When The Future Of Work Is Chained To The Future Of Housing, Lets Just Call It Feudalism!
When government centrally manages the economy, it means the government centrally manages everything!
My recent posts have been about Two Maine Constitutional Amendments that have been overwritten by statutory law. They are The Home Rule Amendment and Article IV Part Third Sections 13 & 14 of the Maine Constitution. Both limit the power of the Maine Legislature and so the Maine Legislature used statutory law to claw back legislative power delimited by the Maine Constitution.
There are so many instances to be found of Maine statutory law that can be interpreted as overwriting the Maine Constitution, that it is hard to know where to begin in reclaiming the constitutional rule of law. However, LD 2003, being so recently enacted is a good place to start before this law digs its tentacles deeper into our system.
LD 2003’s long name, An Act To Implement the Recommendations of the Commission To Increase Housing Opportunities in Maine by Studying Zoning and Land Use Restrictions, states that it is an enactment of the recommendations of a commissioner study. The commission members are here. All of the committee members are either from government or state-wide organizations except two persons listed as individuals. One of the two individuals is John Napolitano, listed as “a Member in the building trades” with a LinkedIn profile identifying Napolitano as Business Manager at United Association Plumbers & Steamfitters and President of the Maine State Building and Construction Trades Council. Even though Napolitano is listed as an individual he is also associated with a state-wide organization. Mr. Napolitano was not included as one of the three commissioners who would write the framework for LD 2003.
The other individual is one of the three commissioners that wrote the framework (Appendix Q of the study) that became LD 2003. Erin Cooperrider is listed as “member who is a residential developer” Cooperrider’s bio states that she served 17 years as Development Director for Community Housing of Maine (CHOM), a statewide affordable housing developer, helping to grow the organization’s asset base from $5 million to more than $100 million using low-income housing tax credits, state and federal historic tax credits, grants, loans, and private equity.
This information identifies CHOM, the state-wide housing development as corporate-owned single-family housing. CEI is its non-profit parent. In the midst of a housing crisis calling for the enactment of a statute that infringes on the municipal authority provided in the Home Rule Amendment to the Maine Constitution, CEI is selling off low-income housing that offers a higher quality of living than what LD 2003 now permits, including CHOM. the entity formerly directed by Ms. Cooperrider.
CHOM Housing, LP ("CHOM") - In 1999, CHI established a for-profit entity, CHOM. CCHI was the general partner and is was wholly-owned by CEI and, therefore, it was consolidated. In April 2021, the Corporation transferred ownership rights of CHOM to an unaffiliated third-party entity. CEI 990 Audit 2021
Given the principles of consolidation, it seems impossible for the public to know what is transpiring within the parent-subsidiary relationship.
Principles of consolidation The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of CEI and Affiliates. All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation. CEI 990 Audit 2021
For-profit subsidiaries of non-profit organizations are MODEL L Fiscal Sponsorship
CHOM is a subsidiary of CEI whose current assets are listed in the CEI 990 Audit 2021 as 60,350,757. Transfer for Net Assets of CHOM are listed as (1,002,820) Transfer for Net Assets for BC Housing, (1,084,045) Transfer for Net Assets for Pond Circle, LP (641,047) All three had their assets transferred to an unaffiliated third-party entity.
Note 8 - Assets and liabilities held for sale During the year ended September 30, 2021, management committed to a plan to sell certain properties,…relating principally to the Corporation's housing business (the "held for sale assets")….sale of the held for sale assets are reasonably expected to occur within one year; …At September 30, 2021, assets reported as held for sale …include the following:
Land, property and equipment, net 6,499,999
Erin Cooperrider currently chairs the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston’s Advisory Council, and serves on the board of directors of 30 FSI, a subsidiary of CEI, Inc., a state historic tax credit investor, and previously chaired the board of directors of two Community Development Financial Institutions.
CEI’s current 2021 990 report states that In 2016, CEI established a for-profit entity, 30FSI. CEI is the sole member of 30FSI and, therefore, it is consolidated.
Erin Cooperrider is said to be the VP and primary spokesperson of another corporation, also not to be found in the State records- The Boothbay Region Development Corporation, which is developing a 36-acre housing concentration zone made newly possible by LD 2003. The Boothbay Register tells us that the Boothbay Region Development Corporationis a 501 C3 corporation. Is the Boothbay Region Development Corporation also a subsidiary of another corporation? If it is a subsidiary of CEI it is hard to believe that it is a non-profit subsidiary since CEI hasn’t chartered a non-profit subsidiary since 2001 (since then all of its subsidiaries have been for-profit). If a subsidiary, that information is treated as something the public does not need to know, even as the Town selectmen give the Boothbay Region Development Corporation $50,000.00 worth of American Rescue Funds and the corporation campaigns for all the towns on the Peninsula to give it American Rescue Plan funding.
It’s time the public started asking for real answers. Perhaps we could start with, what is the entity to which CEI transferred three of its low-income housing developments in 2021. What’s happening to those properties now? Did the transferred ownership rights to an unidentified third party include more than $100 million of assets developed using low-income housing tax credits, state and federal historic tax credits, grants, loans, and private equity? Is the Boothbay Region Development Corporation a subsidiary of another corporation, and if so what is its parent corporation? Does the public, assigned to fund the Boothbay Region Development Corporation, deserve answers?
The properties being sold were built before the enactment of LD 2003, meaning a better grade of low-income housing is being sold off and replaced with the overcrowded low-income and affordable housing allowed by LD 2003. As Ms. Cooperrider says, overcrowding makes a better “density bonus” - talking to her own peer group. the corporate owners of single-family homes.
Amends the fair housing provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act to define the terms "character of a location," "overcrowding of land" and "concentration of the population" and to prohibit municipalities and government entities from using these criteria to restrict the construction or development of housing accommodations in any area; LD 2003
This transfer of low-income housing to unknown entities takes place when Maine is in the midst of such an “underproduction” housing crisis that a law must be passed mandating concentrated housing zones for those at or below the median income in every municipality, or so we are told.
Why is CEI transferring ownership of low-income housing at a time when the Development Director of one of the transferred entities is also serving as a primary architect of LD 2003, a law deemed to be needed because we have an affordable housing shortage caused by “underproduction”, being that the commission decided that an aggressive industry that expands into residential homes would not be included in the study?
This is a trend, not at all missed by the classes that are now being called “the workforce”. The working classes are well aware that the quality of life that they can expect is being downgraded. When earning a living stopped including the ability to own one’s own home, it turned around worker trust in large corporate systems. Are the workers of the 21st century going to accept serfdom?
Boothbay developers plan to construct a massive housing zone that will for the most part be corporate-owned rental housing units that do not address the root cause of social unrest. For decades the entrenched system has delivered taxpayer-subsidized opportunities to the top and has stifled opportunities below the median. Housing becomes part of growth suppression by tying “units” to “income” in order to preserve the availability of low-income housing, and yet, taking a view of the larger picture, CEI is selling off better-grade low-income housing, while the person living in low-income housing is not allowed any degree of upward mobility, lest they lose their fundamental first level needs, because the system is designed to preserve the housing income bracket, not to nourish growth at the roots of society. If an inhabitant of a low-income housing unit increases their income by a small modicum, his or her income increases beyond the income allowed for the housing unit, and the inhabitant risks losing their dwelling place. The system could either charge the inhabitant a higher rent or work with the inhabitant until he or she can locate another dwelling place, but the policy isn’t guided by the needs of the inhabitant, it is guided by the rules of financial deals, which are that the low-income housing development maintains its subsidies by reserving a percentage of the units for tenants within a certain income bracket, and all of that is codified into laws.
At the top of the centrally controlled system is the system governance- at the roots are the people. The roots are controlled top down by the system but the system does not use fertilizer, which is “growth opportunity ” to be applied at the roots!
The term “workforce” is a system term that represents pawns traded between public-private partners. The private side gets subsidies to capitalize their business in return for “job creation” measured as X number of jobs at higher than average wages (quantifiable stream of personal income tax revenue for the State) - that means the workforce- or the industrial armies- whatever name is politically correct!
Considering that nothing in this arrangement has to do with whether or not the jobs are needed by the private corporation, it is no surprise that stories are emerging on social media about workers who are hired to do nothing, which may provide an income but is degrading to morale. Other stories tell of the uselessness and dysfunctionality of middle management, which can also be a result of corporations hiring more employees than they need to satisfy State job quotas in return for subsidies.
The corporate welfare trades for “targeted sector jobs” that “pay higher than average wages and benefits” is repeated down the hierarchy of the corporate state. In the 2018 Boothbay Register article Housing, water projects highlight Planning Commission annual meeting, Ms. Cooperrider introduces the idea that ‘workforce housing should be for incomes at medium or 20% above median income” That’s a rent bonus for the developers that will magnify the density bonus delivered by LD 2003.
This kind of thinking is typical with legislation enacted to address wealth inequities within the system. Programs enacted for the low-income sector are adapted to advantage the higher-income sector. How far up the ladder can the State control our housing options? Is the State’s advancement up the ladder a reflection of how extreme wealth inequality has become? The more extreme wealth inequality- the farther up the ladder the State can climb to control every aspect of our lives- until the ladder breaks!
In 2004 the Pine Tree Zone tax exemptions were passed for low-income high unemployed areas. In 2009 the Pine Tree Zone tax exemptions were amended to become state-wide tax exemptions for targeted areas, no longer restricted to low-income high unemployment areas. It is the evolution of the original concept designed by the founding architects of Maine’s corporate state, providing tax-free status to the Legislature’s targeted sector with the targeted sector functioning as the embodiment of Mussolini’s idea that nothing exists outside of the state. While programs exist to serve other sectors, the primary goal of state economic policies is to serve the interest of the Legislature’s targeted economic sector.
Maybe the buildings of “workforce” housing won’t be stacked wall to wall as a symbol of financial status in a community where all status is measured and determined by wealth distribution. This will continue to create a psychologically miserable society that registers as social unrest since the old adage is actually true- money cannot buy happiness, and having every aspect of one’s life centrally controlled by corporate is just plain awful- that is one of the primary messages emerging from the Great Resignation- the workers want to manage their own time and work processes.
But the Great Resignation is a movement emergent from the roots to which Maine central management is not listening!
Cooperrider said at a county-level meeting “The income bracket the project’s target includes many service sector jobs. Workforce housing also avoids using the term low income or affordable to describe the projects, she added….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”
Exactly! Taxpayer-subsidized job creation is for jobs paying “higher than average wages and benefits”. The taxpayers subsidize the capitalization of large corporations such as Idexx, which also writes its own special subsidy packages. Now developers want the taxpayers to subsidize developers to build the housing for the tax-payer subsidized “workforce” in the State’s “targeted sectors”. What is wrong with this picture?
Discussion in 2018 foretells the intention of developers to influence municipal ordinances that become LD 2003 in 2022 (emphasis by author)
Response to housing needs is an ongoing process, so developing affordable housing takes time and expertise in its finance, said Cooperrider. She said that takes a clear understanding of the terms used in public discourse and in municipal regulations. ( Author’s note- thus the State needs to control municipal regulations)
….Cooperider added, other communities have been targeting more specific industries or types of jobs, rather than income brackets. (Authors note- no need to target income brackets- its built into targeted sector policy- and it follows that developers will build for targeted sectors due to the higher wages built into the system)
…“It's also important to understand that, unlike traditional affordable housing, there are no specific programs targeted to workforce housing, which makes it hard to build." (Author’s note- To what does the term affordable apply? You are talking about workforce housing because it means targeted sector workers making above average income and benefits)
"Bingo," said Cooperrider, advising county members to think outside the terms of municipal boundaries about where jobs, housing needs and general opportunities are. “... We're not looking at towns, we're looking at the labor market.” (Author’s note- that is why you need to take central control of municipal ordinances!)
RPC staff addressed varied achievements in the past year. Economic and Community Development Director Mary Ellen Barnes said one of the biggest has been connecting employers with job training resources. ) (Authors note- and thus the Industrial Partnerships Act that repurposes public education as “industrial job training” and the eighty-million dollar school)
The goal of developers is the inclusion of a new category of taxpayer subsidization that raises the “rent bonus” to higher than average for the area per the job classification. This only exacerbates the underlying cause of the housing shortage which is wealth inequality, exacerbated by short terms rentals- chosen to be left out of the report by the commissioners. The corporate welfare system is one in which the whole of the economy subsidizes the top of the economy so it is no wonder that since the centrally managed economy was declared by the Maine Legislature in 1976- with specific goals that violate both the Home Rule Amendment and Article IV Part Third Sections 13 & 14 of the Maine Constitution, wealth inequality has been on the increase ever since. A reality check is long overdue!
The discussion reported in the Register between county leaders of economic development epitomizes the process by which government attempts to address inequities by creating a program to help those at the bottom which is eventually taken over by the top to benefit the top.
There is a testimony given in the congressional session for §3304. Industry partnerships, by the legislative liaison for the DECD, Douglas Ray. Mr. Ray describes his vision for the expansion of the role of government in a centrally managed economy, led by the private sector and benefitting state-targeted industries at the expense of the free enterprise economy.
DECD also supports the Industry Partnership model and recommends that the partnerships be led by the private sector, the job creators in our economy. ……... The creation of the Skills Academy could fit very nicely with DECD’s initiative to address the immediate hiring needs of Maine businesses, which Commissioner Gervais touched on when he met with the Committee a while back. We are looking to help match skilled workers with companies seeking similarly skilled employees. These companies, should they decide to participate, would then pay qualified new employees in this program a bonus towards their educational or housing debt. While this document is again a good starting point we must not fall into the trap of re-funding the same programs that cannot demonstrate a measurable return on investment. DECD is a willing partner in your efforts and we look forward to working with you every step of the way. The question we encourage you to ask when considering each policy decision and part of this document is: Are the results measurable, and, will this make Maine a more competitive state? Testimony by legislative liaison for the DECD, Douglas Ray
Cooperrider says“It's also important to understand that, unlike traditional affordable housing, there are no specific programs targeted to workforce housing, which makes it hard to build." That means there are no government incentive programs for developers of workforce housing, although the targeted jobs subsidies are granted to employers. It is suggested by Mr. Ray that housing benefits for targeted sector workforces should be included in corporate welfare deals negotiated by the state- and maybe throw in a special interest law about student debt to further give the advantage to the State’s “targeted industries” over the free enterprise system.
Now developers want subsidies for building housing for the tax-payer subsidized upper-income bracket, as well. Why didn’t they incorporate that into LD 2003?
Imagine the massive thirty-six-acre housing concentration zone at the planned 3.5 the density of the surrounding area and financed by 40% public funding. For argument’s sake, let’s say that per the 40% public funding, 40% of the housing development is required to be tenants of a certain income bracket. The developers want to shoot for a higher-than-average income bracket but once you get above the median, you get into an area where growth is expected which will make it more difficult for the system to maintain its quotas. A stable system is a static system with each human unit assigned to an economic unit- the idea of individual growth is destabilizing for the centrally controlled system, which is why the centrally controlled system is oppressive for the human soul which longs for an environment that resonates as a fluid living breathing organism.
The entire system is built on subsidies. What if it weren’t? That’s when you separate corporation and state. and take back your Constitution!
Also published on Medium’s An Injustice!