Revised Plans Presented for Valley CDC Affordable Housing

4 thoughts on “Revised Plans Presented for Valley CDC Affordable Housing”

  1. Presumably this project will bring to northampton 100k in taxes a year. Yet, nowhere do we see the expected costs to the city for education, police, public maintenance, etc. Keep in mind it cost 15k per student per year. Assuming one child per unit 50 x 15k that’s 750 thousand dollars year to educate the children who will live in these multi room apartments. That is on top of the 300k from CPA funds. Presumably the people living in these units will be doing so because they are poor in comparison to their financial needs and therefore will be paying little if anything in the way of taxes.

  2. These alarmist calculations kinda assume that all these people that will be living there are holding off having babies until they move in. Maybe a fair number of them will be families with children that are living in over-priced private housing, and some will be couples without children. This is Northampton, and our population is declining. And many will be paying payroll taxes. So who knows what that impact will be? Not catastrophic, certainly.

  3. mike,
    Shortly before she died Alexandra Dawson , the Gazette columnist and wonderful spokes person for the environment posed a series of questions – one of which was: ‘Can we supply reasonable affordable housing without the gross subsidies of the past’. (dec 15, 2011 – the great experiment)
    if you believe in this project than you are answering no, to this and all the other horrible decisions she warns about.
    This Ponzi scheme form of government is based on the notion that you grow, grow, grow to work your way out of debt and problems. But that is what has brought the earth to the point it is at, and that is a terrible shame when science is offering us such wonderful opportunity.
    I am not prepared to turn my back on all the other living things with which we share the planet either in the name of business, or housing, or patriotism.
    This city already has 12% affordable housing, way more than just about any community. We the working poor already groan under the weight of taxes to support these. And what a mess many of these places are – who runs them?
    To address the points you make –
    The financial figures outlined to qualify for residency means they won’t be paying payroll taxes.
    Presumably they will have to have kids to be eligible for a multi bedroom unit, unless single individuals are eligible for $600,000 units (rent subsidized units).
    Even if there were only 25 children of school age, the cost to taxpayers would be an additional 300 thousand dollars a year in taxes.
    But here is the kicker. The city does not have the right to take CPA money our 300 thousand dollars, and use it as a down payment to shackle tax payers in the city for another 500 thousand dollars a year in tax money for perpetuity. That is not what the idea behind the CPA is. Both in fact and in law.
    Affordable housing is not subsidized housing.
    $400,000 a piece on average. Why not a million dollars. If they have a right to build them at 400k, then they have a right to build them at a million dollars a piece. They do not have that right.
    Somebody is making big bucks on this – oh wasn’t the CDC the ex mayors employer?
    I personally believe , if this thing is permitted to go through on this basis and withstands a legal challenge, no sane tax paying citizen in the state will ever again approve CPA funding.
    I hope a legal challenge is filed,
    We do what we can, 10% affordable housing is generous, especailly in a community in which many of us are poor to begin with.

Comments are closed.