I'm going to copy what Ham wrote on another thread, but since this is on TM warrant, I thought it needs a new thread.

"I don't understand this.  The selectmen say they are for affordable senior housing.  Bay Pointe wants to build affordable senior housing on their own land, not the town's land.  Why are the selectmen against this?  Why isn't Bobo, who claims to be for senior housing, not jeering the selectmen for this?  (Rhetorical question, we know he doesn't because they won't give him permission to.)"

I'm guilty of not paying too much attention to this article, but I watched the bos meeting and listened to the folks who represent BP.  I got the feeling that they were simply asking for the same thing the bos CLAIM they were asking at the last TM when we voted Westfield down--to see if it is feasible BEFORE spending money on expensive plans. It wouldn't give them the go ahead to build the thing.

The bos claimed the same thing only went way too far on Westfield by calling for RFPs etc. which is usually not done at this stage. And the bos HAVE spent about $50,000 of taxpayer dollars on Westfield whereas the BP people are willing to spend their own money here. Note: once we exposed the illegal use of the housing trust on this site, the remaining bills from Heaton will apparently be tacked on to the ITA's budget.

I'd like to hear what others say about BP project. If this project could be done, and Westfield preserved for the original taking's use--recreation, schools etc., then WHY WOULD THE BOS BE OPPOSED or did they further study or no action this article? I know their vote was not supportive.

Private developers, private property--doesn't that mean more taxes? While I think Westfield's houses themselves would get taxed, would the land if it is leased? The owners, the town, don't pay taxes on the land. Renters don't pay taxes on land or the houseing. Of course if they "convey" or give away Westfield for a sale price of $1 then I guess it would be taxed.

And did BP say they wanted to put a hotel there too? And don't the bos support the increase in hotel tax as revenue for the town? And wouldn't a nice hotel bring people who need to eat out, shop, etc. bringing more business to town?

How are the rest of you thinking of voting on the BP article as it stands? Seems to me like we should let the zoning part of it pass because the reps. said every step would have to be ok'd by the town and if this article passes it doesn't mean they can build. The longer we delay, the longer it will take to build and generate money.

Isn't this project part of what sweet B was preaching about the other night--bringing business to town? Economic development? 

And if the wording of Westfield's article has a loop hole--just "affordable housing" and not always SENIOR affordable housing, we could be in a big mess.  By the way, I'm sure K and P or other special counsel drafted the town's articles. Was the loop hole intentional? Or just another stupid mistake by K and P?  More tax $$$$$$$$$$ down the K and P drain.

But I don't mean to distract you all--this thread is to help each other decide about the Bay Pointe article. What do you think? I value your opinions.