Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1 and valuat iori, or f i nanci a1 docuiiicntation. Whi 1 e MdssHousinq may have i C s own pol.icies with respect. to such mat.ters, such policic- are not law. There is simply nri leqal basis for Massllousinq to irrtposc i L s policies on m y municipal ity.. Each of the above condiCions reflects t.he Ci.t.y' s assessment of affordhic housinq needs, and each is supported by a valid local concern. See ./GO CMR 31.. 06 ( ' I ) . FurLher, theire i.s no cviderice that the condition rcnders the project "uneconomic. " The HAC Lhus lacked authority Lo alt.elr or delete these conditions and the Trial Court erred in uphoiciirly Lhe HAC. D. The HAC erred in strikinq - ... Conditj.on 42 - ~ , - - -.-. Marketjnq. The Board's Decision requires Board approva 1 of t.he market-ing plan for the deve1,opment. PA Vol.1, 22. Thc HAC characterized thj s as "unwarranted iriterlcrerica" and struck this condition, irisisLiny instead or1 "a marketing pl all ap@roveci by MassHousing and supervised by the Monitoring Agent." HA Vol.1, 466. For Lhc reasons discussed j n secti.ons 1V.A-C above, the Board was withjn its aut-hurity under G.L. c. 40R in imposing t.his condition, and the IIAC had no power to strike it 40
and the Tr;.al CourL erred in upholding t.he HAC E. - The HAC erred iri sLrikinq . Condition 42 .- -. Monitoring . . . __ Aqent. The Board's Ilecision also requires Board approval of Che project's Monit.orj.ng AyenL, the entity responsible (among other tasks) for conductinq cost certi ficatiori lo ens~ire compliance with profiC limiCations, affordability restrictions, and other rcgulatory aspects UT the project. RA Vo1.3., 77. 'l'he HAC stnick this conditi-on, stating t.hat "appointmcnL of the Monitoring Agent [is] wit.hin the province of Massllousiny, but further, MassHousing's responsibility to supervj.se the work of the Monitoring Agent should no% be diluted by gi-ving thc Board vet.o power." RA V ol. 1, 466. 'The Board was well wi.thin j.ts authority Lo require approval of Lhe project's rrwriiloring agent. As discussed above, the Lnspector General has specifically rioLed t.he failure of designated monitoring agent.s to identify abuses of (;.I.,. c.4OU: "In the opinion of this Office, many rauriicipal.itics havc a false sense oi security t.hat effective cost certi.ficatinn monitoring and enforcement is being conducted by Ihe subsidizing agencies or1 their behalf. The rea1it.y is that. developers are takinq advaritage of a weak ovcrsiyht system and arc enriching themse1.ves at the expense of the municipalities and t-heir 41
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 and 40: document.s may be inconsi .?tent wi
Page 41 and 42: for cost. certification arid sugges
Page 43 and 44: 0 e e e e e 0 a Inat L c r s ; res
Page 45: characterizing them as ":juperflwus
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?