‘We want controlled development’

By
|
Posted on Sep 16 2011
Share
By Clarissa V. David
Reporter

Despite claims that majority of the public favor the proposed Blue Water Homes affordable housing project, a group of land and property owners in the project’s nearby area along with their heirs are making their voices heard to oppose the proposed “monolithic” venture for its adverse social impacts.

The second affordable housing project to avail of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program administered by the Northern Marianas Housing Corp., Blue Water Homes is a $30-million construction project in Chalan Piao that would build 80 units in a nine-storey building.

These 16 landowners and heirs, who belong to the Tamat-Cabrera clan and are all related, have written their comments to the Zoning Office expressing their apprehensions on the planned project which they say does not take into account the “social consequences” resulting from such kind of massive development.

“We are not anti-development but we do support controlled development,” John White, owner of Lot 458-NEW-7, reiterated several times during yesterday’s interview.

White, who has been a resident of the area since 1987, said proponents of Blue Water Homes have “glossed over” the project’s so-called benefits without due consideration to its conduciveness to the site area’s land use and to existing infrastructure. The site is currently zoned as “tourist resort” area.

He said there should be height and density limit to the proposed development in the area. With an 80-unit housing project there, White emphasized that the neighborhood would “expand dramatically,” giving rise to issues such as parking availability and environmental concerns, among others.

White noted that the project plan has no provision for construction of social amenities such as extra parking stalls and playground for children that would accommodate about 500 individuals that are likely to dwell in the said housing project.

He said Blue Water Homes LLC, the project developer, has not identified measures to address additional problems that would be brought by the project such as erosion resulting to cutting down of tree, disturbance of endangered species and ecosystems, traffic congestion, and overloading of public utilities like schools, sewage and water systems.

Although White lauded Bob Jones, managing partner of Blue Water Homes LLC and founder of Triple J Enterprises, for his “very commendable” efforts to provide affordable housing units for low-income families, he pointed out that the social well-being of residents in the area should also be taken into account.

What happened during the public hearing? 

White said he and other landowners as well as their families attended the public hearing conducted by the Zoning board on the conditional use application for Blue Water Homes but only he and another heir, Christopher Attao Concepcion, spoke at the hearing regarding their concerns.

White maintained that the project developer is carrying out a “very effective propaganda campaign” in saying that the project has received “massive support” when this is only “half-true” when their apprehensions are brought to the table.

Looking closely into those who are in support of the project, White disclosed that some of those who have spoken have “vested interests” in the project given that they have family members working with the Triple J group of companies.

White recounted that when he told a proponent of the project that the CNMI government would only receive “peanuts” once the developer applies for tax exemptions such as the qualifying certificate, the proponent said, “better peanuts than nothing.”

“Are we now trading peanuts for social disaster?” asked White.

He also recounted that how “shocked” he was when Jones said that they could actually push through with the project since the “tourist resort” classification allows for development in the project site.

“I’m glad that the legal counsel interjected that just because it is zoned that way that they automatically get the project going,” said White.

White said that another public hearing set by the Coastal Resources Management, which was scheduled yesterday, was canceled due to failure of the project developer to submit all application requirements.

“I can’t help but ask how ready they are in terms of the project. If they tell the media that they’re going to break ground next year, how come they could not submit requirements in obtaining a permit?” asked White.

Acceptable terms 

White noted that he and the other landowners and heirs do not oppose development in their area since they have patronized and supported other businesses and structures in the neighborhood such as the Chalan Kanoa Beach Club and a three-storey apartment building.

“We are not anti-development. We just want something that’s complacent to existing structures and development in our vicinity,” said Concepcion.

White and Concepcion said the landowners and heirs will support the project if its height will be reduced to just two to three storeys.

Public awareness

According to White, their group is doing a “thorough public awareness campaign” to educate the public on the benefits versus the consequences of Blue Water Homes.

In fact, Concepcion said they also made use of social networking by creating the “Save Tamat Beach” group on Facebook to inform the public about the impacts of the proposed housing project.

White urged the Zoning Board, Coastal Resources Management, and other permitting agencies “not to be blinded” in making a decision on the application of Blue Water Homes.

“The Zoning Board and other agencies should listen to the concerns of the adjacent residents and landowners, consider the social impact of having 500 people crammed sardine-like into four house lots, perhaps even less, without any social provisions whatsoever,” he said.

admin
Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.