I had a feeling this was going to happen... (Boston: loans, hotels)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by bigfatdude

Let's try again - how much tax revenue does a nonprofit-owned junkies hotel generate? And how much will this property transfer cost the taxpayers given the fact that approximately 80% of nonprofit funding comes from the government?

I don't think you really understand what this development actually is. You keep calling this a homeless shelter (or "junkie hotel"). It's not. It's actually quite different. Supportive housing for formerly homeless people is similar to other types of transitional housing. These units are longer term residences that require tenants to meet quite a bit of criteria (i.e. obtain and maintain employment, avoid criminal activity, sustain any additional services or supports [i.e. mental health or substance use treatment] that they're receiving, etc.). These types of supports are fairly selective and the people who are able to obtain them have generally come a long way towards getting back on their feet.

The units are not "free" like shelter beds. They usually require a contribution on the part of the tenant (depending on the program, up to 30% of their income) and the rest of the rent is subsidized through other channels such as Section 8 as well as state and municipal subsidies for homeless and/or disability rental assistance (will vary by tenant). All of that assistance is budgeted annually regardless of whether or not this project goes through.

Regarding the location, there's a significant benefit to having this type of housing in the heart of the city near employment centers. For people who have reentered the workforce, that benefit should be obvious. It's currently a nonprofit, I'm not sure why there's outrage over it remaining a nonprofit.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by bigfatdude

Resources like one bed for every 100 homeless who need one, and 100 drug dealers for every junkie? Because that’s the outcome you’re getting here - you could get 100 times the effectiveness if proceeds from the sale of the property to a private developer and resulting property tax revenue were used to build a facility where land does not cost seven figures per square inch and you don’t have a whole field army of dope peddlers standing by right outside the front door. Those “nonprofits” are nothing but real estate holding companies cheating the government out of billions of tax dollars every year. Same goes for all the churches.

This is just sheer ignorance.

You have to have these people near all the social services and public transit possible. They can't be in Norwood. They also need not be spending their time in Roxbury where there are many dealers and crime in general-hats not safe or ideal for them. Also, there are too many small children in Roxbury. The Back Bay has residents with doormen, solid police presence, security, insurance, and they're mostly young able-bodied, wealthy and they're CHOOSING to live there unlike many Roxbury residents. t's safer and more effective to put the homeless or addicted there than in Roxbury or the suburbs.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I don't think you really understand what this development actually is. You keep calling this a homeless shelter (or "junkie hotel"). It's not. It's actually quite different. Supportive housing for formerly homeless people is similar to other types of transitional housing. These units are longer term residences that require tenants to meet quite a bit of criteria (i.e. obtain and maintain employment, avoid criminal activity, sustain any additional services or supports [i.e. mental health or substance use treatment] that they're receiving, etc.). These types of supports are fairly selective and the people who are able to obtain them have generally come a long way towards getting back on their feet.

The units are not "free" like shelter beds. They usually require a contribution on the part of the tenant (depending on the program, up to 30% of their income) and the rest of the rent is subsidized through other channels such as Section 8 as well as state and municipal subsidies for homeless and/or disability rental assistance (will vary by tenant). All of that assistance is budgeted annually regardless of whether or not this project goes through.

Regarding the location, there's a significant benefit to having this type of housing in the heart of the city near employment centers. For people who have reentered the workforce, that benefit should be obvious. It's currently a nonprofit, I'm not sure why there's outrage over it remaining a nonprofit.

How does one not understand this?

[bigfatdude]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I don't think you really understand what this development actually is. You keep calling this a homeless shelter (or "junkie hotel"). It's not. It's actually quite different. Supportive housing for formerly homeless people is similar to other types of transitional housing. These units are longer term residences that require tenants to meet quite a bit of criteria (i.e. obtain and maintain employment, avoid criminal activity, sustain any additional services or supports [i.e. mental health or substance use treatment] that they're receiving, etc.). These types of supports are fairly selective and the people who are able to obtain them have generally come a long way towards getting back on their feet.

The units are not "free" like shelter beds. They usually require a contribution on the part of the tenant (depending on the program, up to 30% of their income) and the rest of the rent is subsidized through other channels such as Section 8 as well as state and municipal subsidies for homeless and/or disability rental assistance (will vary by tenant). All of that assistance is budgeted annually regardless of whether or not this project goes through.

Regarding the location, there's a significant benefit to having this type of housing in the heart of the city near employment centers. For people who have reentered the workforce, that benefit should be obvious. It's currently a nonprofit, I'm not sure why there's outrage over it remaining a nonprofit.

Exactly, two nonprofits or rather real estate holding companies masquerading as nonprofits. One dodged what would normally be a nine figure tax bill on the profit it made on the sale, the other leaves the taxpayers on the hook for what's probably the majority of the purchase price and will pay zero property taxes, all in the name of housing a few junkies. Like I said, heating the house by burning money. Taxpayer money, that is.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by bigfatdude

Exactly, two nonprofits or rather real estate holding companies masquerading as nonprofits. One dodged what would normally be a nine figure tax bill on the profit it made on the sale, the other leaves the developers on the hook for what's probably the majority of the purchase price and will pay zero property taxes, all in the name of housing a few junkies. Like I said, heating the house by burning money. Taxpayer money, that is.

Why don't you find some actual evidence (even an inclination) of graft/deception and get back to us. Otherwise, you're just hatin' and speculatin'.

stop acting like some did something to you. As the project advances-why dont you calculate how much this project cost you in taxes since its of such great concern.

[bigfatdude]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Why don't you find some actual evidence (even an inclination) of graft/deception and get back to us. Otherwise, you're just hatin' and speculatin'.

stop acting like some did something to you. As the project advances-why dont you calculate how much this project cost you in taxes since its of such great concern.

It’s hideous waste, not graft, though when it comes to nonprofits and their complete and utter lack of accountability I'm sure there's going to be plenty of graft as well. It goes without saying no private developer is buying the property out of the kindness of their heart and it will be the taxpayers footing the bill. Hundreds of millions of dollars for just a few beds. And not only that but the city won’t be collecting any property taxes, which over the lifetime of a property this valuable will easily add up to many hundreds of millions. That money could house and rehabilitate tens of thousands of those in need if spent rationally, but instead it’s being spent on a couple hundred beds, with all the drugs one could possible desire right outside the window. Everyone is raging about military spendings but at least we get that money back via the stock market, now what do we get in return for this other than piles of needles and random junkies accosting us on our way to and from work?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

They can't be in Norwood. They also need not be spending their time in Roxbury where there are many dealers and crime in general-hats not safe or ideal for them. Also, there are too many small children in Roxbury.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by bigfatdude

Exactly, two nonprofits or rather real estate holding companies masquerading as nonprofits. One dodged what would normally be a nine figure tax bill on the profit it made on the sale, the other leaves the taxpayers on the hook for what's probably the majority of the purchase price and will pay zero property taxes, all in the name of housing a few junkies. Like I said, heating the house by burning money. Taxpayer money, that is.

I mean, there are definitely good arguments to be made against tax-exempt entities. But I'm not sure why you're fixating on this one which would be replacing an existing tax-exempt with another to provide human services in the city. If I were going to make the anti tax-exemption argument, this wouldn't be my hill to die on. I'd probably start with the abundance of college and universities who own vast portions of the city. Harvard quite literally owns half of Allston. This is a drop in the bucket comparatively.

All of the money that would into the purchase of this is going to come from existing sources of funding for this type of project. Each fiscal year, federal, state, and city budgets allocate funding for projects such as this and interested parties have to apply and have it awarded to them. So those "taxpayer dollars" are already out there (or they will be in whichever fiscal year the developer actually starts applying for funding). If they don't go to this project, they'll go to another somewhere else. It's not as if derailing this development somehow prevents that money from being spent.

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

stop acting like some did something to you. As the project advances-why dont you calculate how much this project cost you in taxes since its of such great concern.

Certainly not enough to justify the keystrokes wasted in complaining about it so far...

[timberline742]

Who knew helping people that need help could generate such rage.

America, bless your heart.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Just saying maybe its not best to have any type of supportive housing service for the afflicted in an areas full of kids.

Nothing against the children of Roxbury lol.