#1 2009-10-15 12:39:14
I really don't know what else to say. Westfield was intended by the Board of Selectmen and the Town Meeting of 1977 to be used for the future recreational needs of the Town of Wareham, a preservation of pristine property for the future Townspeople to enjoy. A small part was set aside for municipal use, a school for example, if needed. No one thought it would ever be needed then, and no one thinks it should be used for a school now.
Using the senior citizens as pawns to frighten them into thinking that people are willing to ignore them, pull the plug, let then starve to death, be thrown out into the street, be ignored and allowed to die alone in hovels is 100% bullshit and the numb nuts that are doing it ought to be drawn and quartered.
That's their game. It's either the children or the elderly.
The elderly didn't get that way by being stupid.
Once they know the facts they will vote the right way. To be scared into using Westfield for anything other than what it was intended for is blatantly stupid, in my opinion.
Concentrate on helping those that need it now at the elderly housing facilities you already have. What are you gong to do next, tell the alleged 200 people that are on a list for elderly housing that you are going to move them into magnificent digs and not charge them any money?
By the time Westfield is developed, if it ever is, for senior housing, all of the elderly people they are bullshitting now will be dead.
Stop the nonsense.
NO TO THE TAKING OF WESTFIELD!
TAKE BACK WAREHAM!!
Offline
#2 2009-10-15 12:50:26
Dan,
The same people that voted in that town meeting (1977) are most likely some of the seniors that will vote on this at TM. They are aware of how and why the land was donated and are bright enough to see through the rhetoric and misdirection. I know I care about seniors and affordable housing, so while we are being cast as demons and dragons, the truth remains this is about lifting deed restrictions and conveying the property to the Selectmen to do with as they please.
Offline
#3 2009-10-15 13:25:02
Well said, Larry.
As always, follow the money!
Offline
#4 2009-10-18 08:45:15
Saturday's meeting showed that the incompetence of the elected officials of Wareham knows no bounds.
Unless they fill Town Meeting with demented seniors that are staring into space and drooling, their grand plan should never get off the ground.
Then, maybe, the Town of Wareham can concentrate on the seniors that need help NOW, not in some "pie in the sky" future plans that make absolutely no business sense.
The BOS said Saturday that they would not be selling the land to a developer, they would be leasing it for 99 years.
Really?
What is the annual rental on the leased property and who pays the taxes to support the infrastructure?
Nonsense of the highest degree!
Reading about the meeting, it's like watching two blind people trying to cross Cranberry Highway in the dead of summer and assuming they can make it because there are two of them.
All that results is more body parts strewn all over the roadway.
Offline
#5 2009-10-18 09:23:16
So, what if we lease it for $1 for 99 years. And let's say the project is built in stages and the first round of seniors are in the houses. Then, the developer goes belly up. Who gets stuck with the partial development, the property already rented etc.? The town should not be in the housing/property management business.
Dan, you could probably speak to partially developed properties in Florida. I have a friend who lives there and she tells me there are so many half or less finished projects because money ran out. And most of them are eyesores because of the partial development, lack of landscaping and such.
From what people are saying about the opposition to Westfield, even at yesterday's love fest, I don't think it has a chance.
Offline
#6 2009-10-18 09:43:17
Molly, it is nice to hear that you don't think Westfield has a chance. But what you think is not relivant here. We have to be doing everything we can to get people who do not want Westfield to actually go to town meeting. That is the only way it doesn't have a chance. You know the cript keeper is spending a rainy Sunday calling everyone she knows to convince them to go and vote here way. Don't forget she is the scum behind all this.
Having said that I do have some questions. Does anyone have copies of the 5 proposals? Can we post them here? Do they all say only senior housing? Is this another project with 3 bedroom apartments?
Offline
#7 2009-10-18 10:15:11
Molly....your friend is right about Florida developments. "Pie in the sky" developments, allowed by incompetent County officials and their developer friends have failed so much you can't tell the players without a score card.
In my County alone, over 15,000 foreclosures have taken place in this year alone. Thousands more the past two years.
Undeveloped projects are either eyesores or simply forgotten.
It doesn't take a genius to know that the economy still faces many problems, more foreclosures are coming, and governments on all levels will have to cut back and pray for over-rides to even continue the basic of services.
One question you might ask on Town Meeting floor, under Article #1,...how much money is in the Town's reserve fund?
You know...the money that is supposed to be in place to resolve emergencies when they occur.
Want to bet the answer is very little.
Some of you speak of the Town going bankrupt. One thing the State and Feds take very seriously is the community's reserve funds.
TAKE BACK WAREHAM!
Offline
#8 2009-10-18 10:37:19
When Heaton proposed it to the selectmen all he kept saying was "affordable" units. At the very, very end he threw in the word seniors. Now, where this is the selectmens big "selling point" why wouldn't the availability to the seniors been the priority during the discussion from each bid? I looked up Marion's project that seems to have fizzled out which was designed for "SENIORS ONLY," people were against the affordable aspect of it, including the seniors that live there.
This project could have a HUGE negative impact on our community, services are already few and far between with more reduction in the forseable future, the schools are bursting at the seams, and they have school buildings they have had to close due to there budget. This will end up forcing another override down our throats, not the 180+ new families that will not be paying any taxes to the town. Makepeace and Bay Point are offering two major cash cows that could be huge for this town. It will only help the town to obtain the extra money they will need to get themselves out of this financial rut and to possibly start real planning for Wareham.
100 (give or take) families with possibility of 2 or more children flood into our school system that is not capable of handling the surge, classrooms are already maxed out, that means more teachers need to be hired, then the town claiming it costs "US" $7500 per year, per student well, you can do the math. (sorry about the run on sentence Mr. Wheeler) If a project of this magnitude on town property is going to be done it needs to be 100% senior assistance! If these contractors are so willing to build, then maybe they should start buying up all of the run down motels in town and start to transform them into real affordable housing insted of letting families suffer in one room motel rooms, just my opinion...
We have elected officials forcing this project that in the long run will hit us in our pockets,
NO WESTFIELD! ITS NOT REAL SENIOR HOUSING DONT BE FOOLED!
Thank you
Offline
#9 2009-10-18 11:27:16
At the meeting, Mr. Swett said it best. We, the taxpayers of Wareham, are ultimately responsible for Westfield (if it gets the okay). Mr. Heaton mentioned that after 15 years, the management company set up by the developers would be looking to get out! Uhmmm, then it would be a drain on this town.
Offline
#10 2009-10-18 11:43:40
Rukidding the proposals are on the town web site under bid notices.
Offline
#11 2009-10-18 11:58:31
In addition to the question regarding reserve funds under Article #1, someone might want to ask what the Bond rating is for Wareham.
If the Bond rating is very low, as I would suspect, that is why some developers do not want to get into bed with a Town that is teetering on bankruptcy.
The idea of developing Westfield is so contrary to what was expected and wanted by the BOS and Town Meeting in 1977, I have to wonder if any elected officials have developer families or close friends that would ignore the risks, knowing that the Town is taking most of them, make some very fast and big money, and be long gone before anyone comes out of the ozone and realizes it.
Crooked developers and politicians?
Couldn't be, could it?
Naaah....
Offline
#12 2009-10-18 12:25:12
When you look at the next to the last page of what was handed out at the meeting you see how many units and what each developer will charge for rent. This information is extremely important. When I first heard of Westfield I was in favor of the project and I really didn’t understand the opposition to senior housing. I thought that senior housing meant low income affordable housing Westfield is NOT affordable senior housing. It is a development which offers a certain number of low income units the rest of the units are not low income. HUD may consider $1000 plus dollars a month low income or affordable housing but I certainly don’t. Only a few of the units are under $500.00. I think most of the seniors and others in town are under the misconception that this is going to be truly affordable like Agawam and that is not the case.
Offline
#13 2009-10-18 12:38:45
Marny,
I think you will find that most of us are for affordable senior housing. The issue is not with senior housing, it's with using land that was set aside for other uses. It is my understanding that there is land owned by the town that could be used more effectively for senior housing.
The biggest issue I personally have with Westfield is the way it was THROWN together. It started out as a project that included assisted living. We received very few bidders, so they scrambled to change the RFP to make it more attractive. We only received 5 bidders, and 3 of them are likely to be tossed out. 2 bidders?
In my opinion, we need to have a comprehensive plan for affordable senior housing before we dole at 500k and commit to a 30 million dollar project. Why do this in a "hurry up" mode and end up with more economic problems? We need to do all we can for the seniors, but let's do it right.
Offline
#14 2009-10-18 13:03:40
AMEN, Larry!!
Offline
#15 2009-10-18 13:36:43
Dan,
Since you were a Selectman at the time of this taking, it might have some weight if you were to write a letter that could be read on Town Meeting floor, as to what the intent was by the voters at the 1977 town meeting. That the disucssion at town meeting gave the BOS a mandate to file the deed with restrictions, which is what the BOS did. They did not do it willy-nilly as Bruce has suggested on several occasions during a public forum. Perhaps some voters who were not around in 1977 will be swayed by a supporting statement of someone who was in office at that time, who was at town meeting, and who authorized the deed restriction. Your input as to why the Town filed the deed with restrictions will be now a matter of public record at this town meeting and should ten taxpayers file suit, that would be one more confirmation of the original intent.
Offline
#16 2009-10-18 14:01:27
Glad to help any way I can.
Let me know what you need.
Offline
#17 2009-10-18 14:54:18
Larry McDonald wrote:
The biggest issue I personally have with Westfield is the way it was THROWN together. It started out as a project that included assisted living. We received very few bidders, so they scrambled to change the RFP to make it more attractive. We only received 5 bidders, and 3 of them are likely to be tossed out. 2 bidders?
Exactly. (along with the fact it's been shot down by TM before, for good reason, and perhaps the Town really meant it when we said we want it for "other" purposes)
"Further Study" has never been so abused. I believe the highest number quoted as "affordable units" in the hasty new proposals was 48 (help me out if you know better). Like so much these guys support, there's a stamp on it that reads "caveat emptor", loosely translated as, "Buyer Beware" (usually accompanied by a skull & crossbones)
Don't buy it.
PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-18 15:06:46)
Offline
#18 2009-10-19 08:35:30
Let's not forget, there is no such thing as AFFORDABLE housing for seniors in any plan that has been presented or ever will be presented.
Developers don't make money of low income housing of any kind. They only make money when they go into partnership with a community that is dumb enough to go along with them and their plans.
What does anyone determine to be "affordable"?
How "affordable" are the present senior housing facilities. Affordable to whom?
I still say: follow the money!
Offline
