A Meeting, Not of Minds, For Southbridge

By Carl Glassman
POSTED FEB. 2, 2007

After all the name calling, angrily worded flyers and bad blood among neighbors at Southbridge Towers, opposing sides in the debate over “privatization” came together on Jan. 31. It was the first joint meeting in 20 years of feuding over the future of the complex.

The much-anticipated occasion was a chance to quiz Stuart Saft, the author of a 136-page study commissioned by the Southbridge board, on the co-op’s future if it were to leave its state-subsidized Mitchell-Lama program. That tax subsidy program keeps maintenance costs low for the 1,651 units, but prevents residents from profiting on their sale. The report bolstered the side of the “privatizers.” (It said residents could get a windfall on the sale of their apartments while a tax on those sales would keep monthly charges low.)

Opponents said it was filled with rosy false assumptions.

The thought of bringing the two factions together in one arena—the 836-seat Schimmel Hall at Pace University—gave organizers visions of resident hordes clamoring to get in. So they posted volunteers outside the theater to check IDs, making sure only one person per apartment entered the hall. And they even reserved a room with closed circuit TV for the overflow crowd.

But the turnout, as it turned out, was  meek. Half the seats remained empty.

“This is the most important issue Southbridge is going to face for the rest of our lives and there should have been more people,” said Southbridge board president John Fratta.

People like board member John Quinn, who has lived in the complex since it opened 36 years ago, were also stupefied by the apparent lack of interest. “People at Southbridge have always been very opinionated,” he said. “I remember when they had an issue about dogs, and people were throwing punches.”

The closest anyone came to shattering the decorum on this evening was an elderly woman in the back of the hall, whose outburst of alliteration won her some chuckles and light applause. “I’m baffled, bothered and bewildered,” the woman declared. “We need affordable housing today and the Mitchell-Lama program should be preserved!” Questions to Saft were polite. The answers—to the uninitiated, at least—could be eye-glazingly dense.

(Example: “Although the mortgage would remain a lien on the property, the cost of amortizing the mortgage would come from the interest produced on the sinking fund.”)

So it was that when a fire bell emptied the hall for 30 minutes midway through the meeting, many who had attended the event decided it was a convenient time to go home.

The meeting was a necessary step on the way to a vote on whether to go forward with a detailed prospectus, called a “black book.” That document is required before residents can finally vote on leaving the Mitchell-Lama program.

For the few undecided, the meeting did seem to provide, if nothing else, plenty to think about.

Vladimir Benyamin, a Russian immigrant who recently moved to Southbridge, stayed seated for a few minutes after the meeting, still mulling over what he had heard. “A lot of thoughts I got from this,” he said. “It was good.”

[Home][Back][Search] [Advertise][Contact]
The Tribeca Trib · 401 Broadway, 5th Floor · New York, NY · 10013 · 212.219.9709