new 270 unit complex proposed

Marshfield related issues.
Forum rules
Please Click Here To View Rules ---- To contact the administrator please email admin@southshoreforums.com.
Post Reply
Gidget
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mar Mon 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield, MA, USA

new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Gidget » Jul Thu 07, 2016 9:05 am

What do people think about the 270 unit 40B unit proposed on Commerce Way? Personally, I am stunned by the size of this complex. This will have a huge impact on this town. The traffic, the schools and overall cost of adding so many residents to the town. Also only 10% is considered affordable and not too affordable at that. I have long felt that 40B is a total scam and makes a few developers very very rich. And does offer little relief to people looking for reasonable rents. I do agree that there needs to be something done to assist people in finding a decent place to live at a decent rent. However, this will not do the trick. What do you think?

Inglewood1
Tourist
Tourist
Posts: 70
Joined: Jul Wed 06, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Inglewood1 » Jul Thu 07, 2016 10:01 am

image.jpg
image.jpg (22.04 KiB) Viewed 978 times
The Marshfield Housing Authority MMMA Ethics Investigation & Cantwell's Corner ; Inspector general cites waste, fraud and abuse in 40B
By Micah Flores / Wicked Local

State Inspector General Gregory Sullivan believes that Massachusetts’ affordable housing program, Chapter 40B, started out in 1969 as a noble program.

“Instead of the government building projects of concentrated housing in neighborhoods, which then became the bad part of town,” Sullivan said during a recent visit to Marshfield with Democratic state Rep. Jim Cantwell, whose district includes precincts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in Scituate. “Massachusetts passed a law to encourage private developers to build affordable and non-affordable housing in the same project.”

The program worked well for a lot of years and most of the developers who used it were not-for-profits, he said.

“But about 12 years ago, this little program came onto the radar screen of big-time developers, including national developers,” Sullivan said.

While the majority of these developers play by the rules, Sullivan said a select few saw Chapter 40B, and its allowances for developers to bypass local planning and zoning if the project was more than 25 percent affordable and the town had less than 10 percent affordable housing, as a “loophole you could drive a truck through.”

“It was a government-authorized law that was basically not being enforced. There was not any form of oversight at all,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan said his office, which was created to help investigate waste, fraud and abuse, has been dumbfounded as to the extent in which the program as been allowed to operate without any checks and balances. This became apparent, Sullivan said, when his office audited 10 40B cost certification projects.

Sullivan said he had approached the state agency that oversees the projects — the Department of Housing and Community Development, or DHCD — and asked to see a random sample of cost certifications.

“We went in, and in six of the 10 developments we identified, more than $7 million was owed to the cities and towns,” he said.

While some of those cases have settled, Sullivan said others are still in the process.

Land Flip 101

Sullivan said an example of the basic methodology of what his office calls a fraud is as follows.

A developer buys a piece of land for $500,000, and then sells that land to itself for $10 million, creating a new company or entity in order to do so. Developers are allowed to make up to 20 percent of the project’s cost in profit, and anything more than that is supposed to go back to the city or town, Sullivan said. However, in Chapter 40B’s history, he said only $15,000 has ever been reported as going back to any town or city.Thanks for the Memory's Bob Hope

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Bridges » Jul Thu 07, 2016 9:57 pm

Gidget wrote:What do people think about the 270 unit 40B unit proposed on Commerce Way? Personally, I am stunned by the size of this complex. This will have a huge impact on this town. The traffic,
270 units. So how many cars? Maybe 400? Suppose they all decided to leave in a short time period (which is highly unrealistic, of course).
All the intersections involved are already gated by traffic lights. Wouldn't screw up traffic on 139. At all.

Now stand on the side of 139 during rush hour, and count how long it takes for 400 cars to go by. Didn't take very long, did it?
In what kind of odd scenario do you foresee that many additional cars causing gridlock? Realistically, they ain't all driving around at once..and even if they were, I think the effect would be negligible.
the schools and overall cost of adding so many residents to the town. Also only 10% is considered affordable and not too affordable at that.
The BIG point is, it gets us from like 5.6% affordable housing units in town, to like 8.5%. If we get to to 10% threshold of affordable housing units in town, we are back in the driver's seat when it comes to future 40B proposals.

Over 40 cities and town have already reached that threshold. As Rocco recently said, some towns embrace it, and some don't.
I have long felt that 40B is a total scam and makes a few developers very very rich. And does offer little relief to people looking for reasonable rents.
How do you figure? It does get more affordable units built, that ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOT GET BUILT OTHERWISE. Demand for affordable housing is clearly outstripping supply in most municipalities.
I do agree that there needs to be something done to assist people in finding a decent place to live at a decent rent. However, this will not do the trick. What do you think?
You can't just say "I support affordable housing (in theory). But I have no better plan to build any".

Some units are better than no units. And I don't see the law going away any time soon. You can rail about it all you want, but the sooner we get to the 10% threshold, the sooner we control our own destiny.
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4612
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Joseph » Jul Thu 07, 2016 11:35 pm

...the sooner we get to the 10% threshold, the sooner we control our own destiny.
It's a statement that goes with:

"War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."

Words that are so - 'Bridgesque'.
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Bridges » Jul Fri 08, 2016 7:20 am

Do you actually have anything factual or substantive to say on the subject, Joseph?

No? didn't think so - you never do. You are straight from the Trump playbook - long on personal attacks, and woefully short on substance or specifics. :roll:
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

Inglewood1
Tourist
Tourist
Posts: 70
Joined: Jul Wed 06, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Inglewood1 » Jul Fri 08, 2016 8:17 am

Cantwell Corner ( Destiny Place Project - Enterprise Park 2018 , 100 % Allocated 2016
image.jpg
image.jpg (17.96 KiB) Viewed 877 times
) HOW TO SOLVE THE HOUSING GLUT: SHIP POOR PEOPLE INTO ABANDONED SUBURBS AND PRIVATIZE INNER-CITY PROJECTS
By Yasha Levine
How about this for a plan for sprucing up our nation’s crumbling housing projects: ship folks out to the subprime suburbs, privatize their apartment buildings and hand them over to real estate developers. That’s what T.A. Frank, a New America Foundation think tank shill, thinks Los Angeles needs to do with Jordan Downs, a notoriously dilapidated and crime-wracked project in Watts:

He lays out his idea in a recent LA Times op-ed:

Not that Jordan Downs and its inhabitants should be left behind. Here’s a better way to spend $1 billion in Watts: Have the agency buy every family in Jordan Downs a $300,000 renovated house nearby, and you’ve spent $210 million. That leaves a clean $790 million for more law enforcement, new and improved schools and so much more.

As for Jordan Downs itself, the city could help plug its deficit and get additional residential units into Watts by selling the complex to a builder who comes up with a blueprint for pleasant, affordable, market-rate housing.

Jordan Downs sounds like a nightmare. It is mostly occupied by single women and their children and isn’t safe in just about every way. Life here seems like its been lifted from The Wire:

For years, the Grape Street Crips claimed the project as their turf. The gang’s hold was so pernicious — and the housing authority’s management so bad — that until a few years ago, gang members had seized some apartments and used them for drug dealing, prostitution and even dog fighting.

Sounds bleak, but not as bleak as what T.A. Frank and his corporate “free market with a smile” overlords want to unleash on LA’s urban poor, if given the chance. See, Frank may seem like he’s a nice fella—he’s played in an indie band, according to his profile, wears ironic Elvis Costello glasses and probably has a quirky sense of humor—but it does not change the fact that he’s a mean, free market segregationist. Just like that comb-over-in-training does not change the fact that he’s got one hell of a mean receding hairline.



Moving the poor out of the inner-city to enjoy an idyllic suburban existence may sound all cozy and wholesome like, but only if you’ve never set foot in one of these “nearby” exurb cities T.A. talks about. I’ve been living in one for the past 8 months, and let me tell you that it ain’t no fun, just ghetto.

My adopted home of Victorville, California, a McTractHome paradise on the edge of the Mojave Desert 100 miles east of LA, has a buttload of crime, non-existent employment options, racial isolation and a gestapo police presence—just like the real ghetto. True, people here have bigger houses, but they trade them for 50 miles of desert and a 6,000 ft. mountain buffering them from civilization. If all poor people lived this far away, Americans would really stop giving a [expletive] about what happens to them. Outta sight, outta mind.

Not that this segregation by exile to [expletive] isn’t happening already. I’ve been watching this population transfer ever since I moved out to Victorville last spring. A lot of it has to do with Section 8 vouchers, a rent subsidy program that allows low-income families to rent on the open market rather than stay in public housing projects. Section 8 vouchers act as replacements for those grey government-owned apartment blocks for the poor, which are being torn down by the tens of thousands every year all over the country and replaced with new, non-public housing developments.

Here’s a NY Times article from last summer explaining our country’s public housing demolition craze :

[C]ritics of the demolitions worry about the toll on residents, who must qualify for vouchers, struggle to find affordable housing and often move to only slightly less impoverished neighborhoods. Especially in a troubled economy, civil rights groups say, uprooting can lead to homelessness if more low-income housing is not made available. Lawsuits have been filed in many other cities, generally without success, that claim that similar relocations violate residents’ civil rights and resegregate the poor.

The federal government has advocated variations of this approach for several decades, particularly since President Bill Clinton began the Hope VI program in the 1990s to disperse residents from centralized projects. Atlanta may be the furthest along, but its plans to demolish buildings, relocate residents and work with private developers to gentrify destitute neighborhoods are being mirrored across the country in cities like Chicago, Detroit, Miami and New Orleans.

Over all, 195,000 public housing units have met the wrecking ball across the country since 2006, and over 230,000 more units are scheduled for demolition, according to the Housing and Urban Development Department.

It seems that the segregation process has been speeding up, with Section 8 voucher holders fanning out across Southern California looking for the cheapest housing markets. That’s where Victorville and cities like it on the periphery of suburbia come in. They are the only places Section 8 families kicked out of the projects can afford.

I’m still trying to understand the political/business forces driving suburban segregation, but I have hunch that we’ll be hearing more people coming out with Frank’s message. After all, pushing the poor out into the exurbs would solve a lot of problems with one simple action: you’d get rid of the housing surplus (by unloading houses that no one wants anyway onto the government) and privatize valuable public land—and you’d do it all for the “benefit” of the poor and disenfranchised. Now that’s free market efficiency at its best.

I’ll have some more updates on this. Meanwhile, you can read my 21st century ghetto article from back in July:

Gidget
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mar Mon 18, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield, MA, USA

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Gidget » Jul Fri 08, 2016 10:22 am

Bridges:
Please correct me if I am wrong but I understood that the affordable housing piece only stands for 10 YEARS. Ocean Shores must be half way through that 10 year time frame. If this is right then we are back in the hole after 10 years. I hope I am incorrect but that piece of AH should be changed in order for it to make sense. If you think a 270 unit proposal will have minimal impact on this town then you are underestimating the number of people living in each unit. This is not an over 55 project. Please don't make this a personal attack as I fully understand the need for ordinary people to have a reasonably priced, decent place to live.
This town can ill afford more expenses imposed on its tax base. Our property taxes due to the renovated high school is going through the roof. And the traffic at peak times is unbelievable. Can we afford a 700-1000 more people right now?
Now if the AH piece was permanent; I might be amenable to it.

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Bridges » Jul Fri 08, 2016 12:40 pm

Gidget wrote:Bridges:
Please correct me if I am wrong but I understood that the affordable housing piece only stands for 10 YEARS. Ocean Shores must be half way through that 10 year time frame. If this is right then we are back in the hole after 10 years. I hope I am incorrect but that piece of AH should be changed in order for it to make sense.
Where did you read that? I can't find it mentioned on the CHAPA web site: https://www.chapa.org/chapter-40b

or in the project plans: http://www.townofmarshfield.org/Collate ... .16_v2.pdf

So where did you get that info?
If you think a 270 unit proposal will have minimal impact on this town then you are underestimating the number of people living in each unit. This is not an over 55 project. Please don't make this a personal attack as I fully understand the need for ordinary people to have a reasonably priced, decent place to live.
Where did I personally attack you? At all? You asked for opinions, I gave mine.
This town can ill afford more expenses imposed on its tax base.
Umm - won't those new people pay taxes to the town? They are not tax exempt. Oh wait - on checking, these are rental units. But so what - then the property owner pays the taxes, not the renter. But taxes still get paid.
Our property taxes due to the renovated high school is going through the roof.
What can I tell you. It needed to be done.
And the traffic at peak times is unbelievable.
:shock: Where? Not on the recently widened 139 stretch. Traffic there is now flowing better than it has at any time in the 28 years I have been living in town. The State widening that stretch of road was a HUGE improvement.
And that stretch of 139 is where most of these folks will be driving to get in and out of town.

As I said, stand on the side of that stretch of 139 during peak periods, like I asked you to do, and count how long it takes for 400 cars to go by. I think you might be shocked at how quickly that happens. 400 cars, on that stretch of roadway (which is already gated by traffic lights at Roche Bros and Enterprise Drive), is a drop in the bucket. It's down in the noise. and realistically, people in the new project will come and go in drips and drabs. So the extra traffic will REALLY be down in the noise. Not noticeable.

The problem is, you folks are fear driven. I am data driven - you should be too.
Can we afford a 700-1000 more people right now?
Now if the AH piece was permanent; I might be amenable to it.
I agree with you on that point. I have a problem with the AH piece not being permanent (or much longer than 10 years). I will do some digging on that point.
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

clover
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1434
Joined: Oct Fri 19, 2007 10:52 am

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by clover » Jul Fri 08, 2016 2:22 pm

Gidget wrote:Please correct me if I am wrong but I understood that the affordable housing piece only stands for 10 YEARS.
Gidget, the affordable restrictions must run at least 30 years.

User avatar
Bridges
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 11302
Joined: Aug Sat 05, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Bridges » Jul Fri 08, 2016 3:13 pm

And 30 years I am fine with. I'd prefer permanent affordable units, but developers need some incentive too...
Scituate BOS, BU Prof and scientist Rick Murray: The only real answer is retreat. I feel for these people...They inherited their house from their great grandmother or spent a lot of money to buy it. But...we are fighting a losing battle with the sea.

Eric K
Transient
Transient
Posts: 449
Joined: Jul Wed 29, 2015 11:22 am

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Eric K » Jul Fri 08, 2016 5:01 pm

Am I understanding this right?
After 30 years those affordable units can then go on the market as non affordable units?

Eric K
Transient
Transient
Posts: 449
Joined: Jul Wed 29, 2015 11:22 am

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Eric K » Jul Fri 08, 2016 10:25 pm

I think the parking plans calls for 525 parking spots. Keep in mind deliveries, visitors and whatever else.
Talking to someone in town the schools expect a drop off of student enrollment in future. You have to wonder if these projects come alive because of that.

bobkat
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 6923
Joined: May Mon 22, 2000 1:01 am
Location: just above Vinebrook

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by bobkat » Jul Fri 08, 2016 10:28 pm

Eric K wrote:Am I understanding this right?
After 30 years those affordable units can then go on the market as non affordable units?
Eric K look at what you posted does not make sense. First units that fall under 40B are set at 80% of the market value. So after 30 years the 40B is taken off the 25% of units that was 40B. Then all units will rent at market value. Who knows what the market will be in 30 years. So they are going to build 270 units.68 units will be 40B.

Eric K
Transient
Transient
Posts: 449
Joined: Jul Wed 29, 2015 11:22 am

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Eric K » Jul Fri 08, 2016 11:04 pm

I know what I wrote and you answered my question for the most part bobcat. So, if that's the case you will never meet your ten percent quota over time? Would I be correct in that statement?

Inglewood1
Tourist
Tourist
Posts: 70
Joined: Jul Wed 06, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Inglewood1 » Jul Fri 08, 2016 11:19 pm

" Drawing a player in "

21,Blackjack ! Dealer Wins. When the mark arrives at the three-card Monte game, it is likely that a number of other players will be seen winning and losing money at the game. The people engaged in playing the game are often shills, confederates of the dealer who pretend to play so as to give the illusion of a straight gambling game.

As the mark watches the game, they are likely to notice that they can follow the queen more easily than the shills seem to be able to, which sets them up to believe that they can win the game.

Eventually, if the mark enters the game, they will be cheated through any number of methods. An example of a simple scheme involves a dealer and two shills:
image.jpg
image.jpg (21.96 KiB) Viewed 746 times
The dealer and shills act as if they do not know each other. The mark will come upon a game being conducted in a seemingly clandestine manner, perhaps with somebody "looking out" for police. The dealer will be engaged in his role, with the first shill betting money. The first shill may be winning, leading the mark to observe that easy money may be had, or losing, leading the mark to observe that they could beat the game and win money where the first shill is losing it.
While the mark is watching, the second shill, acting as a casual passerby like the mark, will casually engage a mark in conversation regarding the game, commenting on either how easily the first shill is winning or how they are losing money because they cannot win at what appears to the mark to be a simple game. This conversation is engineered to implicitly encourage the mark to play, and it is possible the second shill could resort to outright encouragement.
If the mark does not enter the game, the dealer may claim to see police and will fold up the operation and restart it elsewhere, or will wait for another mark to appear on the scene.
If the mark enters the game, they may be "had" (cheated) by a number of techniques. A common belief is that the operator may let the mark win a couple of bets to suck them in, but this is virtually never true. In a true Monte scam, the mark will never win a single bet, as it is not necessary. There are too many ways for a well-run mob to attract the marks, suck them in, and convince them to put money down.
When the dealer and the shills have taken the mark, a lookout, the dealer, or a shill acting as an observer will claim to have spotted the police. The dealer will quickly pack up the game and disperse along with the shills.Got any 3's ? Go Fish

clover
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1434
Joined: Oct Fri 19, 2007 10:52 am

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by clover » Jul Fri 08, 2016 11:47 pm

Eric K wrote:I know what I wrote and you answered my question for the most part bobcat. So, if that's the case you will never meet your ten percent quota over time? Would I be correct in that statement?
Never say never, but here's an example of how a town can end up chasing its tail. Pembroke Woods, a 240 unit complex, was finished in 2006 and was supposed to be the answer to Pembroke's prayers. ...And, BTW, don't you think that if enough cities and towns meet 10%, the law will just be changed to 15%?

May 2015:
"We're at 9.65 percent," Pembroke Town Administrator Ed Thorne said.

Thorne said in 2008 Pembroke was actually over the 10 percent marker, but the town had multiple affordable housing units lose their status. In addition, when the 2010 census came out, Thorne said Pembroke's number of housing units went from 5,834 to 6,477.

Between having some units no longer qualify as affordable and a general increase in housing, the town slipped below 10 percent.

http://pembroke.wickedlocal.com/article ... 1459112491

Eric K
Transient
Transient
Posts: 449
Joined: Jul Wed 29, 2015 11:22 am

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Eric K » Jul Sat 09, 2016 1:00 am

The more you learn. Scary for all of us.

Inglewood1
Tourist
Tourist
Posts: 70
Joined: Jul Wed 06, 2016 5:22 pm

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Inglewood1 » Jul Sat 09, 2016 6:58 am

image.jpg
image.jpg (49.46 KiB) Viewed 728 times
image.jpg
image.jpg (55.01 KiB) Viewed 728 times
Marshfield is no Arlington Mister Mugar ! :X =(( Contentious 40B law at center of Arlington Mugar battle
By Spencer Buell and Gerry Tuoti
arlington@wickedlocal.colm
Posted Jun 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM

A contentious state law is at the center of the battle in Arlington over the controversial plot of East Arlington land owned by the Mugar family.

Arlingtonians and town officials, almost to a person, oppose the plans to build a 219-unit apartment complex in the area, which is prone to flooding and plagued by traffic woes. But due to a decades-old Massachusetts affordable housing statute, the Mugars and their partners, Oaktree Development, may be able to build it against the town’s will.

Chapter 40B, a 1969 state statute, allows developers to effectively override certain municipal zoning bylaws as long as at least 25 percent of the proposed units are affordably priced and reserved for families making less than 80 percent of the community’s median income.

The Mugar project, said Arlington Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine, is an example of how 40B can be bad for communities.

“In a lot of cases 40B doesn’t work because it takes away local control and local power,” Chapdelaine said.

According to the Citizens Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA), Chapter 40B is responsible for 1,300 developments, 64,000 units and 34,000 affordable units of housing.

But another result of 40B, its detractors say, is that developments are often built at a higher density than the local zoning codes otherwise allow. If a local zoning board denies a permit for a 40B project, the developer can appeal the decision to the state’s Housing Appeals Committee.

If 10 percent of all housing in a community meets affordability requirements, then that city or town becomes appeal-proof. The majority of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts are short of the target.

In Arlington, only 5.64 percent of housing, or 1,121 units, qualifies as affordable. Low-income families that want to live in Arlington, many of whom grew up in town, struggle to find home prices that match their ability to pay, a regional issue amid rising rents.

There are currently 48 cities and towns above the 10 percent threshold, and another 18 above 9 percent. An additional 21 communities have affordable housing comprising more than 8 percent of their housing stock.

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4612
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: new 270 unit complex proposed

Post by Joseph » Jul Sat 09, 2016 8:44 am

Some things to remember:
The term "Affordable Housing" means housing that is under government control. It does NOT mean housing that is within a cost range that is affordable to the consumers. There is more housing that is affordable to buyers than there is 'Affordable Housing.' Of course, they don't tell you that 'Affordable Housing' is a form of Social Engineering and forcing of 'Smart Growth' applications that can almost overnight change the political, social and physical character and, the environment, of an area. (Of course who can object to 'Smart Growth' or a change to their area or tax burden? That would make you a 'narrow minded NIMBY bigot,' right?)

The magic '10%' number is not a real target or goal. In terms of actual numbers of 'units', the number changes as the total number of units in a town, city or area changes. In a city with 10,000 units of housing, 1,000 is 10%. If the total goes up to 11,000, 1,100 is now the '10%'.

In an apartment complex, ALL of the units are counted towards the town's 'Affordable' tally - even if a third are actually controlled 'Affordable Housing.

'Affordable Housing' is now often designated as 'Affordable' in perpetuity. There is a good and a bad side to this.

There is precedent set that even if a town has 10% 'Affordable Housing' they are not free of the 40B law. 'Regional considerations' may come into play.
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Post Reply