Those promoting the Bow Lane project are making some pretty contradictory statements, along with statements of protest about something no one really cares about…

Recently one of the partners posted an “explanation” of the situation, and ended it with this:

“In the end, there will be 93 apartments coming and in fact, much to the dislike of some people, they will all be workforce housing.”

1. Repeatedly during the process, the developers stated that any more than 25% of the units priced as Workforce Housing (WFH) would not be profitable for the builders. So how can 100% be profitable. They claimed they were not getting government money to subsidize the rents. Now, does this mean since they can’t build 120 units they are going to build 100% low-income housing, subsidized by our taxes?

2. In response to repeated requests by the Conservation Commission for alternatives with less wetland impact, applicants responded adamantly and definitively that there were “no reasonable alternatives that could result in a smaller project without wetland impact”. Hear the audio of that testimony below – but now magically such an option appears and there will be no impact with 94 untis? A local engineer then suggested at the same meeting (and we’ve now learned he was correct) that there were indeed reasonable alternatives. (He was then attacked at his job…)

Audio of TF Moran Engineer…

2. WFH is NO threat to any of us who oppose this project because no one cares what anyone is paying for their units. The quality and appearance of each will be exactly the same as 93 market priced units. Yet they keep harping on WFH as if that were the main objection to their project. So no, 93 “workforce” units would NOT be to the “dislike” of ANYONE.

3. They do keep missing the main objection which is what the “dislike” is really about — it is the size and appearance of the buildings and how inappropriate these would be for that particular spot. Period.

Without much effort, 1,045 people signed the petition against inappropriate high-density construction. This was after only a fraction of the townspeople were surveyed. Most who see the petition, sign it without hesitation… those who haven’t signed it, just haven’t seen it yet. That is a fact.

Workforce Housing is not the issue here, but it’s only a problem because it’s routinely used as an excuse to build multi-unit buildings in highly inappropriate places. Please refer to the law for what is required and what is not, and how calculations of affordable housing are made.

Unlike predatory developers who work in conjunction with the government, the townspeople are not willing to “sell” the look and feel of their town for ANY amount of promised tax revenues.