Editor’s note: This commentary was submitted by Vermont Interfaith Action, a faith-based, grassroots coalition of congregations that works for systemic change and social justice for all Vermonters.
[M]organ True’s recent article, “Earlier Development Saga Casts Shadow on Town Center Plans,” makes some excellent points about the proposed Burlington Town Center, and the concerns residents have after dealing with Westlake. The grassroots community organization Vermont Interfaith Action (VIA) spearheaded opposition to the Westlake development in 2007, and as a leader in that group, I would like to highlight some legitimate and some now-moot concerns.
Retrovest, the developer of Westlake, was able to avoid building the inclusionary zoning units by breaking the project into three phases. They got approval for additional height based on the inclusionary zoning units, built the profitable parts of the project – the condos and the Marriott — and then cited structural and funding challenges to prevent them from building the inclusionary zoning units. This could not happen with the Burlington Town Center because the plan is to build the entire project at one time. The inclusionary zoning units will be on the seventh floor, and the more profitable units will be on floors 8-14, so it would be impossible to build the units that have a higher payback before building the inclusionary zoning units.
Although Miro Weinberger has been criticized for building too much, his background as a developer is a strong asset in this project.
Although it will not be possible to renege on the inclusionary zoning units the same way Retrovest did, VIA has great sympathy for Michael Long and the Coalition for a Livable City. The article expresses our joint concern nicely, “Long and other project opponents have questioned whether the unforeseen could scuttle the affordable housing promised at Burlington Town Center.” Sometimes it feels like addressing financial deceit in Vermont is like playing Whack-a-Mole: There will always be a new way to trick us.
However, there have been improvements in the way Burlington handles developments. First, we have a new administration. Although Miro Weinberger has been criticized for building too much, his background as a developer is a strong asset in this project. He knows the way things work, has put together a staff that is experienced in development, and negotiated a signed agreement with Don Sinex to build the inclusionary zoning units. Don Sinex is a NYC developer who has spent much longer than he usually does listening to public input and changing his architectural plans. Because this project has an atypically long lead time, it is important for him to get expedited approval for Act 250. In addition, Miro Weinberger has threatened to withhold the certificate of occupancy if inclusionary zoning requirements are not met, and finally, the cost of the “in lieu” payment (the fee required in lieu of actually building the inclusionary zoning units) has increased from $10,000 to $100,000 per unit.
Do these restrictions guarantee the inclusionary zoning units will be built? No, it does not. I firmly believe that public oversight and citizen vigilance is needed. Organizations like VIA and Coalition for a Livable City, in addition to private citizens, must watch the project closely. However, I also believe we are operating in a very different environment now than we were in 2007.
