Changing the Terms of Affordable Housing
The Boothbay Regional Development Corporation offers affordable homes exclusively to those making 20% above the medium income for the area. Here's how they did it!
In my last newsletter I promoted my sister Elise’s popular cards which I have published on Buy Me A Coffee. I put in a lot of work posting the cards to Buy Me A Coffee but now my Buy Me A Coffee site has been entrirery wiped and I have to start over from scratch. However I also posted the cards plus ceramics and other artwork on my Store front., where you can support my social work by purchasing an object of art for your home or as a gift.
A while back my LinkedIn accountwas also wiped clean of all content, like our acting president says, ”Computers control everything” I have been aware of this for a while, I believe it is true in more ways than we know.
There is a Letter to the Editor titled Butler Road condominiums in the Boothbay Register dated 02/24/2025 from the board of the Boothbay Regional Development Corporation announcing that it now has condominiums for sale.
Usually this type of an announcement is published as a news release, rather than an article with accompanying images that would help to sell the units.
The letter states: “Affordable” means different things to different people. Historically, the rule of thumb was spending no more than 30% of gross income on housing”.
Conversely to LD 2023 this letter does not mention what those with 120% AMI pay but LD 2023 says they pay terms that are traditionally understood to be the terms of affordable housing- or not more than 30% of the household's monthly income on housing costs.
LD 2023 didn't mention what those making under 120% of AMI pay- but this letter tells they not more than 41% of the household's monthly income on housing costs- if they make 80% AMI.
The board goes on to frame the subsidies as granted to the buyers, which is not true. The subsidies were granted to the BRDC because the corporation was developing affordable housing, a term generally understood to mean HUD‘s definition of affordable housing, but note how the terms “affordable housing” and “workforce housing” are smoothly interchanged- Later on in this article I will show that “workforce housing” is identified as defined on unique terms consistent with what the BRDC is now targeting.
TIF district may provide funds for housing project infrastructure
The Boothbay Register Fri, 12/16/2022 - 8:45am
Lewis credited BRDC, which has an all-volunteer staff, (and which has offices located at the same Portland address as New Height Group, a development corporation of which MS Cooperrider is a principal- note added by author) in working so diligently on workforce housing. “What all of you have done is amazing. No one is taking a salary, my hat’s off to you,” he said.
Cooperrider reported the project’s first phase has expanded from eight complexes to 24. She discussed construction beginning shortly after the May vote. “The community has identified affordable housing as a priority. The town has committed $50,000 of ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds and we’re seeking a county grant. So on the strength of the checks we’ve received, and since this doesn’t impact the mil rate, we’ve gone ahead and hired engineers to get started,” she said.
As explained by Erin Cooperrider in BBR article Housing, water projects highlight Planning Commission annual meeting 06/22/2018), Affordable housing means the occupant pays no more than 30% of their income on housing which includes rent or mortgage, insurance, heat, electricity, taxes, etc.
But in the current Letter to the Editor the board exdplains that ”Over time, that number has crept up”. what they don’t say is that is by design.
The Letter to the Editor goes on to say ”Ultimately, each unit will be individually priced to ensure that buyers spend no more than 41% of their gross income on housing.”
Standard financial advice is that one shouldn’t spend 40% of one’s income on rent. it makes it difficult to save or invest if such a portion of income is tied up in housing costs. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), calls families who spend greater than 30% of their income on housing “cost-burdened.”
So looking at the larger picture the so-called affordable housing offered by BRDC not only does not meet the requirements for affordable housing but it doesn’t help people to rise up, which should be the contextual aim of affordable housing, though affordable housing is generally designed to keep “the workforce” in its place. by income-capping the inhabitants of the housing developments, although only a portion of the units must be “affordable units”.
The Boothbay Regional Development Corporation is not only violating its non-profit terms of agreement but its thinking is wrong for the meta task we have ahead of us of redesigning our systems post the DOGE wrecking ball event taking place acrosss America. DOGE”s crude and throughtless aproach was not the way thinking people wanted to transform the centrally managed economy but once it has been done we need new leadership with a different design to reverse the wealth divide created by the centrally managed economy that was established in the 70s.
The Boothbay Regional Development Corporation advances the old model that makes the rich richer and the poor pooer (expands the wealth divide). We should develop a new model that creates pathways of upward mobility for all who are wiling to put in the effort. The BRDC plans do not do that.
Ms, Cooperrider explains how the numbers are planned to creep up in the 2018 article
In the last decade, affordable housing developers started using the term workforce housing during permitting to describe the financials with the low-income housing tax credit, Cooperrider said.
Affordable housing means the cost of housing – including insurance, heat, electricity, taxes, etc. – is no more than 30 percent of a household's gross annual incomei, she said. Low-income, as defined by US Housing and Urban Development, is a household earning no more than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). Very low and extremely low income are considered 50 and 30 percent AMI. Cooperrider explained that "market rate housing" means the cost of a unit is directly correlated to a private developer's cost of development and return on investment. (here she leaves out of the definition of market rate housing that it is nonsubsidized- author’s note)
Portland is among communities that have started referring to workforce housing as a household earning between 100 percent AMI and 120 percent AMI, she said. Cooperider added, other communities have been targeting more specific industries or types of jobs, rather than income brackets.
However, Cooperrider’s definition of workforce housing as “whatever you want it to mean” comes with a warning: “Clearly define what you do mean."
In the same article, the developers are laying out their plans. Mary Ellen Barnes said one of the biggest issues has been connecting employers with job training resources- so the public school system used as industrial training facilities for special private interests and overcrowded housing zones targeting “workforce housing” surrounded by unregulated short-term rentals in the housing where working class people once lived, as a developers co-ordinated plan for our Peninsula- soon to be renamed the Riviera of Maine!
In the same article, County planner Bob Faunce said the last five to six years have been concentrated largely on coastal climate change, sea level rise and storm surge.- so make sure when you write the legislation for state-controlled municipal ordinances to include that Town officials are forbidden from mentioning, overcrowding, overpopulation or community character.
Erin Cooperrider co-authored LD 2003 which was subsequently rubber-stamped by the Maine Legislator
Sec. 9. 30-A MRSA §4364-B is enacted to read:
Definition. For the purposes of this section, "affordable housing development" means: 14 A. For rental housing, a development in which a household with an income at 80% of the local area median income can afford a majority of the units without spending more than 30% of the household's monthly income on housing costs;
and 17 B. For owned housing, a development in which a household with an income at 120% of the local area median income can afford a majority of the units without spending more than 30% of the household's monthly income on housing costs.
Technically, Ms Cooperrider and team were very clever in how they penned LD 2003.
In the law co-penned by Ms Cooperrider and without which the overcrowded housing zone would not be legal per municipal ordinances, the demographics of unit ownership is descrobed like so:
17 B. For owned housing, a development in which a household with an income at 120% of the local area median income can afford a majority of the units without spending more than 30% of the household's monthly income on housing costs
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development always uses the terminology at or below % of AMI.
Ms Cooperrider and Co eliminated the phrase “or below” which reflects apon their own motivations to make the highest profits for developers by utilizing subsidies for affordable housing rather than serving the needs of people needing affordable housing.
By eliminating the phrase “or below” it sets the rate at “AT” and those who are below the 80% AMI for rental housing pay the same rate as those who make 80% AMI. Those below 120% of AMI pay the same rate as tose who make 120% AMI, which means 20% ABOVE the median income for the area. That is the demographic that the BRDC is targeting. The deletion of two words from the HUD definition is how the board can argue that the prices they are charging do not violate the law but only if the law is LD2003.
In the BRDC model those below 120% of the median income do not qualify for affordable housing by standards set by HUD- Only those making 20% above the median income for the region qualify for the Boothbay Regional Development Corporaton’s “affordable housing” and so the BRDC supports the continued expansion of the wealth divide on the Boothbay Peninsula.
HUD standards haven’t changed and HUD standards represent what most people think is meant by the term “affordable housing” because most people haven’t read LD 2023 and those who have may not immediatly notice of the deletion of the words “or below” making LD 2003 inconsistent with HUD.
The median income for the area is claimed by the board to be 94,900. I looked up 2024 HOME Income Limits and got 74950.00 as the upper limit for low-income housing for a family of four in Lincoln County, not $94,900.00, not even 75,920.00
Using BRDC figure of 94,900 for the median income, 80% of the median income. X 80% of 94,900= 75,920 X 41% = 31,127.2
But if you multiply 94,900 by 120% as is the model exclusively cited in LD 2023, it equals $113,880 x 30% = 34,164
Did no one in the Maine Legislature notice the omision of the two words “or below”- from the HUD standard, not even the legal council?
Unconstitutional on other terms:
LD 2023 was enacted as an emergency act enabling Ms Cooperrider to form the Boothbay Regional Development Corpoartion about a month after it was enacted - and to be first-come-first serve request for public funds available for affordable housing. The Town Selectmen were eager to please, asking only “What can we do to help”, quite a different melody than the clashing sounds that are heard when the Town selectmen deal with local small entreprenuers:
The Maine Constitution Article IV.
Part Third. Section 16:
An emergency bill shall include only such measures as are immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety; and shall not include (1) an infringement of the right of home rule for municipalities, (2) a franchise or a license to a corporation or an individual to extend longer than one year, or (3) provision for the sale or purchase or renting for more than 5 years of real estate.
LD 2023 as an act of the State making mandates on municipal ordinaces and is arguably a violation of Home Rule, which is the only thing an “infringement’ can mean since it always has to be argued in a court of law.
Article VIII.
Part Second.
Municipal Home Rule.
Section 1. Power of municipalities to amend their charters. The inhabitants of any municipality shall have the power to alter and amend their charters on all matters, not prohibited by Constitution or general law, which are local and municipal in character. The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure by which the municipality may so act.
Also arguably unconstitutional by the US Constitution is the restriction on free speech in Sec. 3. 5 MRSA §4581-A, sub-§5
LD 2003-HP1489
Sec. 3. 5 MRSA §4581-A, sub-§5 is enacted to read: 5. Housing development. For any municipality or government entity to restrict the construction or development of housing accommodations in any area based upon criteria that refers to the character of a location, the overcrowding of land or the undue 33 concentration of the population. For the purposes of this subsection, the following terms 34 have the following meanings.
Diminished Home Ownership
In the BBR 2022 article, Selectmen get housing development presentation, Erin Cooperrider said/
“BRDC will continue as landowner beyond the buildout and current leadership because of investment in land and infrastructure. Homes and rentals will be subject to a homeowners association which will have some control over the property and BRDC control through deed restrictions, purchase and resale oversight and other mechanisms now under investigation”
Not only will the lowest income buyers be cost-burdened by the amount they spend on housing at the prohect being developed on Boothbay by the Boothbay Regional Development Corporation, in violation of affordable housing standards, but they will not own the land their houses occupy. Will they be charged rent for the land?
Furthermore, they will be governed by a homeowners association and the BRDC, Not much like being an owner!
The centralized government of the state of Maine offers no personal relationship to the land to “the workforce” in housing projects like the BRDC that is developing non descript condominiums lined up wall to wall and surrounded by a parking lot which will provide two spaces per three units. The “way life should be” does not apply to the workforce in Maine.
The state is advancing another increment in the progessive decline of living standards for the American workforce.The Maine middle class once lived in the houses now occupied by short term rentals. The state government profits by a 9% sales tax on rentals and industry-related services (standard sales tax is 5.5%). The Maine state government declines to regulate the short term rental industry.
The choice made by Ms Cooperrider and Co in conducting the study on housing for LD 2023, was first to acknowledge that the housing shortage is affected by the short term rental industry and in the next breath to announce that the short term rental industry would not be included in the study- ending the report by saying a study should be done on short term rentals but lets pass our act as an emergency bill first!
And the Ms Cooperrider targeted NOT where the housing needs are the direst in Maine, but one of Maine’s wealthiest communities.
This isn’t affordable housing, It doesn’t meet the standard by a long shot but inevery article that has been published in this newspaper the BRDC describes itself as developing affordable housing.
Well, you know “Affordable” means different things to different people.”