To the Editor:
On Nov. 8, Watertown voters will have a chance to approve the Community Preservation Act, which would provide funding for three kinds of projects in town: historic preservation, expanding and improving open space and recreational facilities, and providing affordable housing. These projects would benefit ALL residents of the community, and could be proposed by anyone. We strongly support approval of the CPA, both because we believe that it will enhance the quality of life in our town in many substantive ways, and also for a more personal reason: we have close friends who are homeless.
They are a family of seven. They were forced to move to the Boston area to obtain medical care for their son, afflicted with an extremely rare and life-threatening disease for which there is no permanent cure. The parents have spent their life savings to save their son. Now, even though both parents and some of the children are working, their combined income is insufficient to rent an apartment adequate for such a large family. Affordable housing for them is simply unavailable anywhere in the area.
And our friends are not alone. There are residents of Watertown sleeping in their cars. Requests for housing assistance are skyrocketing, according to Watertown’s Social Services Resource Specialist, the Helen Robinson Wright Fund at the First Parish, and the Marshall Home Fund, (which provides financial assistance to seniors). Applicants for apartments owned by the Watertown Housing Authority often wait many years before a unit becomes available. Public housing for the elderly is bursting at the seams, with long waiting lists as well.
It is true that there will be additional so-called “affordable” apartments offered within the new developments on Arsenal Street, but these units will be offered at the highest rents possible – about $1400.00/mth for a one-bedroom unit rented to a couple, and $1800.00 for a three-bedroom apartment rented to a family of four. For our homeless friends, $1800.00/mth would be entirely out of reach.
The availability of affordable housing is critical in maintaining the economic, cultural, and ethnic diversity that makes Watertown such a special place to live. Young people who grow up in town, some of whom are our firefighters, police officers, and teachers, should not be driven out of town by high housing costs. Passage of the CPA is our only hope for the creation of more truly affordable housing. The rental units on Belmont St. owned by Metro West Collaborative Development are a great example of how affordable units could be developed using CPA funds.
The vacant lot on Mt. Auburn St. opposite Baptist Walk, would be an ideal location for additional housing for the elderly. The old police station might also be considered for affordable housing development. There are many other opportunities for expanding our stock of affordable housing, but precious few funding mechanisms other than the CPA, federal and state funds having substantially dried up.
Many oppose the CPA in fear of hurting the chances for large-scale school renovation. There is no question that a first-rate school system is essential for our community. Years ago, we worked very hard to pass the debt exclusion override that built an addition to the Lowell School, renovated the Middle School, and made additional repairs across the system. And we will do this again in a heartbeat, if and when the need arises. But the opportunity to fund the CPA, and create more urgently needed housing, is on our doorstep right now. Our homeless friends cannot wait. We as a town cannot afford to wait. If the schools need extra money in the future, we, and countless other parents, teachers, and supporters of education will be there to help. But if we defer passage of the CPA, who will be there to advocate for the poor and economically disadvantaged? We urge a YES vote on Question 5 on November 8th.
Will and Susan Twombly
Marion Road
(Editor’s Note: the last letters about the Nov. 8 election will be run on Sunday Nov. 6, and must be submitted by Saturday, Nov. 5 at 5 p.m.)
Will,
You’re good man with good heart, and I consider you a friend. Unfortunately you are seriously misguided.
You are right, market rents are very high in Watertown. But what you’re suggesting is that we raise virtually rents of current Watertown renters (because when taxes go up, rents go up), in order subsidize the rents of people who more than likely don’t live here now. There can be no preference for Watertown renters…. so let’s not lie to people. So we’re not talking about apartments for our firefighters, policemen, etc…. So what you are really proposing is to make it less affordable and more likely that our firefighters, policemen, and so on, will have to move from Watertown.
So you propose purchasing a piece of taxable prime real estate across from Baptist Walk, that once developed could yield great revenue to the Town. You want to turn this into Publically Subsidized Housing… that’s what it is called Will… not Affordable Housing. It’s going to be Publically Subsidized Housing Project, on prime taxable real estate. So on top of the expenditure and the development costs, the taxpayers of Watertown will have to make up for the loss of tax revenue from that property, which means additional taxes again !!!!
So for a select few, most of whom don’t live in Watertown now, you want to make everyone else’s housing more expensive. That is really what you’re saying my friend.
I just learned there can be a local preference for affordable housing for up to 70% of the units. That is with or without CPA funds.
I stand corrected. Is this new legislation, as this was not the case before.
That said; I stand by the fact that the CPA increases the cost of housing for far more people, many if not most can’t afford it.
Further, the Town Employees that Mr. Twombly says could benefit from publically subsidized housing, more than likely don’t qualify in probably the vast majority of instances. They earn a respectable wage, commensurate or more so than their private sector equivalent; also enjoying generous benefits.
I don’t begrudge them, the handsome compensation they get. But I highly doubt Mr. Twomby’s claim that these are folks that will be living in any addition publically subsidized housing projects.
Wow. Thanks Charlie. It’s clear that our most challenged local residents will benefit from the CPA!
Yes, thanks Charlie for giving us useful information.
Yes, some will benefit from the CPA at the cost to others who can barely afford to live here now. Lets face the fact that it is a Win / Lose situation. For every winner there will be a loser. So, until there is is a Win / Win situation I say VOTE NO ON QUESTION 5!
I also believe that if this tax is approved we will have it forever as once people get their hands into your pockets they never want to take them out.
Dear Friends,
There are many very worthwhile charitable causes in this world. We all contribute to the best of our ability to those of most concern to us. I myself, however, would never want to have legislation passed that dictates to others the charitable causes I would like them to contribute to. People have differing priorities and differing resources available for their charitable contributions and this should be respected. While I admire and respect the concern of Will and Sue for the importance of affordable housing which they write about so clearly in their message, I do not think they have the right to tell me and other residents of Watertown via the CPA that we must contribute substantial amounts of money each year to their cause. This is a violation of my right and the rights of other Watertown residents to make our charitable contributions as we see fit. If Will and Sue want to work towards increasing the availability of affordable housing in Watertown they should find means other than the CPA and not try to violate the rights that people have to make their own voluntary charitable contributions. A NO vote on Question 5 is called for.
Bob Shore
Marion Road
Very eloquently stated Mr Shore.