Compare the real
data to George Tremblay’s imaginary numbers
This book is NOT on George Tremblay's reading list. He prefers to make up his own facts. Why the tin foil hat? Tremblay insulted one of my colleagues by calling her "the lady in the tin foil hat." He either didn't get Ron Areglado's memo, or he didn't look in the mirror. |
By
Will Collette
HousingWorksRI
just released the 2012 edition of its Housing Fact Book, the same week as
the rollout of CCA Town Council candidate George
Tremblay’s fictionalized version.
HousingWorksRI
is Rhode Island’s leading authority on affordable housing, and its annual
report is commonly accepted around the state as the primary book for people who
want the truth about affordable housing, as opposed to Tremblay’s overcooked
version done according to the Charlestown Citizens Alliance’s (CCA’s) recipe.
You
can view or download the entire Housing Fact Book for free by clicking
here.
On
page 19, you’ll see a full page of data on affordable housing in Charlestown.
There are also full pages on the other three towns – Richmond, Hopkinton and
Exeter – covered in George Tremblay’s “study.”
Click to enlarge, or download the whole book here. |
Just
looking at Charlestown’s data, you’ll find some interesting facts that you
won’t find in George Tremblay’s report.
For
example, there are no affordable housing units for the elderly in
Charlestown. In Tremblay’s apocalyptic report, George raises the specter of
hordes of elderly millionaires who are poised to invade Charlestown to use the
proceeds from their huge retirement savings accounts to buy elderly affordable
housing as investments.
Sheer
fantasy.
In
fact, there are only 69 affordable housing units in Charlestown and, of those,
53 are listed as reserved for persons with special needs. They are referring to
the two facilities
located off South County Trail that provide assisted living and
transitional housing for persons who have suffered traumatic brain injury, many
of them veterans who were injured in Iraq or Afghanistan. This housing is not
your typical affordable housing setting, but one that is unique and highly
specialized.
Only
16 units of affordable housing for families exist in Charlestown. And, for the
CCA, that’s 16 units too many. Planning Commissar Ruth Platner, who is running
for another term on the Planning Commission – if she wins, she’ll be going for
22 years on the Planning Commission – breaks
out in hives at the very thought of housing for families, since that term
“family” usually implies “children” and children are, in the view of Platner
and the CCA, parasites.
Think I’m exaggerating? Click
here.
Other
facts you’ll find in the actual Fact Book (as opposed to Tremblay’s fictional
account): The average private sector wage in Charlestown is $39,572 per year.
Here's Ruth Platner's nightmare |
According
to the Fact Book, Charlestown needs to add 280 units (rental or owned) of
affordable housing to meet the state mandate.
This does not mean – as the CCA
would have you believe – that Charlestown has to build 280 new units, since the law allows this goal to be achieved
by reusing or rehabilitating existing housing.
Download this Fact Book for free. Click here. |
Under the CCA’s control of Charlestown government, we’ve made
almost no progress toward complying with the law.
But
according to George Tremblay, this is not a problem. Why? Because he, and the
CCA, says so.
The
CCA is banking on getting the Rhode Island General Assembly to either repeal
the state’s affordable housing law or allow Charlestown to count homes whose
values have fallen below $225,000 as “affordable” even though there are people
living in them who are not too happy about how much home equity they have lost. They're hoping, like every other homeowner, that the slow rebound in the housing market will give them back some of their lost equity when their home values go back up.
The
CCA “solution” to affordable housing has several key elements, including
defying or ignoring state law, expecting that the state will declare
Charlestown to be “special” and thus exempt from the law, or getting the state
to repeal the law because Charlestown doesn’t like it.
Not only that, the CCA has been trying to get other rural towns to join in its revolt
against the state law, but without success. That could be due to other towns
doing so much better at complying with the law than Charlestown.
None
of the CCA’s approaches are responsible – indeed, I’d call them radical and
reckless. None of these approaches address the real needs of Charlestown
citizens.