{"id":5090,"date":"2013-08-11T21:49:08","date_gmt":"2013-08-12T01:49:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=5090"},"modified":"2013-08-18T12:05:40","modified_gmt":"2013-08-18T16:05:40","slug":"no-mold-n-unpaid-contractors-this-time-for-moody-housing-glpc-2013-07-29","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2013\/08\/no-mold-n-unpaid-contractors-this-time-for-moody-housing-glpc-2013-07-29.html","title":{"rendered":"No mold or unpaid contractors this time for Moody Housing @ GLPC 2013-07-29"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nUnlike Moody AFB’s last go at privatizing housing,
\nno mold or unpaid contractors this time,
\nor so we’re told.
\nBut not so solid assurances that local contractors will be used.
\nAnd what if this new thing turns into something radically different
\nlike Nelson Hill did only a short way up Val Del?
\n
\n\"GLPC<\/a><\/p>\n

\nSpeaking for
\n
\nthat proposed privatized Moody housing on Val Del Road<\/a>,
\nLawyer Tom Kurrie said this was “an opportunity for our community”.
\nHe spelled out that the proposal was “90 homes for off-base houses,
\nfor enlisted personnel, non-commissioned officers, and officers”,
\nwith gates.
\nHe went on about
\n
\nBalfour Beatty<\/a>‘s experience in building such housing,
\nand their option to build Phase II, although at the moment
\nthey’re only requesting Phase I.
\nHe said “the unfortunate issue that took place with the
\nprior development” would not occur with this one.<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/a>
\nI can guess he’s referring to the mold issue,
\n
\nBeth Mahoney detailed in Little Rock Military Families Examiner 6 April 2009<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/a>
\nOr since he lauded Balfour Beatty’s credit rating, maybe
\nhe was referring to the
\nnonpayment of subcontractors,
\nas Kari L. Sands wrote for VDT, 4 March 2007,
\n
\nMilitary housing woes:
\nNon-payment forces work on military housing project to stop<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nPreferred Builders and Renovators, LLC., the Home Builders
\nAssociation of South Georgia and CMS\/ Dumpster Co. are among those
\naffected. Subcontractors are alleging that SRC Construction, a division of
\nCarabetta Corporate Office located in Meriden, Conn., withheld funding,
\ndefrauded, and has now successfully damaged as many as 40 industry
\ncontractors and vendors in the area. Sources reveal that eight of these
\n40 industry contractors are now bankrupt, several have filed liens,
\nand two have pending fraud charges.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nKari L. Sands wrote for VDT
\n16 August 2007,
\n
\nHousing privatization woes: Moody not only base affected<\/a>,<\/p>\n

\n

\n
\n<\/a>
\nCurrently, Moody has a total of two homes completed of 400 planned.
\nAmong other air bases experiencing difficulties, at Hanscom Air
\nForce Base, only 17 new houses were completed out of 784 proposed,
\nand 163 completed at Patrick of 552 proposed units. At Little Rock,
\n25 homes have been built out of 1,200 promised, according to the
\nRecord -Journal in Meriden, Conn.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe suit filed by Regions Bank against Moody Family Housing LLC, a
\nCarabetta partnership, the Bank is attempting to get the court to
\nappoint a receiver to take possession and authority over Moody
\nFamily Housing LLC’s assets.\n<\/p>\n

\nAccordingly, Carabetta’s attorney Scott Consoli believes a takeover
\nwould leave millions in unpaid debts to subcontractors and vendors
\nin jeopardy if it forecloses on the project. Accordingly, Carabetta
\nis trying to convince the bondholder to release enough cash to pay
\nthe subcontractors.\n<\/p>\n

\n“Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. has had the most
\nproblems, although work also stopped at bases in Little Rock, Ark.,
\nHanscom, Mass. and Patrick Air Force Base, Fl. Shaw is a partner in
\nevery project except Moody,” reported the Record- Journal on
\nAugust 3, 2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n<\/a>
\n
\n\"Franklin<\/a>
\nCommissioner Franklin Bailey
\n(also president of the local Homebuilders Association)
\nwanted to know whether these houses would be owned
\nor rented.
\nKurrie clarified that they would be rental property,
\nwhich is why they’re all in one lot.
\nAlso they would not be open to the general public.
\nInstead, Moody personnel would get a housing allowance
\nthat would go to the developer as rent.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\"Scott\"<\/a>
\nAnother Commissioner asked whether it would be possible for local people
\nto rent “those things”.
\nSomebody named Scott said that was still being worked out,
\nbut there was a “12-rung waterfall” down military ranks,
\nand only after all of those who wanted to rent had and
\noccupancy had fallen before a certain level would
\nanyone else be able to rent.<\/p>\n

\nBailey noted:<\/p>\n

\nIt’s apparent that any local developers and builders are not going to have
\nany win-win situation out of this, because it’s going to be an out-of-town
\ncompany be coming to do this.
\nSo what guarantee do we have that local subs are going to get the
\nbenefit of working on that site.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n\"Bill\"<\/a>
\nKurrie asked the project director, “Bill” about that.
\nMaybe Bill was one of the people Kurrie introduced a few minutes before,
\nduring
\n
\nhis lengthy objections<\/a> to the other proposed Moody housing item,
\nREZ-2013-08,
\n
\nsince withdrawn<\/a>.
\nBill said basically he didn’t really know, but
\n“the great majority are local contractors on a number of our other building
\nprojects”.<\/p>\n

\n<\/a>
\n
\n\"Celine<\/a>
\nNew Commissioner Celine F. Gladwin wanted to know
\nwhether Phase II was part of what was being proposed.
\nKurrie said no, and illustrated with a laser pointer.
\nAlso military buffering requirements were much greater than local.
\nCommissioner (and architect) Gladwin also wanted to know whether all the streets were the same.
\nKurrie referred her to the
\n
\nsite plan<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n\"Laser<\/a>
\nKurrie said “when this is approved… then the county and the developer
\nwill actually completely finalize the plan”.
\nThat’s interesting.
\nThe county is supposed to approve a non-finalized plan?
\nHe also noted they were curved, not straight, streets,
\nand there are to be two exits onto Val Del.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\"Celine<\/a>
\nCommissioner Gladwin said that didn’t actually answer her question,
\nwhich had to do with planning for when both phases were built out:<\/p>\n

\nWhen I look at that I want so see some sort of hierarchy for
\na planned development.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n<\/a>
\nShe seemed to be asking about things like the
\n
\nNeighborhood Activity Center<\/a>
\nthe Comprehensive Plan recommends,
\nand she mentioned some potential incongruity between the suburban nature
\nof the development and its rural setting.
\nShe even mentioned the developers could have gone for one of the R for
\nResidential zoning categories instead of PD for Planned Development.<\/p>\n

\nKurrie said it wasn’t high density; there’s a lot of green space,
\nand “those development standards in our opinion are met”.
\nSure, let’s let the developers decide when the standards are met.
\nHe did address different zoning, saying with R-1 they could have
\nput a lot more houses there.
\nCommissioner Gladwin was not impressed.<\/p>\n

\nKurrie said the PD was so they didn’t have to subdivide the lots,
\nand he said the PD zoning provided “the comfort that what you’re looking at
\nis what the military wants”.
\nRemember, it’s not even really Moody AFB that wants this development:
\napparently it’s
\n
\nthe Air Force<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n<\/a>
\nCommissioner Ted Raker said the community center and such were the
\nadd-ons that justified the PD.
\nKurrie said that was correct, plus the roads and the 911 addresses,
\neven though it was all one lot.
\nHe noted there was no requirement for commercial or retail.<\/p>\n

\n<\/a>
\nChairman Johnny Ball called for other speakers in favor,
\nand got Tim Coombs from Hahira, who said as a business owner
\nhe recalled when the previous Moody housing project fell apart,
\nand most of the houses were not completed.
\nHe said to him it would be Moody personnel would fill up these
\nnew houses, and he hoped GLPC would encourage use of local subcontractors,
\nsince it wasn’t their fault the previous project fell apart.<\/p>\n

\n<\/a>
\n<\/a>
\n
\n\"Gretchen<\/a>
\nChairman Johnny Ball then asked for speakers against.
\nGretchen Quarterman expressed concerns about commuters
\nzooming down Hambrick Road to the base already,<\/p>\n

\nI’m wondering how people will get from this housing to the base.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Plus Nelson Hill, a bit up Val Del Road, was supposed to be
\ncondominiums and a gated community,<\/p>\n

\n

\n…and if you go out to Nelson Hill now you don’t find
\nanything resembling a gated condominium community;
\nyou find ticky-tacky houses where they cut down the swamp.<\/p>\n

\n
\n\"Gretchen<\/a>
\nAnd I’m really concerned, if there’s a BRAC,
\nand something were to happen, and
\nMoody wouldn’t be growing, it either would be staying the same size
\nor declining, that this PD would be turning into
\nsome PD like Nelson Hill….
\nI’m not sure how Nelson Hill got to what was approved in 2006
\nto what it is today, but it doesn’t at all resemble
\nthe zoning that it was given….<\/p>\n

\nSo those are my concerns: traffic, Nelson Hill, and
\nthe potential impact on this of a BRAC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nNobody else wanted to speak against, so the Chairman closed the
\npublic participation part.<\/p>\n

\nHere’s
\n
\nPart 1 of 2:<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n