Sympathy for the developer
The thought occurs in the context of two recent news stories. The first reported that in light of official opposition and public hostility, the Lebanon Housing Authority had withdrawn plans for a 30-unit apartment building at North Park and Campbell streets, opposite Colburn Park. The housing authority had proposed constructing a four-story building containing one- and two-bedroom units with commercial and administrative space on the first floor. The plan envisioned a mix of market rate and affordable units available to people of all ages, contained in a structure that alluded architecturally to a historic building that stood on the site in the late 1800s. In other words, it checked off a lot of boxes on the enlightened planner’s list of public goods: It was proposed for the heart of downtown, with access to existing amenities and infrastructure; the use was a permitted one within the Central Business District zone; it would have been home to residents of different income levels and ages; it would have had both commercial and residential components; and it would have paid its respect to its Historic District surroundings.
So what wasn’t to like? Plenty, according to city councilors, Planning Board members and some residents. The building was deemed too large for the quarter-acre site, dwarfing the historic Soldiers Memorial building next door; parking was said to be scarce in the surrounding public lots, especially when entertainment events are scheduled; the proposal was out of sync with the city’s ongoing downtown visioning study; that future residential growth ought to be channeled to Spencer Street, farther from downtown.
Ditha Alonso, the housing authority’s executive director, got the message loud and clear. “Unfortunately, last night’s Planning Board meeting comments and interpretations made it quite clear that the proposed building concept is not supported by a majority of Planning Board members nor by the public in attendance,” she wrote in an email withdrawing the application. “Other information leading up to this meeting has been negative and disparaging as well.”
A few days later came news that city officials are in the early stages of drafting an ordinance designed to roust homeless people who are encamped at various locations in the city, especially about a dozen staying on a small parcel of city land just off the busy Route 12A commercial strip where they apparently are not out of sight and therefore not out of mind.
Acting City Manager Paula Maville said that before any ordinance reaches the City Council for action, officials will launch an outreach effort to notify the homeless of relocation options and connect them with social services that are available. Nevertheless, says Sara Kobylenski, executive director of the Upper Valley Haven, the ordinance would probably accomplish little except forcing the homeless to relocate to other areas of the Upper Valley, because — the vacancy rate for affordable housing is at an all-time low.
We do not assert that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is simply to drive the hoeless out of the city, or that the negative reaction to the housing authority’s proposed affordable housing project stemmed from aversion to housing some lower-income residents in a prominent downtown location. But the fact is that there is a relationship between homelessness and a chronic lack of affordable housing that the city ought to recognize and strive to ameliorate, as should all communities in the Upper Valley. For one thing, the area cannot begin to address what almost everyone agrees is one of its most pressing issues — the graying of the population — without providing much more housing that younger families and single people can afford. The economic, social and political vitality of the region depends on attracting and keeping a younger, energetic demographic group that can afford a roof over its head. We hope the housing authority succeeds in finding another site that the city regards as tolerable.