Times Observer file photo Much of the debate over a proposed senior living project in downtown Warren has centered around preserving these buildings on Pennsylvania Ave. near Liberty St.

The decision at last week’s Warren City Council meeting to reject some sort of independent study for a proposed downtown senior living project was about more than just a study

Debate on the topic ran nearly an hour.

Most of that debate wasn’t actually about the proposed study.

It centered much more on the future of downtown Warren, whether the project is good for the city, whether the city would face legal action or commit fair housing discrimination if it pulled the plug.

And, as passions amped up, the debate got snarky at times. It even included a kickback accusation and discussion about whether low-income seniors are a good fit in the downtown.

“Look, everything has changed,” Councilman John Barbera said, citing Ben Run, Wicked Warren, Faded Floral, Salsa Soleil, twig & vine, Allegheny Antiques and Allegheny Outfitters as businesses that have started or moved since the senior living project was approved.

“Cambridge closed,” he said. “The Cambridge building is essentially what they’re going to build… a building people can live in.”

“No it isn’t,” Councilman Maurice Cashman responded. “Cambridge (is) not the same facility that will go into that lot as the Hudson project. They have no… individual cooking facilities. It (Cambridge) was an old motel.”

Cashman also highlighted the activities that will be promoted inside the building. He said he talked to state officials who visited a similar facility and came away impressed.

“So are you going to move there?” Barbera retorted.

“It’s a superior-type facility that is not in Warren County,” Cashman explained. “These people, the Hudson group, have been working long and hard. They have perseverance to finally have this funding approved. They have everything put in place (and are) just waiting on closing. We’re saying. ‘Wait a minute. We don’t want you here.’ That’s what I hear. What you’re doing by saying that is saying there are 40 or 42 people that will move into that facility (and) you’re denying them a superior living space. That lot has been vacant for close to 40 years and nobody wanted it… Yes, there’s been a variety of expansion down along the riverfront. It’s been wonderful, great for the community. Why you’re denying these people… is beyond me.”

“This project at this location scares me,” Councilwoman Wendy McCain said, “because it threatens the forward progress being made in our downtown, progress toward economic recovery. Our city… is in a very different situation than we were six years ago when this deal was made.”

The city sold the property to the developers back in 2018.

The award for this project — called Eagles Crest — includes $1,426,575 in PennHOMES loan funding, $416,667 in Pa Housing Tax Credits and $1,335,095 in federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), according to an award document from the state.

According to the Urban Institute & Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, the credits are issued to states who then award the funds to developers.

“Developers generally sell the credits to private investors to obtain funding,” they state. “Once the housing project is placed in service (essentially, made available to tenants), investors can claim the LIHTC over a 10-year period.”

The target properties for the project are the empty lot and vacant buildings at 231-237 Pennsylvania Ave. W.

“The conversation has been going on, there was a direction established at the beginning,” Councilman Jared Villella said, with an “opportunity for conversation every single time that vote has come up.”

McCain said a study on the impact of the project “to our city and riverfront” would be “appropriate.”

She said that the existing buildings that would be demolished have been “identified as contributing to our designation… to our historic district.”

A lawsuit filed in federal court last week by opponents – including McCain – claims that the existing structures on the parcel are “Warren’s only surviving example of single-story Beaux Arts Style architecture.”

According to a National Register site, the district is bounded by the Conewango Creek, the Allegheny River, Seventh Ave. and Laurel St.

The subject buildings, while part of the historic district, are not specifically listed on the National Register.

McCain outlined that her objections tie to the “nature of the building being torn down and the actual location. Closer to the grocery store and the senior center would be better. Optimal, no.”

Where would be optimal? She said the need for this project would “probably not” be within the city limits, citing Housing Authority properties.

She criticized the council for not listening to concerns from constituents.

Mayor Dave Wortman asked her what the study information would be used for.

“Take it back to Hudson and see if we can come up with something that’s agreeable.I feel very strongly about saving that building. Over the last two years we seem to be demo happy. I think it’s a bad deal.”

Wortman then asked if that would create a step for Hudson beyond what other developers in Warren have been asked to do.

“I’ve seen some developers in the City of Warren… do things that are not appropriate,” McCain said. “We have not always done our due diligence.”

She specifically mentioned the parking garage and the Allegheny Point apartments.

However, none of the current members of council were seated when those decisions were made. The parking garage was constructed in 2005. The closest connection on the current council is Cashman, who was elected to his first term that fall.

Wortman suggested the study would give council information to end a project that people dislike.

“This is putting the city’s interest in serious jeopardy,” he said, “to shut the project down based on preference.

That issue puts this city in jeopardy.

“We could be talking about building Disney World down there,” Wortman added. “The issue is we’re talking about preferential treatment.”

Barbera said “If the train already left the station….”

Cashman interjected and said “the train has left the station.”

Councilman Phil Gilbert asked what the cost would be to have the study completed.

City Manager Mike Holtz estimated the cost at $10,000 or more.

“Are we prepared to do a private consultant for every development from hear on out?” Councilman Danielle Flasher asked.

“If you have this much public outcry, absolutely,” McCain responded.

Flasher then asked if such a consultant was hired for the roundabout debate. The city did not take that step.

Wortman acknowledged that a study like this may have been appropriate as the project was first approved.

“The city has binding agreements with the Hudson Group,” Wortman said, “legally binding agreements. While it’s a historic building, it’s also been vacant for 40-plus years. It’s owned by the Hudson Group… the legal owner of the property to include the building.”

McCain said that the city has neglected the building and pointed out that if the project is not completed in 2025 the building and property will revert back to the city.

The developer’s counsel, Ron McCall, said he’s heard concerns for other projects about people not wanting

“those people” in the area, calling those statements unfortunate.

“Some of the facts and the words have been stated are incredibly unfortunate,” Wortman said. “I have a lot of friends and family in the city that might qualify for a place like that and like to live there. I’m going to leave it at that. We all do. Do with that what you want.”

“I want to be very clear, I don’t have a problem with low income seniors,” McCain said.

She circled back to the Housing Authority data and said “your friends have 44 opportunities for housing.”

“I want to help people,” she said. “I don’t want to do something (that) six years ago the city felt there were no other options.”

There was minimal public comment offered during the discussion on the survey.

Ron Peterson argued that Hudson did not follow federal law relative to the Section 106 process and that, based on a subgrantee agreement, asserted that Hudson could not sue the city.

He said there is a “lot of underhanded, shady kind of stuff going on.”

Kevin Sheldon, who ran an unsuccessful write-in campaign for a seat on council last fall, pointed out that the project has changed form since first proposed.

“The first floor was to be all commercial,” he said. “It’s a bait-and-switch.”

He then questioned whether someone in city government had a financial interest in the project.

“Who was paid off?” he asked. “Who took money to make this happen?”

Mayor Wortman shut that line of questioning down. McCain original motion for a survey? It failed in a 5-2 vote.