Dear Editor,
The recording of the Annual Public CPC Meeting is not up. I had submitted an email since I could not attend. I thank those on the board who took the time to engage with it. I am part of Housing for All Watertown (HAW), and it is no secret that I am pro dentistry and diversity. However, the email (see below) was written from the lens of someone who deeply cares about persons with special needs and having family age in place with others.
The call for CPC funds to be allocated to more housing is not new to the CPC board, and it predates the formation of HAW. There are 4 and half pages on housing needs per the board’s 2022 Annual Year-End Report. https://content.civicplus.com/api/assets/0e2ac721-212a-4561-b2a6-6abdd04c8ebc?cache=1800
As I noted in my email, the Affordable Housing Trust has made the call for more Senior and Special Needs housing. We live in a time when loneliness and lack of community is a scourge on society. Many senior citizens cannot afford to move into a communal residence, nor can their houses accommodate an extended family situation. Who is left to tend to these senior citizens? Their neighbors, if available and willing.
The disabilities community is in worse shape in terms of loneliness and housing. The Commonwealth has great services and people from all over the nation come here for those services. With The Perkins School and other facilities, Watertown, in particular, has been a community that supports persons with disabilities. The residents here have always been ready to assist someone in a situation — walking a blind person across a dangerous interaction or opening a non ADA compliant door for someone wheelchair bound.
The residents of Watertown want a second ambulance and a middle school and recreation fields, but how are those needs to be met if there are other pressing needs like housing, food assistance, teacher salaries, etc.? Accessing the funds from elsewhere is a start. The CPC needs to help make those taxpayer funds readily available. They have an obligation to watch the finances and educate residents on the funds. However, they failed to do that when they allocated monies to preserve the Scot’s Gate in Mt Auburn Cemetery, which would have benefitted Cambridge. If I am not mistaken, that could be misappropriation of Watertown’s funds.
I hope they take my advice (see original email below), or that the Residents’ Advisory Board recommends other persons to the board. I recognize there are persons on the board that are working hard and doing a great job, but the board as a whole appears to have some dysfunction. The 103 Nichols Project is an example of this.
Thanks,
Rita Colafella
Watertown Resident
Dear CPC,
I can’t attend the annual public meeting, but I wanted my email read into the record during the meeting. Please note, I’m not speaking for any group with whom I am affiliated.
I’d like to know why the CPC only allocated the minimum 10% to housing since it is not logical to not fund Watertown’s biggest and most unmet need to the maximum available. With approximately $23.206 million on hand, the CPC must reassess the allocation decision, especially when the city is having to make cuts because of the current federal administration. The housing allocation should at the very least be 55% to deal with the housing crisis effectively, and the reserve should only be 20% per usual business practice.
I’d also like an explanation of the expenditures. The expenditures “Personnel” and “Purchased Services” are unclear, and this makes it difficult to assess if 5% is necessary. It may very well be necessary. Please provide some clarity. Regardless, the CPA was adopted by the city because Watertown residents voted nearly 2:1 in favor of adoption. Watertown residents voted to generate these funds and to have said funds spent on items listed under the act. Sitting on the money, in effect, thwarts the will of the people.
Per previous CPC Budgets, historical preservation projects and open space projects have regularly had money awarded to them. I’ve heard reasoning along the lines that funding requests for housing projects have not come in. However, the reasoning cannot assume lack of want or need. I see ways in which the CPC can bring in more housing project requests. First, more education and outreach to the public is necessary. The CPC has to educate organizations, developers and the public in what housing-related projects CPC money can fund. It is my understanding the members do attend Community Preservation Coalition trainings. Does the public know that funds can be requested for the following?
- mixed-income developments and workforce housing
- rental assistance and first time home buyer programs
- the purchase of land for future affordable housing
- adaptive reuse; convert underutilized commercial spaces into affordable housing
- Senior & Special Needs Housing
Secondly, the unusual direct involvement of the CPC in reviewing these projects creates an onerous request process. Having the CPC add another layer of review on project specs is redundant, if not detrimental especially with complex issues involved in housing. This appears to be evident in the case of 103 Nichols, the housing project for intellectually disabled individuals. The situation requires specialized knowledge. There is no expert on persons with intellectual disabilities on the CPC, and as a result, the delays to this project could be seen as bordering on exclusion. The Affordable Housing Trust made a special call out for more senior and disability housing during its Annual Planning meeting. So there is an urgency to address this need. I am very disappointed with the status of 103 Nichols.
Going forward, I’d like to see the CPC increase the allocation for housing above the legal requirement to realistically address the housing crisis. Clarification on administrative expenditures is also needed to understand the allocation more fully. It is also incumbent upon the CPC to educate organizations, developers and the public on available funds and what can be funded; putting out a Notice Of Funds Available more frequently would help. Finally, the CPC should concentrate on financials and feasibility of projects, such as has the organization secured funding before or do the developers specialize in the area.
Thanks,
Rita Colafella
The Watertown CPC Community Preservation Committee (CPC) is described as making “recommendations for the use of Community Preservation funds for initiatives related to open space, outdoor recreation, historic resources, and community housing.”
I would expect the CPC to address all its areas of concern, not just one.
Per the law, they only need tto allocate 10% to each of three. After that, the CPC can decide to heavily fund one more or less. Most muncipalities have heavily funded housing. Additionally, this CPC has surveyed the public, and their is a strong demand for housing in those surveys.. Recommendations should be based on financials. Vetting the specs of a special needs house is like a chef advising on electrical work. Outside this munciaplity, our CPC is seen as rather dysfunctional. Again, the people on the board work hard and some do a great job at engaging. Thank you Liane for reading my long email. I appreciated the suggestion, that the process be somewhat suspended when it came to the purchase of land. The process, direcet involvment and excessive review are remain problematic. When a developer comes along to develop the recent city purchase in D, I hope he/she is able to get to build that retail space below and elderly housing above ASAP.
I finally saw the replay, and it was more disappointing than what I had heard about the meeting from those who viewed it on cable. Clearly some were not listening to the public comments. Big theme was more money to housing. No one was calling for money to open space and historical preservation. There doesn’t appear to be a crisis brewing with either.
Since the public could not reply, I will reply here.
– it is the people’s purse and the people want it pryed open
– the housing crisis is only a very limited view to homeowners and people who prioritize objects over people; given that renters now outnumber homeowners in town, I ask who makes up the smaller viewpoint?
– the CPC is being asked to go forth and educate, not for webpasges, resources and classes
– it is the process that needs addressing since the few housing projects that have come in have had to repeatedly come before the CPC; lengthy discussions on items not pertinent to this board’s scope such as a second kitchen at 103 Nicholas Ave or where will the tenants of Willow Park go in the interim
Finally, thanks to the person who brought up Length of Term. The website clearly says something else. If this is the board that will mind the dollars and cents, then they need to clean up their own house first. Perhaps it is time to ask the Commonwealth, who has recognized the hosuing crisis as did the Biden/Harris administration, to change the Act because this really was not impact most were looking for.