#1 2009-08-19 06:14:55

Elderly, disabled and the economically displaced don't fare especially well in cities and towns that make a major industry of warehousing the unemployed. Brockton and East Providence spring first to mind but there are many others - some of them local - you'd rather not call home. They're slum magnets, public service drains that breed patronage and municipal corruption.

Wareham's shoreline alone can attract and keep community contributors... if it tries.



#2 2009-08-19 08:28:26

Bill is right.
The impact of low income housing to the infrastructure of the Town mandated services can never be off set by taxes.
Such a development will be a drain on the Town and will serve no purpose to those permanent residents that are trying to figure out how to pay their taxes.
The Town should never be involved in the construction or housing industry.



#3 2009-08-19 08:56:50

Second home owners currently account for, what, half or more of the town's property tax revenue?

When seasonal residents start seeing the urban blight they vacation here to escape, they'll vote with their feet and move their discretionary income elsewhere.

Forgive the hackneyed expression, but do the math.



#4 2009-08-19 09:46:59

This town is the last refuge of trailer parks-17 total parks-other towns have outlawed them.   There are a number of private low-income housing units owned by non-profits.  There is “Section Eight” housing everywhere-including welfare families in luxury ocean view apartments in Onset.   Yet, we should be very afraid of the impact of housing for the elderly on tourists. 

This economy has been hell for everyone.  People who retired ten or twenty years ago could not have forseen major inflation, outrageous tax hikes, crashing IRAs and 401Ks.  Perhaps retired bankers are doing okay, but many retired teachers are hurting.  We all get old.  I don’t think we should resort to the old Eskimo custom of floating the elderly out to sea.



#5 2009-08-19 10:01:36

Wow..I'm glad I'm not an Eskimo. At least the Vikings waited until someone was dead, set fire to them, and THEN sent them out to sea.



#6 2009-08-19 10:40:33

heres a question since bruce is soooo passionate about the senior housing why not have in on the swifts beach property???



#7 2009-08-19 11:06:36

I"m very confused by this argument.

This town is the last refuge of trailer parks-17 total parks-other towns have outlawed them.   There are a number of private low-income housing units owned by non-profits.  There is “Section Eight” housing everywhere-including welfare families in luxury ocean view apartments in Onset.   Yet, we should be very afraid of the impact of housing for the elderly on tourists.

Was that a question or a statement?

Why do we need to incur a 30million debt as a town? Why can we not develop a plan that meets the criteria of affordable housing and not put the burden on the town?

Isn't there a 55 plus community in Middleboro that has an onsite nurse and works with the residents to find programs that meet their needs? Is it not privately owned?



#8 2009-08-19 11:44:53

Sorry I was being sarcastic. As in ---How does elderly housing add to the "urban blight"?



#9 2009-08-19 11:55:45

Thanks Gogatemen. Yes, I apologize for saying we would incur a 30 million debt.

I think affordable housing for seniors is an excellent idea. I just do not like the approach being taken by the Selectmen. To be honest, we need a better approach. More facts need to be given to the public. What is the demand for this type of development? Then you can start to plan the scope of the project and work with a consultant and contractor. After the meeting last night, it's clear they have no idea what they are doing. They are now revising the RFP.

As I said, I"m not against affordable housing, I am just not going to vote for their ever changing plan.



#10 2009-08-19 13:19:38

The Town should not be in the housing and construction business.
If no one is responding to a RFP, wouldn't it make sense to believe that the businessman out there who does this for a living doesn't see any value in it?
Government should never to go into competition with the private sector.
People in the private sector can't afford to engage in deficit spending.



#11 2009-08-19 13:29:48

It's clear the ambitious plan was not well received by the companies looking at it. This is why they are changing the RFP. I just don't think it was well thought out and it is certainly not going to be ready by town meeting. Look at all the money they have put into the project and still they are scrambling to find a way to make it work. I say stop now. Regroup. Then get a group together that actually have experience in affordable housing and senior citizen needs.

Why waste more money trying to cram it down our throats?



#12 2009-08-19 13:56:58

16.2 percent of the population (3,290) in the community was 65 years and over, compared to 12.40% nationally
13.5% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line

These are stats based on the 2000 census. 13.5% of 65 and older living in poverty comes to about 444 people. If watched Marcia Griswold  presentation to the BOS about the seniors in Wareham this past March or April, you can see her numbers were wrong. She said we had 9000 seniors in Wareham that would be almost half the population. She also said 75% of our seniors live at or below the poverty level. Not one of the BOS questioned her stats. The census numbers  are 10 years old, but I think Wareham’s population is going down not up. ( except for the summer people)

These numbers are based on what information people feel like giving the census. I have friends who technically live at the poverty level because when filling out the census form, they say they only receive social security. They own their own homes, some of whom have downsized like my husband and I did, so they have money in the bank. They have IRA’s or CD’s, some have both. They ONLY give this info to the IRS, they would NEVER give their net worth to the census. So I think that number of 444 seniors living in poverty could come down a little.



#13 2009-08-19 15:55:01

I agree with you Marny.
How much money could you give, as a grant, to those 444 people (not families...people) that has already been spent on this project, or is projected to be spent?
I would think each one of them would be multi-millionaires, and they will all move to Florida and Arizona and thank you very much.
Local government has NO business being in business.
Let the Feds. build a low income housing development, and then see what bureaucracy is really about.
They tried that in 1976 when I was on the Board and we fought them like hell to prevent it from happening.
The strings they those projects come with are more than Howdy Doody's whole body.(Shows how old I am, huh?)
Local government needs to concentrate on providing necessary services to it's residents, maintain infrastructure, and improve community relations.
The Town of Wareham needs to stay OUT of  what should be private business.



#14 2009-08-19 17:22:23

Dan…  I am not against low income senior housing. I would like to know how many units we really need.  The last time Mr. Heaton talked about Westfield it was my impression that the developers thought the space was much bigger than what they needed for the development.

As I mentioned on another thread, I know I heard at one of the selectman’s meeting that somewhere someone had done a plan on how to expand Agawam. The number of additional units would depend if you chose a two story or three story plan. We have already paid a consultant for these plans, where are they? If there is federal money available I think a better choice would be to redo Agawam. Agawam is close to Toby Hospital, I think that is a plus. I know Gatra goes there, I’m not sure if the owl does. Public transportation is a major issue for seniors.



#15 2009-08-19 17:28:49

I still agree with you 100%, Marny.



Board footer