Red Arrow Road project breaks ground

Officials with Island Housing Trust and South Mountain Company breaking ground on a new housing development - Nikeya Tankard

Updated, Jan. 24

Developers broke ground this week on the Red Arrow Community Housing project, which will become five new structures on 3.17 acres in West Tisbury.

On Tuesday, South Mountain Company, Island Housing Trust, and Habitat for Humanity representatives gathered for the ceremonial groundbreaking.

The project is estimated to be completed by December of 2025. 

Founder and president emeritus of South Mountain Company John Abrams said he looks forward to the future. “We’ll be here in about 12 months cutting ribbons,” he said.

CEO and co-owner of South Mountain Deirdre Bohan said she was also excited. “It’s going to be so great to drive up this road in December and see four families in a neighborhood that didn’t exist before.”

South Mountain Company will designate two, two-bedroom houses for workforce housing with a 140 percent area median income (AMI) restriction that will each be 976 square-feet; one, two-bedroom house will be designated for a Habitat for Humanity recipient to own; and plans call for a slightly larger home — at 1,296-square-feet with four bedrooms — to be designated under restriction for year-round residency for a West Tisbury resident. The Martha’s Vineyard Commission approved the plans in the fall of 2022.

South Mountain bookkeeper and IT coordinator Mia Esparini will be one of the workforce residents. “[My family and I] are all very lucky,” she said at Tuesday’s groundbreaking. 

This story was updated to reflect the number of buildings planned


  1. More positive news on the affordable housing front with another project coming into the pipeline. This was done without the necessity of a new tax on Vineyard homeowners and a new bureaucracy to dole out and administer the housing. Once again proving that a housing bank bill is not necessary for environmentally sustainable, affordable housing on MV. The housing bank bill will juice the development of affordable housing beyond environmentally sustainable levels. Overpopulation is already pushing the Vineyard to the brink. We don’t need a housing bank bill. Just say no. Keep Our Island Green

    • Dan– am I correct in assuming that you think
      it’s just fine for private investors to
      “juice the development of affordable housing beyond
      environmentally sustainable levels” but not to do it
      with government money, raised from a tax on wealthy
      people ?
      By the way, I trust South Mountain to be very
      environmentally responsible.

      • Argue against what I said, not what I didn’t say. I can be right about the housing bank bill without embracing the unneccesary choice stated in your post. Attributing an extreme position to someone rather than fairly addressing their remarks is called a “straw man” argument, a classic fallacy.

        • Ok– I asked you to clarify what you said.
          I didn’t say your opinion was extreme.
          Didn’t even imply it.
          So , back to your comment.
          You are for private projects
          but not government funded projects.
          Pretty simple — nothing extreme about that
          It’s what you said.
          I disagree– I like the idea of a housing
          bank. I think the land bank has worked well
          as I am a tax and spend liberal and capable
          of walking on and enjoying those properties.
          Is that extreme in your opinion ?
          The only straw man argument I see
          here is you attacking me for asking for

          • No you made an incorrect assumption as to my position. I oppose the housing bank bill because it is uneccessary and will lead to overpopuation and overdevelopment. Each AH project should be evaluated on it’s merits which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the project is publicly or privately funded. I have no broblem with public money being used. That’s not my objection.

        • Dan — Am I correct in assuming that you think
          That an AH project that is government funded by a tax on
          wealthy people will not be “evaluated on it’s merits ” ?
          I am curious to hear how a tax on real estate transactions
          will do that .
          Perhaps you could stop with the straw man arguments
          and just tell us why you are really opposed to it.
          Does it have anything to do with the “affordable”
          part ? We don’t have a train track to keep those
          poor folks on the other side of after all.

    • Mr. Larkosh, I think if you asked any of those people with shovels in the picture (the very people who did all the hard work to take this project from an idea to an actuality), they would disagree with you.

      • True that many people disagree with me about this issue. Particuarly AH advocates who are always seeking other sources of funding. That doesn’t mean I am wrong.

          • Dan is 100% correct on this one. If I’ve learned one important lesson since October 7th, it is that what most people agree upon is not always the best or truest thing. It takes courage and conviction to stand apart from the crowd on the long-term damaging Housing Bank, and to do it for all the right and admirable reasons. Dan Larkosh is exactly on point, seeing and explaining what the blind majority refuses to see. This newspaper disagrees with Dan, just like they disagreed with the valid BRW criticisms, and now we see where that went and why.

Comments are closed.