<p>After strong defeats in the three down-Island annual town meetings and a victory in West Tisbury last week, proponents of the controversial housing bank are turning their attention up-Island, where two more town meetings and a vote on the bank’s funding mechanism remain.</p>
After strong defeats in the three down-Island annual town meetings and a victory in West Tisbury last week, proponents of the controversial housing bank are turning their attention up-Island, where two more town meetings and a vote on the bank’s funding mechanism remain.
The proposal, which was placed by petition on all town meeting warrants, seeks home rule legislation to establish an Islandwide housing bank “for the preservation and creation of year-round housing.” Under the plan, the housing bank would be run by a commission with members from all Island towns. It would be funded with 50 per cent of the recently expanded hotel, rooms and short-term rental tax.
An advisory group for the housing bank campaign met privately Wednesday to discuss strategy in advance of the Chilmark annual town meeting next week and Aquinnah’s annual town meeting on May 14.
A spokesman for the group, Doug Ruskin of West Tisbury, said later that advocates acknowledge that adjustments need to be made to the plan, but that they would stay the course for the next two town meetings.
“We’re going to continue to talk it up; there’s not much different that we’re going to do,” he told the Gazette. He said those attending the meeting included Aquinnah residents Peter Temple and Derrill Bazzy, Chilmark resident Jim Feiner and Makenzie Brooks of Vineyard Haven, the group’s only paid part-time staff member. Meanwhile, the Island’s state legislators, Sen. Julian Cyr and Rep. Dylan Fernandes, said this week they will push legislation to create a housing bank on Beacon Hill even if only two of the six Island towns say yes.
Speaking to the Gazette by phone Wednesday, Mr. Cyr cited an email he and Mr. Fernandes sent to all the Island selectmen on April 5 after being criticized by Edgartown selectmen for filing legislation to create the housing bank in January, well before the issue was even placed on town meeting warrants.
Calling the bills “placeholders,” the email said the legislation was filed so that the legislature could act on it in the current session, depending on the outcome of town meetings. It went on to say that he and Mr. Fernandes “remain agnostic as to the specifics of the housing bank,” and could abandon or amend the legislation according to what Vineyard voters wanted.
“We said, if voters in all the towns were against the housing bank, it would stay in committee,” Mr. Cyr said. “Then if two or more towns vote to send us a home rule petition, we’ve got to honor that. So what we’ll do is work with the relevant towns . . . and I certainly would like to get input from other towns who would want to join in the future.”
Mr. Fernandes echoed the state senator’s comments.
“It’s up to the towns. West Tisbury said they wanted it. If Chilmark and Aquinnah say they want it, or one, then we’re going to work with those towns to move forward,” Mr. Fernandes said. “It’s totally up to the voters in those towns.”
But Island officials raised questions about what a housing bank would look like if only two or three towns were involved.
“I have no idea how a housing bank would work if less than a majority of the Island towns are for it,” said Edgartown selectman Margaret Serpa. “I thought that our elected representatives were supposed to be working with the towns, not against them. I am very disappointed to hear about this.”
Discussion of the housing bank consumed hours of debate last week in Edgartown, Oak Bluffs, Tisbury and West Tisbury, where supporters and critics lined up at microphones to be heard.
Those who backed the plan called it a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address the shortage of affordable and year-round workforce housing on the Vineyard and pay for it with money from one of its causes, the seasonal rental market. Opponents, including many of the Island’s selectmen and town finance committee members, criticized the measure as hastily drawn and called it an end-run around towns’ established budgeting process.
The measure was soundly defeated in Oak Bluffs, Tisbury and Edgartown. At the Edgartown annual town meeting selectman Michael Donoroma led the move to defeat the proposal, pledging to work with proponents and hold hearings over the next year on the issue.
By contrast in West Tisbury, the housing bank passed easily, but voters put off discussion of the funding mechanism until a special town meeting on April 30.
Mr. Ruskin said he was encouraged by the results, especially in Edgartown.
“It was Mike Donaroma who said, let’s talk about this more. And that’s all we were ever saying,” he said.
Mr. Donaroma said this week he had been contacted by housing bank proponent Steve Ewing of Edgartown and hopes to start planning meetings with the group after school vacation week. He said the meetings would be posted publicly.
According to estimates from the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, the new rental tax that takes effect July 1 could generate about $8 million in new revenue. Three quarters of that, or about $6 million, would be generated in the three down-Island towns of Oak Bluffs, Edgartown and Tisbury. Estimates for the three up-Island towns combined is $2 million.
Mr. Ruskin said the down-Island town meetings were a lesson in keeping things simple.
“We didn’t win,” he said. “But I am very encouraged by the fact that the conversation is ongoing. And I think the people who got this going feel, that however flawed the process may have been, we are committed to not letting the conversation die.”
Comments
"Year-round" housing. How do
Jane Edgartown"Year-round" housing. How do you define that? Someone who MUST live in that house, apartment, high-rise, development, tent for 365 days of the year? Or, perhaps 11 months of the year? Or, maybe someone who goes to Florida for up to 6 months and returns to spend a total of 6 months and 1 day in Massachusetts on the island, therefore having to file taxes as a Mass resident?
Would you have to check in with the Housing Bank for permission if you want to leave the island for a day, a week, a month or 6 months so you wouldn't lose your dwelling?
So the three towns that would
Mark EdgartownSo the three towns that would provide 75% of the funding get 1 vote each in the housing bank...seems like down island taxpayers would be disproportionately supporting this initiate and get screwed in the process. Too much bureaucracy and not enough focus on managing the existing tax burden on residents.
the housing bank is not the
Tisbury resident Tisburythe housing bank is not the only instance where down island towns get 1 vote each equal to up island while providing most of the money. Check out the high school. Tisbury and oak bluffs provide approx 55%of the budget and in the case of the E&D debate have 1 vote each. Permitting up island to make all the decisions while providing he smallest amount of money to the school. Time for some serious conversations
Down-island residents should
Against this Housing BankDown-island residents should lobby their up-island friends and relatives to vote down this legislation. The terms and requirements are unclear. Tisbury town counsel was unable to clarify voters' questions, and was then directly contradicted by advocates of the warrant.
No one should sign a contract whose terms are unclear and subject to "We can fix all of that later, just sign on the dotted line now!"
The legislation is ill thought out, was created with the support of a single interest group, behind the backs of island selectmen, and will be a noose around down-island towns' necks if Aquinnah and Chilmark pass it.
Furthermore, the "this is a one-time chance; this offer expires at midnight" argument is straight out of the encyclopedia and used-car salesman's book. Oh, I can already hear the outraged exclamations "These are all good people!!" Well, so am I! That is neither here nor there. Focus on the facts of *this* legislation, not the personalities and emotional arm twisting.
To follow on Jane’s comment,
Against WTTo follow on Jane’s comment: Will working people who already own homes and struggle to keep them be required to pay additional taxes in order to support this incomplete proposal? Taxes that will facilitate state-of-the-art new housing projects while said taxpayer attempts to hold onto the moldy, or barely functional place they’ve got? Will these struggling, working homeowners be considered in ways they feel is fair?
I’m year-round, from West Tisbury, consider myself progressive and community-oriented, and will vote against this current measure in any way I can. I hope you’ll join me.
I’m all for the discussion, but hate having my arm twisted to enter it. There is good reason we should be working on this, and great reason to be clear and cautious about forming additional layers of governance and tax collecting. Many of the folks in my town who would have voted this down were either working or otherwise engaged in keeping their households functioning.
Great appreciations to Chuck Hodgkinson for his tireless service to our town and for leaving us with such a thoughtful letter of dissent on this matter as he steps off the fin com.
The opportunity was for a
Abby Normal The RockThe opportunity was for a newly created, expanded rooms tax, that does offer newly "found funds" to be allocated specifically to housing. Approximately 77 percent of the people on this island, live in the three down island towns. Most of the housing will be in those three towns. The Housing Bank said the towns will have ultimate approval authority. It was not soundly defeated in Tisbury, it was lost by 40 votes. Edgartown is continuing the dialogue. Only Oak Bluffs "soundly" defeated it.
50% funded by the “newly
Against WT50% funded by the “newly “found funds.””
Looks like counting chickens before they hatch and creating further commitments from there in very ambiguous ways, albeit with good intentions.
The funds are anticipated to
Abby Normal The RockThe funds are anticipated to exceed current levels significantly. Also, voters will have time to evaluate the newly created cash flow before making a final ballot vote to commit.
So the chickens are estimated, conservatively, if you looked at the formula, and most likely the expanded rooms tax will exceed the estimates. At some point the island must decide if it wants a portion of housing year round and of that, some is "afordable" at different income levels.
It is not a hand out, but a hand up.
The “newly found” funds
Mark EdgartownThe “newly found” funds argument does not hold water when taxes are rising and towns are forced to have budget overrides. Tax money is fungible and when you are already struggling to fund existing budgets, any new revenue would be better served to alleviate the burden already being placed on tax payers. Lowering the tax burden and improving island infrastructure improves the standard of living.
" It was not soundly defeated
Not for Housing Bank" It was not soundly defeated in Tisbury, it was lost by 40 votes. "
What? Excuse me, it was "soundly" defeated in Tisbury.
Just because there was a long discussion and lots of confusion emanating from the unclear four-page wording of the warrant article language doesn't vitiate the result of the vote in any way.
In my book, 115-75 = *soundly* and clearly defeated.
Furthermore, defeated is defeated if you subscribe to the basic tenets of democratic process. I sense a major housing advocate behind this comment. Please note that ca. 66% of Tisbury's Community Preservation Act funds are virtually earmarked for affordable housing year after year. Actually, some residents of the town would like more of those funds to be used elsewhere, as the Act made claer that the funds should be used for historic prerservatoin, the environemnt, and housing. The Act does not prioritize housing but Tisbury has been doing so for years now.
Furthermore, please note that this housing bank legislation is specifically *not* for affordable housing---this was explained to Tisbury voters very clearly and loudly by Mr. Robert Sawyer. It is for "year-round housing," whatever that means.
An island wide housing bank
William Edg.An island wide housing bank is a terrible idea and will cause inter-town fighting for decades. First, there is the funding disparity. Equal voting with unequal contribution is going to be one cause of difficulty. The second and possibly more important difficulty is millions will be raised or be borrowed against future income and the tendency will be to create big projects. Where? Can they force a town to take a project that a town does not want? Local control is important and this housing bank idea takes away local control because four or five towns could over rule the host town that may not want a project of a particular size or location. There is no provision for a town to opt out of the housing bank and there is no defined end to the housing bank tax. All bad.
Only a fool would not listen
Bob EdgartownOnly a fool would not listen to their lawyers advice and so far we are not fools. When you have one of the most respected lawyers who was paid by tax payers for a analysis of this document tell you it is flawed you should listen. Most projects that are put on town warrants by petition are overly costly and not well thought out. This one is no exception. Also to a comment from above I have been saying for years we are building luxury affordable housing here. We should be building more units with the money we have and not building a nicer home than I live in.
I do not appreciate the "dig"
homeowner west tilburyI do not appreciate the "dig" in this article articulating what proponents of the housing bank argue: that seasonal rentals are a cause of the affordable housing shortage. An obvious alternative view is that the seasonal housing market is an indispensable boon to the island economy and has been for decades. Many summer people and year-rounders rent their homes out to make ends meet. The seasonal rental market contributes to the island economy and provides wages for those who cannot afford to rent or buy a home of their own. The antagonism inherent in this "dig" does not help to further an important goal which is to make renting and/or owning a home affordable to more people. Furthermore, let's get real. What would the island economy and tax base look like without the seasonal housing market? Lack of affordable housing is not a unique problem. We are seeing homelessness, increasing rents and housing costs rising all over the USA. And the "causes" for that are very far removed from the seasonal housing market. It seems to me that a lot more understanding is required and one way to get to that is to stop attacking one's neighbors.
Thank you for your comment,
Mark EdgartownThank you for your comment, so many are too quick to demonize the seasonal home owner. I would love to know how much of the islands GDP is directly from seasonal home owners and vacationers. Without them there would be no economy on MV, whaling fell off the earth many years ago!
Thank you "Homeowner" for
A Neighbor TisburyThank you "Homeowner" for posting your thoughts. I totally agree and also don't appreciate the "dig" in this article blaming seasonal rentals as the cause of the affordable housing shortage. The seasonal rental market is definitely a boon to the island economy and has provided a great income for island businesses, workers, homeowners and towns. It would be a devastating loss for the island if property owners just decided not to rent anymore. I feel the antagonism in this dig as well. It is not helpful and only gives those off island property owners a good reason to stop providing the thousands of summer rentals that support the island's economy so well. The affordable housing problem has been created by island property owners that charge and profit from those unaffordable prices for rent and real estate. As a summer resident and off island property owner who has loved vacationing on the Vineyard for almost 50 years, I would just like to be considered a valued part of the island community, treated fairly as a neighbor and not blamed for the affordable housing problem. It is a growing problem throughout the country and needs to be managed in each community. I choose not to rent my home or support the affordable housing bank. The new income gained from the short term rental tax should go to each town to support their budgets in ways decided on by their residents. It could provide property tax relief for all property owners, funding for town projects like affordable housing, schools and expensive equipment. This funding should not be mandatory for a housing bank or managed by people that are not connected with the towns. Vote "No" for the affordable housing bank.
Advocates for the housing
Al Reis TisburyAdvocates for the housing bank need to smell the coffee here- this is like the photo negative of Sally Fields “You like me- you really like me!” Oscar speech. The community really doesn’t like this plan.
The sad truth is very few
charlie callahan so boston/edgartownThe sad truth is very few people really want to see affordable housing .It's case of; I got mine ,but I don't want you too close to my house. It's called NIMBY and it's all over this island
Add new comment