By Doug Weber
WESTPORT–The Building Department issued a permit to demolish the structures at 14 Maple Avenue N on Monday. The Historic District Commission had denied the waiver of the 180-day waiting period at its January 8, 2019 meeting. That waiting period expired in July 2019.
The 1 ½-story bungalow was built in 1925. It has 1,500-square-feet of living space, a basement, a crawl space, a wood deck, an open porch, two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a finished half story and a garage.
The property traded hands last month for $560,000. It had previously traded for $462,500 in 2019. The property’s current assessment is $352,400.
Source: Town of Westport Assessor records.
Doug Weber is the publisher of Westport Journal. Learn more about us here.
The assault on affordable housing is unrelenting. Hopefully this nice little bungalow will be replaced by some bloated thing that’s white with black windows.
SIR Development is making a killer profit by crushing this sweet house into the dumpster along with the house next door that SIR sent to the landfill a few days ago. The side-by-side development project was a good business deal for SIR but unfortunately, two families that might have been able to afford these smaller, older homes will no longer have the chance to live in them. Meanwhile, the Town of Westport wrings its hands over the fact that it is forced to comply with state regulations to create affordable housing. There’s got to be a better way for Westport to incentivize owners to retain these smaller homes so that the offers made by the tear-down experts (often made before the house is ever listed on the open market) isn’t so attractive or necessary.
Apparently this is what some would call gen·tri·fi·ca·tion. and it is …… dis·gust·ing
Sad to see these charming and (more) affordable homes being erased from the town’s landscape and inventory. Strikes me that homes like these present ripe opportunities for creative public/private partnerships that could facilitate homeownership for families of modest income and wealth.
A retired realtor recently shared that she used to co-invest in properties with recently divorced or widowed town residents who otherwise would have been compelled to leave town. The deals were simple and straightforward: They would form a partnership, each would contribute equity in the amounts they could, and borrow the balance. The resident would effectively “rent” the home from the partnership by way of being responsible for paying the mortgages, property taxes, and maintenance. It was a “win-win” for all.
Imagine if a similar program were created with a pool of funding (perhaps public and private) coupled with income and wealth conditions for future buyers, and deed restrictions on sale and use such that the homes would remain in the town’s (more) affordable inventory in perpetuity, passing from one family to another over time.
Excellent suggestion, Ian. Hey, Town Hall, are you listening?
Agree. Excellent suggestion. Where is it written that those of lesser means don’t want green grass under their feet and must be warehoused in huge, ugly buildings?