Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

cyuirement Chapter 401 and proj overseeinq cost ccrlificaliuri zts tunded through the New Engl Fund or the Housinq StarCs Program has been unsuccessfiJ1. SpcciLic;illy, the Inspector General has advised <strong>Mass</strong>Housing's Executive Ilirector that Li] C is clear . . . that the cost, certificxLiun and monitoring process is 'hroken.'" LcLLer of Inspector General Gregory W. Su1liv;m dated Sept-ernher 13, 2006, RA Vol.1, 233. Specifical1.y with regard tu Ncw Enylar.ld Fund and Housing Starts projects, "reported developer profits were rout.ine1y and subsLantially understat.ed," resulting "j.n many cases . . . [in] profit windfa1l.s to the developers which deprived the respective municipalit.ies of the excess profits that should have bccn paid to the municipality under the regulat.ory 3greement.s ." - .Id. See also Letter of 1nspect.o.r General Sullj.van dated January 2, 2007 (detaj.li.ng res1.11 t.s of independent audit of a New hgland Furid project in Reading, finding gross understatcmcnt oL developer profit, i.mpermissiblc larid valuati ons, related-party t.ransactions, and other abuses), HA Vol .1, 236; and LeCLcr of Irispcctorr General. Sul.1 i.vari to Aaron Gornstein, Lxecutive 13i.rector OF CIIAPA, dated Dc.ccrriber 6, 2006, RA Vol .I, 247 (discussing CIIAPA's rriethodoloyy 34 n f 11 d
for cost. certification arid suggest.j ng that. such nicthodoloqy "could rcuulL in the transfer oL profits from a muinicipality's affnrdahlc LrusL fund to a devcloper' s pcrsonal. bank account .") . In l j qht. of the documented rcports by the. Cutnmonweal th's .Inspector General rcyarding the 1 ack oL the requi si te oversiyhL OF project financiriy arid developer proLiLccriny, the Board's election oi it.s own regulaLory documents is who 1 1 y j LIS L i f i ed . In sum, where there is no evidence thaL Lhe conditions perta i.ning to regu1,atory docuiocrits render the project "unecoriorriic"; and where each condition rcrlects the City's knowledge oi its affordabl e housing needs, and is suppurled by a valid local concern," khc HAC I.acked authority to alt-er or delc.Cc the condition. Further, where nothinq in G.L c. 40R or applicable requlations prohi bi.ts the Board from imposj ng conditions wit-h respect to regulatory documents (such as a deed rider, monitorinq service:: zyreement, or regulatory agreement), Lhu HAC was wiLhout. power to delete any siich condiLiori and t.he Trial <strong>Court</strong> erred in uphoI.dj.iig the IIAC. See 760 I:MR 31.06('/)
Page 1 and 2: ... COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS S
Page 3 and 4: C. Ucfendant Attitash Views, W C fa
Page 5 and 6: 0 0 r) I. * a 0 Simiuns v. Clcrk-Ma
Page 7 and 8: Statement of Issues Presented for R
Page 9 and 10: Decision. Ttic Fresidj-nq Of fic.cr
Page 11 and 12: I'roced~irc Act. See G.L.r: . 4I)D,
Page 13 and 14: t.o decide this case hy summary dec
Page 15 and 16: sucii hr>usi.ng uricconomj.r: 2nd w
Page 17 and 18: cniirli tioris imposed by ?.he boar
Page 19 and 20: (3 f c h Lhe HAC: in t.hat one at.
Page 21 and 22: showing that 1) iC reqi.iested a wa
Page 23 and 24: iiny such condiLion. The HAC is a h
Page 25 and 26: 0 0 0 a 0 a comprehensive pcrmit. a
Page 27 and 28: 'The HAC frames t.his care as prese
Page 29 and 30: 'The board of appeals shall request
Page 31 and 32: 111. The Trial CourL ... jmproperly
Page 33 and 34: . . .. specific statute that. the L
Page 35 and 36: e 0 rn a a rn 0 Conunittee on Urban
Page 37 and 38: 0 and Reqiil atory Agreement. tc; b
Page 39: document.s may be inconsi .?tent wi
Page 43 and 44: 0 e e e e e 0 a Inat L c r s ; res
Page 45 and 46: characterizing them as ":juperflwus
Page 47 and 48: and the Tr;.al CourL erred in uphol
Page 49 and 50: the Hoard WAS wilhj.n its aiuthoril
Page 51 and 52: CommiLlee’s authority and the TT-
Page 53 and 54: propriety of 53G iunds, tho SJC sta

Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?