To the Editor:

This is in response to your story published July 2, “Edgartown triangle loft project continued,” in which I was quoted as a “supporter.” While I appreciate the accuracy of the quote so far as it was attributed, it was incomplete and thus failed to convey my entire opinion and concern.

I have spent the past eight years working in private and public affordable housing organizations. This project doesn’t fit the legal definition of affordable housing, in which candidates for tenancy would be selected based on income. However, it is being proposed as “workforce housing” aimed at those who may not qualify for some form of subsidy, but who still struggle to find a place to live here year-round. As such, I do support it — but only conditionally. As a private development, rental rates will be regulated by the market place. In a market where many hundreds of families are seeking year-round housing and a severe shortage prevails, it will be entirely too easy for rents to be raised beyond what is reasonable for a working family to pay.

Thus, the balance of my statement to the Edgartown Planning Board asked that they condition the approval of a special permit to ensure rents stay in the range the applicant is proposing, and to do so in such a way that those conditions remain should the property be sold. It would be ideal if the rents could be guaranteed to not exceed 25 percent of the current area median income for the Island. The current median income is approximately $86,000; this would result in a rent of about $1,800/month. At a time when too many families struggle with rents approaching (and sometimes exceeding) 50 percent of their income, that would allow those tenants to remain here to contribute to and grow in the community.

The applicant is requesting a special permit from the town. Despite my comments about traffic not being the developer’s responsibility, the town will be impacted. If it is being asked for something, the town should get something in exchange — an enforceable guarantee that rents will remain in the range being proposed. The Planning Board is so named for its responsibility to look to the future. It very much needs to do so in this case.

Doug Ruskin

West Tisbury