2007 salaries at Belmont Shelter

TOTALS INCLUDED ON FORM 990, PART V-A
Top five employess salaries $305,702 pension contributions $51,910
Directors salaries $329,628. Directors pension contributions $46,575

Top 5 paid employees (other than directors)
MICHAEL SCARPELLO –CONTROLLER
25 HAMPTON CT. LANCASTER, NY 14086 salary 66,222. pension contribution 13,040.

ERIC_SCHIFFMAN_____________________REHAB PROGRAMS MGR
18 LAKEWOOD DR., ORCHARD PARK, NY 141 salary 63,649. pension contribution 12.784.

JUDITH SCOTT ——————————–PROJECT MANAGER
12277 HANOVER RD. SILVERCREEK NY 14 salary 61,529. pension contribution 8,626.

JOHN MCMAHON —————————— HOUSING PROGRAMS MGR
143 CARLA LN WEST SENECA NY 14224 salary 58,864. pension contribution 11200.

LYNN BRENNAN ——————————— PROPERTY MANAGER
44 HARVARD PL ORCHARD PARK NY 14127 salary 55,438. pension contribution 6,260.
Total top five salaries $305,702 pension contributions $51910

Board of Directors and their salaries for 2007
ELIZABETH HUCKABONE
1195 MAIN STREET
BUFFALO, NY 14209 PRESIDENT/DIR
salary 115,833. pension contribution 17,851.

JEFFERY NOWACKI
4633 DEERFIELD ROAD
HAMBURG, NY, 14075

BRUCE C. BAIRD
215 BROADWAY
BUFFALO, NY 14204

MIKE D. RIEGEL
1195 MAIN STREET
BUFFALO, NY 14209 VICE PRESIDENT/TREASURER
salary 116,239. pension contribution 12,662.

KATHY O’BRIEN
1195 MAIN STREET
BUFFALO, NY 14209 VICE PRESIDENT/ SECRETARY
salary 97,556. pension contribution 16,062.

RODNEY RICHARDSON
120 SOUTH DR.
BUFFALO, NY 14226

GLENDORA JOHNSON
1097 ELLICOTT ST.
BUFFALO, NY 14209

EVELYN PIZARRO
97 AVA LANE
WILLIAMSVILLE, NY 14221

CHRISTOPHER JACOBS
70 SENECA ST
BUFFALO, NY 14210

TOTALS INCLUDED ON FORM 990, PART V-A
Directors salaries $329,628. Directors pension contributions $46,575
Top five salaries $305,702 pension contributions $51910

McClarke and other executive & housing development profiters, would you give up your current housing arrangements to move to the new houses in this proposed development? This litmus test could proactively warranty that a project is beneficial to neighborhoods – require that the executives of the agency proposing it live in the completed project for two years – in order for financing to be approved.

This is not so far-fetched – recall how the then-new executive director of the nfta Larry Meckler required the top brass of the nfta to ride buses – and lo and behold the bus service improved!

The same can happen with housing. Move out of the comfortable, insulated confines of the Delaware District, the Elmwood Village and Spaulding Lake. Come live in neighborhood that you propose. Do not hide behind the curtin and pull the levers of development only. Come out and rake some leaves with the rest of the community.

As for design and project composition, everyone knows that Buffalo (and especially the Midtown area) has lost population and has an abundant supply of vacant houses — yet due to the city’s one-time wealth, leadership in the lumber industry, and attraction to immigrants with old-world skills, many of these vacant houses (and especially in the Midtown area) are of a significant quality, character, and craftsmanship that is never to be had again and is a limited and precious heritage asset for the whole city. Given that, why wasn’t NRP told upfront: “We’re so glad you want to invest here! We have houses waiting for attention, so let’s get to it! People want choices, and neighborhoods benefit from having some brand-new housing (as was emphasized in Rochester during the recent housing market study led by Zimmerman-Volk), so yes lets include some new infill in appropriate size and style — but given the population decline, new builds pull people out of existing houses that need stewardship, and too many new builds means eventual loss of existing stock elsewhere — so we don’t want to go overboard.” If NRP wants to come to Buffalo to play, outstanding! But the community has the right and obligation to set the rules so that both NRP and the community win equally and big.

Some of the new infill housing I’ve seen in My Fair City — done by both H4H and Providence Housing — stays within existing lot sizes, is in historically compatible styles (neo-Queen Annes, and H4H even built a neo-Greek Revival in a historic district), and does not include attached garages. Yet the waiting list for these homes are always full before the framing goes up. In many cases, I believe, they even use non-plastic siding. These are projects that are viable for everyone. And where there is a block that is largely vacant for one reason or another, new-urbanist developments (compatible with neighborhood character) are constructed, which adds variety and options. All good.

Yes, this proposed Belmont/NRP project is better than the vinyl Victorians and colonials that you see in places like William Street near downtown (and we have them in My Fair City, as well) that were built over a decade ago, I believe. But it doesn’t seem to be anywhere close to good enough, given the money being invested. I’ve gotten a better perspective on Belmont from reading comments here by MClark, and on BR by SKarnath. Clearly, they were a key partner on ArtSpace, they did rehab the Coe Place house, and they have decades of experience successfully applying their formula of turning funding streams into structures and getting people into them. This gets people into housing, and employs staff, contractors, and executives. Yet it seems that they are leaving chances for excellence on the table, by not more carefully involving (or outright ignoring) those who could help make their projects better (both committed volunteers, and professionals like MClarke), by disregarding the character and uniqueness of the neighborhoods, and by not making good use of existing built resources. Why should “good enough” be good enough–? And I would disagree with those who would suggest that these project plans are good enough. They’re not!

And so I’m squarely on the side of those who want to go back to the drawing board. Recently, we did that here in a neighborhood in My Fair City. The neighborhood stood solidly against seriously sub-par redevelopment plans for a waterfront low/mixed-income housing development. A tweaking clearly wasn’t enough, so eventually HUD and the development company involved fired the architects and developed, new, both site plans and building designs. We’re now just starting site work on the vastly improved project, and everyone is patting each other on the back and taking credit!

This meal needs both a new cook and a new recipe. Someone with standing should convene a rethinking. My suggestion of where to begin the discussion–? Focus first on a street like Ada Place, and get it right. Then use the same thought process and approach on other blocks.

This project could become great with a few tweaks. Narrower housing on existing lot widths, housing that matches the character of the historic streetscape and can represent a good first start at rebuilding appropriate densities in the neighborhood… I’m not afraid to propose delaying a bad project so it could become a very good one. The neighborhood has waited 50 years for something good to happen there and if this ill-conceived project is steam-rolled through, the neighborhood will be waiting still.

I don’t really disagree with most of your comments re: design, placement,density, rehab, PLANNING, etc. I don’t see this as low-density suburban. The lots won’t end up as 25ft, but they also won’t be 70ft.
The upfront work that goes into putting a credit deal together is enormous, and getting costs firm on rehabs is a lot tougher than going off plans for new. In order to get investors lined up who will really provide most of the upfront cash, the numbers have to be hard, or the application to the state won’t be competitive. Given all the work that has gone on already this will go ahead, but the time is now to look at how to do the next one better, and there does need to be more of them if we’re to bring this neighborhood back. But financing through things like tax credits will always be needed and some compromises on materials, etc will be needed simply because the residents in that area can’t afford the conventional financing and the city doesn’t have enough other soft money available to ignore the opportunities to attract credit investment capital.
Chris, I agree totally on Ada. more than 6 years ago we gave money to another not-for-profit to acquire 2 of those houses to do it right. We had a contractor that would do gut rehabs for $50k. The city had a few on the street that fit the bill too. Instead the 2 we hoped to see done are still sitting vacant, the city tore down the ones they owned, and the song goes on.

And yes, I have recently discovered this area. Clearly the history and potential of the Midtown neighborhood is being ignored by this out-of-town developer and their buddies at Belmont and the City. Awkward is certainly an understated way of describing their planning strategy.

You said: “Should they abondon their mission of providing for the needs of low-income families in favor of satisfying the interests of the new wave of urban afficionados who have suddenly discovered the area?”

I believe everyone here has good intentions. Why would Belmont have to “abandon” their mission in order to utilize better urban design in building more contextual houses that fit in better with the existing neighborhood? I don’t understand why it has to be low-density suburban-style homes or nothing at all. It seems like a false choice.

I am not as embittered about the project as some other folks on this comment stream might be. There’s certainly nothing inherently deficient about constructing new housing for low-income people. It is a laudable goal. What does seem to be at issue is the configuration, density, and design of the housing being proposed. No doubt worse project have come down the pipeline without a peep from the peanut gallery, but the standards we set for our city’s development is elevating. There’s no reason this project could not be designed better to reinforce existing community character that can attract new residents, set the stage for more focused and urban densities linked to transit and walkable amenities, and create lasting value – not just housing.

I would agree with a commenter above (who is sitting across from me with seeming eagerness to lash out some more about this project) that while many streets east of Main Street are far from among our best streets, streets like Ada Place are very nice, and are diamonds in the rough awaiting some progressive reinvestment. There’s no reason this project could not achieve the real excellence this neighborhood deserves and more.

As to the price tag of $240,000 per house, in tax credit rental projects that number includes upfront capitalization of operating and maintenance reserves, legal fees for partnership and syndication costs, guarantees, A & E fees and environmental reviews. Then add the city’s requirement for soil remediation by removing the top two feet throughout each site, and that adds a minimum of $20,000 per lot. The basic home costs are about $120/sq ft and that’s pretty typical today. Belmont doesn’t make “profits”, pay its board members, or wash money through unnamed affiliated corporations. Much of the payment of developer fees (aka “profits”) to Belmont are typically deferred over 5-10 years. It’s a long term rental project, not a quick-turnaround build-and-sell. In addition, Belmont Shelter and Belmont Management are two separate and unrelated organizations.

While people get excited about Artspace and the restoration of the house at 19 Coe Place, do they forget that Belmont played a significant role in getting both of those projects done and that Belmont manages Artspace? Yes, Belmont was pushed to change their original plans on Coe Place, but they didn’t have to spend anywhere near what they did on it. It’s an investment that exceeds the market value by several times and is a lot more than most critics would go out of pocket for. Is Belmont serving its own self interest by building houses that are affordable to people who have lived for years in a neighborhood that it has been ignored an allowed to deteriorate? Should they abondon their mission of providing for the needs of low-income families in favor of satisfying the interests of the new wave of urban afficionados who have suddenly discovered the area? Not at all.

Belmont is an easy target because they are the local face of the project, but they weren’t the driving force behind this one. Belmont’s development partner, NRP Group approached the city about it and Belmont was asked to participate. NRP Group has done over 2,500 homes like these in Ohio and they made a real difference in the neighborhoods there. Of course there are things that could be done better from a planning perspective. Belmont would have preferred a more tightly focused project area. In-filling more of the neighborhood around where they did their first multi-site project of 29 homes would make things much easier to manage. The city needs to do a better job of acquiring properties and planning for reuse in more concentrated way. In Ohio the projects include rehab as well as new construction and I recall that as many as 40% of the homes were rehabs in those projects.

While criticism is being focused on the new builds that Belmont is doing, the discussion ignores the rehabilitation that Belmont will be taking on using State Block-by-Block funding. It will target the rehabilitation of almost 50 existing and vacant units in a six block area between Michigan and Jefferson Avenues. You’d be very hard-pressed to name just one other group that can do 5 houses a year let alone 50-100. Belmont alone does about 4 times more more housing annually than all the other publicly funded groups in the city combined. Habitat for Humanity is in a distant second place and they don’t get any public money.

Anyone familiar with the successful Richmond, VA “Neighborhoods in Bloom” program, which LISC helped start, knows that it targeted a limited number of neighborhoods that had been left to decay for years. Those neighborhoods had a lot of vacant lots and houses but had connections to public transit, economic development investments like the Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus and Canisius College, new school projects, etc. It was not about slowing the rate of abandonment citywide as much as redeveloping a few neighborhoods that can be made economically relevant and sustainable again. Rebuilding those kinds of places requires in-filling vacant lots with new housing as well as rehabilitating existing homes, and mixing rental and ownership opportunities that can bring people into safer and better neigborhoods from others that are becoming more unstable by the day. This project moves the neighborhood further ahead, a little awkwardly perhaps, but it will continue and it should. While it’s taking place the discussion of how to make the next phase better should go forward. They’ll be no shortgage of houses and lots to work with there for while.