you can afford and by investing in your property and participating in your community make it the place you want to! Just like we are trying to having made that investment.

Why would adding affordable housing to Union Square "drive away businesses and development" ? If residents don't have to spend as much money on mortgages and rent, they'll have more left over to spend at local businesses.

And if my single-family home destroyed the property value of everyone around me and made the neighborhood unlivable? I'd be the most unpopular person around, and rightly so.

Other people's private property decisions can and do have major impacts on the surrounding homes and neighborhood: resale value of the home, traffic & parking, crime rates (and don't be fooled by the one study SCC referenced -- another study came out of Emory two months ago that demonstrates exactly the opposite). You don't live in a silo, you live in a neighborhood. Presumably you live in that neighborhood because it has things about it that are attractive to you as a resident (nice homes, vibrant business community, walkability, parking, etc.) Why would you insist on building something that would crush all the things about it that make it an attractive community?

GG- I suppose no crimes ever take place in places like Cambridge (where a 17 old girl got shot the other night)-- Wellesley, Weston or Newton- who also have subsidized housing but they hide theirs because they are embarrassed to have "low rent" people living there

@Jo if by "hiding" you mean dispersed within the community rather than clustered in a single large development, they probably do that because research has demonstrated quite clearly that clustering low-incoming housing correlates to a spike in crime, while dispersing low-income residents across a community correlates to a drop in crime. They're taking the smart, planned, forward-thinking approach, and they're succeeding.

Right on, James.

Your post is spot-on. Thanks. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I was more addressing your "I want to live here but I can't afford it so you need to make it cheaper for me" philosophy. I want to live in the South End, but I can't afford it, so I live somewhere else. Just because you want something doesn't mean that you're entitled to have it at whatever price you find convenient. If S'ville is too expensive, but Meffid is in your price range, what's the problem? There's plenty of people in Meffid who are probably equally interested in boosting the vitality of their neighborhood(s). I know a few of them. They're nice people.

If you think that 40 units of affordable housing means that *you* will be able to afford a non-subsidized apartment, you're mistaken; the only way that would ever be the case would be if the neighborhood suddenly became so undesirable that landlords were forced to drop rents by 30% just to keep their properties occupied. Surely that is not the effect you're hoping for.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Hi James

I grew up in a poor family too - we didn't have low-income housing or any social welfare system in the country I came from. So my whole family: my parents, 1 brother and 3 sisters, we all lived in one room (less than 72 square feet) for over 10 years. We worked our way through too - two of my sisters have master degrees and I just got mine.

When my family owned a house, my father took in homeless people and friends with mental issues and gave them food and housing out of his kindness. But you know what, it was a nightmare to my whole family - these people had their issues that housing and food only can't resolve.

Long story short, I need to clarify that :

1. This project is not just for working families. It will also include tenants with all sorts of issues.
2. The property management record is not strong to begin with either (check the records of SCC property management first).
3. Union Square aldermen just had a meeting discussing about the problems of evicting section 8 tenant.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/news/x464393731/Somerville-aldermen-discuss-eviction-of-problem-Section-8-tenants

4. Similar problems occurred to SCC's other projects - the landlord complained to SCC, and they did nothing to solve the problems.

Again, it is so obvious that SCC is an developer disguised as a NGO and they are gaining all the profits but leave the problems to the neighborhood to deal with.

Over Ward 6 Alderman Rebekah Gewirtz’s objections, the Board of Aldermen formally asked a representative from the Somerville Housing Authority to meet about ways to evict problem tenants with Section 8 affordable housing vouchers.

So sad that Ms. Gewirtz (alderwoman ward 6) would rather stifle discussion rather than address difficult topics. Thank goodness some of our Aldermen are addressing the issue. Ms. Gewirtz (a strong SCC supporter) needs to find a way to bring more subsidized housing to her lovely West Somerville and stop telling people in Union Square and East Somerville that we need more of it.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/news/x464393731/Somerville-aldermen-discuss-eviction-of-problem-Section-8-tenants#ixzz1x7qsrnc4

Do you actually think that incomes up to 50k constitute low-income? If so, then it is hard to read any of these comments as anything but snobbery. And if "third sector" CBOs do not build affordable housing, who will?

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. You've really demonstrated your credibility and the value of your opinion.

are you talking about who? Yourself?

Its certainly ironic, given that the only people who are (vocally) equating "low-income" with "non-white" are the SCC.

What Victor said reminds me of a case in the San Francisco area: the SF city chose their "favored" non-profit organizations to build affordable housing projects, and these projects turned out to be a total disaster. Here is the news link for the story:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2000-10-25/news/the-affordable-housing-disaster/

All the non-profit organizations of course ate nonprofit - other wise, how can they get the tax credits from the government, and sell them to the billionaires and big banks who are really taking advantages of the poor people

Joe, shame on you for calling your neighbors worse than KKK simply because that their views are different from yours.

I think there is something to be said about the fragility of Union Sq. It is at a transition point and what happens there over the next few years is going to determine its future path. Somerville Rising has a view of what they want union sq. to be - a vibrant diverse community. They are not saying they do not want to see any affordable housing options, rather their issue is primarily with density of affordable housing.

Had it been 20-25% affordable I do not think you would have seen the uproar. But a building with 40 units all of which is "affordable" no longer is another apartment building - it is a housing project.which people looking to move to an area consider a negative, kinda like a major highway or power lines. They all serve a purpose but you probably, given a choice, would not choose to live next to one.

Everyone who lives in Somerville has a voice on what they want Somerville to be. They are not know-nothings they are people who are concerned about their community and are willing to speak up about it.

@Matt, how about just the density of housing, period? The design they showed is a monstrosity; its a 5-story apartment building with a design that looks like nothing more than the late 70s vision of what "modern" looked like. Cut the number of units in half (or more), drop two stories off the building, and for god's sake design it in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood! 2-3 story brick rowhouses with bow windows, clapboard with Mansard roofing, Victorian design elements around the outside -- SOMETHING to make it look like a part of Union Square, and not a housing project! I want to know if the architect would be content to walk out his front door every morning and look at that as his view, because I get angry just thinking about it. They kept referencing the St Polycarp development so I looked it up and realized that its the incredibly ugly, out-of-place, throwback housing complex behind Davis. God help us if they want to put another one of those here, its atrocious.

And to Joe, since S'ville is already the most densely populated city in the NE, why do you think adding *more* clustered housing is a good idea? 40 units in the same footprint as me and the neighbors to either side of me, only with 5x the number of people, and this seems like a net gain you?

Kate, I agree with you that it is not a "nice" or fitting the neighborhood - where I do not agree is around density. If your concern is look and fit I would suggest an Architectural Commission that describes the permissible styles in the neighborhoods, I am all for that.

My personal belief is the best way to grow Somerville through smart growth in density through zoning. This means larger and taller buildings in some targeted neighborhoods. In this approach as new zoning rolls in developers would buy out existing land owners and build larger higher density properties on those lots and the city should promote this. These new properties should be 40b compliant, accommodate lower-income elderly, promote growth of the arts etc. and the rest at market rates ensuring the inclusive neighborhood growth. Additionally by increasing the housing stock we can lower the cost of housing (supply and demand).

@Matt, my question to you is "Why?" Why pack *more* people into the already most-densely-populated city in the Northeast? What possible purpose does that serve? There are other areas that could certainly use the revitalization that a population of working adults could bring (West Medford, especially since they put a commuter-rail stop there).

Take two stories off that plan, create a design that fits with the character of this area (did the architect bother walking into Union Square itself, or up and down any of the side streets, or was he looking only at 28 and the Valvoline shop?) and a lot of the aggro will go away. They still need to solve for the parking and traffic problem, though, since the methodology they used is ridiculous. Of course there are parking spaces at 7pm, the residents are all still working or at the gym. Come back at 10pm and let me know where you find 31 extra spots...

I guess the difference is I do not see density as a bad thing.

I moved to Somerville 8 years ago know what it was, has been and where it was trending in terms of growth. For me increased density is a good thing, more people equals more demand for goods and services which drive economic growth. Also increased density is more efficient in terms of use of infrastructure. If you look at what the sierra club says urban densities drive down the # of miles driven as well by a factor of 4 over suburban density. I want to see Somerville grow I prefer to see it grow smart around our business districts and transportation hubs.

I don't disagree with you on the parking and look feel, they should be accommodated.

I'm not sure what 'incredibly ugly, out-of-place, throwback housing complex behind Davis' you are referring to, but St. Polycarp is nowhere near Davis Square. It is around Mystic Ave. at Temple Street.

Joe, it seems that you know so well about SCC. Ummm, interesting.

70% priority to Somerville residency, so what you are confirming that 30% of the units will be resided by applicants from the whole sate and even the whole country. Why does the community have to take that because of SCC's mission and profits?

Cindy, we (people participating in the discussion) are working to build, and invest in our community. The result has been Somerville becoming more attractive and more people wanting to live here. I think many people are proud about the change they see in the city. Clean squares, low crime, thriving local businesses and vibrant neighborhoods. The other result is that Somerville has become more expensive to live in. The clear majority of people participating in the discussion are not anti-affordable housing rather they see the approach as a bad fit for their community. Had the proposal been for mixed income and a more matching architectural style I'm sure the development would have been welcomed.

Like you, I am first generation in the us I bought a house 2 blocks from the apartment my father and his brothers shared when they move to the states 40 years ago. it was my family that taught me the value of hard work and investing in your home and community I've done that as have my neighbors and both me and my community had reaped rewards of our hard work. I encourage you to find a community you can afford and do the same. I'm sorry you were "sick of paying high rent" No one has a right to live any where. Not in Somerville, or any where else as some people seem to imply

The results of a study prepared by a task force a decade and a half ago do not equate to a right.

To be clear, I have never once stated that someone should be restricted from living some place, As you said, anyone should have the opportunity to live where they can pay to live, in other words anyone has the right to participate in a housing market this does not mean you have a right to live someplace.

I am all for enabling a diverse community my issue with the current development is the implementation. As I have said several times I am a supporter of mixed income development that is tailored to a neighborhood. Please include a link to the study you are referring to...

Joe, I really wish you would stop inferring that I mean that someone cannot live in any given neighborhood. We both said that anyone can live anywhere they can afford to live. The green line extension was about equity and impact of transportation on the city of Somerville, but the impact on the city and neighborhood is driven by the market (and peoples perception of what it is to live next to mass transit tracks) today people thing that living next to mass transit is a good thing, 80 years ago it was a negative.

I am a fan of developments like Maxwells Green which is 3 blocks from my house. it is oriented around transit, it has a high density, mix affordable and market housing, it targets young professionals, it provides enough parking for its residents...and I hope will spur growth in the very under developed Magoon Sq. I'm not saying that maxwells is perfect, but it is, in my opinion, far better then what is proposed in Union Sq. And as I have said before - if the Union Sq. development was more similar to Maxwells Green where 24 of the 184 units are affordable.

Joe, you have no means to know who "my betters" are, though I can certainly say they are not going to be people depend on personal attacks in what is a civil debate.

So set the record straight, I have never attacked you or anyone here personally, I have never attacked SCC as an organization or affordable housing, my complaint is about the specific development in Union Sq. and the anachronistic approach of building large subsidized housing developments in an area where they could otherwise not afford to live. I and i bet a majority of people would rather see the next 40, 50 or 500 units of affordable housing spread across numerous new developments across the city rather than in large blocks.

Joe, I think you may be missing the point of Jennifers comment. What she did was to show amazing commitment to living her dream - something I admire and appreciate. I understand her point to be "I did it on my own and if someone is willing to work hard they can do it too"

Home ownership is something that many people aspire to - it is not a given or a right. Living in any given neighborhood is nor a right - rather the right is that any individual can participate in the market.

Would everyone work as hard and be willing to sacrifice as much, not only would they be able to achieve more as individuals, but also, in my opinion the world would be a better place.