[LincolnTalk] On yesterday's HCA meeting

[Karla Gravis]

I encourage all those interested who were not able to attend to watch the
Q&A portion of the HCA meeting last night once it is uploaded.


   - The committee spent a lot of time reviewing what has been accomplished
   to date and discussing amongst themselves but little time was dedicated to
   public debate. Few of the public questions were actually answered by the
   committee, at times the mic was just passed on to the next question without
   any response. This is similar to previous meetings, where there is little
   room for resident debate. In my opinion, the outreach has been
   one-directional. The working group is composed only of people who sit on
   other boards, are town employees, or work for the RLF. There is no
   opportunity for a regular resident or member-at-large to be part of the
   decision-making. There are outstanding resident questions that the
   committee hasn’t answered.
   - The town legal counsel was present during the meeting. When asked why
   the Committee was contradicting his counsel as stated on public record, he
   indicated that he had changed his mind on the enforceability of
   compliance. He did not provide any facts to explain this reversal. He said
   that his new stance had come from a collaborative effort with his
   partners. This was very surprising to hear, as this very same law firm is
   defending the town of Holden, which has decided not to comply with the HCA.
   Our lawyer's partners at his firm, KP Law, wrote a motion to dismiss the
   action against Holden. We should not be rushing to comply just because
   “non-compliance is a risk” given our own lawyer's firm seems to be giving
   other towns the opposite message to what they are telling us. There are
   other towns like Weston which seem to be comfortable taking a wait-and-see
   approach.
   - The committee repeated its claim that we will lose millions in grant
   money by not complying. However, we have never received any money from the
   grants named in the actual HCA legislation. When this was brought up, the
   committee did not respond. The committee claims we should comply because we
   could use one of the grant programs to update the Village Center septic
   system to benefit a private developer. I struggle to understand why the
   town would need to fund this private enterprise. Wouldn’t we be setting a
   terrible precedent?
   - The committee continues to quote a pandemic-era traffic study and a
   flawed financial analysis to claim there is "no impact" to current
   residents. The financial analysis used a cost per student of $6.3K, when
   our school's cost per student is at least 4 times that.  This
   <https://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/statistics/per-pupil-exp.html>  report
   from the Department of Education puts LPS (excluding Hanscom) at $27K per
   pupil. The town with the lowest cost per pupil in the state is at $13K,
   nowhere close to the $6K. Using accurate numbers for that financial
   analysis would imply steep tax increases for current Lincoln residents.
   Let's remember that in this case, we are talking about apartments being
   rented starting at $4K a month.
   - I strongly believe in providing full transparency on the impact of
   rezoning to the town. If there is a tax and traffic impact, we need to be
   clear on it. The town may decide to take on these costs in the spirit of
   increasing housing, but it should be up to each resident to decide that for
   themselves, after being provided an accurate cost/benefit analysis.
   Residents have volunteered to conduct this analysis, but the committee has
   not taken them up on the offer, so far.
   - There seems to be a reluctance from the committee to provide more than
   one option for residents to vote on. There is another option that would
   entail rezoning areas where condos are already extant and the probability
   of redevelopment is much lower. The committee is very reluctant to follow
   this path. I am unclear as to why we do not want to present more than one
   option up to vote, when we do so for other big projects like the school or
   the community center.

Given such an important decision that may change the landscape of our town
for decades to come, we owe it to ourselves to look at these issues more
carefully. I struggle to understand why we are rushing to submit a proposal
to the state when we still have time before the deadline, other towns are
delaying and the guidelines could continue to change. The proposal wouldn't
even be increasing affordable housing materially.

Karla Gravis

Weston Rd
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted to the State

[Karla Gravis]

There are a lot of details here (which I encourage everyone to read) but 3
very important questions require answers:


   - Why did we submit 18 more acres in parcels to the State than what was
   approved by town boards for Option C?
   - Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher number
   of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for TCB or
   another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability
   requirement ends in 2032.
   - Why are we including so many parcels that give us no compliance credit
   with the State but enable developers to build many more units than is
   required for compliance?

Karla




>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait 
> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted to
> the State
> To: David Cuetos 
> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
> It’s concerning that we are paying Utile at least $20k to come up with
> these proposals on the town’s behalf and they have submitted it with this
> many inaccuracies.
> What is also is concerning is that, according to the minutes page, the
> HCAWG has not had a working meeting since the end of August- right after
> the guideline changes were announced and before option C was formed. No
> meetings were held in September and the two October meetings were multi
> board meeting presentations.
>
> *Is the full HCAWG reviewing the current proposals and what is being
> submitted to the state?*
>
> Including an additional 18 acres of land in the state proposal that has
> not been presented to the town and the Select board and planning board is
> unacceptable.
>
> *The HCAWG needs disbanded for the following reasons:*
>  •2 members are representing the best interest of the RLF LLC (aka trying
> to get the highest density possible allowed by right so they can sell the
> property to Civico for more money).
> •The proposals presented to the town all include unnecessary land that
> does not count towards the HCA compliance target.
> •Option C has been submitted to the state with this many inconsistencies
> that has been pointed out by David, and 18 acres of land being added that
> were not approved by the Select board or Planning board or the town.
> •The Open meeting law has been violated numerous times by the HCAWG; and a
> meeting mentioned in the select board minutes is missing from the HCAWG
> minutes page entirely.
>
>
> Better ways to comply with the HCA have been proposed. Stop rushing to get
> a RLF centric rezoning passed and get a better Working group in place.
>
> *This rezoning is going to shape the future decades of Lincoln- let’s do
> it thoughtfully and purposefully. *
>
>
> Sarah Postlethwait
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:37 AM David Cuetos 
> wrote:
>
>> *Executive Summary:*
>>
>>
>>- I identified a series of mistakes in the Option C proposal
>>submitted to the State for compliance check. Option C as presented in the
>>SOTT and approved by the Boards for submission rezoned 70 acres of land.
>>The model that was sent to the State rezoned 88 acres, 18 acres more. 
>> After
>>reviewing with our consultant Utile, the mistakes were confirmed by our
>>Director of Planning. For reference, the State is asking us to rezone 42
>>acres.
>>- The model sent to the State states the maximum number of units that
>>can be built in Lincoln as a result of the rezoning is 1,679. The State is
>>asking for 635 units.
>>- The HCAWG’s decision to include so many parcels near wetlands is
>>the main reason for this very high number of units.
>>- Public land, for example the DPW, is unnecessarily included in our
>>option C proposal. This has the impact of lowering our gross density, 
>> which
>>is one of the State's requirements.
>>- Options C and D1-D3 create an incentive for massive redevelopment
>>of Lincoln Woods. This could be avoided with no impact to compliance. It
>>seems that the density denominator used for Lincoln Woods is wrong as 
>> well.
>>- Options D1-D3 presented last night rezone 60-75 acres and could
>>also lead to >1,000 units built.
>>- More foresight has been applied to the proposals our resident group
>>has prepared: the maximum number of units built is exactly the same as the
>>compliance requirement (~635). 7 of these proposals have more than 20%
>>units near Lincoln Station.
>>
>> *Findings*
>>
>> Following multiple requests by residents over the past week, the HCAWG
>> finally released the Option C submission to the public yesterday. The
>> details of the model were surprising: *about 18 more acres of land were
>> included in what was sent to the State than what was presented to the
>> public and approved by the Boards. A number of parcels along Lincoln Rd
>> that were never part of any district presented to the public were added to
>> our submitted proposal*. While the parcels do not provide credit towar

Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted to the State

[Karla Gravis]

A number of us have reached out multiple times to the Director of Planning,
the Selects and members of the Planning Board directly to discuss these
issues. These emails are part of the record. I am happy to share those.
Unfortunately, the responses have been non-existent or minimal.

A number of us have begged to meet with Paula and the Selects and the
Planning Board members and we have been ignored. We also asked to meet with
Utile, and were refused. Again, happy to share all these communications.

It wasn't just an "error" in the submission: 18 more acres were submitted
than those that were officially approved. While some of those parcels added
were acknowledged as a "mistake", it seems some parcels which were not
approved by the Boards were deliberately added as they remain part of the
submission.

Beyond the 18 non-approved acres added, the model is riddled with
inaccuracies and inconsistencies (e.g. Lincoln Woods shows up as having
different acreage in 3 different places) that have not been addressed
despite repeated requests.These inaccuracies are important because they
affect the number of units calculated in the model, therefore impacting our
potential compliance and the design of our districts. It seems very well
possible that the inconsistencies could have led to the inclusion of lower
Codman Rd.

We cannot wait until November 7th to discuss these matters because this
submission has already been sent to the State.

As to the matter of the members of boards not being able to respond on LT,
Margaret Olson has consistently responded on regarding multiple technical
issues. The points we have made are exclusively technical. We have made
this critique public because 1) residents deserve to know and 2) we have
not received appropriate responses in our private attempts.




On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 9:05 AM Sara Mattes  wrote:

> Michael, et al.
> Remember, Jennifer explicitly said at the last “ forum” they could not
> respond to LT as it violated Open Meeting Law…we needed to send them
> private communications and meet with the.
> I would send emails to the entire board, and Cc staff.
> Do not accept responses from staff, except on technical matters.
> Insist elected and appointed officials engage.
> Then, the same questions can be asked on LT, and saying these have been
> asked of leadership.
>
> David’s critique demands an answer.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 27, 2023, at 8:53 AM, Michael Dembowski 
> wrote:
>
> 
> At what point does any town official respond to David's critique? - a
> response is needed whether by special meeting or thru LT.
> At risk is *any* community faith in the process that already seems
> fractured.
> Dialogue is welcome - whether it be acknowledgement of errors, a response
> to each point made, or even an extended invite to David to formally join
> HCAWG.
> Michael Dembowski
> Conant Road
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:09 AM Susanna Szeto  wrote:
>
>> Good questions Karla!  We need someone to ask these questions at the
>> board meeting!  WHO will do it?
>>
>> Susanna
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2023, at 6:02 AM, Karla Gravis  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> There are a lot of details here (which I encourage everyone to read) but
>> 3 very important questions require answers:
>>
>>
>>- Why did we submit 18 more acres in parcels to the State than what
>>was approved by town boards for Option C?
>>- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for TCB
>>or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability
>>requirement ends in 2032.
>>- Why are we including so many parcels that give us no compliance
>>credit with the State but enable developers to build many more units than
>>is required for compliance?
>>
>> Karla
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait 
>>> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16
>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted
>>> to the State
>>> To: David Cuetos 
>>> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>>>
>>>
>>> It’s concerning that we are paying Utile at least $20k to come up with
>>> these proposals on the town’s behalf and they have submitted it with this
>>> many inaccuracies.
>>> What is also is concerning is that, according to the minutes page, the
>>> HCAWG has not had a working meeting since the end of August- right after
>>> the guideline changes were announced and before option C was formed. No
>>> meetings were held in September and

Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted to the State

[Karla Gravis]

Those of us speaking up on here were at that meeting, myself included. Not
all questions were answered. The mike was handed over to the next resident.

The most important part is that we only received the model right before the
meeting, even though we had been asking for it for many days. We didn’t
have enough time to review.

Now that we have uncovered these problems with the submission, they should
be addressed ASAP. We shouldn’t have to wait for almost two weeks, given
this was submitted to the State.





On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 3:03 PM RAandBOB  wrote:

> I attended the last forum, which had 45 minutes for open questions.
> Apparently none of the people have been so voluble on Lincoln talk attended
> that meeting. There are several more meetings which are largely Feedback
> meetings, so I hope you guys will attend and ask your questions.
>
> Ruth Ann
> (She, her, hers)
>
> On Oct 27, 2023, at 2:44 PM, Scott Clary  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Yes John but the problem with the public forums the way they are
> intentionally set up are pretty much a one-way Street where the public has
> very little opportunity for questions and answers. It's simply the agenda
> driven Town leaders driving home their agenda with fancy slides and way too
> much one-sided talk.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Scott Clary
> 617-968-5769
>
> Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 9:02 AM John Mendelson 
> wrote:
>
>> Easy to lob accusations and perhaps even some conspiracy theories on LT
>> where the members of the HCAWG cannot respond.
>>
>> Perhaps there was an error on the submission but a more appropriate forum
>> to query this would be in either of the two open forums on November 8 that
>> have been widely publicized.
>>
>> Questions and answers on the record.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 8:53 AM Michael Dembowski 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> At what point does any town official respond to David's critique? - a
>>> response is needed whether by special meeting or thru LT.
>>> At risk is *any* community faith in the process that already seems
>>> fractured.
>>> Dialogue is welcome - whether it be acknowledgement of errors, a
>>> response to each point made, or even an extended invite to David to
>>> formally join HCAWG.
>>> Michael Dembowski
>>> Conant Road
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:09 AM Susanna Szeto 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good questions Karla!  We need someone to ask these questions at the
>>>> board meeting!  WHO will do it?
>>>>
>>>> Susanna
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 27, 2023, at 6:02 AM, Karla Gravis 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of details here (which I encourage everyone to read)
>>>> but 3 very important questions require answers:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>- Why did we submit 18 more acres in parcels to the State than what
>>>>was approved by town boards for Option C?
>>>>- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for 
>>>> TCB
>>>>or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability
>>>>requirement ends in 2032.
>>>>- Why are we including so many parcels that give us no compliance
>>>>credit with the State but enable developers to build many more units 
>>>> than
>>>>is required for compliance?
>>>>
>>>> Karla
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>>>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait 
>>>>> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16
>>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals
>>>>> submitted to the State
>>>>> To: David Cuetos 
>>>>> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s concerning that we are paying Utile at least $20k to come up with
>>>>> these proposals on the town’s behalf and they have submitted it with this
>>>>> many inaccuracies.
>>>>> What is also is concerning is that, according to the minutes page, the
>>>>> HCAWG has not had a working meeting since the end of August- right after
>>>>> the guideline changes were announced and before option C was formed. No
>>>&

Re: [LincolnTalk] Arlington passes their HCA re-zoning plan

[Karla Gravis]

Thanks for sharing the article. Please bear in mind that Arlington is
considered an "adjacent" community - the requirements for them are
much lower than for Lincoln (we are deemed a "commuter rail" community).

Arlington is required to zone only 10% of their current housing stock, and
32 acres. They are already a more densely-populated town. See below for
link.

Lincoln is being asked to rezone 23% of our current housing stock
(including Hanscom), which translates to 31% if we exclude Hanscom, so 2-3
times what is being asked of Arlington. We are being asked to rezone 43
acres vs Arlington's 32.

Multi-Family Zoning Requirement for MBTA Communities | Mass.gov



>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Louis Zipes 
> Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 15:43
> Subject: [LincolnTalk] Arlington passes their HCA re-zoning plan
> To: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
> *RIP my inbox*
>
> For those with a Boston Globe subscription or other means to view the
> article, they reported that Arlington passed their HCA Zoning changes
> earlier this week. I'm sure that people here will look at what they did and
> take away their own different conclusions and will give counter-points
> and examples of towns slow-walking the process (Holden!) but just wanted to
> give some news in the spirit of looking outside of our little slice of
> heaven.
>
> Although, I will note that I certainly hope that the police will not need
> to be called to any of the remaining forums like they did at one planning
> board meeting in Arlington!
>
> For those that wanted to know if the vote was close, it wasn't. Several
> amendments were offered up and rejected as documented in the article.
>
> Residents opposed to it were also quoted as saying
>
> "*This will be the biggest change for Arlington in our lifetime"*
> *"increase property taxes while doing little to help create more
> affordable housing. It will make living here harder for people on fixed,
> lower, and middle incomes. It will promote only an affluent class.”*
>
> On a side note, this might be my* 'favorite' *on line comment to the
> article:
>
>  *Build middle class houses. These ideas are exactly what Beijing and
> Moscow do.** Arlington is becoming very similar to Beijing and
> Moscow. 😀 *
>
> Have a good weekend!
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Fw: HCA Slides from the 10/24 + link to meeting video + more answers to FAQs

[Karla Gravis]

Thank you for uploading the slides.Thank you also for answering one of the
questions that were submitted. I am glad to hear that Utile has corrected
one of the discrepancies we identified in the model.

There are still other discrepancies that were submitted earlier in the week
that have not been addressed. I apologize for the push, but it is important
that residents have sound information leading into the November 8th
forums.  We would be happy to meet in person to discuss.


   1. The Village Center district presented on Tuesday is different from
   what was presented at SOTT and approved by the Boards for submission on
   10/10. It cannot be attributed to a rounding error. It can be seen in the
   slides that new parcels have been colored in yellow in the district map and
   the acreage listed in the table is approximately one acre higher over what
   was approved in the public meeting. *How was that decided? Are there
   internal meetings where such decisions are made?*
   2. The DPW question many of us have posed remains unanswered. We get no
   credit for that lot from a compliance perspective and we don't need it in
   the model. *Why is DPW included in Option C? Is there a redevelopment
   plan?*
   3. Lincoln Woods is currently zoned at 20 units per acre for a maximum
   of 403 units, but we only get credit for 159 from the State. Ms. Vaughn
   confirmed that developers are not limited to the modeled capacity, they are
   only limited to the maximum capacity, as long as the developers abide by
   the setbacks and height restrictions. We would meet compliance if we zoned
   Lincoln Woods at 8 units per acre. *Why are we taking the extra risk of
   potential redevelopment (and resident eviction) by zoning LW at 20 units
   per acre?*
   4. Option C includes parcels amounting to tens of acres of land which do
   not contribute a single unit towards compliance. The list includes 136, 140
   and 150 Lincoln Rd, 0 Ridge (Town of Lincoln), 94, 98 and 108 Codman Rd, 30
   Lewis St and several town parcels along the railroad track. *Why are
   those parcels being included in our proposal?*
   5. The data in the model for Lincoln Woods continues to be inaccurate. *The
   slides show 7.6 acres of developable land at Lincoln Woods, but the model
   only shows 6.2. The reason this is very important is because we could be
   undercounting units at LW by 18%. *This undercounting can lead us to
   overzone in other areas.
   6. Option C unnecessarily includes 6 acres of public land. Any parcel
   rezoned under the HCA can be redeveloped with only 10% affordable units.
   Instead of including those under HCA, *why not develop them at our own
   discretion with a higher affordability requirement?*
   7. The revised option C model could lead up to 1,370 being built in
   Lincoln Station. The cap is so high that we put ourselves at risk of many
   more units being built over the 639 modeled figure. *Why wasn't there a
   focused effort to ensure that the maximum number of units would match the
   modeled number? The proposals we have submitted are able to accomplish
   this.*
   8. The excluded area numbers in the model continue to be inaccurate
   across a couple of districts. Please see below for screenshots.

I have shared these questions individually as well.

Thank you,
Karla

[image: image.png]

[image: image.png]






>
>
>
> - Forwarded Message -
> *From:* Jennifer Glass via Lincoln 
> *To:* LincolnTalk 
> *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2023 at 04:07:27 PM EDT
> *Subject:* [LincolnTalk] HCA Slides from the 10/24 + link to meeting
> video + more answers to FAQs
>
> Good afternoon,
>
> Thank you all for your patience in waiting for the slides from Tuesday’s
> meeting.
>
> We know that there were questions about some of the numbers, and we wanted
> to make sure we could go through the information with our consultants at
> Utile before publishing the slides.
>
> This is the phase of the process when we are getting down to details such
> as how many decimal places are we going to use in the calculations.  There
> were some instances where numbers were being rounded inconsistently, and
> those have been fixed.
>
> *It is important to note that while the numbers on these slides may be
> slightly different from what you see if you watch the video, the changes
> had no impact on the land included or the structure of the different
> options.  ALL are compliant and can be summarized as follows:*
>
>
>- *Option C: * The entire district is within 1/2 mile of the MBTA
>train station.
>- *Option D1: * Reduces the Codman Road subdistrict substantially;
>slight reduction to the Lincoln Road subdistrict; adds Lincoln North as a
>subdistrict.
>- *Option D2:  *Reduces the Codman Road subdistrict substantially;
>slight reduction to the Lincoln Road subdistrict; adds Battle Road Farm as
>a subdistrict.
>- *Option D3:  *Eliminates Codman Road subdistrict; slight reduction
>to the Lincol

Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted to the State

[Karla Gravis]

The questions that we have been posted on Lincoln Talk, and directly to the
WG, are technical in nature. Both the HCAWG and the CCBC regularly post
FAQs on the town website and on LT. In the case of the HCAWG, on Friday
they posted the response to only one of the questions on this same forum,
but did not address any of the other questions that had been submitted.

I understand there may be open meeting law constrains on *back-and-forth
debate* on a platform like this. However, why are the questions submitted
any different from those that are regularly answered in FAQSs from many of
the town boards? Why do we now have to wait for the forum?

I thought the intent of the forum was to weigh in on the different options
D1-D3. It will be hard to have an informed conversation at the forum if the
technical aspects of those options are not correct and/or clarified.



On Oct 29, 2023, at 9:16 AM, Margaret Olson  wrote:
>
> 
>
> *"At what point does any town official respond to David's critique? - a
> response is needed whether by special meeting or thru LT.*
>
> *At risk is any community faith in the process that already seems
> fractured. "*
>
> Michael,
>
> The open meeting laws require that any deliberations be held in a posted
> public meeting. When I respond to posts it is to cite facts and to the
> extent possible point people to existing information. The open meeting law
> requirements are cumbersome and do make the pace of response slow, and
> particularly slow for issues that cross multiple boards as does the HCA.
>
> All of the HCA materials, including the town's state submission (to date)
> and all public presentations, can be found here:
> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group. This
> site is updated regularly with new information. Keep in mind that the
> boards and committees receive multiple variations on the same questions and
> in general address them through the public forums and the town's HCA page.
>
> I encourage you and others with questions to come to one of the forums on
> November 8th: at 8am in the town offices or at 7pm on Zoom (registration:
> https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZ0lcuuqqj8uGtFZbgFL3Ghr2zR5oH5ZdaVF).
>
>
> Margaret
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:52 AM Michael Dembowski 
> wrote:
>
>> At what point does any town official respond to David's critique? - a
>> response is needed whether by special meeting or thru LT.
>> At risk is *any* community faith in the process that already seems
>> fractured.
>> Dialogue is welcome - whether it be acknowledgement of errors, a response
>> to each point made, or even an extended invite to David to formally join
>> HCAWG.
>> Michael Dembowski
>> Conant Road
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:09 AM Susanna Szeto  wrote:
>>
>>> Good questions Karla!  We need someone to ask these questions at the
>>> board meeting!  WHO will do it?
>>>
>>> Susanna
>>>
>>> On Oct 27, 2023, at 6:02 AM, Karla Gravis  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> There are a lot of details here (which I encourage everyone to read) but
>>> 3 very important questions require answers:
>>>
>>>
>>>- Why did we submit 18 more acres in parcels to the State than what
>>>was approved by town boards for Option C?
>>>- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for 
>>> TCB
>>>or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability
>>>requirement ends in 2032.
>>>- Why are we including so many parcels that give us no compliance
>>>credit with the State but enable developers to build many more units than
>>>is required for compliance?
>>>
>>> Karla
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait 
>>>> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16
>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted
>>>> to the State
>>>> To: David Cuetos 
>>>> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It’s concerning that we are paying Utile at least $20k to come up with
>>>> these proposals on the town’s behalf and they have submitted it with this
>>>> many inaccuracies.
>>>> What is also is concerning is that, according to the minutes page, the
>>>> HCAWG has not had a working meeting since the end of August- right after
>>>> the guideline

Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted to the State

[Karla Gravis]

One of the questions we submitted was answered as part of the FAQs that
were sent out by the HCAWG on Friday, but the rest were not. See below for
quote from that email. This question was posed to the HCAWG via email after
any meeting happened, so I don’t believe there is a constraint to wait for
a meeting to send out FAQs.

The email posted on LT says this in reference to the question we submitted:
“Finally, there have been questions about whether Option C had excess land.
The answer to that is below and with other FAQs on the website.
As always, if you have specific questions, reach out individually.”.

The FAQs states that there was indeed a mistake made by Utile in the excel
model submitted to the State, which was corrected after residents brought
it up.

The CCBC and HCAWG regularly post FAQs on their website and LT. They are
also able to answer questions via email to residents, like Ms. Jennifer
Glass is kindly offering in that quote above. Ms. Olson regularly posts in
regards to technical questions. All these questions are technical.

It is crucial we have the answers before the forum so we can have an
informed discussion.




On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:57 PM Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:

> *I understand there may be open meeting law constrains on *back-and-forth
> debate* on a platform like this. However, why are the questions submitted
> any different from those that are regularly answered in FAQSs from many of
> the town boards? Why do we now have to wait for the forum?*
>
> From
> https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/09/25/2017%20Guide%20only.pdf:
>
> The Open Meeting Law defines deliberation as “an oral or written
>>
> communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or
>> among a
>> quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction.”
>
>
> Note that the expression of an opinion on matters within the body’s
>> jurisdiction
>> to a quorum of a public body is a deliberation, even if no other public
>> body member
>> responds.
>>
>
>> Except in cases of emergency, a public body must provide the public with
>> notice
>> of its meeting 48 hours in advance, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
>> legal holidays.
>>
>
> I think most (all?) of the FAQs are distributed after meetings (that
> conformed to the Open Meeting Law).
>
> Rich
> (still not a lawyer, but at this point considering applying to law school)
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:40 PM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> The questions that we have been posted on Lincoln Talk, and directly to
>> the WG, are technical in nature. Both the HCAWG and the CCBC regularly post
>> FAQs on the town website and on LT. In the case of the HCAWG, on Friday
>> they posted the response to only one of the questions on this same forum,
>> but did not address any of the other questions that had been submitted.
>>
>> I understand there may be open meeting law constrains on *back-and-forth
>> debate* on a platform like this. However, why are the questions
>> submitted any different from those that are regularly answered in FAQSs
>> from many of the town boards? Why do we now have to wait for the forum?
>>
>> I thought the intent of the forum was to weigh in on the different
>> options D1-D3. It will be hard to have an informed conversation at the
>> forum if the technical aspects of those options are not correct and/or
>> clarified.
>>
>>
>>
>>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted to the State

[Karla Gravis]

We have been told that our questions will be answered at the forum on the
8th, but there are no meetings posted before then.  If these questions
required meetings, there would have to be one on the calendar for the HCAWG
before the 8th and there isn’t. In any case, the questions, technical in
nature, should not trigger a meeting.


Most of the questions focus around potential mistakes/inaccuracies in the
model that we submitted to the State. Just like some of the mistakes have
already been acknowledged and corrected by Utile, the other concerns should
be addressed before the forum. How would we properly have a discussion on
the 8th if the underlying data is not accurate?

   1. The Village Center district in the model submitted to the State is
   different from what was approved by the boards on October 10th. The maps
   changed *after* the approval meeting - additional parcels were colored
   in yellow and the corresponding acreage was changed without any explanation
   nor deliberation. Given the maps themselves changed, this cannot be
   attributed to a rounding error.
   2. We are including many parcels that provide 0 units towards
   compliance, like the DPW, which are not necessary for contiguity.
   3. The data in the model for Lincoln Woods continues to be inaccurate.
   The slides show 7.6 acres of developable land at Lincoln Woods, but the
   model submitted to the State only shows 6.2. The reason this is very
   important is because we could be undercounting units at LW by 18%. This
   undercounting can lead us to overzone in other areas.
   4. The excluded area numbers in the model continue to be inaccurate
   across a couple of districts.





On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 1:41 PM Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:

> I can't speak to the specific questions you are asking about but one
> possible reason for not immediately responding to a question is that it
> might require a discussion among members which would trigger the
> requirement that 'deliberations' must occur in the context of an open
> meeting.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 1:17 PM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> One of the questions we submitted was answered as part of the FAQs that
>> were sent out by the HCAWG on Friday, but the rest were not. See below for
>> quote from that email. This question was posed to the HCAWG via email after
>> any meeting happened, so I don’t believe there is a constraint to wait for
>> a meeting to send out FAQs.
>>
>> The email posted on LT says this in reference to the question we
>> submitted:
>> “Finally, there have been questions about whether Option C had excess
>> land. The answer to that is below and with other FAQs on the website.
>> As always, if you have specific questions, reach out individually.”.
>>
>> The FAQs states that there was indeed a mistake made by Utile in the
>> excel model submitted to the State, which was corrected after residents
>> brought it up.
>>
>> The CCBC and HCAWG regularly post FAQs on their website and LT. They are
>> also able to answer questions via email to residents, like Ms. Jennifer
>> Glass is kindly offering in that quote above. Ms. Olson regularly posts in
>> regards to technical questions. All these questions are technical.
>>
>> It is crucial we have the answers before the forum so we can have an
>> informed discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:57 PM Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:
>>
>>> *I understand there may be open meeting law constrains on
>>> *back-and-forth debate* on a platform like this. However, why are the
>>> questions submitted any different from those that are regularly answered in
>>> FAQSs from many of the town boards? Why do we now have to wait for the
>>> forum?*
>>>
>>> From
>>> https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/09/25/2017%20Guide%20only.pdf:
>>>
>>> The Open Meeting Law defines deliberation as “an oral or written
>>>>
>>> communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or
>>>> among a
>>>> quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction.”
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that the expression of an opinion on matters within the body’s
>>>> jurisdiction
>>>> to a quorum of a public body is a deliberation, even if no other public
>>>> body member
>>>> responds.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Except in cases of emergency, a public body must provide the public
>>>> with notice
>>>> of its meeting 48 hours in advance, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
>>>> legal holidays.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think most (all?) of the FAQ

Re: [LincolnTalk] the Rural land foundation and the Housing Choice Act

[Karla Gravis]

If we wanted to allow a developer to build mixed-use (commercial +
residential) in the mall area, we can always do so through town meeting. We
do not need to wait for HCA.

However, because Civico has said they do not want to go through town
meeting again (slide 34 of the SOTT deck linked below), the HCAWG wants to
rezone the mall area through HCA, even though the acreage does *not* count
towards our compliance requirement. Rezoning through HCA also means that we
lose the ability to vote on actual plans/blueprints.

I am not against redeveloping the mall area. However, let's not reduce our
residents' input by bending to the will of a developer. Let's remember we
gave Civico a $1M no-interest loan for the 15 affordable apartments in
Oriole Landing, and they turned around and sold the building for $32M. Like
someone else has said on this thread, it is indeed troubling.

Link to deck:
https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85116/2023-SOTT-HCA-Slide-Deck-wtih-Notes?bidId=



> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Margaret Olson 
> Date: Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 11:40
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] the Rural land foundation and the Housing
> Choice Act
> To: Deborah Howe 
> CC: 
>
>
> By law all property has a "by-right" use. In the case of the Mall the base
> zoning is B-1, so the current by-right use is retail, businesses, and
> professional offices.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 9:41 AM Deborah Howe via Lincoln <
> lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:
>
>> Speaking as a concerned citizen:
>>
>> The inclusion of by-right Mall development in the HCA, and resulting need
>> for septic upgrades funded by state grants sounds like a case of “If we had
>> some ham we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.”
>>
>> And Colleen, I agree with you that the Mall sale should be decoupled from
>> the HCA. That area is one of the most visible elements of Lincoln’s
>> “institutional spine”, and the decisions about how it is developed
>> shouldn’t be sold off without a 2/3 Town meeting vote. This land is not
>> just an RLF asset; given its location and presence in the South Lincoln
>> streetscape it is a Town asset.
>>
>> Deb Howe
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] the Rural land foundation and the Housing Choice Act

[Karla Gravis]

At no point in my post did I suggest that the change in ownership changed
the status of affordable housing at Oriole Landing.


But these are the facts:

   - Civico has said that they are not willing to go through the town
   meeting process again
   - We can always rezone the mall area through town meeting, we do not
   need to wait for HCA
   - Including mall rezoning in HCA does *not* give us credit for acres
   towards HCA compliance
   - Including mall rezoning in HCA greatly reduces the influence the town
   has since the project itself would not have to go through town meeting
   - Civico sold Oriole Landing for $32M
   - We gave Civico a $1M no-interest loan to ensure 15 units were
   affordable. To the extent of my knowledge, they did not repay such loan. It
   was transferred to the company that bought Oriole Landing
   - The HCAWG has said we will use HCA compliance to apply for a grant to
   improve the wastewater treatment plant. This would benefit a private
   developer (TCB) and eventually whichever company develops the mall. There
   are other grants we could apply for that would benefit our town residents
   over this one that benefits developers.





On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 1:56 PM Margaret Olson  wrote:

> Just to be clear: the Oriole Landing affordable units are protected in
> perpetuity; the change of ownership is immaterial to the status of those
> units.
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 2:27 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
>> If we wanted to allow a developer to build mixed-use (commercial +
>> residential) in the mall area, we can always do so through town meeting. We
>> do not need to wait for HCA.
>>
>> However, because Civico has said they do not want to go through town
>> meeting again (slide 34 of the SOTT deck linked below), the HCAWG wants to
>> rezone the mall area through HCA, even though the acreage does *not*
>> count towards our compliance requirement. Rezoning through HCA also means
>> that we lose the ability to vote on actual plans/blueprints.
>>
>> I am not against redeveloping the mall area. However, let's not reduce
>> our residents' input by bending to the will of a developer. Let's remember
>> we gave Civico a $1M no-interest loan for the 15 affordable apartments in
>> Oriole Landing, and they turned around and sold the building for $32M. Like
>> someone else has said on this thread, it is indeed troubling.
>>
>> Link to deck:
>>
>> https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85116/2023-SOTT-HCA-Slide-Deck-wtih-Notes?bidId=
>>
>>
>>
>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>> From: Margaret Olson 
>>> Date: Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 11:40
>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] the Rural land foundation and the Housing
>>> Choice Act
>>> To: Deborah Howe 
>>> CC: 
>>>
>>>
>>> By law all property has a "by-right" use. In the case of the Mall the
>>> base zoning is B-1, so the current by-right use is retail, businesses, and
>>> professional offices.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 9:41 AM Deborah Howe via Lincoln <
>>> lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Speaking as a concerned citizen:
>>>>
>>>> The inclusion of by-right Mall development in the HCA, and resulting
>>>> need for septic upgrades funded by state grants sounds like a case of “If
>>>> we had some ham we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.”
>>>>
>>>> And Colleen, I agree with you that the Mall sale should be decoupled
>>>> from the HCA. That area is one of the most visible elements of Lincoln’s
>>>> “institutional spine”, and the decisions about how it is developed
>>>> shouldn’t be sold off without a 2/3 Town meeting vote. This land is not
>>>> just an RLF asset; given its location and presence in the South Lincoln
>>>> streetscape it is a Town asset.
>>>>
>>>> Deb Howe
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>>>> Browse the archives at
>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>>>> Change your subscription settings at
>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>>> Browse the archives at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>>> Change your subscription settings at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>>
>>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] the Rural land foundation and the Housing Choice Act

[Karla Gravis]

That specific sentence being quoted needs to be taken in context of the
full paragraph from my email:

"However, because Civico has said they do not want to go through town
meeting again (slide 34 of the SOTT deck linked below), the HCAWG wants to
rezone the mall area through HCA, even though the acreage does *not* count
towards our compliance requirement. Rezoning through HCA also means that we
lose the ability to vote on actual plans/blueprints.

I am not against redeveloping the mall area. However, let's not reduce our
residents' input by bending to the will of a developer. Let's remember we
gave Civico a $1M no-interest loan for the 15 affordable apartments in
Oriole Landing, and they turned around and sold the building for $32M. Like
someone else has said on this thread, it is indeed troubling."

The reason I think it's troubling is *not* due to the affordability
requirement (which by the way, in the case of Oriole Landing is not 15%,
but 25% or 15 units out of 60).

I think it is troubling because we gave a no-interest loan to a developer
that very shortly afterwards offloaded said property, realizing a very
substantial profit. Given the span of time elapsed between the loan and the
sale, it must have been obvious to many observers that the project was more
than financially viable for Civico. It is also troubling that this same
developer now states they do not want to go to town meeting to redevelop
the Mall, and the working group is bending over backwards to accommodate
that wish by forcing this a la carte rezoning through our HCA compliance
exercise. Rezoning through HCA means that the town loses the ability to
vote on actual plans/blueprints for the project. We also lose the ability
to control how much, if any, commercial space survives in the new
development. And most troubling of all, zoning through HCA allows us to
require only 10% affordable housing - we lose the ability to require more.

I question the assumption that we needed to give Civico a $1M giveaway to
compensate them for the concessions they had to make. For a similar project
in Winchester, approved in 2022, Civico had to actually pay the town $1.5M,
add more public parking and increase the number of affordable units.
Winchester gave Civico a $500K loan at 5% interest, to be repaid in 13
years. Seems like we have a lot more room to negotiate with Civico than
some would like us to believe.

https://homenewshere.com/daily_times_chronicle/news/winchester/article_73f9c2b0-e672-11ec-8b7c-5fe0df0538d2.html



On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 8:20 PM RAandBOB  wrote:

> Scott, I think your nasty tone is completely uncalled for. I did read your
> post and this is what the final sentence said:
>
> . Let's remember we gave Civico a $1M no-interest loan for the 15
> affordable apartments in Oriole Landing, and they turned around and sold
> the building for $32M. Like someone else has said on this thread, it is
> indeed troubling.
>
> It may not be what you meant, but this statement could lead someone to
> believe that it’s troubling because the 15% affordable housing disappeared
> with the sale. Margaret is just clarifying that point in a very reasonable
> tone.
>
> Ruth Ann
> (She, her, hers)
>
> On Nov 1, 2023, at 7:01 PM, Scott Clary  wrote:
>
> . Let's remember we gave Civico a $1M no-interest loan for the 15
> affordable apartments in Oriole Landing, and they turned around and sold
> the building for $32M. Like someone else has said on this thread, it is
> indeed troubling.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] the Rural Land Foundation and the Housing Choice Act

[Karla Gravis]

>From Civico’s own documentation (link below), they estimated the total
development cost per condo was $351K (including acquisition costs). This
means that it would have cost them ~$21M to complete the 60-unit
development. Considering the $1M loan and the sale price of $32M, Civico
made ~$12M in only 4 years on a $20M investment, in addition to any rents
collected. 60% return on assets seems pretty profitable to me. This doesn’t
even include the benefit they would have gotten from any leverage.

I am not comparing the project itself to the Winchester project. What I am
pointing to is that Winchester was able to negotiate a deal with Civico
that includes a $1.5M payment from Civico to the town, as well as other
concessions like more affordable units and extra parking. Winchester was
able to negotiate this because the project had to go through town meeting.
In fact, the first time, it failed the vote, and only passed on the second
round after these concessions were made.

I would like to repeat what I said in my first post:
I am not against redeveloping the mall. What I do continue to find
troubling is that we are being pushed into rezoning the mall through HCA,
because a developer said that they would not go through town meeting.
Rezoning the mall through HCA would eliminate our ability to vote on the
project and extract concessions from developers. Additionally, we have been
told we would apply for public grants to benefit private developers.

Let’s learn from the experience of Winchester and not eliminate the
strength of our town meeting process.

https://www.communitypreservation.org/sites/g/files/vyhlif4646/f/uploads/oriole_landing_peer_review.pdf



On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 11:24 PM Sara Lupkas  wrote:

> Hi Karla,
>
> You wrote, "I think it is troubling because we gave a no-interest loan to a 
> developer that very shortly afterwards offloaded said property, realizing a 
> very
>
> substantial profit." Civico bought the property in 2018 for $2.25 million, 
> and they sold the development in 2022 for $32.4 million. I'm not sure how you 
> can assume they made a substantial profit on the basis of that information 
> alone, as we don't have the numbers of what they spent. They did develop the 
> property, building 60 units and all the necessary infrastructure, and I would 
> guess at a not-trivial cost. Comparing a development in Winchester, which 
> began 4 years later, in very different circumstances (post-Covid) and in a 
> different town seems to be comparing apples to oranges.
>
> Best,
>
> Sara
>
>
>
>
> That specific sentence being quoted needs to be taken in context of the
> full paragraph from my email:
>
> "However, because Civico has said they do not want to go through town
> meeting again (slide 34 of the SOTT deck linked below), the HCAWG wants to
> rezone the mall area through HCA, even though the acreage does *not* count
> towards our compliance requirement. Rezoning through HCA also means that we
> lose the ability to vote on actual plans/blueprints.
>
> I am not against redeveloping the mall area. However, let's not reduce our
> residents' input by bending to the will of a developer. Let's remember we
> gave Civico a $1M no-interest loan for the 15 affordable apartments in
> Oriole Landing, and they turned around and sold the building for $32M. Like
> someone else has said on this thread, it is indeed troubling."
>
> The reason I think it's troubling is *not* due to the affordability
> requirement (which by the way, in the case of Oriole Landing is not 15%,
> but 25% or 15 units out of 60).
>
> I think it is troubling because we gave a no-interest loan to a developer
> that very shortly afterwards offloaded said property, realizing a very
> substantial profit. Given the span of time elapsed between the loan and the
> sale, it must have been obvious to many observers that the project was more
> than financially viable for Civico. It is also troubling that this same
> developer now states they do not want to go to town meeting to redevelop
> the Mall, and the working group is bending over backwards to accommodate
> that wish by forcing this a la carte rezoning through our HCA compliance
> exercise. Rezoning through HCA means that the town loses the ability to
> vote on actual plans/blueprints for the project. We also lose the ability
> to control how much, if any, commercial space survives in the new
> development. And most troubling of all, zoning through HCA allows us to
> require only 10% affordable housing - we lose the ability to require more.
>
> I question the assumption that we needed to give Civico a $1M giveaway to
> compensate them for the concessions they had to make. For a similar project
> in Winchester, approved in 2022, Civico had to actually pay the town $1.5M,
> add more public parking and increase the number of affordable units.
> Winchester gave Civico a $500K loan at 5% interest, to be repaid in 13
> years. Seems like we have a lot more room to negotiate with Civico than

Re: [LincolnTalk] the Rural Land Foundation and the Housing Choice Act

[Karla Gravis]

It seems like the town meeting process worked quite well in the Oriole
Landing scenario. The town was able to get 25% affordable housing, and
gauging by the fact that Civico sold the development at a potential $12M
profit in only 4 years, the developer did quite well. It is still not clear
to me that the $1M payment for only 6 units was necessary, but not going to
beat that horse further.

What I struggle to understand is why we are now accommodating Civico's
refusal to go to town meeting for the mall project. Let's remember: zoning
through HCA only allows us to require 10% affordable housing versus the
town's 15% requirement. We lose the ability to negotiate concessions.
Rezoning the mall through HCA does not give us compliance credit for the
acreage. It doesn't seem like we are looking for other developers who may
want to do the project. What am I missing?

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 5:54 PM Pastor Allen  wrote:

> Bijoy,
>
> First, there was a Housing Trust vote to approve that Loan.  I was there
> for it.  I do not remember if you were on the Housing Trust at that time, but
> you were certainly made aware of those discussions and that vote, as all
> Housing Commission and HOWG members were.  The record of that vote can
> also be found in the minutes from one of the Housing Trust meetings from
> that time.
>
> Second, a wide variety of mechanisms were considered before structuring
> that $1 Million payment to Civico as a loan - a process that, as I recall,
> entailed several HOWG and Housing Trust meetings, and close coordination
> with Town Counsel to ensure that this disbursement would achieve the goal
> of permanently ensuring the town got those 60 units on the SHI, as well as
> making sure they could never come off unless the town explicitly approved
> it - even if ownership changed or there was a bankruptcy.
>
> An interest free "loan", immediately due and payable only if the units
> came off the SHI, was deemed the best method of accomplishing that goal.
>
> -Allen Vander Meulen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 2, 2023, at 15:47, Bijoy Misra  wrote:
>
> 
> Friends,
> I was part of the Housing Commission and the Housing Choice Committee
> (like one we have now).
> We were given an impression that CIVICO was doing a favor by allowing
> themselves to work in
> Lincoln.  They were a small company and needed capital.  One million was
> granted without vote,
> possibly RLF had a link to CIVICO. It was said that the money was a loan.
> School, parking, access,
> landscaping and preservation issues were raised later.  I was stunned when
> Hong Kong style
> development was proposed on behalf of South Lincoln Improvement Committee
> the following
> year. .Nobody has taken responsibility for the maneuver so far.
> Accountability is required in
> communication and for the town meetings..Why do we give volunteer time to
> be loose and casual?
> I urge all the new activists to populate the Committee.  Do insist even if
> there would be efforts
> to ignore you.
> Best regards,
> Bijoy Misra
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 12:10 PM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> Civico's analysis for Oriole Landing included 25% affordable units so
>> their IRR calculation already includes the reduced rent for those
>> apartments.
>>
>> From the document I linked to, Civico expected a 16.6% return on their
>> Oriole Landing investment in year 10, above what was expected at the time.
>> Instead, they got a much higher IRR (potentially $12M profit on a $20M
>> investment) in only 4 years. Did they know they were going to get this
>> much? Probably not. BUT having realized such a profit increase, this same
>> developer is telling us that they refuse to go through town meeting again.
>> The HCAWG is accommodating by including the mall rezoning through HCA,
>> which would allow Civico to skip the town meeting process and build "by
>> right".
>>
>> In more recent times, we are seeing other towns like Winchester negotiate
>> with developers through town meeting. Winchester was able to get Civico to
>> add more parking, even more affordable units, and at an even more
>> affordable rate (60% of AMI as opposed to 80% of AMI that Oriole Landing
>> has). They were able to include sustainability and climate change
>> requirements. Civico is paying the town $1.5M. They were only able to get
>> to this new proposal because the first one failed at town meeting.
>>
>> Yet Lincoln would be choosing to forgo our town meeting process so that
>> Civico can push ahead with the project? We severely curtail our ability to
>> influence and ask for concessions by doing so.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [LincolnTalk] Why Lincoln should overlay HCA zoning over existing multi-family districts

[Karla Gravis]

This is a very interesting point. According to the post below, the RLF is a
private organization, and we shouldn’t expect them to share their
negotiations with Civico. Yet this private organization, which stands to
benefit from HCA rezoning, has secured not only one but two seats on the
working group.

We are being told that residents cannot sit on the working group, yet a
private organization can? I believe if we have one stakeholder in the
working group we should allow residents as well.

We are told that Civico refuses to go through town meeting, and now we are
being told that the RLF, as a private organization, does not need to share
their negotiations. Why are we forgoing the town meeting process, which
would allow us to control the level of affordable housing beyond the 10%
HCA allows as well as potentially many other concessions, because one
developer refuses to go through it?

In terms of site plan reviews – my understanding is they deal with
basically 5 issues: lighting, topography, drainage, screening, traffic
circulation.  There's also a (IMO vague) subjective requirement of
architectural harmony.  Site plan reviews cannot really stop a project,
they only dictate mitigation. Let’s remember the plan is to build 85 - 100
units PLUS one level of commercial space in the mall. Why not allow
ourselves the ability to vote on it as a town?





> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Margaret Olson 
> Date: Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 15:50
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Why Lincoln should overlay HCA zoning over
> existing multi-family districts
> To: Deborah Greenwald 
> CC: David Cuetos , Lincoln Talk <
> lincoln@lincolntalk.org>
>
>
> The HCA is about zoning - what property owners have a right to do with
> their property. It is not about housing production and there is no town
> project to develop housing.
>
> The Mall is private property owned by the Rural Land Foundation. The RLF
> is a private 501(c)(3) organization. It would be unusual for a private
> organization to publicly discuss their negotiations with a developer or
> developers. As a private organization the RLF is not subject to the state's
> RFP (bidding) process.
>
> I can't help but point out that the Boston Public Garden is surrounded on
> three sides by dense development, including several buildings with ground
> floor retail and apartments or offices above.
> Monument Square in Concord has multifamily housing - 30 Monument square is
> a condo building. There are additional condos and apartments within .2
> miles.
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1:43 PM Deborah Greenwald <
> deborah.greenw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> I would very much like to have David's proposals included in our vote. He
>> And are we taking bids from multiple developers? Some might be more
>> amenable to more low income units.
>> To me it seems that considering any development near Codman Farm is akin
>> to building an apartment building on the Boston Public Gardens or
>> Concord's Monument Square. That area is one of Lincoln's jewels and should
>> be preserved.
>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 10:01 PM David Cuetos 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have received some questions from residents trying to understand why
>>> our HCA proposals overlay zoning over existing multi-family districts. I
>>> thought the rationale was important enough to share it with the wider
>>> public.
>>>
>>> I believe the town would be better served by separating as much as
>>> possible the zoning exercise required for compliance approval from actual
>>> development. Zoning existing multifamily developments accomplishes that
>>> goal, as those properties already have the characteristics we would like to
>>> see and they are unlikely to be redeveloped. Let me explain the logic
>>> behind the separation.
>>>
>>> HCA compliance requires us to zone a certain number of acres to a
>>> certain density by right. What that means is that as long as the developer
>>> does not go past our height and setback bylaws, they do not need to ask the
>>> town for feedback. This is not what historically happened in Lincoln.
>>> Historically every multi-family development was a give and take between the
>>> developer and the town. In that process the town was able to extract
>>> important concessions like the number of affordable units, measures to
>>> reduce environmental impact, etc.
>>>
>>> While that give and take was quite important, for areas rezoned under
>>> HCA the town's influence is diminished even further as developers would get
>>> an override over certain town bylaws the State considers too
>>> restrictive. Among them two are chief: affordability and wetland setbacks.
>>> The state will only allow us to ask a developer to include 10% affordable
>>> units. The town’s bylaws require 15%, and historically the town has never
>>> approved anything below 25%, including some units reserved for low income
>>> households. 25% is also the lowest percentage of units for an entire
>>> development to count towards 40B Stat

Re: [LincolnTalk] Many more than 640 units may be developed. An explanation

[Karla Gravis]

I encourage everyone to watch the video Ben created (link copied below). It
does a great job explaining the model.

The state model does account for septics and setbacks in its 20% open space
deduction. Where the model is flawed is that it doesn’t just use 20% of the
developable land (aka non wetlands), instead it subtracts 20% of the ENTIRE
parcel from the developable land. This results in a severe underestimation
of land that is developable.

As an example, the state model has determined that 0 units can be built on
properties like Ryan Estates. Yet there are 24 units there already, without
septic/setback/etc issues.

Rob is correct in his interpretation. I would add one point: public land
also gives us zero units but, if included in the HCA proposals, can be
redeveloped at a later point. Why do the town's proposals include 6 acres
of superfluous public land, which give us no compliance credit but would be
locked at a 10% affordability requirement?

Please take a look at the video. Thank you Ben for all the time and effort
spent on this.


https://youtu.be/mqXo4TPw3MI?si=uJeutuF1eSa9VpRu


>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Margaret Olson 
> Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:22
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Many more than 640 units may be developed. An
> explanation
> To: Rob Haslinger 
> CC: Benjamin Shiller , Lincoln Talk <
> Lincoln@lincolntalk.org>
>
>
> The state's (implied) reasoning is that you can't actually build (zoned
> density x parcel size) on land with wetlands. This is true - the logistics
> of setbacks, height restrictions, and the need for septic and circulation
> and parking. Their concern is that towns do not claim that land with
> wetlands supports far more units than is actually the case.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:03 AM Rob Haslinger 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ben and others -
>>
>> Thanks for digging into the details of how the state compliance model
>> works. I'm a Data Scientist by profession so the video seemed clear to me
>> after a few viewings, but I'm still drinking my coffee and not firing on
>> cylinders yet so I wanted to sanity check my understanding.
>>
>> As I understand you, the crux of the problem is that the state model for
>> calculating compliant units can not be used to accurately estimate the
>> number of units that could by right be built on parcels that include
>> wetlands. This stems from two factors:
>>
>>  1) The state model underestimates buildable area because it removes 20%
>> of the area for "free space" before subtracting off the wetlands, rather
>> than after subtracting wetlands (as seems more reasonable). This lowers the
>> number of compliant units we get per parcel, which means we need more
>> parcels to comply.
>> 2) The actual number of units a developer can legally build on a parcel
>> has nothing to do with the number of compliant units, but instead is simply
>> the total parcel area (including wetlands) multiplied by the zoned density
>> which under the HCA must be 15 units per acre.
>>
>> The upshot then is that if we include parcels with wetlands, the number
>> of units that can be built by right may be many more than the number of
>> compliant units. The number of compliant units is therefore extremely
>> misleading for estimating how many units might be built by right.
>>
>> Do I correctly understand your points or have I missed something?
>>
>> Thanks again for the effort you put into digging in and explaining the
>> details to us all.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Rob Haslinger
>> South Great Road
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:27 AM Benjamin Shiller 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I spent substantial efforts to understand the Housing Choice Act
>>> Compliance model, and then create a video explaining the model and why it’s
>>> flaws along with the parcels in option C may very well lead to 1326 housing
>>> units in the rezoned area if parcels are combined, or over 1100 is parcels
>>> are not combined. Either number is well more than the 640 units the
>>> proposal is aiming for, and more than the 520 units we would seemingly have
>>> to rezone for according to the law.  Keep in mind, there are only about
>>> 2080 housing units in Lincoln excluding Hanscom.  Please consider watching
>>> the video to learn about the flaws in the state’s model and why this may be
>>> problematic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/mqXo4TPw3MI?si=uJeutuF1eSa9VpRu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>>> Browse the archives at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>>> Change your subscription settings at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, s

Re: [LincolnTalk] Recommended reading for those grappling with the HCA

[Karla Gravis]

I agree with Sara - the HCA constrains our ability to provide affordable
housing. Currently, the town retains leverage with developers because
projects require town meeting approval. HCA changes to “by right” zoning.
We cannot ask for more than 10% affordability. Just last year, thanks to
the town meeting process, Winchester was able to negotiate much more
affordable housing, climate protection concessions and a payment to the
town.

With Town meeting gone, our only recourse is to pay developers to “make
them whole”.

For Oriole Landing, because we already required 15%, the hurdle to get to
25% affordability was lower than it would be under HCA. Back then, we gave
them a $1M payment for 6 units. Adjusted for inflation (the Greater Boston
CPI index is up 20% since then), the cost per apartment today would be
$200,000.

If we consider the Mall, which will be zoned for 100 apartments, increasing
affordability from 10% to 25% would cost us $3M if we need to make the
developer whole. The Affordable Housing Trust doesn’t have that kind of
resources.

Why should the town resources be dissipated when we can achieve our
affordability goals, among many others, if we do not rezone these areas by
right and instead continue to ask developers to come through Town Meeting
for approval? Why should we rezone by right and loosen our restrictions
when we can achieve all of our goals through Town Meeting?

Karla

From: Margaret Olson 
> Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 08:28
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Recommended reading for those grappling with
> the HCA
> To: John Mendelson 
> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
> The zoning contains a minimum level of affordability. As John points out
> the town can, as it has in the past, negotiate higher levels of
> affordability. Oriole Landing at 25% is well above their zoning requirement
> of 15%.
>
> The reason we can not mandate 15% affordable is because the study the town
> commissioned showed that to not be economically feasible. In practice what
> that means is that nothing will be built in the current economic
> environment if we mandate 15%; in other words if the entire financial
> burden is borne by the developer.
>
> If affordable units are a priority the town can subsidize those units as
> we have in the past or we could alter economics by relaxing height or other
> restrictions in return for more affordable units.
>
> One note when comparing developments and costs: interest rates and
> construction costs are substantially higher now than they were
> pre-pandemic. What worked then might or might not work now.
>
> Margaret
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 7:03 AM John Mendelson 
> wrote:
>
>> This is not true.  The HCA does not '"tie our hands."
>>
>> Just like many  public/private partnerships across the country and
>> specifically here in Lincoln with Lincoln Woods, Oriole Landing, and
>> perhaps other developments I am not aware of, the town can work with a
>> potential developer to increase the percentage of affordable units, using a
>> range of funds available.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2023, 11:18 PM Sara Mattes  wrote:
>>
>>> The only reason I am“grappling” with the HCA is that is will tie our
>>> hands as to adding affordability -it, by its nature is exclusive.
>>> It restricts the amount of affordability we are allowed to require.
>>> And, if we tie up all the land around the station area, especially. The
>>> mall, with this zoning, we will be creating an expensive and exclusive
>>> enclave.
>>>
>>> How does that achieve goals of diversity and equity?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sara Mattes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 9, 2023, at 10:10 PM, John Mendelson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.growingwealthier.info
>>>
>>> How greater density *and* walkability benefits the environment and
>>> property values.
>>>
>>> John
>>> --
>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>>> Browse the archives at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>>> Change your subscription settings at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Recommended reading for those grappling with the HCA

[Karla Gravis]

ate to increasing affordable
>> housing?  What housing choices are you offering other than the ones we
>> already have?
>>
>> You've made a lot of demands and put forward many questions about the
>> motivations behind the decisions of the HCAWG, not to mention asserting
>> that the process has been undemocratic.
>>
>> I think it is now time to start digging into yours.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 9:16 AM Karla Gravis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Sara - the HCA constrains our ability to provide affordable
>>> housing. Currently, the town retains leverage with developers because
>>> projects require town meeting approval. HCA changes to “by right” zoning.
>>> We cannot ask for more than 10% affordability. Just last year, thanks to
>>> the town meeting process, Winchester was able to negotiate much more
>>> affordable housing, climate protection concessions and a payment to the
>>> town.
>>>
>>> With Town meeting gone, our only recourse is to pay developers to “make
>>> them whole”.
>>>
>>> For Oriole Landing, because we already required 15%, the hurdle to get
>>> to 25% affordability was lower than it would be under HCA. Back then, we
>>> gave them a $1M payment for 6 units. Adjusted for inflation (the Greater
>>> Boston CPI index is up 20% since then), the cost per apartment today would
>>> be $200,000.
>>>
>>> If we consider the Mall, which will be zoned for 100 apartments,
>>> increasing affordability from 10% to 25% would cost us $3M if we need to
>>> make the developer whole. The Affordable Housing Trust doesn’t have that
>>> kind of resources.
>>>
>>> Why should the town resources be dissipated when we can achieve our
>>> affordability goals, among many others, if we do not rezone these areas by
>>> right and instead continue to ask developers to come through Town Meeting
>>> for approval? Why should we rezone by right and loosen our restrictions
>>> when we can achieve all of our goals through Town Meeting?
>>>
>>> Karla
>>>
>>> From: Margaret Olson 
>>>> Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 08:28
>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Recommended reading for those grappling with
>>>> the HCA
>>>> To: John Mendelson 
>>>> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The zoning contains a minimum level of affordability. As John points
>>>> out the town can, as it has in the past, negotiate higher levels of
>>>> affordability. Oriole Landing at 25% is well above their zoning requirement
>>>> of 15%.
>>>>
>>>> The reason we can not mandate 15% affordable is because the study the
>>>> town commissioned showed that to not be economically feasible. In practice
>>>> what that means is that nothing will be built in the current economic
>>>> environment if we mandate 15%; in other words if the entire financial
>>>> burden is borne by the developer.
>>>>
>>>> If affordable units are a priority the town can subsidize those units
>>>> as we have in the past or we could alter economics by relaxing height or
>>>> other restrictions in return for more affordable units.
>>>>
>>>> One note when comparing developments and costs: interest rates and
>>>> construction costs are substantially higher now than they were
>>>> pre-pandemic. What worked then might or might not work now.
>>>>
>>>> Margaret
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 7:03 AM John Mendelson <
>>>> johntmendel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is not true.  The HCA does not '"tie our hands."
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like many  public/private partnerships across the country and
>>>>> specifically here in Lincoln with Lincoln Woods, Oriole Landing, and
>>>>> perhaps other developments I am not aware of, the town can work with a
>>>>> potential developer to increase the percentage of affordable units, using 
>>>>> a
>>>>> range of funds available.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2023, 11:18 PM Sara Mattes  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reason I am“grappling” with the HCA is that is will tie our
>>>>>> hands as to adding affordability -it, by its nature is exclusive.
>>>>>> It restric

Re: [LincolnTalk] housing for the mall

[Karla Gravis]

I agree that it would be beneficial to see the plans being proposed for the
mall area. I would not call it fear-mongering but genuine interest and
concern from residents.

Ms. Michelle Barnes mentioned in Wednesday's community forum, in
reference to plans to add housing to the mall "(...) and so right now, what
we are thinking of doing, would in fact decrease the amount of commercial
space we have at the mall." (time: 1:47:07 in the link

shared
by Ms. Jennifer Glass)

The HCAWG has stated 2 of their guiding principles are to "support and
maintain our small commercial center" and "promote decarbonization and
climate change adaptation by rezoning near transportation and amenities."
My worry would be that a reduction in our commercial space might impact
those goals.

Being able to see actual plans would go a long way in alleviating
residents' concerns.



>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: John Kimball 
> Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 08:09
> Subject: [LincolnTalk] housing for the mall
> To: lincolntalk 
>
>
> I strongly support the plans of the RLF to show their plans for housing at
> the mall. That should counter some of the fear mongering on that subject. I
> would also encourage the RLF to be more public about their operations
> generally.
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Housing Choice Act and Exclusionary Zoning Report-the HAC will make us even more exclusive.

[Karla Gravis]

I want to emphasize that the Mall is currently a profitable concern.The RLF
disclosed a rental profit of $164,571 in 2022. Details here
.
However, if we rezone it by right, Civico would get to decide what mix of
commercial and residential to build. As a private enterprise, they will
choose to build whatever leads to the highest profits, which we know is
residential. Ms. Barnes mentioned that commercial space will be reduced
during the forum on Wednesday. We have no guarantees that Civico would
maintain Donelan's or any of the existing commercial space. This outcome
would be at odds with our goal of supporting our commercial center and
reducing the town's carbon footprint. This is one of the reasons why it is
so important that the Mall redevelopment goes through Town Meeting.

It is also important to puncture the myth that building units at Lincoln
Station would do much to boost the commercial prospects of the area:

   - The Planning Board released a Lincoln Station Planning Study in 2014.
   The study concluded that each 100 units added would only support 2,500 sq
   ft of space. For reference, Donelan's footprint is 20,387 sq ft. Study
   here
   

   - 2,500 sq ft of commercial space per 100 units is probably a very
   optimistic number. The Study assumed that the leakage (% of convenience
   buys by residents that happen outside of Lincoln Station) would come down
   from 80% to 50%. If we use the actual 80% leakage, those 100 units would
   only support 1,000 sq ft of space.
   - In all likelihood the leakage is actually higher than 80% today given
   the increased penetration of online sales in the nine years elapsed.





From: DJCP 
> Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 08:14
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Housing Choice Act and Exclusionary Zoning
> Report-the HAC will make us even more exclusive.
> To: Listserv Listserv 
>
>
> The best way to make sure commercial stays commercial is to make the
> businesses viable and the best way to do that is to make sure there are
> people shopping there. Sorry but people from other towns are not flocking
> to Lincoln to buy $10 pints of strawberries from Donelans. And I've only
> been here 5 years and have noticed the string of restaurants that have
> tried to fill the ONE space. Whether we make any changes there's no
> guarantee these businesses will stick around. That's capitalism folks. But
> we can help by AT LEAST zoning for more housing in the area.
>
> Diana
> Giles Rd
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 8:08 AM Peter Buchthal  wrote:
>
>> Along similar lines, how can the town ensure commercial space stays
>> commercial as the new owners could easily decide to raise very high or not
>> renew any commercial lease in order to build more luxury residential units
>> by right as long as the project has unused housing units within the zoning
>> allotment.
>>
>>
>> Peter Buchthal
>> Weston Rd
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 12:27 PM David Cuetos 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How can the RLF guarantee that any particular commercial space will
>>> remain once they sell the land to Civico? Are they planning to include
>>> a requirement for a supermarket in the deed? Anything else would just be a
>>> "recommendation".
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 6:09 PM Margo Fisher-Martin <
>>> margo.fisher.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi All,

 We know that a zoning change does not “dictate” that anything be built
 or changed, but we also know that major changes WILL happen in Lincoln,
 should this pass. Do any of you remember many years ago when zoning changes
 were made that impacted any changes an owner could make (as much as a bay
 window) without ZBA approval on pre-existing non-conforming lots? Some
 people who are pushing for the re-zoning here are the same people that
 tried to instill the fear of “mansionisation” should we allow any changes
 to homes on less than 2 acre lots. At town meeting, they showed pictures of
 dense mid-rise housing from other towns to scare people into taking away
 the rights of the pre-existing (grandfathered) non-conforming lot owners.
 Now some of these same people are advocating for providing similar dense
 mid-rise housing that they were adamantly opposed to. What happened to the
 “stewards of the land?”

 Sincerely,

 Margo Martin






 On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 5:27 PM Margaret Olson 
 wrote:

> Michelle Barnes from the RLF can confirm, but I believe Donelan's will
 remain after the mall redevelopment.

 A reminder: zoning affects what the property owner has a right to do
 with their property. It does not dictate that anything be built or changed.

 On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 4:38 PM Terri via Lincoln <
 lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:
>>>

Re: [LincolnTalk] Housing Choice Act and Exclusionary Zoning Report-the HAC will make us even more exclusive.

[Karla Gravis]

I thought the premise of locating 100% of rezoned units around the train
station and giving away our town meeting negotiating power was to "support
and maintain our small commercial center" and "promote decarbonization
and climate
change adaptation by rezoning near transportation and amenities.

But we are now being told that the plans for the mall will reduce
commercial space and that we may not even be able to keep Donelan's. So why
do we insist on putting all rezoned housing into the same spot where there
are likely to be fewer amenities in the future? The train schedule is
limited and unreliable enough that it is naive to think people will take
the train to do a grocery run. It sounds like a situation where the cure is
worse than the disease.

*It is not true that much of the study was conducted at noon on a public
holiday.* The consulting team conducted field studies across 8 days, none
of which were public holidays. (April 12, 13, 16, 17, 24, 27, and 29, and
May 8, 2013. Page 25 of the study).

https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/65765/Lincoln-Station-Planning-Study-3-27-2014bwfinal




On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 11:02 AM melinda bruno-smith <
melindabr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I too thought the town was interested in developing or at least
> maintaining its commercial center.
> Sent from my iPhone
> Melinda Bruno-Smith
>
> On Nov 12, 2023, at 10:44 AM, Margaret Olson 
> wrote:
> 
> We have no guarantees that the RLF will maintain Donelan's either. If
> Donelan's is not sufficiently profitable they will leave, and the RLF may
> or may not be willing and able to set their rent at a level that keeps them
> profitable.
>
> A note on the 2014 study: much of the research on the impact of the train
> was conducted at noon on a public holiday.
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:07 AM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> I want to emphasize that the Mall is currently a profitable concern.The
>> RLF disclosed a rental profit of $164,571 in 2022. Details here
>> <https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46132391/202341749349301024/full>.
>> However, if we rezone it by right, Civico would get to decide what
>> mix of commercial and residential to build. As a private enterprise, they
>> will choose to build whatever leads to the highest profits, which we know
>> is residential. Ms. Barnes mentioned that commercial space will be
>> reduced during the forum on Wednesday. We have no guarantees that Civico
>> would maintain Donelan's or any of the existing commercial space. This
>> outcome would be at odds with our goal of supporting our commercial center
>> and reducing the town's carbon footprint. This is one of the reasons why it
>> is so important that the Mall redevelopment goes through Town Meeting.
>>
>> It is also important to puncture the myth that building units at Lincoln
>> Station would do much to boost the commercial prospects of the area:
>>
>>- The Planning Board released a Lincoln Station Planning Study in
>>2014. The study concluded that each 100 units added would only support
>>2,500 sq ft of space. For reference, Donelan's footprint is 20,387 sq ft.
>>Study  here
>>
>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/65765/Lincoln-Station-Planning-Study-3-27-2014bwfinal>
>>- 2,500 sq ft of commercial space per 100 units is probably a very
>>optimistic number. The Study assumed that the leakage (% of convenience
>>buys by residents that happen outside of Lincoln Station) would come down
>>from 80% to 50%. If we use the actual 80% leakage, those 100 units would
>>only support 1,000 sq ft of space.
>>- In all likelihood the leakage is actually higher than 80% today
>>given the increased penetration of online sales in the nine years elapsed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: DJCP 
>>> Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 08:14
>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Housing Choice Act and Exclusionary Zoning
>>> Report-the HAC will make us even more exclusive.
>>> To: Listserv Listserv 
>>>
>>>
>>> The best way to make sure commercial stays commercial is to make the
>>> businesses viable and the best way to do that is to make sure there are
>>> people shopping there. Sorry but people from other towns are not flocking
>>> to Lincoln to buy $10 pints of strawberries from Donelans. And I've only
>>> been here 5 years and have noticed the string of restaurants that have
>>> tried to fill the ONE space. Whether we make any changes there's no
>>> guarantee these businesses will stick around. That's capitalism folk

[LincolnTalk] On Mall finances

[Karla Gravis]

Let's not conflate the RLF finances with the Mall finances.

The 990 filings indicate that the Mall itself has been consistently
profitable over the last five  years
<https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46132391/20509349300837/full>
:

   - 2018: $80,399
   - 2019: $191,279
   - 2020: $122,519
   - 2021: $111,795
   - 2022: $164,571

In terms of the RLF finances, if there is a concern about its
sustainability, perhaps there should be a reflection about its cost
structure. I would like to point out that Concord Land Conservation Trust,
which oversees double the acreage (more than 1,000 vs more than 500 acres
in Lincoln), has expenses of $187K versus $334K for the RLF/LLCT
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rFLf4j0m6zzM3qOox3b_I0xDz2RCX0Bxxw_W8msll_A/edit>
.

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 2:06 PM Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:

> Given the history of businesses leaving the mall, $165k seems to be a thin
> margin for predicting future rental profitability.
>
> It might be noted that rental income is only part of the RLF financials.
> Their overall net seems to be $212,000 for 2022 and -$251,431 (loss) for
> the prior year. That doesn't paint a picture of financial stability to me.
>
> Rich
> (not an accountant, either)
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:07 AM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> I want to emphasize that the Mall is currently a profitable concern.The
>> RLF disclosed a rental profit of $164,571 in 2022. Details here
>> <https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46132391/202341749349301024/full>.
>> However, if we rezone it by right, Civico would get to decide what
>> mix of commercial and residential to build. As a private enterprise, they
>> will choose to build whatever leads to the highest profits, which we know
>> is residential. Ms. Barnes mentioned that commercial space will be
>> reduced during the forum on Wednesday. We have no guarantees that Civico
>> would maintain Donelan's or any of the existing commercial space. This
>> outcome would be at odds with our goal of supporting our commercial center
>> and reducing the town's carbon footprint. This is one of the reasons why it
>> is so important that the Mall redevelopment goes through Town Meeting.
>>
>> It is also important to puncture the myth that building units at Lincoln
>> Station would do much to boost the commercial prospects of the area:
>>
>>- The Planning Board released a Lincoln Station Planning Study in
>>2014. The study concluded that each 100 units added would only support
>>2,500 sq ft of space. For reference, Donelan's footprint is 20,387 sq ft.
>>Study  here
>>
>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/65765/Lincoln-Station-Planning-Study-3-27-2014bwfinal>
>>- 2,500 sq ft of commercial space per 100 units is probably a very
>>optimistic number. The Study assumed that the leakage (% of convenience
>>buys by residents that happen outside of Lincoln Station) would come down
>>from 80% to 50%. If we use the actual 80% leakage, those 100 units would
>>only support 1,000 sq ft of space.
>>- In all likelihood the leakage is actually higher than 80% today
>>given the increased penetration of online sales in the nine years elapsed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

[LincolnTalk] HCA lessons from Newton's recent elections

[Karla Gravis]

I would encourage folks to read about what happened in Newton's recent
elections, held this past November 7th.

A grassroots volunteer group was created due to resident
dissatisfaction with the HCA plan being proposed by the town, as well as
discontent with residents' voices being ignored. The local movement group,
"Save Newton Villages", endorsed a number of candidates and won 5 seats in
the recent election (Micley, Farrell, Block, Getz, and Lobovits were all
endorsed by “Save Newton Villages").

Interestingly, even though Newton is very different from Lincoln, the
concerns of the Newton local group mirror the concerns being expressed by
Lincoln residents. You can look at their site here
 for the full list, but
they include:

   - Zoning should be for people, not for developers!
   - Give Newton citizens a voice and let them vote on zoning reform!
   - Newton should hold onto our “Special Permit” power over developers so
   we have greater control and public input over what gets built and how.
   - Conduct a community capacity/needs assessment.
   - The minimum open space requirement for a lot in the proposal (30%) is
   much too low; it needs to be at least 50%. Preserve nature, don’t
   over-build.
   - Promote and support much more affordable and moderate income housing
   - City Hall's zoning proposal needs to be changed! It's unreasonable.
   Their proposal allows buildings that are too high and out of scale with the
   villages, calls for too much density, will lead to gentrification, is
   not environmentally friendly, will harm local small businesses and fails to
   provide enough affordability."

A few quotes from the winning candidates
:

   - “For-profit developers don’t ever try to lower housing prices,”
   Lobovits wrote in the statement regarding housing affordability. “Their
   redevelopment model is based on pushing rents and housing prices as high as
   possible because their only motive is maximizing profits.”
   - “[VCOD] will zone for around 15,000 by-right units—much taller
   buildings by-right than we need to to reach the mandate,” Micley said. “My
   issue with that is, I really think it just gives up too much power to
   developers that we don’t need to hand over to them.”
   - “We have to weigh [traffic] when we think about what kind of
   additional housing we’re going to allow in this city,” Block said. “I
   chaired the neighborhood committee and was part of the negotiating team
   that advocated for a smaller development to reduce the impact on the
   adjacent neighborhoods,” Block said. “With support from our Ward 4
   councilors … we reached an agreement with the developer for a development
   of 1 million square feet, one-third commercial and two-thirds housing.”
   - “(...) most of it’s going to be market rate and what they call
   affordable, again, in my opinion, is not affordable for the people that we
   would want to live there.” Farrell said.
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA lessons from Newton's recent elections

[Karla Gravis]

I encourage folks to read the candidate interviews here
<https://www.bcheights.com/2023/11/10/meet-newtons-new-city-councilors/>.
The grassroots organization endorsed 11 candidates - 10 of them were
elected.

The citizens' group concerns were very similar to ours, that is,
maintaining influence over developers and ensuring citizens are heard.
Ultimately, it is the town as a whole that should decide, following a
democratic process.

“For-profit developers don’t ever try to lower housing prices,”
[newly-elected Councilor] Lobovits wrote in the statement regarding housing
affordability. “Their redevelopment model is based on pushing rents and
housing prices as high as possible because their only motive is maximizing
profits.”


On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 7:39 PM John Mendelson 
wrote:

> Not terribly surprising.  People fighting change and perpetuating
> exclusionary zoning practices are what got us into the housing crisis to
> begin with.
>
> For more, read this:
>
>
> https://tcf.org/content/report/walls-exclusion-massachusetts-three-mothers-overcome-discriminatory-zoning-laws-improve-lives-children/
>
> *The constraint on supply has had a highly predictable result. In a 2020
> study of housing affordability by Moody Analytics and U.S. News & World
> Report, Massachusetts ranked forty-eighth of fifty states, making it one of
> the least affordable states in the country for housing. The median price
> for single-family homes in the state exceeds $500,000. In Boston, the
> percentage of homes in the metropolitan area that cost $1 million has
> nearly doubled in five years.*
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023, 7:07 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
>> I would encourage folks to read about what happened in Newton's recent
>> elections, held this past November 7th.
>>
>> A grassroots volunteer group was created due to resident
>> dissatisfaction with the HCA plan being proposed by the town, as well as
>> discontent with residents' voices being ignored. The local movement group,
>> "Save Newton Villages", endorsed a number of candidates and won 5 seats
>> in the recent election (Micley, Farrell, Block, Getz, and Lobovits were
>> all endorsed by “Save Newton Villages").
>>
>> Interestingly, even though Newton is very different from Lincoln, the
>> concerns of the Newton local group mirror the concerns being expressed by
>> Lincoln residents. You can look at their site here
>> <https://savenewtonvillages.com/what-residents-want> for the full list,
>> but they include:
>>
>>- Zoning should be for people, not for developers!
>>- Give Newton citizens a voice and let them vote on zoning reform!
>>- Newton should hold onto our “Special Permit” power over developers
>>so we have greater control and public input over what gets built and how.
>>- Conduct a community capacity/needs assessment.
>>- The minimum open space requirement for a lot in the proposal (30%)
>>is much too low; it needs to be at least 50%. Preserve nature, don’t
>>over-build.
>>- Promote and support much more affordable and moderate income housing
>>- City Hall's zoning proposal needs to be changed! It's unreasonable.
>>Their proposal allows buildings that are too high and out of scale with 
>> the
>>villages, calls for too much density, will lead to gentrification, is
>>not environmentally friendly, will harm local small businesses and fails 
>> to
>>provide enough affordability."
>>
>> A few quotes from the winning candidates
>> <https://www.bcheights.com/2023/11/10/meet-newtons-new-city-councilors/>:
>>
>>- “For-profit developers don’t ever try to lower housing prices,”
>>Lobovits wrote in the statement regarding housing affordability. “Their
>>redevelopment model is based on pushing rents and housing prices as high 
>> as
>>possible because their only motive is maximizing profits.”
>>- “[VCOD] will zone for around 15,000 by-right units—much taller
>>buildings by-right than we need to to reach the mandate,” Micley said. “My
>>issue with that is, I really think it just gives up too much power to
>>developers that we don’t need to hand over to them.”
>>- “We have to weigh [traffic] when we think about what kind of
>>additional housing we’re going to allow in this city,” Block said. “I
>>chaired the neighborhood committee and was part of the negotiating team
>>that advocated for a smaller development to reduce the impact on the
>>adjacent neighborhoods,” Block said. “With support from our Ward 4
>>councilors … we reached an ag

[LincolnTalk] Timeline of HCA options

[Karla Gravis]

I think it’s important to clarify how long the options being put forth to
vote have been studied. The HCA proposals the HCAWG is asking the town to
vote on have only been around for around 6 weeks (option C was presented at
SOTT on Sept. 30th and options D1-D3 on Oct. 24th). The only real time to
discuss any of the options was during the November 8th forums. Both forums
were packed and many questions were left unanswered.

Compliance is not required until December 2024. Residents are asking for
more time for discussion and learning, time we have. In the spirit of
democracy, why not allow that time for discussion so residents can cast an
informed vote?

Up until August 2023, mixed use rezoning did not count towards HCA
compliance. When the State changed the guidelines to allow mixed use, the
HCAWG asked Utile to create our current Option C. It was voted on at SOTT
on September 30th. Before this, rezoning the mall would have had to be
presented separately. There were several mistakes in the (rushed)
submission to the State that were corrected thanks to residents’ input.

Options D1-D3 were presented to the public on Oct 24th.

While the HCAWG has been meeting for a year (first meeting was in October
2022), the state guidelines keep changing. The MBTA requirement was reduced
from 100% to 20%. MMU was added as an option (not requirement) in August of
this year. Who is to say there aren’t other changes coming?
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Brookline passes HCA rezoning (which likely increases housing by a small percent)

[Karla Gravis]

It is important to understand the context for Brookline:

   - Brookline followed a 2-pronged approach: the technical compliance with
   the law is being done through the first prong, what they call the
   "M-District+" portion. It changes the zoning rules in districts in town
   that are already zoned for multi-family housing, and rezones a few other
   specific sites. From the article linked below: "*There’s general
   agreement that this will not actually lead to much, if any, new development
   specifically springing from the rezoning.*" *According to their planning
   board, at the most, this rezoning would lead to a ~2.5% increase in housing
   stock.*
   - They had a second prong to rezone Harvard street. According to
   Brookline's own planning board, this prong is expected to add 800
units. *The
   Harvard St rezoning will likely only add ~3% to the existing housing stock.*
   - By contrast, we are being asked to vote on rezoning proposals that
   could potentially increase Lincoln's housing stock by 25%-30%.

*Additional important nuances:*

   - Brookline is considered a "rapid transit" community. The deadline to
   comply for this type of community is *December of 2023*, which is why
   they had to vote on it now. Lincoln, as a "commuter rail" community, has a
   deadline of December 2024. *If we were to follow Brookline's timing,
   Lincoln would be able to vote November of next year.*
   - *Brookline passed their zoning with 15% affordable housing. Lincoln
   has confirmed we can only require 10%.*
   - The Brookline Selects worked very closely with 2 advocacy groups in
   Brookline: "Brookline by Design" and "Yes! In Brookline" and multiple civic
   groups, including the Chamber of Commerce. From the article:  "(...) over
   months of conversation, culminating in weeks of intense negotiations led by
   Select Board Member Paul Warren, Brookline by Design and its frequent
   sparring partner, the housing advocacy group Yes! In Brookline, came to an
   agreement on a set of amendments that both felt met the moment."
   Consesus-driven process at work.



https://brookline.news/explainer-brooklines-mbta-communities-law-rezoning-plan/

[image: image.png]



> -- Forwarded message -
> From: John Mendelson 
> Date: Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 09:27
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Brookline passes HCA rezoning
> To: pamontie montie.net , LincolnTalk <
> lincoln@lincolntalk.org>
>
>
> The 800 unit figure for Brookline is not accurate.  The theoretical total
> fror Brookline is 6,990 units with the Globe citing 1,540 as possible per
> town officials.  See:
>
>
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/11/15/metro/brookline-overwhelmingly-accepts-plan-rezone-its-major-commercial-corridor-allow-multifamily-housing/
>
> And Brookline is planning to submit with a higher percentage of affordable
> housing (15%) which is something I am hopeful we will do also.
>
> *For example, the town plan now calls for 15 percent of all housing built
> in the newly rezoned area along Harvard Street to be affordable. That’s the
> same share in the rest of town, under Brookline’s inclusionary zoning
> policy, which covers projects of four to 10 units; however, that policy
> allows developers to contribute the money to a housing fund for the units
> to be built elsewhere. This will require actual construction of affordable
> housing units along Harvard Street.*
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 9:00 AM pamontie montie.net 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> A lot to think about with Brookline’s response to the HCA.
>>
>> Just to put things in perspective, Brookline (a town with over 26,000
>> housing units) has just passed rezoning that could result in “up to 800
>> units” raising their existing housing stock by “nearly 3%” and is
>> characterized as going "well beyond the basic requirements of complying
>> with the law.”
>>
>> If Lincoln were to do the same, a 3 percent increase in housing stock
>> would be roughly 63 units. Lincoln (currently 2,078 housing units-excluding
>> Hanscom) is being asked to rezone for 635 units which is a housing increase
>> of around 30%?
>>
>> I’m not necessarily opposed to housing increases but it makes you wonder
>> what is appropriate for a town our size. As it stands our multifamily
>> *existing* housing stock is around 860 units, which is roughly 40% of
>> Lincoln’s total housing stock.
>>
>> Trying to figure this out along with everyone else in town...
>> _
>> Paul Montie
>>
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2023, at 7:39 AM, Bob Mason  wrote:
>>
>>
>> https://brookline.news/town-meeting-passes-major-rezoning-likely-to-reshape-harvard-street/
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>>
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse

Re: [LincolnTalk] Let’s use the HCA to create affordable housing in Lincoln

[Karla Gravis]

I wholeheartedly share the goal of increasing affordable housing. However,
I think the HCA as designed actually constrains our ability to do so. I am
not suggesting we don’t comply, but it’s misguided to think that the HCA
will actually help towards the goal of increasing affordability.


Currently, the town retains leverage with developers because projects
require town meeting approval. HCA changes to “by right” zoning and we
cannot ask for more than 10% affordability. Just last year, thanks to the
town meeting process, Winchester was able to negotiate much more affordable
housing (67%!), climate protection concessions and a payment to the town.
The town of Winchester was able to get that because the vote failed at the
first town meeting and the developer (Civico) had to make concessions to
get the project passed.


Once we rezone an area as part of our HCA district, the town meeting
process is gone and our only recourse is to pay developers to “make them
whole”.


For Oriole Landing, because we already required 15%, the hurdle to get to
25% affordability was lower than it would be under HCA. Back then, we gave
them a $1M payment for 6 units. Adjusted for inflation (the Greater Boston
CPI index is up 20% since then), the cost per apartment today would be
$200,000.


If we consider the Mall, which will be zoned for 100 apartments, increasing
affordability from 10% to 25% would cost us $3M if we need to make the
developer whole. The Affordable Housing Trust doesn’t have that kind of
resources.


It’s naive to think that once we rezone and the developers can build by
right, that we will have any leverage to increase affordable housing.






>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 19:42 Kristen Ferris 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I wanted to add my voice to the housing discussion that has been going
 on here over the past few weeks.



 Affordable housing is a priority that's been close to my heart since
 moving to Lincoln, and especially as I raise my kids here. I want my kids
 to grow up in a place where they have access to many different points of
 view, backgrounds, life experiences, and identities. I want them to live in
 spaces where they practice empathy and understanding across different
 perspectives daily, and work to deconstruct their privilege and build a
 more just community.



 Unfortunately housing policy in our country and in our town has
 historically been a barrier to this – it’s worked to enshrine privilege and
 exacerbate inequality. We’ve chosen to maintain the segregation by race and
 wealth created by redlining and other explicitly racist policies through
 exclusionary zoning. I believe that creating denser and more affordable
 housing in Lincoln is our most critical tool to begin to right these
 historical wrongs, and create the kind of town that I want my children to
 grow up in.



 Committing to the rezoning that the HCA requires is an important start.
 But, zoning does not equal housing. As I review the proposals on the table
 at town meeting in a few weeks to create more housing density in areas of
 Lincoln, my most critical criteria will be this: will developers come and
 actually build the housing that each proposal allows? The HCAWG has worked
 hard to develop proposals in the spirit of a yes to this question -- and I
 believe the only clear "yes" is Lincoln Station. Rezoning proposals that do
 not include Lincoln Station are far less likely to actually result in more
 housing. As such, in my view, these options don't align with a vote in
 favor of affordable housing. And as has been noted in previous discussions,
 although only 10% of new development is required to be affordable, as a
 town with so many voices in favor of affordable housing, we can choose to
 subsidize a higher percentage as we've done with Oriole Landing. But first
 the additional housing needs to be built -- and it likely won't be outside
 of Lincoln Station.



 I ask too that you consider this criteria as you weigh the options on
 the table. Many towns will try to do as little as possible as they comply
 with the HCA. They will define minimum viable units, they will tuck housing
 into areas that they know will never be developed. I don't think this is
 who we are as a town. I hope that we choose instead to use the opportunity
 the HCA gives us to not just comply with zoning but to create housing and
 moreover to create affordable housing, and in doing so, continue to share
 and build our town with an even broader and more diverse community.



 Kristen Ferris



 Sent from my iPhone

>>> --
 The LincolnTalk mailing list.
 To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
 Browse the archives at
 https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
 Change your subscriptio

Re: [LincolnTalk] Fw: November 21st meeting - question

[Karla Gravis]

Ms. Glass expressed during the meeting this past week that the Selects had
received 100+ resident requests to include additional options to the vote.
Clearly, there is a strong resident outcry to present a range of options
beyond C and D1-D3. This is why the Selects have agreed to add an Option E. Are
we suggesting resident opinions be suppressed?


It is absolutely not true that the E options will lead to no development.
The E options present a range. What is true is that Options C and D1-D3
exchange our town center to developers with a measly 10% affordable units
in perpetuity.


Additionally, C and D1-D3 options all include the Mall area, allowing
Civico to effectively by-pass our town meeting process. The RLF has
indicated that they intend to shrink the commercial space at the Mall, the
very businesses we are supposed to want to help. Shouldn’t we allow
residents to weigh in on what they think about that?


At the time of the December 2nd meeting, the public will have no idea of
the details of any proposed Site approval zoning for the Mall that will be
put forth as part of the HCA Mall submission.


Without any details, it is essential that the HCA working group allows the
town to vote on maintaining compliance with the HCA and redevelop the Mall
outside of the HCA.






>
> - Forwarded Message -
> *From:* Rebecca Blanchfield 
> *To:* "lincoln@lincolntalk.org" 
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 06:45:45 AM EST
> *Subject:* [LincolnTalk] November 21st meeting - question
>
> In response to the Selects’ post about the December 2nd Special Town
> Meeting, I’d like to pose a follow up question. To quote Andy Wang, “all
> the ‘E’ alternatives provided by the Lincoln Residents for Housing
> Alternatives are set up so that the majority of the land that is re-zoned
> are on existing multi-family areas and unlikely to be developed…So in that
> case, whatever 10% 15%, 25% of 0 is still 0.”
>
> My understanding is the HCAWG was tasked with putting forth options in
> both the letter and spirit of the law. While I believe the voices of those
> who are opposed to the spirit of HCA should indeed be represented, that
> opportunity will come at the March Town Meeting. I am concerned that adding
> an E option to the December 2nd ballot puts us at risk of rendering the
> March vote moot. In essence, there could be a potential “no housing” vs.
> “no housing” vote on the March ballot, suppressing the voices of those who
> believe in the spirit of the law.
>
> My question is this: what will the decision process be at the November
> 21st meeting? Will the HCAWG exclusively decide whether to include a
> potential option E, or was this working group created with an advisory
> capacity only? If not, will it be a majority of the Selects who make this
> decision?
>
> Thank you to the Selects, Planning Board, and HCAWG for all your patience
> and hard work!
> Rebecca Blanchfield
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

[LincolnTalk] HCA fiscal impact

[Karla Gravis]

It is naive to think that adding hundreds of incremental units to Lincoln
would have no downstream impacts that would actually go against what we are
trying to achieve in the first place. The impact on municipal services
would require an increase in property taxes that would force the most
vulnerable residents out of town. The argument made below that by
increasing units by 1,000 we would get 100 affordable units misses the fact
that this would make the town unaffordable for current residents.


The HCAWG has not provided a response as to why no study has been conducted
to estimate the actual impact (all they have shown is an analysis conducted
for Oriole Landing, which uses a cost per pupil that is completely wrong),
but we have two analyses we can use to triangulate. One conducted by a
professional consultant in 2005 for a very similar scenario, and another
conducted by a town resident, both of which point to a potential increase
of almost 30% in property taxes (approximately $6,000 to the average
homeowner per year):

   - The town actually asked a consultant (Sasaki Associates) to conduct a
   similar study back when a Hanscom Air Force base closure was in the cards
   around 2005. In that scenario, Lincoln would have had to absorb 850 new
   housing units at Hanscom. By happenstance this would be roughly equivalent
   to the impact of Option C. Option C could lead to 950 incremental units as
   it would rezone for up to 1,135 units versus the existing 185.
   - The Sasaki study concluded that expenses would go up by 63% and
   revenues would only go up by a corresponding 28%. The implication is that
   taxes for existing residents would need to increase by 27%. The study can
   be found at the HCAWG’s website.
   - David Cuetos’ analysis
   

   of the fiscal impact of HCA rezoning leads to similar proforma tax
   increases (29%) in a full-buildout scenario.




> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Louis Zipes 
> Date: Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:37
> Subject: [LincolnTalk] November 21st meeting - question
> To: ٍSarah Postlethwait 
> CC: LincolnTalk.org , rsaga...@gmail.com <
> rsaga...@gmail.com>
>
>
> Even in the scare tactics of  '1123 max units' that would be pretty sweet
> to have an additional, minimum 112 non age restricted affordable rate
> units. Basically, you are coming close to same number of actual SHI units
> (I mean the number of actual units that are accessible and not just puffed
> up to count against total affordable inventory) that we have scraped
> together over the last 60 plus years. 60 years! 60 years of Town Meetings,
> studies, volunteer time, elected officials time, professional staff time,
> etc. that tends to get overlooked when people look at an end result.
>
> https://www.rhsohousing.org/node/9293/housing-inventory
>
> (Ex Oriole Landing is counted as 60 but really it is 15 that are
> affordable).
>
> Remember that the affordable rate is a sliding scale and not just one
> number that a person or family needs to meet to qualify.
>
> And if Developers could actually sell 1011 'million dollar' units, because
> let’s face it, that is what they would sell for in our neck of the woods,
> we will definitely help our neighboring towns by taking out those buyers
> from their  housing pool. Even better that these type of people would
> choose to live on much smaller lots and close to each other instead of
> spreading out on one plus acre lots.
>
> I think they will be a great resource for our town!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ‪On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:47 AM ‫ٍSarah Postlethwait‬‎ 
> wrote:‬
>
>> I seem to be having an issue with my email, as it deleted most of what I
>> wrote- here is the full reply I intended to send originally (hopefully!)
>>
>> __
>>
>> I think it's important to correct the misinformation here.
>>
>> The Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives have proposed E options
>> that *DO* allow for development.
>>
>> They have also proposed E options that are completely overlaid with
>> already developed areas and take credit for Lincoln's history of diverse
>> housing opportunities, which may not result in housing units being built
>> immediately.
>>
>> They have also proposed E options that are a mixture of the two above
>> options.
>>
>> A wide *RANGE* of options have been proposed by the LRHA, because there
>> is a wide *RANGE* of ways to comply with the law, and a wide *RANGE* of
>> beliefs about how Lincoln should comply with the law. The LHRA believes
>> that Lincoln's citizens should have been given the opportunity to have
>> their range of voices represented on the December Ballot.
>>
>> The expansive E options were developed to represent the range that the
>> HCAWG's proposals do not represent.
>>
>> Options C, D1, D2 and D3 only represent one side of the spectrum, and due
>> to flaws with the state model, allow for almost *tw

Re: [LincolnTalk] Letter of the Law, was November 21st meeting - question

[Karla Gravis]

Utile and the HCAWG would not submit proposals that don’t satisfy the
letter of the law. Options D have been blessed by both parties. Options E
offer a combination of approved parcels already existing in Options C and
Ds.

Options D and E are compliant with the letter of the law. All of those
options have 100% of their units
*“located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station**, subway
station, ferry terminal or bus station**.”*

Notice that the law doesn’t talk about mixed-use buildings, which were
actually not considered eligible for compliance until August 2023. If we
believe, like is suggested below, that following the EOHLC guidance doesn’t
imply compliance, then option C would be against the letter of the law too.

Just to be clear, the law also does not state what “reasonable size” means.
It would be easy to argue that the 635 units the guidelines demand is not
reasonable for Lincoln. We are the most impacted town in the Commonwealth
using the metric preferred by the State (units required as a percentage of
existing inventory).




> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Don Seltzer 
> Date: Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 14:59
> Subject: [LincolnTalk] Letter of the Law, was November 21st meeting -
> question
> To: LincolnTalk.org 
>
>
> Several recent posts have stated that the proposed E options would satisfy
> the letter of the law.  That is not correct.  None of the E or D options
> comply with the actual Sect 3A law:
>
> *An MBTA community shall have a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides
> for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is
> permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing
> shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with
> children. For the purposes of this section, a district of reasonable size
> shall: (i) have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, subject to
> any further limitations imposed by **section 40 of chapter 131*
> *
>  and
> title 5 of the state environmental code established pursuant to **section
> 13 of chapter 21A*
> *;
> and (ii) be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station,
> subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable.*
>
>
> That is the wording of the actual law, passed by the legislative branch.
> It is clear that their intention was to locate new zoning districts within
> a half mile radius of mass transit stations.
>
> The confusion has been created by an office in the executive branch that
> has chosen to impose guidelines that are in direct conflict with the law.
>
> Don Seltzer
>
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Letter of the Law, was November 21st meeting - question

[Karla Gravis]

That definition of bus station quoted below is
*NOT in the law*. That definition quoted below is in *the guidelines the
EOHLC created*. The law itself just says “bus station”.

*We need to be consistent*. If the argument being made is that we don’t
believe the guidelines, then a bus station is a bus station according to
the law. The law tasks the EOHLC with creating guidelines to determine
compliance.

*If we ignore the EOHLC and stick to the law as described, then option C is
not compliant with the letter of the law given the inclusion of a
mixed-used district*. The law doesn’t allow for that but the guidelines do.
This change happened in August of this year.

*Let me reiterate, options C and D1-D3 and E comply with the law according
to the guidelines.*

It is important to note that mass.gov says the following about the agency:
The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) (…) is
required to promulgate guidelines to determine if an MBTA community is in
compliance with Section 3A.



On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 4:06 PM Don Seltzer  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 3:46 PM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> Utile and the HCAWG would not submit proposals that don’t satisfy the
>> letter of the law. Options D have been blessed by both parties. Options E
>> offer a combination of approved parcels already existing in Options C and
>> Ds.
>>
>> Options D and E are compliant with the letter of the law. All of those
>> options have 100% of their units
>> *“located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station**, subway
>> station, ferry terminal or bus station**.”*
>>
>
> Utile and HCAWG submit proposals that will satisfy the Executive Office of
> Housing and Livable Communities guidelines, not what the actual law states.
> Regarding 'bus station', that is very narrowly defined as
>
> *“Bus station” means a location with a passenger platform and other fixed
> infrastructure serving as a point of embarkation for the MBTA Silver Line.*
>
> A bus stop for a low capacity bus line does not come close to qualifying
> as a Bus Station under this law.
>
> MBTA communities are at the mercy of a few bureaucrats in EOHLC that have
> dreamed up guidelines that have little to do with the Legislature enacted.
> Let us be honest in this discussion.  We are not trying to meet the Letter
> of the Law, but rather satisfying an overreaching executive office.
>
>
> Don Seltzer
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

[LincolnTalk] On a range of options + context

[Karla Gravis]

The additional proposal that has been sent this week to the Selects is a
*compromise* across those who hold different beliefs. *The current C and
D1-D3 options are very narrow in the range (for example, they all include
the mall area, the Doherty's lot, Ryan Estates at high density)*. *Our
objective is to allow residents to choose amongst a range of options - it
is not for me or anyone to decide individually.*

We have tried to mimic the consensus-driven approach that worked
successfully in Brookline. We are in fact going farther than Brookline did
in allowing a higher % of units to be built by right.

When quoting a specific sentence by an author, I think we need to provide
the full context. I am copying the full relevant section of that post below.
__


*Let me explain the logic behind the separation.*







*HCA compliance requires us to zone a certain number of acres to a certain
density by right. What that means is that as long as the developer does
not go past our height and setback bylaws, they do not need to ask the town
for feedback. This is not what historically happened in Lincoln.
Historically every multi-family development was a give and take between the
developer and the town. In that process the town was able to extract
important concessions like the number of affordable units, measures to
reduce environmental impact, etc.While that give and take was quite
important, for areas rezoned under HCA the town's influence is diminished
even further as developers would get an override over certain town bylaws
the State considers too restrictive. Among them two are chief:
affordability and wetland setbacks. The state will only allow us to ask a
developer to include 10% affordable units. The town’s bylaws require 15%,
and historically the town has never approved anything below 25%, including
some units reserved for low income households. 25% is also the lowest
percentage of units for an entire development to count towards 40B State
requirements. The other requirement at odds is wetlands setback. The town’s
bylaws require 100’ and the State only gives us 50’. This difference would
be critical in some sensitive areas like Codman Rd.Our view is that it is
detrimental to the town’s general interest to allow a developer to build a
large multifamily building without going through town meeting approval. The
success of Oriole Landing is testament to the usefulness of town meeting: a
win-win for the town and the developer. We have actually learned from
other towns like Winchester that we can drive a much tougher bargain than
we have done in the past.We see with skepticism claims that the Oriole
Landing developer, who made an estimated $12M profit and was able to get
through town meeting in nine months, does not want to go through town
meeting again. Lincoln has historically not been an obstructive town
towards multi-family developers and there is no reason to think that would
change now that HCA has lowered Town Meeting approval thresholds from 2/3
to just a simple majority.*

*I ask all residents to consider that when they vote to rezone an area,
they are de facto abdicating their democratic right to influence future
development.*


On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:10 Andy Wang  wrote:

> The issue wasn't whether the E proposals DO allow for development (Sarah
> is correct, they do).  It is whether they WILL be developed.  David said in
> his email "Why Lincoln should overlay HCA zoning over existing multi-family
> districts (Nov 5, 2023)" : "I believe the town would be better served by
> separating as much as possible the zoning exercise required for compliance
> approval from actual development. Zoning existing multifamily developments
> accomplishes that goal, as those properties already have the
> characteristics we would like to see and they are unlikely to be
> redeveloped."  So the proposals are, by design, intended to comply with the
> letter of the law of the HCA, but "unlikely to be redeveloped".  From what
> I understood, David was the one who put the initial group of E together.
> That's not to say that isn't a valid strategy, it just doesn't seem to
> align with what the charge of the HCAWG was supposed to do.  At least my
> impression was the HCAWG charge was to put forth proposals that are
> compliant with the letter of the law as well as the spirit of the law, it's
> just my impression that those follow the letter of the law, but not the
> spirit of the law.
>
> Sarah - if there are specific E proposals that you think are compliant
> with the spirit of the law, can you point me at those? Maybe I missed
> something there and happy to give it another look.
>
> - Andy
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

[LincolnTalk] Question Unanswered re: Housing Choice

[Karla Gravis]

It has to be voted at a town meeting, but not necessarily at the March 2024
Town Meeting.

A subsequent town meeting could be called at a later point in 2024, to
still meet the December 31st, 2024 deadline for Lincoln.



On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 1:04 PM paul.shorb at gmail.com

--- via Lincoln https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln>> wrote:

Davida -
Someone else here may be able to correct me, but I believe the answer is
that we need to vote at a Town Meeting, so this would be finally voted on
at the March 2024 Town Meeting, and the Special Town Meeting in December
2023 is to help decide what to present for a final up-or-down vote at that
2024 Town Meeting.
- Paul Shorb

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 12:57 PM dgloew--- via Lincoln https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln>>
wrote:

>* Regarding the Housing choice decision, I submitted the same question twice
*>* to the HCAWG.  It was apparently sent to J.Glass, T. Higgins, J. Hutchinson
*>* and K. Bodner.  To date, the only answer I received was the “my feedback
*>* will be shared”.
*>* As an almost 50 year resident of Lincoln, I am disappointed and dismayed
*>* that my question has been disregarded.
*>>* The question I posed was:
*>>*  I recall at some point hearing that a decision must be made by the town
*>* by December 2024.  Is that the case, and, if so, why do we seem to be under
*>* pressure to make a decision now?
*>>* This seems to me to be a factual question.  Prior to voting,I am hoping to
*>* receive an answer with no bias or agenda - just a straight forward answer.
*>>* Thanks to all.
*>>* Davida Loewenstein
*>>* --
*>* The LincolnTalk mailing list.
*>* To post, send mail to Lincoln at lincolntalk.org.

*>* Browse the archives at
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/

*>* .
*>* Change your subscription settings at
*>* https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
*
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Mass. Investment in Communities that Build Around Commuter Rail Stations

[Karla Gravis]

The names of the 60+ supporters are available on the website, and have been
for weeks.
www.lincolnHCA.org

Supporters reside in all areas of Lincoln. You can easily look up addresses
using the names.

The lots included in Option E are also included in options C or D. We have
not included any parcels that were not considered by the HCAWG.

We removed North Lewis St at the request of the Lincoln Historical Society.
We removed 7 Ridge Rd because they are affordable rentals and would be at
risk of displacement. Note that the HCAWG options (C and Ds) DO include
this parcel despite this risk.

We also removed 148 Lincoln Rd since it is unnecessary to reach the
compliance target. Note that this is not dissimilar to the last iteration
of the Lincoln Rd district when the WG dropped 150 Lincoln Rd.



> -- Forwarded message -
> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait 
> Date: Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 9:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Mass. Investment in Communities that Build
> Around Commuter Rail Stations
> To: Lis Herbert 
> Cc: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
> My parcel is included in every single proposal from the HCAWG and option E.
> I am affected if every single option gets passed. And if I fought to
> exclude my land you would call me a NIMBY (as many already have).
>
> I do not look forward to the implications of being rezoned and having
> properties being sold around me affecting my property value and raising my
> taxes, but I am willing to do so to avoid having something as drastic as
> option C to be passed, which allows over 1100 units to be built in south
> Lincoln.
>
> Both North and South Lewis Street were included in option E originally
> since Lewis Street has been discussed to be rezoned for decades AND it’s
> included in every other proposal from the town. However North Lewis was
> excluded at the request of the Lincoln Historical Society since every
> property on the North side of Lewis is considered Historical.
>
> If you would like to learn more about the historical significance of North
> Lewis Street, I would highly recommend the attached article.
>
> Sarah Postlethwait
>
> Lewis Street
>
> Proponent of option E
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 7:30 PM Lis Herbert  wrote:
>
>> It would likewise be much more transparent for proponents of E to
>> identify themselves and their respective properties within the boundaries
>> that have been drawn on Lewis Street, which appear to comprise just a
>> handful of lots.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 6:32 PM, ٍSarah Postlethwait 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Are you also speaking as a member of Fin comm?
>>
>> It would be much more transparent if members of town boards would include
>> their respective board in their email signature when commenting on town
>> matters in LincolnTalk (especially when voicing your own biased opinion).
>>
>> It’s also worth noting that we are currently in compliance, and will be
>> for all of 2024 and qualify for all the funds being discussed.
>> If our water mains can’t last a couple more months after December 2024
>> until the town is able to make an informed decision, then why haven’t we
>> applied for these funds now while we are still in compliance?
>>
>> This rush towards December 2024 is unnecessary. Especially when 4 story
>> 48’ buildings with no lot limits (besides 25’ setbacks) at the mall are
>> being discussed in planning board meetings…
>>
>> Sarah Postlethwait
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:47 PM Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> *It’s a little like asking us to make a YUGE leap of faith.*
>>>
>>> An alternative would be to take a different leap of faith that none of
>>> the following happen:
>>>
>>>  - we end up delaying so much that we miss the deadline for complying
>>>  - we no longer qualify for state funding for needed repairs and
>>> replacement of our past-the-expiration-date water mains
>>>  - we end up with a bond to pay for a very, very large bill to keep
>>> clean water flowing to our faucets
>>>
>>> Rich
>>> (speaking as a citizen of Lincoln)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:01 PM Sara Mattes  wrote:
>>>
 Amen.
 It’s a little like asking us to make a YUGE leap of faith.
 It makes the argument that we should proceed with extreme caution and
 not make any changes where these questions might come into play, esp. a
 challenge to our wetlands bylaw.


 --
 Sara Mattes


 --
>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>>> Browse the archives at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>>> Change your subscription settings at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>>
>>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk maili

Re: [LincolnTalk] Cold Brook Crossing - Commuter parking lot

[Karla Gravis]

Actually, there *have* been serious conversations about the sale or
transfer of the commuter lot, during open meetings.

Mr. Taylor has mentioned transferring the commuter lot to TCB as an
incentive for TCB to let the mall use their septic plant (quid pro quo). He
has mentioned it at not only one but two open meetings. The Selects have
been discussing the transfer of a town-owned parcel. Please see links
below. These are in fact conversations that are happening.


11/20 PB meeting

https://cloud.castus.tv/vod/lincoln/video/655ccf53888dbd0008844d4a?page=HOME

1:48:15



07/11 PM minutes

https://www.lincolntown.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07112023-5133

PVM gave a brief overview of the subdistrict presentation and ran through
the potential options and discussed a new Option 7. PVM said that The
Community Builders (TCB)would have no reason to tear down anything at
Lincoln Woods and would more likely develop something at the commuter lot.
GT said that any project on the RLF/Mall property that included any
substantial housing would need TCB cooperation in the expansion of the
septic system that serves the Mall and Lincoln Woods and said that the
opportunity to develop housing on the commuter parking lot could provide
that incentive. He also noted that any housing developed by TCB on the
commuter lot would be 100% affordable and count on Lincoln’s Subsidized
Housing


On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:57 PM Chris McCarthy  wrote:

> Zoned under HCA or not as in Option E there are no facts to support that
> anyone has legitimately proposed to "get rid of" the town owned commuter
> lot. In fact, until we see an article brought before town meeting to vote
> (with 2/3rd majority) I'd say that even honest debate at public meetings
> still puts that possibility in the unlikely to somewhat unlikely category.
>
> This isn't a commentary on which option to choose, but if we are trying to
> set a baseline and stick to facts I'm always willing to be proven wrong.
> Perhaps this has come up in passing at some point but there are still
> hurdles to overcome before it could ever happen. And I don't believe the
> HCA would water many (any?) of those down regardless of what the town
> decides Dec 2nd.
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023, 14:35 Scott Clary  wrote:
>
>> Thank you Mark and Karla for this information based on fact.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Scott Clary
>> 617-968-5769
>>
>> Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023, 12:29 PM Mark Levinson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Getting rid of the town-owned commuter parking lot at Lincoln Station
>>> would blow up any claim by the proponents of redeveloping the Mall that one
>>> of their main goals is to promote the use of public transportation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The parking lot currently has 166 spaces (according to the MBTA web
>>> site: https://www.mbta.com/stops/place-FR-0167 ).  Before the pandemic,
>>> the lot was mostly filled every weekday.  If there were a, say 100 unit
>>> building erected on that site, I think it would be a stretch to assume even
>>> 25 daily commuter rail riders from that building.  That would represent a
>>> reduction of more than 100 riders per day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The numbers may be approximate, but the point is not: getting rid of the
>>> town commuter lot would be a big step backwards for public transportation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, there is an occasional, recurring red herring that pops up that if
>>> we don’t enable development of lots of new housing at Lincoln Station,
>>> there’s a risk that the MBTA will drop Lincoln as a commuter rail stop.
>>> The commuter rail lot is one clear reason why that won’t happen (as long as
>>> it remains).  Together with the additional commuter rail parking on the
>>> Doherty’s side of the tracks, we have around 200 parking spaces.  This is
>>> by far the most parking for any station between Waltham and South Acton.
>>> (Kendall Green: 57 spaces; Concord: 86; West Concord: 146)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By providing commuter rail parking, Lincoln has been doing more than its
>>> fair share for years to promote public transportation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Levinson
>>>
>>> Ridge Rd.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Karla Gravis 
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 26, 2023 2:07 PM
>>> *To:* Lincoln Talk 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Fwd: Cold Brook Crossing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to the HCAWG pre

Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives and HCA Choices

[Karla Gravis]

Option E was presented in a public meeting on 11/21. You can look at the
video of the meeting here

  .

The citizens group came together organically, not unlike the citizens group
that sprung up in Newton (and displaced five incumbents in the recent
elections). The Brookline Select Board also worked with citizen
groups, going as far as visiting each building on Harvard St to make
decisions on which ones to include as a group. This form of citizen
involvement is happening in other towns.

100 residents emailed the Selects asking for an additional option to
Options C and Ds. I would argue the “special interest” here is the
inclusion of the RLF project into *every* single option the HCAWG has
presented, even though many people have requested an option without it. I
would also argue it is a special interest when RLF employees criticize a
grassroots citizens group, without disclosing their affiliation to the RLF.
Another “special interest” is Civico having a say in our bylaws.

*Why does every single HCAWG option include the mall? *There would have
been no need for a citizen-generated option if the HCAWG had 1) put forth
an option without the mall and/or 2) addressed the numerous concerns (and
mistakes) with options C and D. These concerns were brought up publicly.

Let’s remember Utile created the options in private meetings. There were no
open discussions where the HCAWG went parcel by parcel as to what was
included or not. Utile came up with the options privately (based on some
loose guidance but no parcel-by-parcel open discussion whatsoever) and then
were presented to the public. Perhaps if there had been open discussions
with Utile, we would have been quicker to catch the multiple mistakes in
the submission before it was sent to the State. (18 extra acres of parcels,
LW zoning at 20 units/acre, etc). Must be noted that it was the citizens'
group who caught the mistakes.





>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: John Mendelson 
> Date: Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 15:44
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives and
> HCA Choices
> To: Lynne Smith 
> CC: Lincoln 
>
>
> This strikes me as extremely hypocritical in regard to the way the dialog
> has unfolded over the past few months.
>
> Why should this group receive preferential treatment in terms of the
> process used to develop an option we are being asked to vote on?  Many
> members of the group who developed option E have spent the last few months
> demanding transparency, calling into question the ethics of the volunteers
> on the working group and elsewhere, destabilizing the process, and
> generally using the public forum of Lincoln Talk as a bully pulpit to push
> their agenda.
>
> I am asking for meeting and voting records in order to fully evaluate the
> merits of and intent behind option E, just like many have asked for and
> received  for Options C and D.
>
> To vote for an option (E) that has not had the same level of public
> scrutiny is a terrible idea.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 2:56 PM Lynne Smith  wrote:
>
>> I am writing in response to recent comments on Lincoln Talk, one of which
>> accused the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives (LRHA) of being a 
>> “*special
>> interest group, which has had secret meetings to develop…options with no
>> public notifications of meetings or publication of minutes*”.
>>
>> This group of residents sprang up organically from individuals using
>> Lincoln Talk, our only open-ended Town-wide communication platform.  They
>> did not have the advantage of being appointed as committee members by the
>> Selects.  Instead, they attended meetings, read distributed information,
>> and looked up relevant Massachusetts’ law.  Their ideas grew during
>> back-and-forth discussions on Lincoln Talk. There is no open meeting law to
>> restrict residents from talking together. To characterize these discussions
>> as ‘secret meetings’ is offensive to me.
>>
>> These individuals, without a hierarchy of leaders but with similar ideas
>> and meeting mostly on line, created a web site
>>  with fact-based
>> information regarding the Housing Choice Act and a fifth option, now called
>> Option E. While I have not contributed to the website, I have taken a
>> strong interest in the analysis presented there.  To my knowledge, there
>> is no ‘special interest’ that unites the group other than basing their
>> opinions on data and analysis and showing where that leads.
>>
>> And that leads me to Option E, which is entirely compliant with HCA
>> rezoning rules. Its main difference compared to Options C and D, is that it
>> excludes the Lincoln Mall from HCA development. It excludes the Mall
>> because many of us, listed as supporters
>>  on the LRHA
>> website, believe it is the most likely to be 

[LincolnTalk] Compliance check

[Karla Gravis]

Option C has not been deemed compliant by the State, at least not yet. The
only thing we have done is submitted option C for a compliance “check”. The
state will take up to 90 days to revert with whether the option passes the
check or not. Even then, any option will only be studied for full
compliance *after* the town meeting vote and *in conjunction* with the
bylaws. Therefore, it is premature to assert that Option C is the only
compliant option.

The Selects have said that the winning option on December 2nd will be
submitted for a compliance check as well.

Must be noted that the compliance check is only required when there is a
mixed use district like the mall.




-- Forwarded message -
> From: DJCP 
> Date: Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 15:42
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives and
> HCA Choices
> To: Lynne Smith 
> CC: Lincoln 
>
>
> Nothing you have written contradicts the facts that there are no published
> minutes or agenda items even for others to pour over in minute detail with
> our copious free time.
>
> Second, option E is not compliant. The only compliant option is C as that
> is the only option submitted to the state that has been approved.
>
> In fact, the lack of continuity on Lewis St is a big red flag and may get
> rejected. Not having minutes or notes from the development of the option
> means there is no concurrent evident to show the state that there was no
> racist or discriminatory or self serving intent in crafting that option.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 2:56 PM Lynne Smith  wrote:
>
>> I am writing in response to recent comments on Lincoln Talk, one of which
>> accused the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives (LRHA) of being a 
>> “*special
>> interest group, which has had secret meetings to develop…options with no
>> public notifications of meetings or publication of minutes*”.
>>
>> This group of residents sprang up organically from individuals using
>> Lincoln Talk, our only open-ended Town-wide communication platform.  They
>> did not have the advantage of being appointed as committee members by the
>> Selects.  Instead, they attended meetings, read distributed information,
>> and looked up relevant Massachusetts’ law.  Their ideas grew during
>> back-and-forth discussions on Lincoln Talk. There is no open meeting law to
>> restrict residents from talking together. To characterize these discussions
>> as ‘secret meetings’ is offensive to me.
>>
>> These individuals, without a hierarchy of leaders but with similar ideas
>> and meeting mostly on line, created a web site
>>  with fact-based
>> information regarding the Housing Choice Act and a fifth option, now called
>> Option E. While I have not contributed to the website, I have taken a
>> strong interest in the analysis presented there.  To my knowledge, there
>> is no ‘special interest’ that unites the group other than basing their
>> opinions on data and analysis and showing where that leads.
>>
>> And that leads me to Option E, which is entirely compliant with HCA
>> rezoning rules. Its main difference compared to Options C and D, is that it
>> excludes the Lincoln Mall from HCA development. It excludes the Mall
>> because many of us, listed as supporters
>>  on the LRHA
>> website, believe it is the most likely to be developed and we want it to
>> be developed subject to Town approvals: we want more affordability and
>> better control of the layout and design than a ‘by right’ developer might
>> give us.
>>
>> As a 20-year member of the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust and a
>> supporter of the RLF, I want to see the Mall filled with wonderful condos,
>> one of which I might buy when we are ready to downsize! I do not
>> criticize the Town staff, the RLF, and the appointed Working Group members.
>> They have done a great job getting us to this point. But everyone has
>> their own lens for Lincoln’s response to the housing crisis.  Let’s not
>> criticize those residents who have invested their time and volunteered
>> their skills to create alternatives. We will all meet on December 2nd to
>> make the best choice we know how to make for Lincoln’s future. See you
>> there!
>> Lynne Smith
>> 5 Tabor Hill Road
>> 
>> Lincoln, MA 01773
>> 
>> cell:  781-258-1175
>> ly...@smith.net
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pa

Re: [LincolnTalk] The real reason we cannot require more affordable units under HCA zoning

[Karla Gravis]

This does not address the question posed in the email below regarding the
affordability question - why did we submit a flawed feasibility study that
would be denied? If our intention was to be able to require 15%
affordability (like Brookline and Lexington are able to do under HCA),
should we not have made every effort to do so?


I also have other questions on the process:


   - I assume this comment made below *"I’ll also point out that the errors
   in the HCA submission to the state were inconsequential"* refers to the
   extra 18 acres of land that were submitted to the State in Option C. (IMO,
   I don't believe including all these extra parcels is inconsequential but I
   digress).
  - There have been other corrections since then announced to Option C:
  1) lowering the units/acre at LW to 8 and 2) today's changes communicated
  by Ms. Glass where the densities of *all* districts (except for
the Village
  District) are now different. When will those changes be
communicated to the
  State?
   - Why did we originally send a study to the State that contained so many
   flaws that we have had to make three rounds of changes to it? Was the
   submission rushed?
   - I have a question on the process: what happens if the vote to comply
   with HCA with whichever option is chosen passes but the majority does not
   agree with the bylaws and votes them down at the march town meeting? Will
   we be given the choice of "vote for Option X with these bylaws only", or is
   the process decoupled? The bylaws will be very important in determining
   *how* the mall will be built out, so I assume one will influence how people
   vote on the other.




> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:26 PM Margaret Olson 
> wrote:
>
>> You vote on the specific zoning language at the March town meeting. The
>> vote on Dec 2nd is only for which option the zoning regulations are to
>> address.
>>
>> This process has multiple steps:
>> 1. develop possible approaches
>> 2. choose an approach
>> 3. develop zoning regulations for the chosen approach
>> 4. Vote  on the zoning
>> 5. Assuming the zoning passes at town meeting, send the zoning to the
>> state for approval
>>
>> We are at step 2: choose an approach. There are no zoning changes on the
>> warrant on Saturday, only a “sense of the town” vote.
>>
>> There will be public meetings and a public hearing and multiple
>> opportunities for the public to provide input prior to the zoning vote in
>> March
>>
>> Note that the preliminary verification check that we are soliciting now
>> is just that: a preliminary check. It isn’t a full review; that comes after
>> we have adopted HCA zoning.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:08 PM Robert Ahlert 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So how can we be expected to vote on Saturday when key information is
>>> contained in ONLY the Zoning Bylaw?
>>>
>>> For example, the section on the Village Center states that only 30-40%
>>> of the ground floor of buildings will have to remain commercial.  Is that
>>> still the latest language? Perhaps you can provide the revised language to
>>> the residents because I know it only applies to interior portions of the
>>> parcel and not frontage on Lincoln Rd.  This is a critical point.  No one
>>> knows what the "mandatory" in mandatory mixed use actually means.  It's
>>> only "mandatory" that 30-40% is commercial, the rest can be parking or
>>> units at ground level.
>>>
>>> If Donelan's decides not to renew, wouldn't a "by right'' property owner
>>> (e.g. CIVICO) likely demolish that building and only leave 30-40% of the
>>> ground floor as commercial?  Could the developer push out the grocery store
>>> b/c housing is more profitable?  I worry we would end up with more of a
>>> mini-mart than a real grocery store
>>>
>>> *Vote Option E, this process needs more time.*
>>>
>>> Rob
>>> 185 Lincoln Rd, Lincoln, MA 01773
>>> 
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:43 PM Margaret Olson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On the draft the planning board was discussing last week at our working
 meeting:

 As is common with working drafts, the text of the HCA zoning by-law
 discussed by the planning board at our working meeting included all the
 options the board might consider. The draft has text from planning board
 members, town staff, and town counsel. It is both incomplete and at the
 same time contains multiple approaches to the same problem, only one of
 which will be chosen. The board has not voted on it. It is not possible at
 this point to make any statements about what the zoning does and does not
 include or permit.

 I’ll also point out that the errors in the HCA submission to the state
 were inconsequential. They were corrected for completeness but the updates
 did not change anything material.

 Margaret



 On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:56 PM David Cuetos 
 wrote

[LincolnTalk] Changes to Options C and D made as recently as yesterday

[Karla Gravis]

With the flurry of emails on the topic, I thought I would summarize the
evolution of Options C and Ds, and all the changes that have been made to
them in recent days.


   - The town submitted Option C, as developed by Utile, to the State on
   October 12th
   - There was an error found in Utile's model submission: it included an
   extra 18 acres of land that had not been approved. The HCAWG confirmed and
   corrected this mistake.
   - On November 8th, Ms. Glass confirmed that the Lincoln Woods density
   would be adjusted down to 8 units/acre from the 20 units per acre in the
   original submission for all options. Lincoln Rd density was also dropped to
   14 units per acre in the Lincoln Rd district.  150 Lincoln Rd was dropped
   from the parcel list. It is unclear whether either of these corrections has
   been sent to the State.
   - *On November 29th, Ms. Glass confirmed that the density for the Codman
   Rd and Lincoln Rd districts was reduced because of over-zoning concerns,
   across all options C-Ds.*  It is also unclear whether the corrections to
   Option C have been sent to the State.

I have taken the liberty of mapping out the changes in the table below.

I will leave it up to readers to interpret whether Option C as presented at
SOTT and submitted to the State on Oct. 12th is the same as what is being
voted on Saturday.

[image: image.png]
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center as part of the mall

[Karla Gravis]

Why would including the Community Center as part of the mall be a "project
killer"? We could sign a 10/20/30 year lease. Wouldn't a developer jump at
the chance to have a stable tenant instead of having to deal with constant
retail turnover? Or is this comment an indictment of the viability of any
commercial space at the Mall area?

According to the town's economic feasibility study, a developer could
consider charging ~$3 per sqft in monthly rent. For a 10,000 sqft CC, that
would mean $360K in yearly rent. Compare that to the town's yearly debt
service payment of $0.77M - $1.54M for the proposed CC designs.  The
savings come from the fact that public buildings are much more costly to
build than what private developments cost.

In relation to the argument that the CC cannot be in the mall area because
of LEAP, there is no need to have LEAP move to the mall. Remodeling Pod C
(where LEAP is currently hosted) has been estimated at $3.5M. The non-LEAP
portion of the community center designs being put to vote will be costing
the town $12.5M - $21.5M. If the annual cost of the community center is
$360k instead of $1M+, there will surely be some left to renovate LEAP.

To be clear, this is not Civico's plan for the mall. If Option C is chosen,
this synergistic combination will likely not happen. However, with Option
E, this could very much be part of the project presented to the Town. We
could tap TCB (The Community Builders - pun intended) to build a community
center and truly affordable housing.



>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:47 Paul Shorb  wrote:
>
>> The CCBC has an FAQ linked here
>> 
>>  that explains
>> why the community center should be located at Hartwell campus (as the Town
>> has voted to approve multiple times) rather than at the Mall.
>>
>> Putting a community center at the Town center would be much more
>> expensive, if it could be accomplished at all. As I noted in another
>> post just now, shared spaces are efficient, since (A) seniors tend to
>> use the facilities in the day and (B) school children do so in the later
>> afternoon, walking from the school buildings to participate in Lincoln's
>> Parks & Rec programs or LEAP.  Building a separate community center at
>> the town center would still leave the town with the need to renovate the
>> spaces that would remain at Hartwell; I have heard the estimate of about
>> $3.5 million for each of three pods at Hartwell.
>>
>> Also, I'm not sure how a community center at the Town center could
>> actually be achieved. The Town center does not have sufficient available
>> Town-owned space to build a community center. You therefore suggested 
>> including the
>> Community Center as a required accessory use in the development of a future
>> residential project at Lincoln Station. However, despite the rosy theory
>> provided by your urban planning contact, that sounds like a
>> project-killer to me.
>>
>> Dealing with climate change is a big motivator for me. That pushes me in
>> the direction of Option C, much more than getting a community center
>> somehow forced into a future development of the Mall. If I'm right that 
>> "required
>> accessory use" would be a project-killer, then we would thus not only
>> fail to get a community center built there, but also fail to get the
>> Mall redeveloped with higher-density near the rail stop and shopping,
>> which would be the biggest potential climate win here.
>>
>> Paul Shorb
>> (a member of the RLF Board but expressing my personal views here)
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 7:54 AM Ken Hurd  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello LincolnTalkers,
>>> With apologies for expressing yet again my strongly held opinion as an
>>> architect concerned with what we build in Lincoln, I want to remind
>>> everyone why I and many others believe we should not build a community
>>> center on the school campus.  I still believe it should be located in
>>> Lincoln Station, particularly now that our small commercial area is in play
>>> because of the Housing Choice Act.
>>>
>>> As I wrote last year, "I fully support building a new facility, but it
>>> has long been my opinion that such a major investment by the town should be
>>> deployed where it is most needed - namely in the Lincoln Station area.  For
>>> more than ten years since Town Meeting approved the Comprehensive Long
>>> Range Plan, in which the revitalization of Lincoln Station was
>>> overwhelmingly one of the highest priorities, the area has lain dormant and
>>> in serious need of a catalyst to jumpstart its transformation into the
>>> compact, vital, walkable village center that was a stated goal at the
>>> time.  A community center in such a location would be the equivalent of an
>>> anchor store in a retail setting, and by virtue of attracting more people
>>> on a regular basis, it would create more opportunities for a clustered
>>> cross-current of activities spawning greater s

[LincolnTalk] Option E enables a CC at the Mall (if we so choose)

[Karla Gravis]

The main point of my comment was to counter the assertion that including
the CC in the mall is a "project killer". I would argue, given the analysis
I laid out below, that having a stable, long-term tenant like the Town of
Lincoln would actually be an incentive for certain developers (perhaps not
a Civico which seems more interested in flipping properties than being
long-term owners). A CC at the mall would be a win-win for residents and
developers.

I concur with Peter. Options C and D would rezone the mall, providing the
owner total freedom to pursue any plans. The town could not require the
inclusion of a community center in a developer's project.

Option E, on the other hand, preserves the town's ability to influence what
is built at the mall. We could have a requirement put to town vote to
couple the community center with any multi-family residential development
at the mall

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:03 PM Peter Buchthal  wrote:

> I respectfully disagree.  I don't believe the Planning Board can specify
> the tenants and the terms for a future community center at the Lincoln
> Mall  as the Mall under Options C and D1-D3 will be developed by right and
> won't require a Town Meeting for a building permit.  I am not an attorney,
> but using google, I did not find any examples of a Town being able to
> pre-reserve space in a development built by right for the Town's use.  If
> you want the possibility of a community center at the Lincoln Mall, choose
> Option E.
>
> Peter Buchthal
> Weston Rd.
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 2:53 PM Margaret Olson 
> wrote:
>
>> The likelihood or not of the community center at the mall is irrelevant
>> to which option is chosen. It is equally likely or unlikely with C as with
>> E, or with any of the D options.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 2:38 PM Karla Gravis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why would including the Community Center as part of the mall be a
>>> "project killer"? We could sign a 10/20/30 year lease. Wouldn't a developer
>>> jump at the chance to have a stable tenant instead of having to deal with
>>> constant retail turnover? Or is this comment an indictment of the viability
>>> of any commercial space at the Mall area?
>>>
>>> According to the town's economic feasibility study, a developer could
>>> consider charging ~$3 per sqft in monthly rent. For a 10,000 sqft CC, that
>>> would mean $360K in yearly rent. Compare that to the town's yearly debt
>>> service payment of $0.77M - $1.54M for the proposed CC designs.  The
>>> savings come from the fact that public buildings are much more costly to
>>> build than what private developments cost.
>>>
>>> In relation to the argument that the CC cannot be in the mall area
>>> because of LEAP, there is no need to have LEAP move to the mall. Remodeling
>>> Pod C (where LEAP is currently hosted) has been estimated at $3.5M. The
>>> non-LEAP portion of the community center designs being put to vote will be
>>> costing the town $12.5M - $21.5M. If the annual cost of the community
>>> center is $360k instead of $1M+, there will surely be some left to renovate
>>> LEAP.
>>>
>>> To be clear, this is not Civico's plan for the mall. If Option C is
>>> chosen, this synergistic combination will likely not happen. However, with
>>> Option E, this could very much be part of the project presented to the
>>> Town. We could tap TCB (The Community Builders - pun intended) to build a
>>> community center and truly affordable housing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 12:47 Paul Shorb  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The CCBC has an FAQ linked here
>>>>> <https://lincolncommunitycenter.com/2022/11/11/why-would-the-community-center-be-on-the-hartwell-campus/>
>>>>>  that explains
>>>>> why the community center should be located at Hartwell campus (as the Town
>>>>> has voted to approve multiple times) rather than at the Mall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting a community center at the Town center would be much more
>>>>> expensive, if it could be accomplished at all. As I noted in another
>>>>> post just now, shared spaces are efficient, since (A) seniors tend to
>>>>> use the facilities in the day and (B) school children do so in the later
>>>>> afternoon, walking from the school buildings to participate in Lincoln's
>>>>> Parks & Rec programs or LEAP.  Building a separate community center
>>>>> at the town center would 

[LincolnTalk] Voting on incomplete options

[Karla Gravis]

I am not suggesting that we bring multiple by-laws for approval at the
March town meeting.

Tomorrow we are asking residents to express a preference for a set of
bylaws through ranked choice voting, The preferred option would then be
presented for approval in March. Options C and D as being voted on tomorrow
are incomplete because we do not have answers to these questions:

   - Building heights/stories
   - PB having override prower through special permits
   - Commercial space requirements
   - Allowance of fees in lieu of affordable units

If HCA zoning is "exactly zoning by laws" why are we voting under
incomplete assumptions?



On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:42 PM Margaret Olson 
wrote:

> Town Counsel has advised us that we should not bring multiple potential
> zoning by-laws to town meeting. The state regulates how zoning changes are
> handled.
>
> A zoning article at town meeting is a straight yes/no vote on a very
> specific set of changes. We can not have any sort of multiple choice vote
> as we can for a "sense of the town" vote. So if we were to bring the zoning
> by-law changes for all five options to town meeting we would have five
> warrant articles. In what order should they appear? If the first one passes
> do we go on and vote on the others? As a voter who supports the HCA but
> doesn't like the variant that comes first in the warrant what should you
> do? Vote no, holding out for your preferred option, or do you vote yes to
> ensure we do comply? If all five are on the warrant what happens
> if multiple options pass?
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 2:59 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
>> Given that, according the Chair of the Planning Board:
>>
>>1.  "*Compliance with the HCA is "exactly zoning by laws*"
>>2. "Z*oning by-laws are the implementation of HCA compliance*"
>>3. These by-laws are not ready
>>
>> Then, why are we voting tomorrow?
>>
>> To emphasize how rushed this process has been, significant changes to the
>> densities across options C and Ds were communicated on Wednesday evening
>> (without any public meetings).
>>
>> The areas where the Planning Board hasn't agreed on the bylaws are:
>> building heights/stories, giving the PB special permit powers to change
>> densities and heights/stories, parking and allowing fees in lieu of
>> affordable units. These are all critical questions as we evaluate the
>> different options. How are we expected to discuss the merits of these
>> options without a full understanding of those issues?
>>
>> LRHA has a stance on these open questions. Option E has a set of
>> setbacks, height/story limits and floor area ratios for every district. We
>> are distinctly opposed to providing variances to all of those items, as
>> well as units per acre, through a Planning Board special permit.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 2:38 PM Margaret Olson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Compliance with the HCA is *exactly* zoning by laws. The zoning by-laws
>>> are the implementation of HCA compliance. There is no way to comply with
>>> the HCA without voting to amend the zoning by-laws.
>>>
>>> If the town votes down the proposed zoning by-laws in March, and the
>>> sense of the town is that we want to comply but the planning board
>>> presented an unacceptable set of regulations, then the planning board will
>>> go back to work and try again at a special town meeting at a later date.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Voting on incomplete options

[Karla Gravis]

I am confused with this answer.

No one is denying zoning bylaws require a town meeting vote. In March, the
options will be 1) a certain, specific set of bylaws (currently
undetermined) or 2) nothing (aka: non-compliance).

Tomorrow, on the other hand, we could have given residents the option to
choose among different sets of complete bylaws. At the very least, there
should be 100% clarity on issues like height, number of stories, ability to
pay fees in lieu of affordable units, commercial space requirements and
whether the planning board can provide variances on those or not.

I posit that the reason we are not being presented with all that
information is because some members of the planning board would prefer to
make those decisions themselves rather than letting residents vote on those
critical variables.

We understand that residents can try to influence what is presented in
March, but the PB will decide the final set of bylaws. In March, residents
will only be allowed to decide between that specific set or non-compliance.



On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 5:48 PM Margaret Olson  wrote:

> Once again, zoning changes require a vote at town meeting.
>
> The planning board drafts the zoning and holds public hearings as required
> by law. The town then votes at town meeting.
>
> Once again zoning changes require a vote of town meeting.
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:53 PM ٍSarah Postlethwait 
> wrote:
>
>> The HCA is NOT a set of guidelines. The guidelines were created by the
>> EOHLC. According to Ms Olson, "compliance with the HCA is "exactly zoning
>> by laws".
>>
>> This is why knowing the bylaws for the proposed subdistricts is
>> incredibly important. Why even vote on density and height restrictions
>> tomorrow, as all of these options have specified, if the planning board can
>> just override everything and make it whatever height and density that they
>> (or the developer) feels like adding.
>>
>> Furthermore, Option E has been modified to fix the minor issue that Utile
>> thought may need addressed before submitting it to the state. It meets
>> all the guidelines set forth by the EOHLC.
>>
>> Option C was submitted to the state, however it was never deemed
>> compliant. Nor were options D1, D2 or D3.
>>
>> Furthermore, option C was significantly changed on Wednesday and will
>> need resubmitted to the state to account for these changes.
>>
>> It’s unfortunate that you think we are trying to be disruptive,
>> considering the state actually modified the HCA model used to calculate
>> modeled units this week, due to the LRHA’s work highlighting the
>> significant flaw that results in an overzoning of units.
>>
>> This change removed over 400 additional units from option C that could
>> have been built, by right, on top of the 800 actual units that are allowed
>> in the current option C being voted on tomorrow.
>>
>> While we are grateful that Utile finally listened to our concerns and
>> consulted with the state to address the issue with the model, It’s
>> unfortunate that the HCAWG members refused to sit down with us weeks ago
>> when the issue was detected.
>>
>> So if you call that disruptive, so be it.
>>
>> Sarah Postlethwait
>>
>> Lewis Street
>>
>> 
>>
>> Anyone interested in learning more about Option E and the significant
>> changes made to options C, D1, D2 and D3 this week can learn more here:
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/view/lincoln-hca-info/compare-the-options
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:10 PM John Mendelson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We are NOT being asked to vote on bylaws.  The HCA is a set of
>>> guidelines and we are being asked to vote for one of 5 zoning options that
>>> conform (or perhaps don't confirm in one case) to said guidelines.  We've
>>> been told repeatedly that bylaws are to follow and we will vote for one
>>> fully developed plan (or not) in March
>>>
>>> I find this continued obfuscation and distraction really frustrating and
>>> hard to hear as anything but an attempt to disrupt the process.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 4:02 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not suggesting that we bring multiple by-laws for approval at the
>>>> March town meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Tomorrow we are asking residents to express a preference for a set of
>>>> bylaws through ranked choice voting, The preferred option would then be
>>>&g

Re: [LincolnTalk] Voting on incomplete options

[Karla Gravis]

With the approach taken, the PB will decide the ONE set of bylaws that will
be up for vote in March.

Let's see if an example helps. Height restrictions are an important part of
the bylaws. Right now, the PB is considering allowing up to 48' (4 stories)
in the Village Center.

In March, the only two options might be: 1) Vote for the bylaws that
include 48' heights or 2) do not comply with HCA. For many, either of those
will be pretty bad options, and people will be forced to pick between the
lesser of two evils.

Another example, the PB is considering including a clause that says the PB
can override any of the restrictions by special permit. Again, the vote in
March might be 1) give the PB decision rights to override any restrictions
or 2) do not comply with the HCA. What if most people don't agree with
either? We are forcing residents into false choices.

Tomorrow, we are voting on options but have no idea about any of these
considerations. We could (should) have been presented with the option to
choose 36' or 48' height restrictions, for example. Instead, we are letting
the PB decide what to bring to the March town meeting.

This is very much internally consistent.



>
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 19:19 DJCP  wrote:
>
>> What you're saying isn't even internally consistent. How does the
>> Planning board keep decisions to itself AND put things up to vote at town
>> meeting?
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 6:03 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:
>>
>>> I am confused with this answer.
>>>
>>> No one is denying zoning bylaws require a town meeting vote. In March,
>>> the options will be 1) a certain, specific set of bylaws (currently
>>> undetermined) or 2) nothing (aka: non-compliance).
>>>
>>> Tomorrow, on the other hand, we could have given residents the option to
>>> choose among different sets of complete bylaws. At the very least, there
>>> should be 100% clarity on issues like height, number of stories, ability to
>>> pay fees in lieu of affordable units, commercial space requirements and
>>> whether the planning board can provide variances on those or not.
>>>
>>> I posit that the reason we are not being presented with all that
>>> information is because some members of the planning board would prefer to
>>> make those decisions themselves rather than letting residents vote on those
>>> critical variables.
>>>
>>> We understand that residents can try to influence what is presented in
>>> March, but the PB will decide the final set of bylaws. In March, residents
>>> will only be allowed to decide between that specific set or non-compliance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 5:48 PM Margaret Olson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once again, zoning changes require a vote at town meeting.
>>>>
>>>> The planning board drafts the zoning and holds public hearings as
>>>> required by law. The town then votes at town meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Once again zoning changes require a vote of town meeting.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:53 PM ٍSarah Postlethwait 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The HCA is NOT a set of guidelines. The guidelines were created by the
>>>>> EOHLC. According to Ms Olson, "compliance with the HCA is "exactly zoning
>>>>> by laws".
>>>>>
>>>>> This is why knowing the bylaws for the proposed subdistricts is
>>>>> incredibly important. Why even vote on density and height restrictions
>>>>> tomorrow, as all of these options have specified, if the planning board 
>>>>> can
>>>>> just override everything and make it whatever height and density that they
>>>>> (or the developer) feels like adding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, Option E has been modified to fix the minor issue that
>>>>> Utile thought may need addressed before submitting it to the state. It
>>>>> meets all the guidelines set forth by the EOHLC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Option C was submitted to the state, however it was never deemed
>>>>> compliant. Nor were options D1, D2 or D3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, option C was significantly changed on Wednesday and will
>>>>> need resubmitted to the state to account for these changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s unfortunate that you think we are trying to be disruptive,
>>>>> considering the state actually modified the HCA model used to
>>>>> calc

Re: [LincolnTalk] Voting on incomplete options

[Karla Gravis]

This is absolutely **not** true.

The HCAWG site says the following: "RLF has been working with CIVICO to
develop a vision for the Mall." (
https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group)

Ms. Olson confirmed in writing: "The RLF has met with the town to explain
what they would like to see in the mall zoning. They brought along Civico."

The SOTT presentation says: "The RLF is pursuing a redevelopment project
for the benefit of the Town and the Lincoln Station area as we feel it is
our best chance at improving the sustainability of commercial space at the
Mall." (page 33 from this presentation:
https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85116/2023-SOTT-HCA-Slide-Deck-wtih-Notes?bidId=
)

Ms. Barnes said in the November 8th forums that "current plans would bring
a reduction in commercial space at the mall".

To say that the "there is no redevelopment plan for the mall right now" is
incredibly misleading, given all of the above and multiple public meetings.

Respectfully,
Karla Gravis
Weston Rd
A resident not affiliated with any board in town, but very happy to see
board and town employees disclosing their affiliation





On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:06 PM Sara Lupkas  wrote:

> There are no basic site plans for the mall because there is no
> redevelopment plan for the mall right now. The HCA options that we will be
> voting on tomorrow are to decide where to put the multi-family zoning
> districts, that's it. There is no development plan for the mall at this
> time, and no developer bidding on any project. Putting forward any site
> plans under these conditions would be extremely premature.
>
> Sara Lupkas
> Staff member of the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust, but these are my
> personal views and not an official statement
> Sandy Pond Rd
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 8:03 PM Robert Ahlert  wrote:
>
>> I can imagine a person that votes for C now in December, but then feels
>> hoodwinked because he or she later learns about other details in the
>> bylaws, that he or she which switch their vote to No in March.
>>
>> It would’ve been much cleaner if the planning board had published their
>> draft bylaws by now. It would also be much cleaner if we had some basic
>> site plans for the Mall. It would also have been much cleaner if we had a
>> better traffic study which included 5 corners.  Etc.
>>
>> Let’s take another year to figure this out with some fresh sets of eyes.
>>
>> Sorry, I’m on repeat now.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 7:31 PM Karla Gravis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> With the approach taken, the PB will decide the ONE set of bylaws that
>>> will be up for vote in March.
>>>
>>> Let's see if an example helps. Height restrictions are an important part
>>> of the bylaws. Right now, the PB is considering allowing up to 48' (4
>>> stories) in the Village Center.
>>>
>>> In March, the only two options might be: 1) Vote for the bylaws that
>>> include 48' heights or 2) do not comply with HCA. For many, either of those
>>> will be pretty bad options, and people will be forced to pick between the
>>> lesser of two evils.
>>>
>>> Another example, the PB is considering including a clause that says the
>>> PB can override any of the restrictions by special permit. Again, the vote
>>> in March might be 1) give the PB decision rights to override any
>>> restrictions or 2) do not comply with the HCA. What if most people don't
>>> agree with either? We are forcing residents into false choices.
>>>
>>> Tomorrow, we are voting on options but have no idea about any of these
>>> considerations. We could (should) have been presented with the option to
>>> choose 36' or 48' height restrictions, for example. Instead, we are letting
>>> the PB decide what to bring to the March town meeting.
>>>
>>> This is very much internally consistent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 19:19 DJCP  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What you're saying isn't even internally consistent. How does the
>>>>> Planning board keep decisions to itself AND put things up to vote at town
>>>>> meeting?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 6:03 PM Karla Gravis 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am confused with this answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one is denying zoning bylaws require a town meeting vote. In
>>>>>> March, the 

[LincolnTalk] Mall development plans

[Karla Gravis]

There is a marked difference between plans not being "final'' and an
assertion made by folks affiliated with the RLF/LLCT that "there is no
development plan for the mall", when the evidence points to the contrary.
Please see below for links.



On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:39 PM John Mendelson 
wrote:

> Yes, discussions have happened, meetings have taken place, but plans are
> **not** final.  How many times does this need to be repeated?
>
> Listen to some Jethro Tull.  Vote C.
>
> Good night.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 9:32 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
>> This is absolutely **not** true.
>>
>> The HCAWG site says the following: "RLF has been working with CIVICO to
>> develop a vision for the Mall." (
>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group)
>>
>> Ms. Olson confirmed in writing: "The RLF has met with the town to
>> explain what they would like to see in the mall zoning. They brought along
>> Civico."
>>
>> The SOTT presentation says: "The RLF is pursuing a redevelopment project
>> for the benefit of the Town and the Lincoln Station area as we feel it is
>> our best chance at improving the sustainability of commercial space at the
>> Mall." (page 33 from this presentation:
>> https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85116/2023-SOTT-HCA-Slide-Deck-wtih-Notes?bidId=
>> )
>>
>> Ms. Barnes said in the November 8th forums that "current plans would
>> bring a reduction in commercial space at the mall".
>>
>> To say that the "there is no redevelopment plan for the mall right now"
>> is incredibly misleading, given all of the above and multiple public
>> meetings.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Karla Gravis
>> Weston Rd
>> A resident not affiliated with any board in town, but very happy to see
>> board and town employees disclosing their affiliation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:06 PM Sara Lupkas  wrote:
>>
>>> There are no basic site plans for the mall because there is no
>>> redevelopment plan for the mall right now. The HCA options that we will be
>>> voting on tomorrow are to decide where to put the multi-family zoning
>>> districts, that's it. There is no development plan for the mall at this
>>> time, and no developer bidding on any project. Putting forward any site
>>> plans under these conditions would be extremely premature.
>>>
>>> Sara Lupkas
>>> Staff member of the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust, but these are my
>>> personal views and not an official statement
>>> Sandy Pond Rd
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Retail/Mall

[Karla Gravis]

I would like to address this statement in the email below:

“The facts are that the Mall needs help to remain viable”

Let's not conflate the RLF finances with the Mall finances.

The 990 filings indicate that the Mall itself has been consistently
profitable over the last five years

:

   - 2018: $80,399
   - 2019: $191,279
   - 2020: $122,519
   - 2021: $111,795
   - 2022: $164,571

Now, in terms of the RLF finances, if there is a concern about its
sustainability, perhaps there should be a reflection about its cost
structure. The Concord Land Conservation Trust, which oversees double the
acreage (more than 1,000 vs more than 500 acres in Lincoln), has expenses of
$187K versus $334K for the RLF/LLCT

.




> *Allen Vander Meulen* pastorallenv at gmail.com
> 
> *Sat Dec 16 13:57:12 EST 2023*
>
> The claim that the town leadership is "pro development and are reaching for 
> max density” - as well as implying illegal favoritism - departs very far from 
> reality, re-casting a very complicated and nuanced landscape with a trite and 
> false generalization.
>
> We have a very diverse group of people in leadership in town, with an even 
> wider range of opinions and perspectives.  The one consistent trait I have 
> seen in all of the town’s leadership - whether we’re talking of those in 
> volunteer positions on the town’s many committees, boards, commissions and 
> task forces, or those who are Town employees, is a deep devotion to the long 
> term best interests of the town and its residents, and a determination to 
> navigate an incredibly complex legal, economic, administrative, regulatory, 
> and political landscape to do all they can in service to the town.
>
> We certainly disagree on many aspects of what “best interests of the town” 
> means, exactly, but I deeply believe that we are far stronger and more 
> effective for having such a wide range of voices engaged in service to 
> Lincoln and its residents. And, I am grateful that whether they are 
> volunteers, or paid staff, for the huge amounts of effort they all invest 
> into making this community what it is, and that they are always striving to 
> make it ever better.
>
> The facts are that the Mall needs help to remain viable; and that the HCA 
> requires the town to adopt "by right” zoning for higher density housing, with 
> a large set of detailed parameters to define the expectations of what that 
> means.  There are a very wide range of options as to how to accomplish that, 
> even within the HCAWG and town leadership itself.  What we’ve seen over the 
> last year or so is a prolonged discussion as to how best to address these two 
> issues.
>
> The current direction - confirmed by a vote at the recent town meeting - is a 
> consensus view arrived-at through that long and intense process of research, 
> discussion, vetting, and negotiation with many parties - including the State. 
>  It is not ideal from my point of view, but given all of the work that has 
> gone into it, I am certain it is a solid consensus view that does a good job 
> of finding a middle ground that most Lincoln residents will accept.
>
> We will see how the Planning Board turns that statement of direction into an 
> actionable Zoning Bylaw for presentation and (hopefully) approval at our Town 
> Meeting in March.
>
> - Allen Vander Meulen
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Retail/Mall

[Karla Gravis]

“Do the stores get enough foot traffic to remain viable? Is the mall
considered high enough quality space to attract new retail tenants? Keep
the ones we have? I don't know the exact answer to these questions.”

Exactly.

We are being told by the RLF that the mall is not sustainable and that
therefore we need to redevelop it. However, the P&L is the best and *only*
information we have and it does not show a lack of financial viability. If
there is any evidence that suggests otherwise, the RLF has not shared it.
The answers to the questions posed have not been provided. Without those
answers, claims such as “we need to help the mall remain viable” are
unfounded.

One important note: a fully depreciated building, like a big portion of the
mall is today, has lower accounting costs and therefore can charge lower
rents. If a developer comes in and redos the mall, costs would increase
very materially and a developer would be forced to raise rents to recoup
its investment. If, as you imply below, the tenants are in a marginal
position today, a raise in rents would certainly drive them out of
business. I haven’t even mentioned the loss of commercial parking which is
bound to happen, which would negatively impact foot traffic.




On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 4:01 PM Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:

> I would note that mall 'viability' goes beyond its P&L statement. Do the
> stores get enough foot traffic to remain viable?
> Is the mall considered high enough quality space to attract new retail
> tenants? Keep the ones we have?
>
> I don't know the exact answer to these questions but a mall without
> tenants won't remain profitable.
>
> As has been pointed out, the challenges we face are complex and
> multidimensional and (in my opinion) cannot be reduced to any single factor.
>
> Rich Rosenbaum
> member of town committees but speaking as a citizen of Lincoln
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> I would like to address this statement in the email below:
>>
>> “The facts are that the Mall needs help to remain viable”
>>
>> Let's not conflate the RLF finances with the Mall finances.
>>
>> The 990 filings indicate that the Mall itself has been consistently
>> profitable over the last five years
>> <https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46132391/20509349300837/full>
>> :
>>
>>- 2018: $80,399
>>- 2019: $191,279
>>- 2020: $122,519
>>- 2021: $111,795
>>- 2022: $164,571
>>
>> Now, in terms of the RLF finances, if there is a concern about its
>> sustainability, perhaps there should be a reflection about its cost
>> structure. The Concord Land Conservation Trust, which oversees double
>> the acreage (more than 1,000 vs more than 500 acres in Lincoln), has
>> expenses of $187K versus $334K for the RLF/LLCT
>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rFLf4j0m6zzM3qOox3b_I0xDz2RCX0Bxxw_W8msll_A/edit>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Dog birthday

[Karla Gravis]

We just celebrated our dog’s 2 year birthday as well 🤣.

What worked great and Coco loved was a big plate of whipped cream (no
sugar). Easy and holds a candle very well…


On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 7:54 AM Stephanie Tocantins 
wrote:

> Ridiculous, I know, but any recommendations for a place to get a 2yr old
> dog a cake or some other such nonsense treat that can handle a candle?
> Thanks!
>
> Enviado do meu iPhone
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln Public Schools Supt Search Update and District Academic Testing Results

[Karla Gravis]

John,

Thank you for your update on the Superintendent search. I zoomed into the
first community session with Mr. Graham and I found it very useful. I
encourage everyone to attend the meetings with the other 3 candidates in
person or via zoom.

I hope you do not mind if I chip in on your academic assessment update. I
have spent a lot of time going through the reports you linked as well. I am
glad our 8th grade cohort last year performed so well. However, as is
commonly known for any statistical analysis, when we have a low number of
students per grade and we focus on only one grade level, there is great
variability. We cannot judge the success of a program, or lack thereof, by
looking at only one (small) cohort. Take a look for example at our 2022
MCAS results for 4th and 7th grade (tables copied below), where we score
below all of our peer towns.

I understand your point that analysis of results of educational testing
data is complex and nuanced, and that looking at partial or aggregated data
could result in misunderstanding, which is why we cannot look at only one
grade and one measure. I appreciate the time and effort that has been put
into providing data to parents and the community around iReady and the
well-being survey, as all these data points together highlight the need to
investigate and change the status quo.
Thank you for the time and discussion,
Karla
4th grade 7th grade
District ELA MATH Avg. ELA & MATH District ELA MATH Avg. ELA & MATH
Southborough 511 522 516.5 Lexington 516 522 519
Lexington 509 519 514 Weston 514 518 516
Belmont 511 515 513 Carlisle 512 519 515.5
Hopkinton 510 514 512 Belmont 513 517 515
Wellesley 508 513 510.5 Brookline 513 517 515
Westwood 508 512 510 Wayland 512 514 513
Medfield 507 513 510 Hopkinton 509 515 512
Winchester 508 511 509.5 Westborough 511 512 511.5
Wayland 505 514 509.5 Arlington 511 511 511
Weston 506 512 509 Sudbury 508 514 511
Harvard 508 510 509 Westford 508 514 511
North Reading 508 509 508.5 Wellesley 511 509 510
Concord 506 511 508.5 Southborough 507 513 510
Lynnfield 505 512 508.5 Acton-Boxborough 504 516 510
Sudbury 506 510 508 Dover-Sherborn 505 514 509.5
Andover 506 510 508 Medfield 511 508 509.5
Bedford 506 509 507.5 Needham 507 512 509.5
Carlisle 504 511 507.5 Groton-Dunstable 507 509 508
Sherborn 505 509 507 Bedford 505 511 508
Westford 502 512 507 Westwood 507 508 507.5
Arlington 506 508 507 Newton 505 510 507.5
Brookline 504 509 506.5 Andover 506 509 507.5
Acton-Boxborough 504 508 506 Lynnfield 503 509 506
Dover 499 512 505.5 Winchester 504 508 506
Groton-Dunstable 502 508 505 Natick 503 507 505
Newton 503 507 505 Harvard 504 505 504.5
Natick 504 505 504.5 North Reading 503 505 504
Needham 502 504 503 Concord 503 504 503.5
Westborough 501 503 502 *Lincoln - Lincoln School* *505* *502* *503.5*
*Lincoln - Lincoln School* *500* *500* *500*

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:39 PM John MacLachlan 
wrote:

> As many of you are aware, the search for the Lincoln Public Schools (LPS)
> Superintendent is underway and we recently hosted our first candidate
> forum. We are excited about the community’s engagement to date and look
> forward to future opportunities, including upcoming candidate forums and
> feedback forms.
>
> Upcoming Superintendent Candidate Forums
>
> Tomorrow (Jan 23) 6:00 PM is the second of four open forums for LPS
> parents, caregivers and all community members to meet candidates for
> Superintendent of Lincoln (PK-8) Public Schools. Monday's candidate will be
> Michael Caira, currently Assistant Superintendent of Ashland Public
> Schools. Those unable to attend the forum in person may view with the zoom
> links below.
>
> Each candidate forum will be held at 6PM in the Lincoln School auditorium.
>
>-
>
>Monday, January 23 – Michael Caira (Zoom Link)
>
>-
>
>Tuesday, January 24 – Annette Doyle (Zoom Link)
>
>-
>
>Thursday, January 26 – Jessica Rose (Zoom Link)
>
>
> During this forum, the finalists will introduce themselves, provide a
> brief statement of their interest in the position, then engage in a
> conversation with those present. This time is not to be an interview, but
> rather an exchange of questions and ideas.  While we may ask the finalist
> questions, the finalist may wish to ask those present questions as well.   If
> you are unable to attend, you can submit a question for the moderator to
> ask, if there is time available.  To submit a question, please use the
> following LINK
> 

Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln School Projected Class Size

[Karla Gravis]

Hi all, a point of clarification on the student/teacher ratio.



Andy, you quoted: "didn’t know that those aides and paraprofessionals also
drive down the student-to-staff ratio". The DOE teacher count does NOT
include aides and paraprofessionals, therefore they are not a cause of our
exceptionally low student/teacher ratio.



We do have a number of special education teachers (9 in the Lincoln School
campus). Federal and State sources pay for $385K of the expense (page 11, F24
preliminary budget
).
A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the total overall expense
(including benefits) is north of $1M on this line item alone.



In addition to our 51 teachers (including 9 Special Ed), we have another 10
special education tutors, 9 instructional assistants, 2 general education
tutors and 4 preschool assistants/tutors. In total, there are 118 FTEs in
the school campus not counting 14 administrators shared with Hanscom. We
have roughly 1 person working in the school for every 4 students. We are an
outlier when compared to other towns. The staff distribution can be found
on page 37 of the same link above.



I am most certainly NOT making a policy prescription and I am NOT
suggesting a termination of these services – they are very important. I
just want to share some facts.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 10:58 PM Andy Wang  wrote:

> Peter,
>
> I think that comment was actually directed at my rattling off of things at
> the end of one of my emails.  And just to clarify, I wasn't advocating for
> any of those things, I was just pointing out different directions the
> school could go in if they so choose.
>
> Jennifer, thanks for the insight on special services.  I thought it was
> interesting, also didn't know that those aides and paraprofessionals also
> drive down the student-to-staff ratio.
>
> - Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 8:53 PM Peter Buchthal  wrote:
>
>> Jennifer,
>> I never mentioned decreasing "services."  I tried to say that we have
>> lost 20 % of our student body over the last 10 years and our school
>> expenditures has gone up 25% during that
>> time (not counting inflation). Maybe we should start to look at
>> optimizing the things we do to be able to offer more, not less to our
>> students.  If there's money left, we can use it to defray
>> next year's budget override, as I doubt that the teachers union will
>> accept the 1% salary increase predicted in next year's Budget.  I am all
>> for paying the teachers and staff well, maybe just
>> a fewer number of them.
>>
>> Special Education is super important for so many reasons, so don't
>> worry.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:46 PM Jennifer Saffran <
>> jennifer.saff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You mentioned decreasing “special” services. If you mean special
>>> education, understand that there are complex state and federal laws and
>>> regulations that govern these.
>>>
>>> The good news is that the additional staff that is demanded,
>>> particularly in-classroom aides and paraprofessionals lower the student to
>>> staff ratios. Also, funding for special education is a combination of
>>> local, state, and federal dollars. The LEA (local school district) is not
>>> responsible for paying for all of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2023, at 9:18 PM, Andy Wang  wrote:
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> I was just keying off of something you said "The recently approved FY24
>>> Budget contradicts the chart as it funds 4 classroom teachers per each 6, 7
>>> and 8 grade. "  What are you keying off of in the budget?  How are you
>>> counting teachers where there are ones that teach sections across grades
>>> and specialists?  I was just pointing out that while there were 4
>>> homeroom teachers in 6th, but there are only 3 sections for the kids.
>>> Those teachers don't 'just have homeroom duties', like my kid's homeroom
>>> teacher is also his ELA teacher.
>>>
>>> Parents can certainly voice concerns.  Gifted children want extra
>>> attention, and parents of gifted kids advocate for that.  Struggling
>>> students want extra attention, and those parents advocate for them.  It IS
>>> complicated in the sense that you need to optimize across a wide range of
>>> students and abilities, and philosophical stance on what it means to be a
>>> student at Lincoln Public Schools and there are trades that need to be
>>> made.  I mean, do you KNOW that the administration hasn't looked at ways of
>>> optimizing things?
>>>
>>> When it comes down to it, I'm happy to wax philosophical on Lincoln Talk
>>> all day long (clearly), but my parting point was just that the school
>>> committee is elected and folks should be electing people who they think
>>> represent their views.  There are many ways to focus the school.  We could
>>> teach more to the MCAS and increase that rankin

[LincolnTalk] Communication with School Committee

[Karla Gravis]

Hi Andy,



I don’t think anyone is suggesting we play games. People are bringing up
different ideas and Peter specifically said: “I’m not a lawyer, but I think
Town Counsel could help the Lincoln School Committee establish rules to
ensure that there's better and more frequent two way communications between
the public and the Committee using Lincoln Talk while avoiding any Open
Meeting violations.”



What we’re all trying to brainstorm here are possible forums to engage as a
community and debate important issues. I am hearing you bring up opposition
to each of the ideas being put forth (memo won’t work, meeting won’t work -
even though it worked for the CCBC, emails won’t work, Lincoln talk won’t
work), but no suggestions.



If I refer to the School Committee's posted "Role and Responsibilities"
document (page 2, here
),
it specifically says, under SC Role: "Facilitate two-way communication
between SC and community." I don't think this is happening, at least not in
the same manner as with other committees in town like the CCBC. Another
document on the SC site (here
)
states there are 3 different types of meetings the SC can hold to interact
with the public: “special meetings”, “forums” and “public hearings”. So the
precedent exists for the SC to have an open discussion with the public.



You wrote:



“I think it falls back that this is an elected body and the town selects
candidates that they think represent their views or have a platform of
communication to push issues for them.”



I don’t think that’s fair, and does not follow the SC “Role” guidelines
above. Yes, these are elected positions, but there still needs to be a
forum where issues can be brought up and debated. Some candidates serve for
years. New, different issues come up. People move in and out of town. When
I moved to Lincoln, the committee was already in place, so I had not had
the opportunity to vote for someone who I “think represents my views”. Are
we suggesting any concerns I have cannot be debated unless there is an
election AND only if my preferred candidate wins?
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Communication with School Committee

[Karla Gravis]

Andy,

I wrote my email response this morning. However, as a newcomer to town and
Lincoln Talk, my emails all still go through moderation so it was only
released this afternoon *after* your email with the comment tracker
suggestion was sent. I had not seen your comment tracker suggestion when I
wrote the email. I was responding to the obstacles you mentioned around
emails, meetings, lincoln talk and memos in your previous communications.

My message still stands, though. There are 3 different types of meetings
the SC can hold to interact with the public: “special meetings”, “forums”
and “public hearings”, if they so desired, without violating any open
meeting laws.



On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 4:09 PM Andy Wang  wrote:

> Hi Karla,
>
> I don't know, I think the suggestion to kick the committee off of Lincoln
> Talk so we can skirt the quorum is playing games, but that's just my
> opinion.  I'm bringing up considerations to ideas where there might be
> things they overlooked that may make that difficult. I thought that was
> part of brainstorming.  Did you not like my Comment Tracker idea?  That was
> a suggestion, I thought it was pretty good.
>
> - Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:26 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t think anyone is suggesting we play games. People are bringing up
>> different ideas and Peter specifically said: “I’m not a lawyer, but I think
>> Town Counsel could help the Lincoln School Committee establish rules to
>> ensure that there's better and more frequent two way communications between
>> the public and the Committee using Lincoln Talk while avoiding any Open
>> Meeting violations.”
>>
>>
>>
>> What we’re all trying to brainstorm here are possible forums to engage as
>> a community and debate important issues. I am hearing you bring up
>> opposition to each of the ideas being put forth (memo won’t work, meeting
>> won’t work - even though it worked for the CCBC, emails won’t work, Lincoln
>> talk won’t work), but no suggestions.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I refer to the School Committee's posted "Role and Responsibilities"
>> document (page 2, here
>> <https://www.lincnet.org/cms/lib/MA01001239/Centricity/domain/3/public_documents/process/SCSupRoles.pdf>),
>> it specifically says, under SC Role: "Facilitate two-way communication
>> between SC and community." I don't think this is happening, at least not in
>> the same manner as with other committees in town like the CCBC. Another
>> document on the SC site (here
>> <https://www.lincnet.org/cms/lib/MA01001239/Centricity/domain/3/public_documents/policies/policies%20posted/b%20section/BE%20SC%20Meetings.pdf>)
>> states there are 3 different types of meetings the SC can hold to interact
>> with the public: “special meetings”, “forums” and “public hearings”. So the
>> precedent exists for the SC to have an open discussion with the public.
>>
>>
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> “I think it falls back that this is an elected body and the town selects
>> candidates that they think represent their views or have a platform of
>> communication to push issues for them.”
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t think that’s fair, and does not follow the SC “Role” guidelines
>> above. Yes, these are elected positions, but there still needs to be a
>> forum where issues can be brought up and debated. Some candidates serve for
>> years. New, different issues come up. People move in and out of town. When
>> I moved to Lincoln, the committee was already in place, so I had not had
>> the opportunity to vote for someone who I “think represents my views”. Are
>> we suggesting any concerns I have cannot be debated unless there is an
>> election AND only if my preferred candidate wins?
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Let's not rush choosing our new Middle School Principal

[Karla Gravis]

I think it's fair to assume that, as parents, we're all invested in our
children. But I also firmly believe we need a plurality of views, because
we all have valid, complementary, interests. I agree with what others have
said, it is misguided to think one single voice speaks for the whole
community.

During the superintendent screening committee discussion, Kim Mack
specifically commented on the need to have the representation of distinct
Boston, Hanscom and Lincoln residents/parents, which I wholeheartedly agree
with (1:19:15 in this video:
https://cloud.castus.tv/vod/lincoln/video/6363fc117ee83e0008fc1727?page=HOME).
We specifically also included a resident-at-large. Why would the principal
search be any different?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:21 AM Abigail Adams via Lincoln <
lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:

> A parent of a child at LPS school is an invested parent. A parent is a
> parent and represents all parents interests. Anything but will NOT be
> tolerated or accepted in this community.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> 
>
> On Friday, February 3, 2023, 9:56 AM, Peter Buchthal 
> wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> Jessica is not a Lincoln parent nor a Lincoln resident.  She is a Metco
> parent.  I'm a bit shocked why we didn't have at least a couple of Lincoln
> resident parents to represent the 400+ students from the town of Lincoln.
>
> Once the Superintendent gave notice that she is retiring, the scope of her
> work responsibilities automatically changed.   The document you linked to
> never considered the unusual conditions of Superintendent responsibilities
> during the period after giving notice until a new Superintendent comes on
> board.  I feel strongly that It is not fair to ask a new Superintendent to
> make important decisions before she is a full time employee of the town.
>
> Best,
> Peter Buchthal
> Candidate for School Committee
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:27 PM Andy Wang  wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> Was that accurate to say 'by a Committee that shockingly does not include
> a single Lincoln parent or resident-at-large'?  Jessica Llaverias is listed
> as a parent.
>
> *Search Committee:*
>
> Superintendent – Becky McFall
>
> Assistant Superintendent – Jess Rose
>
> Middle School Principal – Erich Ledebuhr
>
> Lincoln School Principal – Sarah Collmer
>
> Administrator for Student Services – Lisa Berard
>
> Interim Student Services Coordinator/Special Educator – Keriann Gilman
>
> Classroom Teacher – Julie Barkin
>
> Classroom Teacher – Amanda Sykes
>
> Classroom Teacher – Karen Sheppard
>
> Administrative School Secretary – Maureen Belt
>
> Parent – Jessica Llaverias
>
> Also, I believe the staffing responsibility for principals falls on the
> superintendent, not the school committee.  (
> https://www.lincnet.org/cms/lib/MA01001239/Centricity/domain/3/public_documents/process/SCSupRoles.pdf).
> There is a clear separation of roles listed.
>
> - Andy
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 3:09 PM Peter Buchthal  wrote:
>
> Dear School Committee Members and Lincoln Talk,
>
>
> *If you agree with my email below, please forward this email to the
> schoolc...@lincnet.org  with your agreement that we
> should hold off on hiring a new Middle School principal*.
>
>
>
> I believe we are about to make a big mistake. In our hurry to find a new
> Principal for the Middle School, the School Committee has forgotten about
> the importance of our new Superintendent getting the opportunity to build
> his/her own team. As many of you know, our Middle School principal Sharon
> Hobbs is retiring at the end of this school year. Our current plan
>  is to have our retiring
> Superintendent run point on the search, selecting candidates and conducting
> interviews before we have even had a chance to select our new
> Superintendent. The retiring Superintendent will be assisted by a Committee
> that shockingly does not include a single Lincoln parent or
> resident-at-large. Our incoming Superintendent will only have a token
> opportunity to bless the candidate selected by the current Administration
> team.
>
>
>
> Given the immense importance of getting this candidate right and ensuring
> that our new Superintendent is set for success, I strongly encourage the
> School Committee to put this process on hold. Our new Superintendent should
> have an opportunity to become acquainted with our school to
> properly determine the specific skills required for the job before
> beginning this process. At a future time,our new Superintendent should have
> the opportunity to lead this process and have a say on the Search Committee
> members and the candidates selected. Said Committee should make a real
> effort to get a strong contingent of Lincoln parents and residents
> representing a broad spectrum of views. Our new Superintendent might decide
> that the school would be better served by placing an interim Principal and
> in my opinion that would be fine. 

[LincolnTalk] Lincoln School attrition data going back to 2016

[Karla Gravis]

Hello,

Since the topic of trends has come up, I pulled together attrition data for
previous years, straight from the DOE website:

School 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Lincoln 6.2 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.8 5.0 8.5
Carlisle 2.7 3.7 4.0 2.9 4.3 2.3 3.5
Dover/Sherborn 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.1 4.8 4.1 3.0
Lexington 3.7 3.0 4.0 2.5 6.2 5.9 4.2
Going back as far as 2016, Lincoln School consistently has the highest
attrition in this group (with only one single exception in 2021 where
Lexington was higher, but we were still higher than Carlisle and
Dover/Sherborn). Getting this data is a very manual process, which is why I
focused on our similar districts plus Lexington that was used as a
comparison, but I am happy to add other towns if people are interested.

It's not a difference of 1 - 2 students. Carlisle has a similar size to
ours (383 in grades 2-7 versus our 356). If we had had their attrition
coming into 2022-2023, we would have lost 18 fewer children. I am not
making an assumption as to why our attrition is higher, but I do think it
is worth investigating.
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln School attrition data going back to 2016

[Karla Gravis]

Said a different way, ~44% of the kids who left last year did so for
private school.

I looked through school committee archives, and previous enrollment reports
for 2018-2021 do not include this same table, but the one for 2017 does.
I've copied the original table from 2017 below, and created a comparison
for the 2 years where data is available.



*2017*

*2022*

Total leavers

47

32

Leavers for private school

7

14

Enrollment

582

524

Private school leavers as % of leavers

15%

44%

Private school leavers as % of enrollment

1%

3%


[image: image.png]


* The 2017 report has 3 students leaving for ski school but does *not*
include them in the “private school” line. Not sure if ski school is
considered part of “move” in 2017 and/or 2022.


On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 7:07 PM Fuat Koro  wrote:

> Based on the link Caitlin provided, at the end of last year an average of
> 1.5 kids/grade left for private school for a K8 total of 14. 18 kids
> moved.  Last year was the highest attrition % per the DOE data Karla
> pulled. There's a delta of ~3 kids between the two sources. I assume those
> left mid year based on Caitlin's point.
>
> Grade Private
> K 1
> 1 0
> 2 0
> 3 2
> 4 2
> 5 2
> 6 2
> 7 3
> 8 2
> 14
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 2:42 PM Barbara Low 
> wrote:
>
>> I do think it is important to understand if students are leaving because
>> of dissatisfaction. It is difficult to improve if a system does not know
>> where the dissatisfaction comes from and whether it is something that can
>> be addressed and improved. Maybe some things cannot be fixed. If someone is
>> looking for more athletics, that may be hard to fix with a small school. If
>> someone leaves because they are not being challenged sufficiently, that is
>> something that can be examined.
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Sara Mattes 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:29 PM
>> *To:* Barbara Low 
>> *Cc:* Peter Speert ; Lincoln Talk <
>> lincoln@lincolntalk.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln School attrition data going back to
>> 2016
>>
>>  Simply  documenting where they went would be a good and non-intrusive
>> start.
>>  Maybe that is already done.
>>
>> Some might be reluctant to answer a survey, or participate in an
>> interview, but simply documenting where the child went would give some
>> clues.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sara Mattes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2023, at 1:25 PM, Barbara Low  wrote:
>>
>> I found hope that the new super and principal would take action to do
>> exit interviews or a survey or somehow gather information that will
>> hopefully be useful going forward.
>>
>> Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
>> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>> --
>> *From:* Peter Speert 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:04:21 PM
>> *To:* Barbara Low 
>> *Cc:* Bob Kupperstein ; Karla Gravis <
>> karlagra...@gmail.com>; Lincoln Talk 
>> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln School attrition data going back to
>> 2016
>>
>> Excellent point, Barb. Would it be feasible to send questionnaires to
>> families that have recently left the school system to ask what motivated
>> them?
>>
>> Peter Speert
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2023, at 10:28 AM, Barbara Low 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Without exit interviews, we don't know why that is taking place. And if a
>> child is removed from the Lincoln School for whatever reason, it is very
>> easy for the rest of the children in the family to follow even if they lack
>> the precipitating issue. Different vacation schedules can be a very strong
>> reason for the family's convenience. How do we not lose the first child? No
>> one should object to gathering more information so school actions are not
>> taken or avoided due to ignorance.
>> --
>> *From:* Lincoln  on behalf of Bob
>> Kupperstein 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:23 AM
>> *To:* Karla Gravis 
>> *Cc:* Lincoln Talk 
>> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln School attrition data going back to
>> 2016
>>
>> I've been in Lincoln for over 30 years now and parents have been moving
>> kids out of Lincoln schools ever since I can remember.   They do it for a
>> variety of reasons and academic excellence is often *not* the main
>> reason.At different times I remember parents being concerned about
>> discipline in the schools, lac

[LincolnTalk] Community Center Location

[Karla Gravis]

To provide some important perspective around the 18K sqft new construction
being proposed for the Lincoln community center, let's look at Wayland,
since they are also in the process of a new COA/CC.


   - Wayland's population is close to 14,000 people, which means Wayland's
   population is 2.5X Lincoln's
   - The Wayland community center plan that is going up for approval is for
   ~11,000 sqft, at an estimated cost of $7.5M
  - I talked to Anne Gordon at the Wayland town office and she provided
  these figures. They are also available on their website.
   - The Wayland Community Center space will be shared by COA and Parks and
   Rec programs. Wayland expects to accommodate up to 200 people at peak times
   for Council on Aging, recreation and youth programs

*Wayland, with a population 2.5 times our size, will have a community
center that is ~60% smaller than Lincoln's**.* Our proposal link does not
show the current estimated price for the 18K sqft + LEAP remodel, but given
that the only 3 price options given at the special town meeting were
$12.5M, $17M and $25M, *the Wayland Community Center, at an estimated cost
of $7.5M, is also expected to be much less expensive than Lincoln's.*
Additionally,
the Wayland cost would be spread out over many more residents, so the
burden to individual families will be much less for Wayland residents than
Lincoln residents.

It was asked: *"**Also, for those throwing around words like "monolith",
I'm curious what the threshold is between monolith and reasonable?**"*

I would argue we should not assume the original 2018 proposal is our
baseline and be "OK" with a 23% reduction to that. I would also argue that
building so much *new* sqft when other, much more populated towns are being
more conservative, is not reasonable. Rather, we should be creative with
existing space around town to reduce cost, especially given the uncertain
economic climate.



>
> From: Andy Wang 
> To: Kathy Madison 
> Cc: Lincoln Talk 
> Sent: Thu, May 4, 2023 1:33 pm
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Survey Responses Regarding the Community Center
> Location
>
> My sense on the amendment was probably closer to Krystal's, after all, it
> is a Building Committee, not a Study Committee (folks can argue what it
> SHOULD be at this stage, but that is what it IS).  I'm sure a lot of people
> walked away from that meeting (and probably voted) with different
> impressions though.
>
> My impression was there was support to move the process forward for the
> CCBC to explore the options for construction of a Community Center at the
> Hartwell location, while also reviewing assumptions about programming space
> requirements and taking into consideration the ability to use facilities at
> other sites in order to reduce the overall footprint / cost / scale of a
> building at Hartwell Campus.  The 2022 vote was support to *develop
> options* to build at Hartwell, not necessary support to build.  At least
> that was the impression I was voting with: Provide necessary funds to the
> committee for them to come back with a proposal that they believe will pass
> a 2/3 vote to bond in 2024. That vote in 2024 is what would determine if
> there was support to build at Hartwell.
>
> Also, for those throwing around words like "monolith", I'm curious what
> the threshold is between monolith and reasonable?  I believe the Total
> Gross SF for New Construction in the previous final report in 2018 was
> 23,436 sq ft (19,530 + 20% net to gross multiplier).  The current draft
> proposal
> 
> looks like 17,948 sq ft (12820+40% net to gross multiplier).  About 23%
> reduction from that.  For size reference, each existing pod is about 4,600
> sq ft. Bemis is about 7,290 net sq ft, with COA using about 5,000 sq ft.
>  Given that two of the pods would be replaced, that's 14,200 sq ft total.
> I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of arguing how much space one
> group or another needs.  'Monolith', I suppose, is in the eye of the
> beholder, I just wanted to put into perspective the sizes of existing space
> relative to the proposal.
>
> - Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:06 PM Kathy Madison via Lincoln <
> lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, regarding the amendment passed on Nov 22, I also heard that a
> Community Center design would explore expanded use of spaces, as part of
> presenting a range of financial options. Not that there would be one big
> building option.
>
> My understanding was that this survey was meant to elicit thoughts,
> opinions and preferences of residents.
>
> So it is disappointing to read that when when "residents expressed their
> continuing interest in locating the Center at Lincoln Station, or in the
> consideration of other locations around town,”  the response is outrightly
> rejected/defended against. A process of solving a problem demands
> creativ

[LincolnTalk] On the history of the Hartwell location for the CC

[Karla Gravis]

I would like to add a different point of view to some points mentioned in
previous threads:

*a) "The overwhelming choice of the large group of participants was to have
the Center at Hartwell."*

Let’s look at the history around the “vote”:


   - At a State of the Town meeting in 2015 - eight (8) years ago -
   attendees were given 2 dots
   - They could put their dots on two different choices or they could
   double down on their first choice
   - ALL choices given were ONLY about locating everything (for both Parks
   and Rec and COA) in one building
   - ALL choices were of equivalent cost (including those at Pierce House)
   because they all assumed new construction
   - NO choices were available that allowed for expressing preference for a
   combination of sites
   - 300 dots were placed, which means 150 out of the tax paying population
   expressed their preference

I will leave to the reader’s interpretation if 150 out of a population of
~5K is an “overwhelming” majority, especially given this was 8 years ago. I
will offer an alternative interpretation: IF everything has to be in one
place, all together in one building, the majority of the 150 people
attending that meeting expressed a preference for Hartwell. *We do not know
what the results of the poll would have been if hybrid choices had been
made available.*


*b) “Five years or so ago, the assigned committees did an EXHAUSTIVE search
for potential sites for a new Community Center including multiple open
charettes to discuss locations”*


   - Again, the previous analysis was done eight years ago
   - It only looked at options where both Parks and Rec and COA were
   combined – “monolithic” approach. Not sure we can consider this
   "exhaustive".
   - The Pierce House proposal had an inflated cost because it assumed we
   needed a lot of additional square footage given the proposals were all for
   one single building to house both Parks and Rec and COA.
   - Pierce House was never objectively disqualified, but simply passed
   over when presented with a much cheaper Hartwell proposal since the Pierce
   House option included the need to build a lot of space. Well, that Hartwell
   proposal is no longer much cheaper, and I am not sure why we cannot revisit
   the option of  remodeling Pierce House for some of our activities.

 *c) “The motion at town meeting was worded to develop options for a Center
near Hartwell. That is the CCBC's charge. They are not charged with
considering new locations.”*


   - The motion that was approved included the wording: “for the Hartwell
   Complex supplemented or not with existing available town space” so there is
   nothing that precludes the CCBC from looking at other sites.
   - From the extensive debate that happened in the lead-up to that motion
   and the recent Lincolntalk conversations, it seems that many of us thought
   that the CCBC would actually seriously consider community feedback of
   studying additional potential sites.

*In these past 8 years, many things have changed, including a global
pandemic, the building of a $90M+ oversized school with its significant
burden to the town taxpayers and dwindling activity in Lincoln Station. The
Community Center is a huge project for a town our size, and we should be
looking for consensus and not limiting ourselves to only one location based
on the choice of 150 people in 2015.*
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

[LincolnTalk] Community Center - lessons learned from the new COA building in the town of Harvard

[Karla Gravis]

The COA for the town of Harvard, MA is moving into a new site within the
next 2 weeks. I believe their experience offers some very useful
perspectives for our journey in Lincoln.

I am attaching an article with all of the information, but here is a
summary:


   - Harvard has a population of ~7K, so 40% higher than Lincoln’s
   - The Harvard COA used to be housed in 19th century Hildreth House.
   - Hildreth House was not meeting the needs of the COA, so the town
   started the process 13 years ago (in 2010) with a municipal building study
   for the update and expansion of Hildreth House.
   - After the initial safety and code compliance work was completed, a
   $4.5M renovation and expansion project was put to town vote. It did not
   pass as it was considered too expensive.
   - COA then changed course to investigate the purchase and renovation of
   an existing building in town.
   - The town received two responses to its property request and they chose
   a 5,400 sq. ft. former medical building, with lots of parking and
   conveniently located near the Post Office and town amenities like Foxglove,
   Bowers Brook, Harvard Green, and the McCurdy Track.
   - The town purchased the building for $1.4M, and the renovation and
   other fees brought the *total* cost to $2.86M
   - Hildreth House will now be used for the town land boards, since Town
   Hall is running out of space
   - In addition to COA specific programming, the new building was designed
   to enable community use for events as well as serve as a warming/cooling
   station or shelter during extreme weather events.

Food for thought: Harvard, with 40% more residents than Lincoln, spent
~$2.9M on a 5,400 sqft COA building that also allows community use for
events, while still being responsible with historical buildings and
addressing empty office space in town. If the Harvard COA changed course
after many years of work, when it became clear the project was too
expensive, why can't Lincoln do the same instead of tying ourselves to what
was decided in 2015?


Harvard Senior Center Newspaper Article.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Last Night's Community Center Forum

[Karla Gravis]

The 2015 study looked at building a new, all-in community center at each
site. What we need now is to look at supplementing activities in other
sites around town. The charge from the November 2022 town meeting
specifically mentions this as an option for the committee. Voters assumed
the committee would demonstrate a good faith effort to do so, but this
hasn't happened. We need to remember that even if we build a new community
center, we will still need to maintain Bemis Hall and Pierce House. These
costs are not included in the current ICON estimates.

I have attended quite a few of the CCBC meetings, so I am not new to the
process. To me, the main difficulty is that we are on the path to
overbuilding, again. According to the CCBC's own benchmarking, Wayland
(with double our population and double our number of seniors per the CCBC)
has managed to approve a project with a price tag that is less than the
cheapest option being evaluated for Lincoln. They managed this by hosting a
portion of their activities in locations around town. We should follow
their example.

>
> *Cc:* Listserv Listserv 
>
> *Subject:* *Re: [LincolnTalk] Last Night's Community Center Forum*
>
> Lynn,
> Thanks for your interest in the Community Center.  It is clear you are very
> new to the program.  Please visit the CCBC website where you will find the
> final reports for the
>  2015 Study Committee.  Five sites in Town were studied, design options
> identified and costed ( in 2015 construction cost dollars):
> Bemis Hall, Pierce House, Hartwell, Lincoln Station and DPW site.
> 2016 Campus Master Planning Committee - Evaluated the impact of siting the
> CC on the school campus.
> 2018 CCPPDC with actual designs for buildings at the Hartwell site.
> The charge of the current committee doesn't include revisiting these other
> sites.
> Please read the reports.
> We have been challenged by very real needs on that site posed by the LEAP
> program, but our PRIMARY DIFFICULTY relates to the astronomical escalation
> of construction costs  ( totally out of our control), and the severe
> restraints imposed by the Town to look for lower cost options.  Even our
> "100%" option provides way less than what was presented in 2018.
> Dilla Tingley
> COA&HS Board, CCBC Committee Member
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Forest Brown 
>> *Date:* September 13, 2023 at 10:42:11 AM EDT
>> *To:* "Lynn DeLisi, M.D." 
>> *Cc:* Listserv Listserv 
>> *Subject:* *Re: [LincolnTalk] Last Night's Community Center Forum*
>>
>> 
>> Dear Lynn,
>>
>> Thank you so much for thoughtfully describing your perspective. I was
>> also wondering about improving upon preexisting buildings as an
>> alternative. I am in complete agreement with what you’ve shared here. I
>> appreciate you willing to serve on behalf of other residents who feel the
>> same way.
>>
>> Becca
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2023, at 10:29 AM, Lynn DeLisi, M.D. via Lincoln <
>> lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Wednesday September 13, 2023
>>
>> Dear LT,
>>
>> I am posting my personal views, not as a member of the Town Planning
>> Board, but as one resident of this unique town. I want to thank the
>> Community Center Building Committee and the Architects for their hard work
>> for our Town over the last several months. However, after listening to the
>> Community Center Building Committee’s Forum last evening, it has become
>> very clear to me that the Town’s vision to improve facilities for the COA
>> cannot be accomplished on the school site as “selected” by residents of the
>> Town a few years ago. We hired excellent architects who have listened to
>> the committee and the public now for several months and have come up with
>> 3+ major plans, recommending the middle priced one that is at 75% the
>> original very expensive estimate given to us last year. The lowest price
>> option was shown to be inadequate for COA activities and would be only as
>> one person said “moving the COA from one deficient site to another”.
>>
>> It was also clear that remaining on the school site means we “must”,
>> according to the committee leadership, include in our community center
>> renovating or rebuilding space for the after school program called “LEAP”,
>> despite many residents giving input that this program is the school’s
>> responsibility and not that of a Community Center. In addition there are
>> safety issues related to traffic patterns, increased cars and children
>> walking or on bikes to get to and from school and activities.
>>
>> Furthermore, it was clear from the lack of discussion on the topic last
>> night, that there was no SERIOUS consideration by the committee of other
>> sites throughout Town that could be appropriate for a community center,
>> particularly COA functions. While Bemis Hall and the Pierce House have been
>> visited, no details about what it would take to renovate them have been
>> presented, nor has anyone taken the time to investigate whether the Town
>> could use other buildings or space, histor

Re: [LincolnTalk] Last Night's Community Center Forum

[Karla Gravis]

According to the Housing Choice Act Grant program website (page 2 in the
link below), grants range from $50K - $300K. The program has only $4M in
funding total for the state, so Lincoln would be competing with other
municipalities for the grants (i.e. we are not even guaranteed the $50k).

*We can hardly count on these grants to fully or even partially pay for
multi-million dollar projects.*

https://www.mass.gov/doc/fy24-housing-choice-grant-program-guidelines/download



>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Allen Vander Meulen 
> Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Last Night's Community Center Forum
> To: Listserv Listserv 
>
>
> It should be noted that some of the projects in the Andy Wang posted -
> such as the replacement of water pipes (and other Water / Sewage system
> upgrade or repair projects), as well as road paving & improvement, are
> often partially or fully paid-for by grants from the State - or sometimes
> from CPC funds.  They do not impact our property taxes.
>
> Bear in mind that such grants from the State will likely be at risk if we
> do not continue to move forward with the proposed Housing Choice
> Act-related zoning changes, which is a major topic on the agenda at the
> upcoming SOTT meeting.  All these projects impact each other, which is why
> I am very glad I’m not on the Select Board!  And is also why I very much
> appreciate the great job Lincoln’s Government and Administration have done,
> and continue to do: "threading the needle” to help the us successfully
> navigate all these competing and yet highly interconnected needs and
> challenges - not just those at the forefront today, but also preparing for
> those we will need to address in the future.
>
> - Allen Vander Meulen
>
> On Sep 15, 2023, at 09:42, Andy Wang  wrote:
>
> I believe that was provided at the Nov 2022 Special Town meeting. [source
> 
> ]
>
> 
> Caveat that with the 'Possible' and 'Select' wiggle room words in the
> title.  I've heard that replacing water pipes is an on-going process.  If
> there is some large failure, that might hit all at once.  I'm not sure if
> that comes out of town budget or the water department, reflected in the
> water rate.  Either way, it comes back to the property owners one way or
> another.
>
> - Andy
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:18 AM melinda bruno-smith <
> melindabr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Peter.
>>
>> I agree that point #2 should be addressed at Town meeting.
>>
>> Melinda Bruno-Smith
>>
>> …….2) The town has yet to disclose other competing capital expenditures
>> in the pipeline for the town's tax resources.  I have heard rumors that we
>> soon will need to replace the drinking water pipes along many parts of the
>> town.  I have heard other rumors on lincoln talk, that our repaving and
>> roadside path/bicycle safety  wishes may also require additional town
>> borrowings…..
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Melinda Bruno-Smith
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2023, at 8:50 AM, V Saleme  wrote:
>>
>> 2) The town has yet to disclose other competing capital expenditures in
>> the pipeline for the town's tax resources.  I have heard rumors that we
>> soon will need to replace the drinking water pipes along many parts of the
>> town.  I have heard other rumors on lincoln talk, that our repaving and
>> roadside path/bicycle safety  wishes may also require additional town
>> borrowings.
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Thoughts on the community center

[Karla Gravis]

We can all agree that the seniors and the COA need support and we should
come together to find solutions. What gives a lot of us pause is the
current plan, which is focused on building a 16K-20K sq ft facility at a
cost of $15M+ without understanding our true needs (neither current nor
future) nor exploring supplementary options around town to help bring down
the cost. Let's all remember that a building like this will come with its
associated staffing, insurance and operating costs, and we will still need
to invest in upkeep for Bemis/Pierce.


   - The concern is not about the numbers fluctuating wildly, because we
   haven't even been provided the data to make that assertion. The grave
   concern lies on the fact that COA hasn't provided median/average/actual
   attendance, despite repeated requests from many of our neighbors and even
   CCBC members.
  - How can we plan for future growth if we don't know what the current
  state is? What do we apply a growth factor to?
  - If you look at the little attendance data that is available, quite
  a few of the classes are attended by 2-5 people. Yet the current
community
  center schemes plan for fitness/activity rooms ranging in size
from ~1,000
  to over 2,500 sq ft. How much would attendance have to grow to make
  use of all that space?
  - Wayland is building a COA/CC that has less square footage than even
  the cheapest of our options, even though they have double the number of
  people and of seniors. Do we think that our senior population is going to
  grow to more than double, and more than Wayland’s?
   - This project will (without doubt) impact our property tax bills, which
   are currently higher than Lexington, Concord, Carlisle, Wayland, Sudbury
   and Bedford.
  - If we continue on this path, we will be making the town even more
  expensive for those retiring and on fixed income, effectively
driving away
  those that we are building for
   - This type of thinking of "building for the future" without any data to
   support it is what drove us to overbuild the school. Based upon Mass
   State Building Standards, the school’s 165K square feet should be able
   to host 1,000 students. The architects designed the school
   for 650+ students but our enrollment is currently only 550 (PK-8)


*From:* RAandBOB 
> *Date:* September 16, 2023 at 2:49:31 PM EDT
> *To:* Lincoln Talk 
> *Subject:* *[LincolnTalk] Thoughts on the community center*
>
> A lot of people have expressed concern that the attendance figures at
> the COA vary wildly from day today and from month to month and nobody
> really seems to understand what volume of people we should plan for. Let me
> remind people that the baby boom cohort just turning 70.
>
> Speaking as a person who is about to turn 80, it is often hard to
> visualize what’s going to happen to you over the next 10 years. For
> example, it is hard to believe that you will ever find a time that you
> cannot reach your toenails. Yet that happens! One can spend $60 to go to a
> podiatrist or $10 to go to the podiatrist at COAHS. If one member of a long
> relationship has died, the remaining member often finds that the help
> offered with taxes or with choosing between health plans is vital. I myself
> have just started to take advantage of their exercise programs.
>
> The number of people looking for these services is about to expand rapidly
> as the baby boomers age. Let’s build for the future, not the past.
>
> Ruth Ann
> (She, her, hers)
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln Finance Committee - "Town Capital Capacity" presentation

[Karla Gravis]

Total property tax *bills* for existing housing (not the *rate*) cannot
increase by more than 2.5% YoY thanks to the State’s 2 1/2 proposition. If
property values have increased by 13.5%, the tax *rate* will go down by
almost 11% unless town residents approve an override. That does not mean
your tax *bill* will go down, my wager is they will go up on average
another 2.5%, like they always do.

The better question is why the selects have recommended the maximum
allowable increase every year for the last 20 years at the same time our
population has decreased and the student body (education is roughly half
the budget) has declined by 40%.


>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Adam M Hogue 
> Date: Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 07:49
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln Finance Committee - "Town Capital
> Capacity" presentation
> To: Garrick Niemiec 
> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
> I hope if our home values have gone up 13.5% the town select board should
> look to cut the tax rate in town to help people with this increase, they
> probably won’t knowing our current select board and it probably won’t be
> brought up.
>
> *Adam M Hogue*
> *Cell: **(978) 828-6184 <(978)%20828-6184>*
>
> On Sep 21, 2023, at 7:26 AM, Garrick Niemiec 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> OMG
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 9:28 PM Andrew Payne  wrote:
>
>> Fellow residents,
>>
>> By popular demand, I'm sharing a ~15 minute Finance committee
>> presentation on the Town's capital capacity, in advance of our State of the
>> Town (SOTT) meeting on September 30.  This is an updated (very *slightly*)
>> version of the same presentation fincom did last year.
>>
>> (If you have nothing to watch on Netflix tonight, this may be an
>> excellent way to go to sleep.)
>>
>> See the video here:  https://youtu.be/8jfJuKiYUGA   (Pro tip: if you are
>> in a hurry, use accelerated playback).
>>
>> I've also attached a copy of the slides to this email.  For those of you
>> that get the lincoln-talk digest without attachments:  please email me
>> directly for a copy of the slides.
>>
>> ***CAVEAT: *The presentation and calculations in this presentation use
>> FY23 property value data.  The FY24 property data is coming hot off the
>> presses as we speak - the median home value has apparently gone up ~13.5%
>> (!). If you're trying to compare your current tax bill with the median data
>> & tax impact shown in this presentation, please keep that in mind.
>>
>>
>> See you all on Sept 30,
>>
>> -andy
>> Chair, Lincoln Finance Committee
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Two visions for the Community Center

[Karla Gravis]

I believe it is the CCBC's *interpretation* of vision #2 that raises a lot
of concerns:

   - Town residents have not been polled on the issue of location since
   2015. We must remember that only 150 people voted for the Hartwell location
   back then. Moreover, the options presented at the time were all
   approximately equivalent in cost. That would not be the case now.
   - The Hartwell campus restricts the ability to truly create "community":
   - Hartwell's hours for seniors will be limited to minimize traffic
  interactions/collisions/accidents (M/Tu/Th/Fri 9-2:30, Wed 9-12:00).
  Therefore, by definition, we will be "separating" groups.
  - The proposed Hartwell community center will sit on an island, with
  no other businesses or services nearby. There will be little
incentive for
  the serendipitous encounters to occur, especially because going to the
  community center would require driving into the school campus.
  - There is not enough space in Hartwell to add more parking to
  accommodate heavy usage without destroying our green space.
   - We have no actual usage numbers (neither current nor future) to
   justify the size of the building being proposed.
   - A true cost/benefit analysis has not been developed. The financial
   impacts of the #1 and #2 visions laid out below are massively different. Our
   town is the most indebted (per capita) in the state which requires us to be
   prudent with our resources.




>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: dilla tingley 
> Date: Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:11
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Two visions for the Community Center
> To: Fuat Koro 
> CC: LincolnTalk 
>
>
> Fuat, I am so glad you expressed it this way.
>  Scattering activities throughout the Town does not provide the focal
> point for activities and serendipitous encounters that we envision for a
> real "Center of Community".
> Dilla Tingley, CCBC
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 8:26 AM Fuat Koro  wrote:
>
>> Based on the Community Center discussions I’ve read on LT, I think there
>> are two related, but distinct visions:
>>
>> 1.   *Optimize space needs for COA activities*: We have a schedule
>> of COA activities that attract x attendees/y session. Regrettably, Bemis
>> Hall falls short of adequately accommodating these needs. We should come up
>> with cost-effective space management to better host these activities. That
>> means spaces can be distributed. For instance, consider hosting movies at
>> Bemis, podiatry sessions at Pearce House, and Tai chi at a new venue. At
>> its essence, this challenge revolves around effective facilities management.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.   *Create a modern–day village square:  *Our town is spread out
>> and that makes it hard to connect with fellow residents – not only for our
>> aging demographic, but individuals across all generations. It would be
>> great if we had a building that serves as the focal point for town
>> residents for a wide range of activities accompanied by serendipitous
>> encounters and conversations.  This vision can only be realized if we pool
>> as many activities as possible in one central location to attain critical
>> mass.
>>
>> I think we may be talking past each other because it may not be clear
>> which one we’re trying to solve for.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Fuat Koro
>>
>> Sweet Bay Ln.
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Fw: Community Center- size considerations

[Karla Gravis]

Mr. Payne talked about the impact of indebtedness on our bond rating in
this presentation  starting at
minute ~7:00. In order to not affect our AA bond rating and to avoid
incurring higher interest rates, we can borrow up to ~$30M.

If we borrow $25M for the community center, that would leave us with ~$108M
in total debt and only $5M in "available" credit. What happens if there is
an emergency project that comes up, or one of the $10M projects on the
capex list needs to be accelerated? I will leave it up to the reader to
decide their level of comfort with these scenarios.


>
> - Forwarded Message -
> *From:* Kathy Madison via Lincoln 
> *To:* Carolyn Ryan 
> *Cc:* Lincoln Talk ; Dennis Picker <
> dennis.pick...@gmail.com>; john gregg 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 03:16:41 PM EDT
> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations
>
> I’ve just sent a query to FinComm re: how more indebtedness may affect
> Lincoln’s credit rating.
>
> Also — while most are urging to build now because it’s likely more
> expensive later — consider interest rates now.
> Cost of building materials are at an all-time high
> It may end up being cheaper to wait.
>
> It would be ironic if the cost of building a community center ended up
> forcing residents to leave town.
>
> / Kathy Madison
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2023, at 3:05 PM, Carol Ryan  wrote:
>
> I don’t think being fiscally responsible is “ cheaping out”.  IMHO that’s
> an entitled and bougie perspective that not every tax payer in Lincoln has
> the means to support.
> Carol Ryan
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 27, 2023, at 2:47 PM, Paul Shorb  wrote:
>
> 
> I'm with john, Lis, Wendy, Katherine, and others in this thread and others
> in town who say: let's build a decent, attractive community center, don't
> cheap out.
>
> The arguments for it being located at Hartwell seem compelling.
>
> We have smart people on FinComm. They do NOT believe the town’s current
> debt is outrageous for a town this size. (In fact, I believe they have
> explained that too little debt compared to traditional metrics makes a town
> look bad - looks like it's underinvesting.)
>
> - Paul Shorb
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 1:48 PM Sara Mattes  wrote:
>
> Amen
>
> --
> Sara Mattes
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2023, at 6:23 PM, Margo Fisher-Martin <
> margo.fisher.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> This is about affordability and what makes sense. Everyone is entitled to
> an opinion, but there should be no public shaming - ever- regardless of
> one’s views.
> This is not a tolerance or acceptance situation.
> This is a small town and we cannot always afford everything we want.
>
> Best,
> Cookie Martin
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:03 PM john gregg via Lincoln <
> lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:
>
> I am so surprised that a community that encourages acceptance and
> tolerance would further not doing the right thing like providing a place
> for kids, adults and elders should be able to congregate.
>
> It is about space, about money, about having to be held accountable for
> past neglect like providing a school for children. A place where the kids
> would be provided safe care at LEAP for parents who work. A place where
> adults could allow care for the ones who actually took care of them if they
> move back home.
>
> This is the same discussion when deciding about a new school, a bunch of
> intellectuals debating why things should not be provided to others like was
> provided to them.
>
> Best Regards,
> John Gregg
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at 

Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations / location of LEAP

[Karla Gravis]

The planning for the operation of the school during construction was part
of the project from early on. The school building committee paid detailed
attention to how to keep things running during construction. The students
were housed in trailers away from the construction site and those costs
were included in the project budget.

The CCBC expressed this Wednesday that LEAP could potentially stay in pod C
during construction. They then shared this again in an email. There is no
way around the fact that if LEAP remains in Pod C during construction, they
will be in or adjacent to the construction site. It is not absurd to raise
concerns about the impact to children from this option.

We are being asked to vote for a $13M-$25M project and there is no plan or
estimated cost for the transition. The messaging is conflicting: the CCBC
is saying that LEAP can remain in pod C during the construction but others
on LEAP leadership are telling us that it will be decided later and that
LEAP could potentially be housed in the school or Hartwell. I think these
are important factors to consider as we weigh the different options.

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 3:40 PM Sara Mattes  wrote:

> We used trailers.
> Are you thinking that is what might be done again?
>
> It needs to be in the budget that will be determined by the design.
> Then we can better understand the full cost of each approach.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sara Mattes
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 29, 2023, at 3:29 PM, John Mendelson 
> wrote:
>
> This thread is about housing LEAP during construction.
>
> To insinuate there is a a real risk to kids "so close to an active
> construction site, with all the potential for safety hazards as well as
> exposure to toxic construction materials" is absurd and demonstrates a
> complete lack of faith in town administration and in members of the CCBC.
> It is a completely unnecessary red herring lobbed into the fray.  Did we
> not just accommodate 550+ students, faculty, and staff virtually
> seamlessly on site while renovating the entire school?  Why would anyone
> think anything less would be tolerated in the case of this construction
> project?
>
> LEAP was and is represented on the CCBC by Kathryn Hawkins.  See:
> https://www.lincolntown.org/1346/Community-Center-Building-Committee
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 2:01 PM Sara Mattes  wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>> This is very important information and I wish it had guided discussions
>> long before we got to where we are today.
>>
>> As LEAP is integral to school programming, it’s location has always been
>> part of the discussion, but we had not heard so directly and definitively
>> that there are serious implications for design choice that will influence
>> the potential cost of ensuring LEAP was is located in such a way as to
>> continue safe and efficacious programming.
>> I am surprised that , given the importance of LEAP, there was not a rep.
>> on the CCBC, raising these issues early and often and incorporating them
>> into planning.
>> Susan Taylor was often a voice, but only in reminding all that LEAP and
>> movement of children around campus needed to be considered.
>> She has been a strong and effective advocate for these safety concerns.
>>
>> But it is imperative for us to know the potential plans (and costs) for
>> LEAP's ongoing operations as we attempt to narrow down design choices.
>>
>> We are now in very uncertain waters.
>>
>> Thoughts on how best to proceed to get the best information as we look at
>> design?
>>
>> Sara
>> --
>> Sara Mattes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2023, at 1:17 PM, Andy Wang  wrote:
>>
>> I wanted to point out that the comment the CCBC made about LEAP
>> continuing in the Pod C during construction was a comment, not a plan.
>> There was also discussion in a prior meeting about splitting LEAP to the
>> school and the Hartwell building during construction. None of these have
>> been vetted with LEAP and EEC (LEAP’s Licensing board) for suitability,
>> safety, or feasibility.  LEAP is actively monitoring the evolution of the
>> plans of the CCBC and its impact both during construction and in its final
>> instantiation.  It’s hard to say the exact approach LEAP will take until a
>> specific direction is selected by the town for the CCBC, but it is
>> definitely something we are tracking.
>>
>> Folks can rest assured that whatever approach is taken, safety of the
>> kids is of paramount importance.
>>
>> Andy
>> President, LEAP board of Directors
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:29 AM Kar

Re: [LincolnTalk] CCBC FAQ's

[Karla Gravis]

I know some people will roll their eyes at me, but I think we need to
set the record straight when talking about population numbers.

In the email below, it is said: "There are two primary sources for
information about who lives in Lincoln: the decennial U.S. census, and the
annual Town census." *This is an inaccurate statement.* There is a third
source: the ACS survey conducted by the US Census Bureau. There is a good
reason to to use the ACS: the decennial survey does NOT provide a count of
residents over 60.

*It is remarkable the CCBC fails to mention this third source given that it
is precisely this source that the CCBC uses for all TEN towns in their
benchmarking exercise except for Lincoln*. *The CCBC also used the ACS as
their source for Lincoln in the November 2022 Special Town Meeting
presentation.*

The email below also states: "[...] for comparisons with other towns, the
CCBC has opted to use the Town numbers rather than the federal numbers." A
reasonable person would assume that if the goal is to compare with other
towns, we should use the same source for all towns, not a different one
just for Lincoln. The practice in Lincoln for town counts has been to keep
people on the roll even if they do not return the form (they could have
moved, passed away or registered in other towns where they also have a
home). There is a good reason for keeping them on the roll from a voter
perspective, as we want to make sure we enable everyone to vote, but it
does render the town count data unreliable for statistical and comparison
purposes. This practice will tend to inflate the data. Towns do not report
such counts publicly, therefore comparisons on this basis cannot be
established.

We need to be using the same source for each and every town in a comparison
exercise, and not switch to a different source just for Lincoln. This is
particularly true when the difference between town counts and the US Census
is 40%. *I understand the CCBC may not like the comparison to Harvard,
which has approximately the same senior population as we do, yet they spent
less than $3M on their Senior Center, or to Wayland, which has almost three
times our total and senior population, yet they are spending $12M on their
community center. *


> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Krystal Wood 
> Date: Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 18:26
> Subject: [LincolnTalk] CCBC FAQ's
> To: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
>
> *COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING COMMITTEE:FAQ*
> September, 2023
>
> *The vision:* *what is a Community Center, and why would Lincoln want to
> build one?*
> A Community Center not only reflects the community at whose heart it sits,
> it strengthens that community. A Community Center is a year-round,
> intergenerational gathering place and activity center. A Community Center
> is a locus for a wide variety of activities – health and fitness, social
> services, learning, eating, socializing, creating, playing, participating.
> A Community Center enriches the community by fostering organizational
> collaboration and by housing an array of programs, for all ages.
>
> At its heart, the Community Center is a home for the Lincoln Council on
> Aging & Human Services and the Parks & Recreation Department, both of which
> do much more than most people realize, and both of which run constrained
> programs in their current homes. The Community Center also provides a base
> for 25 other community organizations whose work is critical to the quality
> of life in Lincoln. But the vision of a Community Center on the Lincoln
> School campus is of a building that exists not only to serve important
> organizational needs and to optimize programming, though those might be
> adequate reasons for building a new building, it is also of a building that
> will attract residents of all ages to gather for coffee and meetings and
> informal activities.
>
> Lincoln has a sense of community – we have impromptu encounters at the
> transfer station and at Donelan’s, we have annual events like the Scarecrow
> Classic, the Girl Scouts Pancake Breakfast, the July 4 parade, and we have
> Town Meeting. But the everyday contribution of a Community Center to the
> life of the community and to the sense of community can be far greater, and
> the possibilities are exciting – because the number of people using the
> Center will be so much higher, because the range of activities will be much
> greater, because the opportunities for intergenerational interaction will
> expand, because the provision of social services will be improved and the
> organizations providing those services will be more robust.
>
>
> *What is the CCBC – which stakeholders are represented, what are its
> tasks, and how canothers participate?*
> We encourage questions, and have been asked for information on the
> Community Center Building Committee (CCBC), including its role and
> responsibilities.
>
> In March, 2022, the Lincoln Annual Town Meeting voted with near unanimity
> to restart the Community Center plan

Re: [LincolnTalk] CCBC FAQ's

[Karla Gravis]

It is important to note that I brought this topic up with the committee
privately in writing, weeks ago, and while receipt of my inquiry was
confirmed, I never received a response. Thus I was compelled to discuss it
in public.

The email states that Lincoln uses 2 primary sources, and the ACS is in
fact not mentioned as one of the two. Yet the November 2022 Special Town
Meeting used the ACS as its source, quoting it by name.

The CCBC benchmarking does not state nor link to the sources but here are
examples of the numbers used in the benchmarking coming from the ACS:
Concord
<https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP5Y2021.DP05?q=concord,+Massachusetts>
Harvard
<https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2021.S0101?q=Harvard+town,+Massachusetts>
Weston
<https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2021.S0101?q=weston,+Massachusetts>
Acton
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/actontownmiddlesexcountymassachusetts,MA/POP645221>
.

It is indeed accurate that people can move out of town or pass away and the
town has no way of knowing. For example, if it happens out of state or if
the person fails to register in the new town. The RMV would only alert of a
change in address if it occurs within Massachusetts. Birth records would
be useful for those minors born in town, but many who moved into town as
children could be lost in the count. Given these methodological problems,
discrepancies across towns and the fact that town censuses are generally
not publicly available, there is little reason to believe that a town count
would be more accurate and better suited for a benchmarking than a US
census number. Just to give you an example,  Wellesley’s
<https://wellesleyma.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/618> town report uses
the US Census data for its population count.

I stand by my assertion that we should use a consistent and publicly
available source when comparing across towns. I struggle to understand why
the CCBC would move away from the US Census number used in the Special Town
meeting and also used in the benchmarking for other towns.




On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 3:38 AM Timothy Christenfeld <
tchristenf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I’m impressed that Karla Gravis responded so quickly and forcefully to the
> CCBC FAQ, but perhaps she wouldn’t have been so forceful if she had taken a
> little more time.
>
> She finds it “remarkable” that the CCBC didn’t mention the ACS survey.
> Remarkable, indeed, because the FAQ does mention the ACS survey, both when
> it refers to the population estimates that the Census Bureau provides every
> year, and when it cites the current estimate (2022) that Lincoln’s
> population is 6,855.
>
> Further, Karla Gravis suggests that the CCBC has used the ACS numbers for
> other towns for its benchmarking exercise.  This is incorrect.  The CCBC
> has used the Town Census numbers for every town, to ensure full
> comparability.
>
> Karla Gravis also suggests that people continue to be listed on the Town
> Census for Lincoln even if they register in other towns or if they die.
> This is not accurate.  People will be removed from the Town Census for
> either of those reasons (or when the RMV informs the town of a new address
> on a driver’s license).  It takes longer to remove people from the Town
> Census if they move without updating their voter registration or their
> driver’s license, so we can’t assume that the Town Census is absolutely
> accurate, but there are still reasons to believe that it is more accurate
> than the estimate provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 30, 2023, at 3:30 AM, Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
> 
> I know some people will roll their eyes at me, but I think we need to
> set the record straight when talking about population numbers.
>
> In the email below, it is said: "There are two primary sources for
> information about who lives in Lincoln: the decennial U.S. census, and the
> annual Town census." *This is an inaccurate statement.* There is a third
> source: the ACS survey conducted by the US Census Bureau. There is a good
> reason to to use the ACS: the decennial survey does NOT provide a count of
> residents over 60.
>
> *It is remarkable the CCBC fails to mention this third source given that
> it is precisely this source that the CCBC uses for all TEN towns in their
> benchmarking exercise except for Lincoln*. *The CCBC also used the ACS as
> their source for Lincoln in the November 2022 Special Town Meeting
> presentation.*
>
> The email below also states: "[...] for comparisons with other towns, the
> CCBC has opted to use the Town numbers rather than the federal numbers." A
> reasonable person would assume that if the goal is to compare with other
> towns, we should use the same source for all towns, not a different one
> just for Lin

Re: [LincolnTalk] CCBC FAQ's

[Karla Gravis]

I am not sure if the message is getting missed in my previous post so it’s
worth reinforcing.


Tim says: “Karla Gravis suggests that the CCBC has used the ACS numbers for
other towns for its benchmarking exercise.  This is incorrect.  The CCBC
has used the Town Census numbers for every town, to ensure full
comparability.”


*I have reason to be very skeptical of Tim’s forceful assertion, especially
as the CCBC does not provide any sources or links. Moreover, these are
examples of towns where the CCBC benchmarking is using ACS numbers: *
Concord
<https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP5Y2021.DP05?q=concord,+Massachusetts>
Harvard
<https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2021.S0101?q=Harvard+town,+Massachusetts>
 Weston
<https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2021.S0101?q=weston,+Massachusetts>
Acton
<https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/actontownmiddlesexcountymassachusetts,MA/POP645221>
.

*NOT town census.*

The CCBC is using ACS data for other towns but not for Lincoln. ACS is the
same data the town used last year in the STM. The only reason I can think
of for this change in plan and incongruity with other towns is that the
town census has 40% more (600) more seniors than the ACS.


On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 9:09 AM Joanna Owen Schmergel 
wrote:

> Hear hear!
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
> <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=10604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_>
>
> On Saturday, September 30, 2023, 8:55 AM, Laura Crosby <
> lauracros...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Bravo, Tim!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 30, 2023, at 3:39 AM, Timothy Christenfeld 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> I’m impressed that Karla Gravis responded so quickly and forcefully to the
> CCBC FAQ, but perhaps she wouldn’t have been so forceful if she had taken a
> little more time.
>
> She finds it “remarkable” that the CCBC didn’t mention the ACS survey.
> Remarkable, indeed, because the FAQ does mention the ACS survey, both when
> it refers to the population estimates that the Census Bureau provides every
> year, and when it cites the current estimate (2022) that Lincoln’s
> population is 6,855.
>
> Further, Karla Gravis suggests that the CCBC has used the ACS numbers for
> other towns for its benchmarking exercise.  This is incorrect.  The CCBC
> has used the Town Census numbers for every town, to ensure full
> comparability.
>
> Karla Gravis also suggests that people continue to be listed on the Town
> Census for Lincoln even if they register in other towns or if they die.
> This is not accurate.  People will be removed from the Town Census for
> either of those reasons (or when the RMV informs the town of a new address
> on a driver’s license).  It takes longer to remove people from the Town
> Census if they move without updating their voter registration or their
> driver’s license, so we can’t assume that the Town Census is absolutely
> accurate, but there are still reasons to believe that it is more accurate
> than the estimate provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 30, 2023, at 3:30 AM, Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
> 
> I know some people will roll their eyes at me, but I think we need to
> set the record straight when talking about population numbers.
>
> In the email below, it is said: "There are two primary sources for
> information about who lives in Lincoln: the decennial U.S. census, and the
> annual Town census." *This is an inaccurate statement.* There is a third
> source: the ACS survey conducted by the US Census Bureau. There is a good
> reason to to use the ACS: the decennial survey does NOT provide a count of
> residents over 60.
>
> *It is remarkable the CCBC fails to mention this third source given that
> it is precisely this source that the CCBC uses for all TEN towns in their
> benchmarking exercise except for Lincoln*. *The CCBC also used the ACS as
> their source for Lincoln in the November 2022 Special Town Meeting
> presentation.*
>
> The email below also states: "[...] for comparisons with other towns, the
> CCBC has opted to use the Town numbers rather than the federal numbers." A
> reasonable person would assume that if the goal is to compare with other
> towns, we should use the same source for all towns, not a different one
> just for Lincoln. The practice in Lincoln for town counts has been to keep
> people on the roll even if they do not return the form (they could have
> moved, passed away or registered in other towns where they also have a
> home). There is a good reason for keeping them on the roll from a voter
> perspective, as we want to make su

Re: [LincolnTalk] CCBC FAQ's - with additional links

[Karla Gravis]

While I understand that Hanscom could bring a level of complexity, that
distinction is not relevant in this particular discussion because the CCBC
is not calculating the non-Hanscom population. The benchmarking used the
TOTAL Lincoln population.


The issue at hand is that the town census shows 600 (~40%) more seniors
than the US census for all of Lincoln. Hanscom does not affect that.


More importantly, the Hanscom discussion does not change the fact that the
CCBC is not being forthcoming about sources. The CCBC said, in writing, and
I quote: “The CCBC has used the Town Census numbers for every town, to
ensure full comparability”. That is simply not true. Regardless of Hanscom
or not, the CCBC benchmarking is using different sources for other towns
and not for Lincoln. They used the *lower* numbers for other towns from one
source and the *higher* numbers for Lincoln from a different source. At the
very least, there should have been a caveat explaining this.


I would also note that, given the upward bias of a town census, due to the
methodological issues I describe in my previous post, there is little
reason to believe the ACS is a less accurate population measure.


By using the higher numbers for Lincoln but lower numbers for other towns,
it seems like we’re trying to justify a center bigger than our needs. If we
add this to the fact that the COA refuses to provide attendance data, we
dramatically increase the probability that the town will be building
another building that is way too big for our real needs.


Karla Gravis

Weston Road


On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 9:05 AM Andrew Payne  wrote:

>
> Karla G. wrote:
>
> Below are two examples for Concord and Harvard, as proof that the CCBC
>> used the ACS numbers and not the town census numbers in their benchmarking.
>>
> The issue that is very unique to Lincoln when trying to use that US Census
> ACS data:  figuring out the *non-Hanscom population.  *
>
> Anyone making cross-town comparisons should keep that in mind.
>
> One
> let's-complicate-things-by-putting-Hanscom-AFB-base-housing-within-our-small-town's-town-limits
> resident's view,
>
> -andy
> https://payne.org/lt-disclaimer/
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations

[Karla Gravis]

The analysis that was shared earlier on LT about test scores was not in
relation to LEAP. No one is trying to establish a relationship between LEAP
and test scores.


The analysis that was shared was in relation to the assertion that we can
only provide an equitable education if we have all this extra space.


Unfortunately, the tests scores show that even though we have more space
per pupil than our neighbors, our high-needs students show less growth than
the average of the state. Scores for our high-needs children have actually
dropped more than the state average since we moved into the new school.  I
have copied the relevant analysis below. Equitable education is very
important, but it doesn’t seem like having all this extra space is helping
us further that goal.


The analysis is not trying to show a tie between LEAP and academic
achievement.


No one is suggesting we host LEAP off campus. What we are asking for is for
a good faith effort to at least study the possibility of hosting LEAP in
the school and consider lowering the tax burden for our town. We have a
beautiful new school that sits empty in the afternoons. There should be a
happy medium between 100% shared space and 5000 square feet of dedicated
space in the school. It seems to me that with some ingenuity, we should be
able to retain what makes LEAP special, at a far lesser cost than $3.4M. We
are going to have to solve for this anyway if LEAP is going to reside in
the school during construction. At the very least, we owe ourselves to
study the possibility.


If Leap were in the school, the children would get easy access to the gym,
art rooms, playgrounds, other school activities like the play and music
classes, handicap-accessible restrooms and a modern HVAC system.


———-

Analysis previously shared:


Our high needs students exhibited average growth

in the 43th percentile and 46th percentile for the State MCAS in ELA and
Math respectively last school year, both unfortunately below the average
for high needs students in the State. Actually, since we moved into our new
school two years ago (one for elementary), high needs students MCAS scores
at the Lincoln School have dropped 8pp in ELA and 2pp Math, 6pp worse than
the average for high needs students in the State (-3pp in ELA, but +5pp in
Math). It does not seem that this extra space is yielding an equitable
education for all.



>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Philana Mia Gnatowski 
> Date: Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 13:48
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations
> To: Peter Buchthal 
> CC: Listserv Listserv 
>
>
> Hello LT,
>
> I wanted to weigh in on this lively debate as both a former LEAP employee
> and as someone who grew up in Lincoln and chose to move back and raise her
> kids here. I believe that LEAP must remain in its own dedicated space on
> campus.
>
> In my experience as LEAP's middle school coordinator for 6 years, having
> our own building was extremely important for our day to day operations.
> Some have suggested that there is no overlap between the end of the school
> day and the beginning of LEAP's programming, but unless things have
> changed drastically, I do not believe this is the case. This is because the
> "start of day" for a LEAP teacher doesn't begin when the kids' school day
> ends. It starts with cleaning, set up and prep work for art projects or
> other activities. Having sufficient time and space to sit down with fellow
> teachers, without the children present, to discuss issues for the day is
> extremely important for both the quality of the programming and the staff's
> morale. It ensures that every staff member is on the same page and working
> as a cohesive unit to meet students' needs. From my understanding, the
> school building cannot accommodate this.
>
> Renting space off campus would drastically change the role LEAP plays
> facilitating students' other enrichment offerings. One of the many perks of
> being on the school campus is that LEAP staff also walk students to and
> from other after school activities. These kids don't have to miss out on
> gymnastics, theatre, tennis or music class. I remember my former boss
> saying to me that "we are very lucky to be able to rent a space on campus."
> Most private, non profit after school programs, like ours, don't operate on
> campus, requiring kids to be driven there. And once there, they stay there,
> until picked up by a caregiver.
>
> The idea proposed that there is no correlation between LEAP having its own
> building and improved academic scores among its students begs a deeper
> question: what are afterschool programs for? I have always believed that
> LEAP was more about social/emotional growth than academic outcomes. Does
> the program also support kids academically? Of course. I spent a lot of
> time helping students with their homework and empowering 

Re: [LincolnTalk] 15 Units per Acre - Part 2: Cold Brook Crossing - Sudbury/Concord on 117

[Karla Gravis]

Waterlands and septics can be taken out for "gross density"

calculations per 3A guidelines, BUT publicly owned land CANNOT.



The 9.9 acres in the Sudbury parcel that are owned by the town cannot be
excluded from the denominator in the density calculation. The calculation
shared by Margaret of 21 units per acre is not accurate, since it removes
publicly owned land. According to the guidelines, the Sudbury project has a
density of 274 units in 26-3.1=22.9 acres or 12 units per acre, below the
15 units per acre needed for HCA compliance. *Any zoning approved in
Lincoln that pertains to follow the guidelines would have to be DENSER than
what is being built in Sudbury. *Rob is right - I encourage folks to take a
look at the Subdury project here

.



I would also point out that the RLF proposed a plan to build at a density
of 25 units per acre (slide 48
).
That is almost twice as dense as the project in Sudbury.



The model Rob is building will help people understand the enormity of the
changes being floated.



The working group has not explained why it is solely concerned with
following the guidelines, which keep changing and could continue to change
even after we vote for any hypothetical rezoning. Guidelines are not law
nor regulation. We should be more concerned with what the law states than
with attempting to follow guidelines that are merely interpretations of the
law by government agencies and are constantly changing.


———-



Section 3A guidelines – 6. Minimum Gross Density



a. District-wide gross density



To meet the district-wide gross density requirement, the dimensional
restrictions and parking requirements for the multi-family zoning district
must allow for a gross density of 15 units per acre of land within the
district.  By way of example, to meet that requirement for a 40-acre
multi-family zoning district, the zoning must allow for at least 15
multi-family units per acre, or a total of at least 600 multi-family units.



For purposes of determining compliance with Section 3A’s gross density
requirement, the EOHLC compliance model will not count in the denominator
any excluded land located within the multi-family zoning district, except
public rights-of-way, private rights-of-way, and publicly-owned land used
for recreational, civic, commercial, and other nonresidential uses.  This
method of calculating minimum gross density respects the Zoning Act’s
definition of gross density—“a units-per-acre density measurement that
includes land occupied by public rights-of-way and any recreational, civic,
commercial and other nonresidential uses”—while making it unnecessary to
draw patchwork multi-family zoning districts that carve out wetlands and
other types of excluded land that are not developed or developable.



c. Wetland and septic considerations relating to density

Section 3A provides that a district of reasonable size shall have a minimum
gross density of 15 units per acre, “subject to any further limitations
imposed by section 40 of chapter 131 and title 5 of the state environmental
code established pursuant to section 13 of chapter 21A.”  This directive
means that even though the zoning district must permit 15 units per acre as
of right, any multi-family housing produced within the district is subject
to, and must comply with, the state wetlands protection act and title 5 of
the state environmental code—even if such compliance means a proposed
project will be less dense than 15 units per acre.



> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Margaret Olson 
> Date: Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 2:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] 15 Units per Acre - Part 2: Cold Brook Crossing
> - Sudbury/Concord on 117
> To: Robert Ahlert 
> Cc: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
> From the project narrative (
> https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdn.sudbury.ma.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/326/2020/05/Cold-Brook-Crossing-Site-Plan-Narrative-March-11-2020.pdf?version=dd2e49a8d33cbe913460c6b7d51236c4
> ):
>
> Of the 26 acres:
> 9.9 acres are in conservation
> 3.1 acres are part of the Sudbury Water District and will remain so
>
> That leaves 13 acres. 274 units/13 acres = 21 units per acre.
>
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] 15 Units per Acre - Part 2: Cold Brook Crossing - Sudbury/Concord on 117

[Karla Gravis]

This is actually a very important clarification because it directly affects
how we will need to calculate density. The guidelines are very expansive in
what land is included in the denominator for density calculations. It
includes things like roads and public land. The point is that the "15 units
per acre" is never going to be the "density of the buildings" because some
of the land will always need to be set aside.

We, as citizens, are trying to understand what the proposed rezoning would
look like for Lincoln. The Sudbury project has 12 units per acre as per the
guidelines, which is what we should consider for comparability purposes.
The minimum for HCA is 15 units/acre, which is not even the highest value
we're proposing in some districts for Lincoln. Like Sarah P pointed out,
the working group is proposing much denser housing at 18-25 units per acre
in some parts of Lincoln, which translated into the "density of buildings"
could be even higher.

Guidelines are not regulations, and state agencies' interpretations do not
carry the force of law.

Again, what we are asking for is a proper due diligence of the risks and
rewards, which hasn't been completed yet, and a truly democratic process
with proper debate, opening the floor to residents' opinions.

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 6:08 PM Margaret Olson  wrote:

> Just to be clear - when describing the density of the Sudbury project I
> was trying to answer the question: "what is the density of the buildings".
> I was not making any statement about the lot density or any HCA
> calculations.
>
> I can not speak for the HCWG, but they are concerned I believe with the
> regulations because the state agencies are empowered to define what it
> means to comply with the law.
>
> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 4:33 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
>> Waterlands and septics can be taken out for "gross density"
>> <https://www.mass.gov/info-details/section-3a-guidelines#6.-minimum-gross-density->
>> calculations per 3A guidelines, BUT publicly owned land CANNOT.
>>
>>
>>
>> The 9.9 acres in the Sudbury parcel that are owned by the town cannot be
>> excluded from the denominator in the density calculation. The calculation
>> shared by Margaret of 21 units per acre is not accurate, since it removes
>> publicly owned land. According to the guidelines, the Sudbury project has a
>> density of 274 units in 26-3.1=22.9 acres or 12 units per acre, below the
>> 15 units per acre needed for HCA compliance. *Any zoning approved in
>> Lincoln that pertains to follow the guidelines would have to be DENSER than
>> what is being built in Sudbury. *Rob is right - I encourage folks to
>> take a look at the Subdury project here
>> <https://sudbury.ma.us/pcd/2020/05/07/cold-brook-crossing-residential-development-planning-board-permitting-application-materials/>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> I would also point out that the RLF proposed a plan to build at a density
>> of 25 units per acre (slide 48
>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/79138/2023-06-16-HCA-Public-Forum-Slide-Deck?bidId=>).
>> That is almost twice as dense as the project in Sudbury.
>>
>>
>>
>> The model Rob is building will help people understand the enormity of the
>> changes being floated.
>>
>>
>>
>> The working group has not explained why it is solely concerned with
>> following the guidelines, which keep changing and could continue to change
>> even after we vote for any hypothetical rezoning. Guidelines are not law
>> nor regulation. We should be more concerned with what the law states than
>> with attempting to follow guidelines that are merely interpretations of the
>> law by government agencies and are constantly changing.
>>
>>
>> ———-
>>
>>
>>
>> Section 3A guidelines – 6. Minimum Gross Density
>>
>>
>>
>> a. District-wide gross density
>>
>>
>>
>> To meet the district-wide gross density requirement, the dimensional
>> restrictions and parking requirements for the multi-family zoning district
>> must allow for a gross density of 15 units per acre of land within the
>> district.  By way of example, to meet that requirement for a 40-acre
>> multi-family zoning district, the zoning must allow for at least 15
>> multi-family units per acre, or a total of at least 600 multi-family units.
>>
>>
>>
>> For purposes of determining compliance with Section 3A’s gross density
>> requirement, the EOHLC compliance model will not count in the denominator
>> any excluded land located within the multi-family zoning district, except
>

Re: [LincolnTalk] Thoughts on the Housing Choice Act and the October 10th Multi-Board Meeting

[Karla Gravis]

For those saying it will take 40-50 years to develop: a developer, Civico,
is already working with the RLF on the development of a 125-unit building
complex (slide 26 of the SOTT deck). Both the chair and the executive
director of the RLF, which directly stands to benefit from the rezoning
proposed to meet HCA compliance, are part of the HCA working group. This
project would very likely charge ahead as soon as rezoning is approved.
Let’s remember the HCA allows for only 10% affordable housing. It’s
reasonable to expect developers will be looking to make a profit and we
will end up with expensive condos that will not really help solve the
housing crisis.

*Again, what we are asking is for the HCAWG to listen to and address the
many concerns that have been brought up by residents instead of charging
through with a blanket approval during a meeting today. *


>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Robert Ahlert 
> Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Thoughts on the Housing Choice Act and the
> October 10th Multi-Board Meeting
> To: John Mendelson 
> Cc: Lincoln Talk , Robert Domnitz <
> bobdom...@hotmail.com>
>
>
> Developers John!  Save it from Developers!  I'm trying to illustrate the
> scale of what this approval could enable.  I understand fully that Zoning
> does not equal Building 1:1 but why risk it?  Why not propose a true
> compromise solution?
>
> You seem to think you are on high moral ground here.  All you are doing is
> helping future wealthy residents - no one else!
>
> Rob
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 9:55 AM John Mendelson 
> wrote:
>
>> Save it from what?  Progress?  Working to help solve the regional
>> challenges of housing, traffic, environment?  Providing housing
>> alternatives?
>>
>> Or should we just continue to approve 20,000 sq/ft single family houses
>> on big lots and put our heads in the sand?
>>
>> Lincoln is not an island despite what many seem to wish it could be.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 9:47 AM Robert Ahlert 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 1000% agree with Susanna. Well said.  I have young children and want
>>> them to enjoy Lincoln as it is now, not as another Concord or Bedford or
>>> Lexington.
>>>
>>> Lincoln is precious, save it!
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 9:41 AM Susanna Szeto 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 A developer’s only objective is to make money!  It is not a charitable
 organization who cares about providing more affordable housing for people!
 Please find one example that proves the contrary!  Regarding 😊 ng the
 train to work because they live walking distance to the train station!
 When we moved to Lincoln in 1977, my husband was working at Mass General
 Hospital, an ideal situation for him to take the train to work.  He did it
 at the beginning and gave up the idea because for one thing, it ends up
 more costly and the train does not run often enough to give the flexibility
 he needs!
 Yes, we have enjoyed decades of living in Lincoln, and we want the
 future generation of Lincolnites to enjoy what we have loved about Lincoln,
 the open space, the ‘low key’ nature of our town center even though
 occasionally we complained we are far from everything!  We care greatly
 about what will happen to Lincoln even though we both at the later stage of
 our lives!  So, for the relatively newcomers to town, there are older
 residents in town who do care what is going to happen to Lincoln even
 though it may take decades for the developers  to get their hands on
 Lincoln!  We have resisted them so far by using our tax dollars to buy up
 lands for conservation!  There is no other town like Lincoln that is so
 close to Boston!  Please do not let the developers come in to spoil it for
 us!

 On Oct 9, 2023, at 11:29 PM, ٍSarah Postlethwait 
 wrote:

 
 All very well voiced points!

 But make no mistake- do not be fooled by the voices saying "potential
 development will take decades".
 If option C of this rezoning gets passed, development will begin
 immediately.

 *The HCAWG and the RLF are directly working with Civico, the developer
 of Oriole Landing*. Civico isn’t working with the town because it
 likes us and is a trusted town partner… it wants to make money.
 Civico has threatened the town by saying it will not go through the
 town meeting process again after it did so with Oriole Landing. The
 pro-building HCAWG (which includes the Executive Director of the RLF as a
 member) wants Civico to develop.
 So in turn, the HCAWG and Planning board added mixed Use Zoning at
 Lincoln Center to this proposal so it wouldn’t be necessary for them to go
 through the traditional town meeting process.

 This gives Civico the chance to push a high cost, high density housing
 complex (125 units), with only 10% affordable housing (we required 15% with
 O

Re: [LincolnTalk] Yet another HCA email

[Karla Gravis]

In response to the question of whether developers are knocking on our door,
Lincoln’s own RLF has been working with a developer, Civico, on a 125-unit
building in the mall area (slide 26 of the SOTT deck). Civico is the same
developer that built Oriole Landing.

It is very important to note that under the proposal, village center
rezoning will allow developers to build simply by getting a building permit
with no need to go to town meeting (slide 9 of the SOTT deck).

Given that the Chair and the Executive Director of the RLF sit on the HCA
working group, and that the RLF will benefit from the development, it’s
reasonable to expect that this project will quickly follow any rezoning.

The HCA allows for only 10% affordable housing, so we will end up with ~13
affordable units and 112 units at Oriole Landing prices (which seem to
start at $4K per month).

It’s naive to think that more developers will not follow Civico once we
rezone. Existing Lincoln parcel owners will have a material financial
incentive to sell to developers.





>
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 5:19 PM Susanna Szeto  wrote:
>
>> If we look around town, the multi-family we have in town now are most
>> tucked away.  They do not hit you in the face as the proposal to the
>> development on Codman Road.  I doubt it will achieve the economic diversity
>> people are looking for if the rent is as high as the Oriole Landing!  I
>> hope we can pause and study how the rezoning will affect the traffic in
>> town before we jump into this!  I have read on Lincoln Talk the developer
>> is already knocking on our doorstep!  Is that true?
>> Susanna S
>> Giles Road
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2023, at 5:06 PM, Margaret Olson 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Greg,
>> Conservation restrictions apply irrespective of zoning. The conservation
>> restrictions on Codman and Drumlin (and elsewhere in town, including areas
>> around South Lincoln) prevent those areas from being developed. State law
>> makes it extremely difficult to remove land from conservation - it has to
>> be replaced with equally valuable land.
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 5:00 PM Greg H. 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Thank you to everyone on the housing committee for your service. I'd
>>> like to respectfully add my $0.02 from the peanut gallery in support of a
>>> pause / step back in rezoning plans.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that there are three distinct philosophies/options we
>>> could pursue, but that we are fully focused on #3.
>>>
>>> *Options*
>>> 1. Drag our feet and/or consider noncompliance: favor Lincoln's rural
>>> character above all else
>>> 2. Comply in letter but not fully in spirit: where possible, overlay new
>>> zoning on existing multi-family and/or commercial development to mitigate
>>> the impact
>>> 3. Wholeheartedly comply in both letter and spirit: build as much new
>>> housing as possible near the commuter rail
>>>
>>> I understand that many believe we have a moral responsibility to build
>>> more housing in Lincoln (and while I disagree, I respect that view) but I
>>> believe as stewards we also have a moral responsibility to maintain as much
>>> "green" as possible and to preserve the rural character of our town for
>>> future generations. I'm especially concerned that creating a Cold Brook
>>> Crossing on Codman Rd will both a) unnecessarily cut down a lot of trees,
>>> and b) materially change Codman Farm, Drumlin Farm, and the rest of South
>>> Lincoln, forever.
>>>
>>> I support increasing Lincoln's diversity (including economic diversity),
>>> and I realize that #3 might help us achieve that, but this feels like a
>>> very big step that we might come to regret. I think Lincoln is special
>>> precisely because it is undeveloped - I'm not sure we can have it both ways.
>>>
>>> Thank you for reading,
>>>
>>> Greg Haines
>>> 41 Lincoln Rd
>>>
>>> (As an aside, I'm also not sure I'm prepared for the additional traffic
>>> the development will spur. Traffic is already backed up almost a mile on
>>> Lincoln Rd on Tuesday mornings; I assume we will need to add traffic lights
>>> or rotaries at Lincoln Center and Lincoln Station?)
>>> --
>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>>> Browse the archives at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>>> Change your subscription settings at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailin

Re: [LincolnTalk] Yet another HCA email

[Karla Gravis]

No one is “demonizing” any organization, just stating facts in response to
the question as to whether there are developers circling Lincoln.

The fact is that the RLF is planning to sell to a developer to build a
125-unit building in the village area. If rezoning passes, the developer
could build without going to town meeting.

Good governance requires input from many different points of view and
checks and balances. I do think there is a conflict of interest when
members of the RLF sit on the group that will define rezoning, when the RLF
has a vested interest in such rezoning.

Another example of where we’re failing to truly listen to our residents is
the meeting today. There will only be 15 minutes for public comment, but
many times that to review what has already been presented many times in the
past. This tactic of curtailing public comment has unfortunately been part
of every step of the process.



On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 7:18 PM Andy Wang  wrote:

> I'm surprised at the demonization of the Rural Land Foundation (RLF) in
> possible development efforts and at the same time touting the 'character'
> of Lincoln with all of its natural beauty. Isn't the RLF and the Lincoln
> Land Conservation Trust (LLCT) , both of which operate as separate
> entities, but share the same Board, responsible for a lot of that natural
> beauty and conservation in town? Are folks suggesting that the RLF would
> suddenly do an about face and suggest a development plan that would go
> against its long standing tradition of stewardship and conservation of
> Lincoln? That seems unlikely to me.  If we had to pick an organization that
> would have a hand in guiding a large development near Lincoln Station, I
> would think the RLF would be near the top of the list.  Just something to
> think about.
>
> - Andy
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 6:48 PM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> In response to the question of whether developers are knocking on our
>> door, Lincoln’s own RLF has been working with a developer, Civico, on a
>> 125-unit building in the mall area (slide 26 of the SOTT deck). Civico is
>> the same developer that built Oriole Landing.
>>
>> It is very important to note that under the proposal, village center
>> rezoning will allow developers to build simply by getting a building permit
>> with no need to go to town meeting (slide 9 of the SOTT deck).
>>
>> Given that the Chair and the Executive Director of the RLF sit on the HCA
>> working group, and that the RLF will benefit from the development, it’s
>> reasonable to expect that this project will quickly follow any rezoning.
>>
>> The HCA allows for only 10% affordable housing, so we will end up with
>> ~13 affordable units and 112 units at Oriole Landing prices (which seem to
>> start at $4K per month).
>>
>> It’s naive to think that more developers will not follow Civico once we
>> rezone. Existing Lincoln parcel owners will have a material financial
>> incentive to sell to developers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 5:19 PM Susanna Szeto 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we look around town, the multi-family we have in town now are most
>>>> tucked away.  They do not hit you in the face as the proposal to the
>>>> development on Codman Road.  I doubt it will achieve the economic diversity
>>>> people are looking for if the rent is as high as the Oriole Landing!  I
>>>> hope we can pause and study how the rezoning will affect the traffic in
>>>> town before we jump into this!  I have read on Lincoln Talk the developer
>>>> is already knocking on our doorstep!  Is that true?
>>>> Susanna S
>>>> Giles Road
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 10, 2023, at 5:06 PM, Margaret Olson 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Greg,
>>>> Conservation restrictions apply irrespective of zoning. The
>>>> conservation restrictions on Codman and Drumlin (and elsewhere in town,
>>>> including areas around South Lincoln) prevent those areas from being
>>>> developed. State law makes it extremely difficult to remove land from
>>>> conservation - it has to be replaced with equally valuable land.
>>>>
>>>> Margaret
>>>>
>>>> Margaret
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 5:00 PM Greg H. 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you to everyone on the housing committee for your service. I'd
>>>>> like to respectfully add my $0.

Re: [LincolnTalk] community center

[Karla Gravis]

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful discussion.

Andy, I think Seth's post is only talking about the cost of renovating *one*
pod, the pod allocated to LEAP in the new CC designs. There is simply no
need to renovate all three pods. Right now they are in fact underutilized.
My understanding is that they are used for the following activities:

   1. LEAP.
   2. Summer Camp.
   3. Parks and Rec activities taking place after school (the vast
   majority).
   4. A few Parks and Rec activities happening during school hours.
   5. As and office for all three (3) PRD employees.

#1,2 and 3 could be hosted in the school as they do not overlap with school
hours. It would be duplicative to renovate the Pods when we have a
perfectly fine school right next to it. #5 requires very little space and
could be done either at the school or Town Offices, which only leaves #4
uncovered. An entire pod is probably much more space than we actually need
for #4, so the $1.6MM figure is probably an overstatement.

I still have not heard any CC proponent respond to Joanna and Yonca's
eloquent pleas. What will it accomplish that cannot be done with the
existing resources?

As the initial post explained, towns our size simply do not build Community
Centers. There are many ways to foster intergenerational commingling, which
to be clear is a worthwhile goal, but building very expensive empty rooms
is not one of them. Intergenerational commingling happens when there is a
common purpose that brings everyone together, not as a result of a new
building. We already have facilities where those activities can be done if
people are willing to organize them. If people want to host a book club,
they can use the library with the help of our amazing librarians, if they
want to play sports, they can use Reed Gym, if they want to put on a play
or have a town debate they can use the Donaldson Auditorium.

Our town already has the most onerous property taxes in the region.
Elevated property taxes are causing financial hardship, which is why the
town approved the senior circuit breaker. Let us try to keep that in mind
when we are talking about a project that would increase property taxes
thousands of dollars a year.


> From: Andy Wang 
> Date: Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] community center
> To: Seth Rosen 
> Cc: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
> Seth,
>
> Just to be fair in the comparison, according to the presentation in the
> Spring (reference here
> ),
> the cost of renovation of the 3 pods from the CCPPDC report was originally
> estimated at $3-3.9 Million.  Updated in 2021 to $3.8 - $5.3M and projected
> to 2025 Projected Construction Mid-Point at $4.5-6.1 M.  Which is more like
> 20-26% on the low end.
>
> Also, several people have made this sound like it's just for CoA.  As
> proposed, this is supposed to be a 'Community Center' not just a 'Senior
> Center'.  So while you might consider the discussion of PRD with this as a
> conflation, others may not.  It may be an opportunity to use what I think
> are two under-utilized resources (the pods and Bemis) into one with more
> use.  At the same time, co-mingling diverse generational residents has
> shown to have a positive effect on all involved.  There may be other
> intangible benefits for a Community Center, you can't look at everything
> from a financial side only (though, you can't ignore it either).
>
> In terms of renovation, I think Bemis and Pierce House, while lovely, are
> not ideal sites for either the CoA or a Community Center due to access,
> parking, physical layout of the spaces.  Pierce House is historic and I
> doubt a large renovation would fly there.  Bemis lacks parking and it
> doesn't appear like there is much room for expansion.  The pods really do
> need a renovation, if you've been in them, that should be pretty obvious.
>
> I did go to a bunch of the Community Center discussions years ago and put
> my little blue dot on choices, but those were all about features and things
> you would love to have in a building.  There is a financial reality that
> wasn't really discussed at the time (to my recollection, and at least not
> concretely).  So, in general, I am in support of a combined community
> center to house CoA and PNR on the school campus, but at the current scale,
> I'm undecided.
>
> I'll air my issue with where we are in the movie though.  The vote at the
> end of Nov to allocate $325k for professional services is really looking to
> provide detailed breakdown of two very similar proposals.  The 'Infill of
> Pods' and the "Secondary Central Green' are estimated at $23-$24M and $24.3
> - $25.4M (2025 Midpoint Construction #'s) respectively.  I'm sure lots of
> folks may prefer one or the other for a variety of design reasons, but from
> a financial standpoint, they are about the same cost.  Both are lovely
> buildings, but my concern is that neither may pass th

Re: [LincolnTalk] community center

[Karla Gravis]

Debra,

The tax property rate is only one of two factors that determine the
property tax bill. Our property tax rates are not as high as other towns,
but our assessed values are higher than most. As a result, our average tax
bill is the third highest in the State. If you compare that tax bill to our
average income, we are ahead of all of our peers.

The first number in the list below is the average single family property
tax bill and the second one is the quotient of that average bill and the
average single family income. This is the source (FY22)
https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=AverageSingleTaxBill.SingleFamTaxBill_wRange

*Lincoln $18,617  12.0%*

Weston: $22,766  6.4%
Dover: $15,715  6.5%
Wellesley: $16,889  7.7%
Sherborn: $16,760  7.9%
Lexington: $16,613  8.4%
Carlisle: $15,438  9.9%
Concord: $16,611  10.8%
Wayland: $15,386  10.2%
Sudbury: $14,395  11.9%


On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 7:57 PM Debra Daugherty 
wrote:

> I'd just like to mention that Lincoln's property tax rate is not out of
> keeping with our neighbors and has even come down over the past two years:
>
> 2019 1.403%
> 2020 1.536%
> 2021 1.552%
> 2022 1.493%
> 2023 1.392%
>
> Yes, some towns have lower rates (Weston 2022 1.281%, Lexington 2022
> 1.380%), but others have higher rates (Carlisle is down to 1.65% in 2022
> from 1.836% in 2020, Acton is down to 1.945% in 2022 from 2.023% in 2021).
>
> If our tax rate were to increase by 9% (in 2024?) from 1.392%, then it
> would be back up to 1.52%.
>
> Just wanted to put some numbers out there. Not taking a position regarding
> the CC.
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 7:31 PM Lynne Smith  wrote:
>
>> Can someone estimate the cost of a full time driver (9-5) and an all-
>> electric car or shuttle bus? eg., Salary plus benefits: $100k; ev shuttle:
>> $100k. So $200K total? Or we could use Uber vouchers as some senior living
>> facilities do.
>>
>> Just another way of solving parking and driving problems.
>>
>> Lynne Smith
>> 5 Tabor Hill Road
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5+Tabor+Hill+Road+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> Lincoln, MA 01773
>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/5+Tabor+Hill+Road+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g>
>> 781-258-1175
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 26 Oct 2022, at 7:02 p.m., Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln <
>> lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Well said!
>>
>> And for significantly less money we can invest in a contract for
>> a shuttle bus to provide transportation to all of these locations:)
>>
>>
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/?.src=iOS>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 26, 2022, 6:53 PM, Karla Gravis <
>> karlagra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks everyone for the thoughtful discussion.
>>
>> Andy, I think Seth's post is only talking about the cost of renovating
>> *one* pod, the pod allocated to LEAP in the new CC designs. There is
>> simply no need to renovate all three pods. Right now they are in fact
>> underutilized. My understanding is that they are used for the following
>> activities:
>>
>>1. LEAP.
>>2. Summer Camp.
>>3. Parks and Rec activities taking place after school (the vast
>>majority).
>>4. A few Parks and Rec activities happening during school hours.
>>5. As and office for all three (3) PRD employees.
>>
>> #1,2 and 3 could be hosted in the school as they do not overlap with
>> school hours. It would be duplicative to renovate the Pods when we have a
>> perfectly fine school right next to it. #5 requires very little space and
>> could be done either at the school or Town Offices, which only leaves #4
>> uncovered. An entire pod is probably much more space than we actually need
>> for #4, so the $1.6MM figure is probably an overstatement.
>>
>> I still have not heard any CC proponent respond to Joanna and Yonca's
>> eloquent pleas. What will it accomplish that cannot be done with the
>> existing resources?
>>
>> As the initial post explained, towns our size simply do not build
>> Community Centers. There are many ways to foster intergenerational
>> commingling, which to be clear is a worthwhile goal, but building very
>> expensive empty rooms is not one of them. Intergenerational commingling
>> happens when there is a common purpose that brings everyone together, not
>> as a result of a new building. We already have facilities where those
>> activities can be done if people are willing to organize them. If people
>> want to host a 

[LincolnTalk] Jewelry repair?

[Karla Gravis]

Hello!

Looking for recs for jewelry repair - broken clasp, turn pressure earrings
into post earrings, etc.

Thanks in advance!
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

[LincolnTalk] Unanswered Community Center questions

[Karla Gravis]

Dear fellow Lincoln residents,



I have closely followed the discussion around the $25M Community Center
proposal and would like to take the opportunity provided by the Committee’s
Vision memorandum to expose what I see as flaws in the process of proposal
selection.



*We need to remember that building this Center will represent an average 9%
increase in property taxes, which represents an additional $1,700 for the
average Lincoln homeowner every year. There needs to be a valuable need and
purpose to justify this burden on our families, and it is our duty to
explore more cost-responsible alternatives.*



The benchmarking process was based on a series of wrong assumptions. We
lost track of what other towns of our size were doing, and instead created
a list of requirements out of proportion to our size and needs. *This
project would build a more expensive and bigger building than those found
in towns many times our population*. Neighboring towns with populations up
to three times ours do not build Community Centers; their COA and PRD’s
facilities share modest dwellings with other town facilities, on a scale
comparable to Bemis Hall or Pierce House. Even for those towns that do have
a community center, the current Lincoln proposal is four times the median
space per resident. The disproportion is similar when we consider dedicated
COA space per senior resident.



This morning’s letter still does not clarify the expected use of a building
of this scale. As has already been mentioned, a community is built by a
shared purpose, not by a building. What we need is more volunteers who are
interested in amplifying or creating communities of shared interest. We
already have more than enough space and facilities across our brand-new
school, Bemis Hall, the library and potentially Pierce House. *Why not
renovate the pods and use one of them for this purpose? Even refurbishing
all three pods would be less than a fifth of the expense of the proposed
new community center. *



We struggle with a reduced commercial footprint. If folks are looking for a
place to have a cup of coffee, eat something, and see some friendly faces,
they can do that while they support local businesses like Twisted Tree or
Tack Room.


The biggest issue I see with the communication sent this morning is the
so-called disqualification of Bemis Hall and Pierce House as alternatives.
At a State of the Town meeting eight years ago, a series of equivalent
proposals, in size and cost, were put in front of attendees and they were
asked to post a yellow dot on the poster representing their preferred
option. Pierce House was one of the options proposed and there was nothing
that disqualified it, as evidenced by the fact it was put to a vote.
Attendees were forced to make a false choice between, among others, the
Hartwell campus proposal, estimated at $9.5-13.5MM at the time, and a
much-inflated Pierce House proposal, estimated at $8-11MM due to the plan
to build an attached facility, excessive given our size. *Pierce House was
never objectively disqualified, but simply passed over when presented with
a much cheaper Hartwell proposal.*



The studies referenced in the memo were conducted *as long as a decade ago*.
Obviously, there are a lot of new faces in town who might have different
opinions on how resources should be allocated and even those who have
stayed should have another say on the use of the town’s monies. Our
resources now are not what they were at that time, and perhaps neither are
our needs, so altered by new habits resulting from the pandemic. The cost
of building the Center has also multiplied since then.



I urge residents to *attend the Special Town Meeting in the Donaldson
Auditorium on* *November 30th at 7:30pm*, and vote. Up until recently, the
CCBC seems to have been moving towards a narrow objective; it is imperative
that a wide range of perspectives be heard.



Town Pop. 65+ COA/PRD/CC facility  COA/PRD/CC Sqft Sqft per resident Dedicated
COA space sqft Sqft per 100 seniors Notes
Sherborn 4,324 692 No N/A 0 0 No dedicated COA space, shares a couple of
rooms in the town hall
Carlisle 5,181 958 No N/A 3,500 3.7 Old private house, approximate sqft
Harvard 6,844 1,116 No N/A 4,813 4.3 19th century house
Weston 11,666 2,427 Yes 22,000 1.9 9,000 3.7 Old building comparable to
Bemis Hall
Wayland 13,724 2,470 No N/A 2,500 1.0 The town is considering a new
facility with 3,000 sqft of COA space
Sudbury 19,059 2,935 Yes 22,079 1.2 5,754 2.0 Estimated cost of $600/sqft
(including pool & gym) vs. $1,000 for Lincoln
Concord 18,184 3,728 Yes 12,496 0.7 12,496 3.4 1917 building shared with
preschool
Newton 87,453 16,004 3 sports facilities N/A   33,000 2.1 COA cost of
$19.5M, 20% less than Lincoln with 12x as many seniors
Median 1.2 2.7
Lincoln 4,756 1,332 4,270 3.2 Bemis Hall
 Lincoln new proposal 23,500 4.9 11,750 8.8 Assumes 50% of space devoted to
COA

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 8:37 AM Krystal Wood <
ccbccommunicationscommit...@gmail.com> wrote

Re: [LincolnTalk] Unanswered Community Center questions

[Karla Gravis]

Hi Laura,

Thank you for bringing this qualitative oversight to my attention. I have
done my best to complete the benchmarking with the limited information
available online. Differently from other towns, Weston does not keep online
property cards, which makes data collection more challenging. The aspect of
the building from the outside is that of an old barn, but it seems like
that was an architectural goal. Having found a few online pictures I would
agree that the feel of the building is different from Bemis Hall. The
square footage per resident remains the same though, 1.9 sqft per resident
in Weston versus 4.9 sqft in Lincoln. Lincoln's CC proposal calls for a
bigger facility despite having a population almost 60% lower.

Here are the link so folks can check all the statistics I used in my table:

   - The population and senior data for every town comes from the US Census
   Bureau
   https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/carlisletownmiddlesexcountymassachusetts
Sherborn
   and Hanscom AFB are not reported in the decennial census as their
   population is less than 5,000. Their population comes from the Annual
   Community Survey
   https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US2528425-hanscom-afb-ma/ Hanscom's
   population has been extracted from Lincoln's, with the exception of
   residents of a small barrack located at 75 Grenier St Bedford. According to
   Bedford's town clerk there are 7 Hanscom residents in Bedford, all of them
   living in that address. For consistency we have also used Lincoln's ACS
   rather than the decennial census population, but the difference between the
   two is very small, just 22 people.
   - Sherborn's COA activities are conducted in the Town Hall. Rooms there
   have many uses. https://www.sherbornma.org/council-aging
   - Carlisle's COA is hosted at 66 Westford St, here is a picture of the
   outside
   
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x89e39844132de7cb%3A0x5f45cc21e1f4fe28!3m1!7e115!4shttps%3A%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMJvqTxXGIOQHz0lf5g99guTryPa4RYeX7xHP04%3Dw213-h160-k-no!5scarlisle%20coa%20-%20Google%20Search!15sCgIgAQ&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipMJvqTxXGIOQHz0lf5g99guTryPa4RYeX7xHP04&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN-tPgman7AhV-D1kFHb9uBaIQoip6BAhUEAM
The
   square footage is estimated. We have not found a property card.
   - Harvard's COA. The square footage information comes from a study they
   did 9 years ago for a Community Center that was ultimately scrapped
   
https://www.harvard-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif676/f/uploads/13-0219_hth_presentation.pdf
   The town continues to use Hildreth House, here is a picture of the outside
   https://www.harvard-ma.gov/council-aging
   - Weston's CC square footage data can be found in the CCBC's 2018
   report. COA and CC square footage data can also be found in this Wayland
   comparison:
   
https://www.wayland.ma.us/council-aging/community-center-project-coacc/faq/how-does-proposed-coacommunity-center-compare-other
As
   you can see in the table, according to this Wayland committee, Weston only
   devotes 3,000 sqft purely to COA with almost twice as many seniors as
   Lincoln.
   - Wayland's data comes from the same site referred above. Wayland is
   contemplating a new CC/COA, but their needs are roughly half of Lincoln's
   despite a population almost three times larger.
   - Concord's Harvey Wheeler's square footage and building's age comes
   from its property card
   https://gis.vgsi.com/concordma/Parcel.aspx?Pid=3623
   - Sudbury's square footage from page 51 of this presentation
   
https://sudbury.ma.us/selectboard/wp-content/uploads/sites/260/2020/03/Fairbank-Community-Center-Presentation.pdf?version=754df18a8e0dad6cf6cb1df29135bd62
We
   have added the square footage from common areas, shared spaces, senior
   center and recreation to establish an apples to apples comparison. The cost
   per square footage is estimated dividing the project cost by the total new
   square footage.
   - Newton data comes from this Boston Globe article, but you can find
   municipal sources if you look for them
   
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/08/09/metro/newton-city-council-approves-funding-replace-senior-center-with-larger-facility/#:~:text=and%20break%20ground%20on%20the,in%20a%20statement%20Monday%20night

Happy to answer any more questions about the data. Hopefully we hear the
CCBC comment on Monday on the disproportion in space and cost per
resident/senior for their CC/COA proposal versus every other town in this
list.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 11:41 AM Laura Crosby 
wrote:

> Hi Karla,
> Thanks for your message. I’d like to
> mention one thing…..
> Don’t know about your other statistics
> here but do have one correction:
> Weston MA does not have “an old
> building  compared to Bemis.”
> They have a beautiful, relatively new,
> large building to house their community
> activities in

Re: [LincolnTalk] Unanswered Community Center questions

[Karla Gravis]

Hi Lynne,

Thank you for your email. My main point is that the $25MM proposal is out
of proportion to our needs, resources and what our peers have done. I agree
with many that we need to conduct an updated review of the COA and PRD
against our existing resources, but I believe the answer lies in a much
smaller incremental investment that what the CCBC is suggesting.

I am not sure where you got your information about the state of MA mandates
for COA, but I don’t think it is accurate. You can find the relevant
statute here:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40/Section8B
Towns
have the authority to create COAs, but the existence is optional, as are
all of its activities, including meals. I am not implying that the current
COA offerings are not important, on the contrary, but I don’t think there
is a legal argument to defend a $25MM community center proposal.

You mention that Bemis and Pierce House are not appropriate to house COA
but can we not invest in them to make them appropriate? Pierce House has a
kitchen, in fact, it was used during our recent Fall Fest. The town can
always explore expanding it if needed, including adding a steam cleaner. I
think we all need to keep an open mind in this process.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 1:22 PM llas902...@aol.com 
wrote:

> Hi Karla
> Thank you for your thoughts. While I understand your worries, if we had a
> community center ,how would YOU best like the town to utilize the space?
>  The state of MA mandates certain regulations for COUNCIL ON  AGING
> facilities when offering the many benefits the state offers. For one
> instance one of the state mandates is COA serve a delicious meal to age 60+
> residents, and Bemis does not have sufficient  kitchen space, nor do they
> have a steam cleaner for cleaning dishes which is required.
> The state does have many requirements  for COUNCIL  ON  AGING, which Bemis
> is not set up for.
> It is more than a space issue.
> The Pierce House was considered, but the space is , again, not appropriate
> for all COA offers.
>
> Please come to the Zoom mtg on THE STATE OF THE TOWN on Nov 14 to discuss
> your questions and find out all that the state of MA mandates for COUNCIL
> ON  AGING.  That is what the mtg is for, b4 the vote on Nov 30.
> Love to hear more from you then.
> Lynne  LaSpina  FLCOA.
>
> Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aol.mobile.aolapp>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 11:17 AM, Karla Gravis
>  wrote:
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center Building Committee- Why Build A New Community Center?

[Karla Gravis]

I agree with you Margaret. We would need a custodian for the community
center too - likely more than one for a building of 25,000 sqft. Sarah
Chester (a CCBC member) shared an estimate of 1.5 custodians needed during
the state of the town meeting yesterday.

Abby Butt (COA director) also reinforced that we would need custodians in
the CC, including for help with systems access, as well as a receptionist.
Compared to the salary cost of these net-new FTEs (in addition to the cost
of the building itself), paying for a few extra hours of a custodian at the
school seems reasonable. The school currently has 6 dedicated custodians
and 3 shared with Hanscom (I pulled this from the FY23 school budget).

In terms of hours of operation, during school hours children are in school
and many adults are working anyway. There is an opportunity to use school
facilities after-hours and on the weekends, when everyone is available, for
true intergenerational commingling.



On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 9:43 AM Margaret Olson 
wrote:

> I'm a little confused about the argument that after hours use of the
> school requires the cost of a custodian as a reason to build a Community
> Center. Surely many many years of a custodian salary are far less than a
> new building. And if the Community Center is going to be a gathering place
> it has to be open, and if it's open it pretty much needs to be staffed.
>
> It may well be that we need a Community Center, but surely the cost of a
> school custodian is not the reason.
>
> Margaret
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:53 AM Barbara Low 
> wrote:
>
>> The school cannot be used during the school day, and to use after hours
>> requires the cost of a custodian. The current facilities are inadequate and
>> have been for a long time. Further delay will probably increase the cost of
>> a new building. The time to act is now.
>>
>> Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
>> Get Outlook for Android 
>> --
>> *From:* Lincoln  on behalf of Sarah
>> Marcotte 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 15, 2022 7:03:01 AM
>> *To:* John F. Carr 
>> *Cc:* lincoln@lincolntalk.org 
>> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center Building Committee- Why
>> Build A New Community Center?
>>
>> While I understand that the Community Center project has been developing
>> for years, I think it is especially "tone deaf" to bring it up now with the
>> increased costs of everything with winter closing in.
>>
>> Let's please hold off on the Community Center for this fiscal year and
>> wait to see how the spaces at the new school buildings can be used.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Sarah Marcotte
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:33 PM John F. Carr 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Before dreaming about a ride service you should study ADA regulations,
>> and the Rehabilitation Act and any comparable state laws.  Some of
>> these are enforced by private lawsuits and winning plaintiffs get
>> attorney's fees.
>>
>> You can't just stuff old people in any old car as a town service.  You
>> probably need a wheelchair lift which means a bigger vehicle.  If
>> Lincoln accepted federal funds it might also need to provide
>> paratransit services.  A decade or two ago the MBTA was paying about
>> $80 per ride to a private contractor to move disabled people who lived
>> within 1/4 of a bus route and couldn't or wouldn't take a bus.
>>
>> And if you're going to have a shuttle, why not take them to Waltham to
>> go shopping?  If I couldn't drive I'd like a ride to Market Basket or
>> Star Market.  Ask where people want to go, not where you want people
>> to go.
>>
>> Also ask whether this is to be an occasional thing or a service people
>> would depend on.  A reliable service costs more.  Maybe there's a
>> private company that will offer a quote.  I don't think Lincoln town
>> government has what it takes.
>>
>> John Carr
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 2:13 PM Lynne Smith  wrote:
>> >
>> > 
>> > Thank you, Seth. You have written another thoughtful analysis.
>> >
>> > I’d like to add to this discussion a possible solution to the parking
>> problem at Bemis Hall. I don’t want to give in to parking lots as the only
>> fix. I hope we can explore further the idea of a small (electric) van or
>> car that would run on schedules timed for Events at Bemis Hall. People
>> could park at pierce House, Hartwell pods, or even the Mall and get rides
>> to Bemis.  Perhaps some of us could form a study group to cost out such a
>> service.
>> >
>> > I am more than willing to spend money to do a gut renovation of Bemis
>> as we did for Town Offices. Seeing these beautiful old buildings repurposed
>> for modern usage seems like a Lincoln value.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts?
>> >
>> >
>> > Lynne Smith
>> > 5 Tabor Hill Road
>> 
>>
>> >
>> Lincoln, MA 01773
>> 

Re: [LincolnTalk] on property taxes

[Karla Gravis]

Hi Rich,

While the hypothesis you presented seems reasonable, the facts show
otherwise. If you look at the site you just linked, there are many Greater
Boston Area towns in that list with lower population density than Lincoln,
lots of open space, very little commercial base AND* much lower property
taxes. *None of the towns in the table below are contemplating a $25M
Community Center.

Note: I have taken the population and density data from the site you linked
and the average property tax rate is from the Department of Revenue
https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=AverageSingleTaxBill.SingleFamTaxBill_wRange

[image: image.png]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:04 PM Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:

>
> There has been a bit of discussion regarding LIncoln's property taxes
> compared to other towns. One reason taxes may be higher than similar towns
> is our low housing density.
>
> Lincoln has consciously and deliberately limited density with land
> acquisition, zoning regulations, agricultural easements and more.
>
> The result is that there are fewer houses to distribute fixed costs. If
> you have two similar towns with the same number of miles of road, the less
> housing-dense town will pay more per family to maintain those roads. The
> same goes for many other services provided by the town.
>
> All of this wonderful open space that we all enjoy is not free.
>
> --
> Here are some statistics from this site
>  (not
> sure of the date but I assume it does not change quickly):
>
> *TownPopulation / sq. mile*
> Bedford 926.37
> Wayland 819.52
> Sudbury 683.63
> Weston  664.03
> Concord 656.11
> Lincoln 359.11
>
> Our limited commercial base is also a factor.
>
>
>
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] on property taxes

[Karla Gravis]

Jennifer,

Agricultural land gets highly preferential tax treatment under Chapter 61A
of the Massachusetts General Law
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIX/Chapter61A This is
an exception to the highest and best use generally used for assessments and
appraisals to prevent all farms being subdivided into residential
properties.

Fortunately our good neighbors of Bolton do a break out of their property
taxes by use
https://www.townofbolton.com/sites/g/files/vyhlif2836/f/uploads/boltonassessmentbrochure2022.pdf
All agricultural land is valued at a combined $1.1M, which accounts for
0.09% of the town's total $1.2B assessed taxable property value.

There is no reason we cannot compare our taxes to other farming towns. As
the analysis below shows, land put to agricultural use is virtually tax
exempt. Our high taxes are due to policy decisions exogenous to our land
use.

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 2:27 PM Jennifer Saffran 
wrote:

> Regarding “open space”, I am more familiar with one of these towns—Bolton.
> Bolton has a number of commercial farms and orchards. So, while it appears
> that there is open space, it’s taxable land. I do not know what the tax
> rate for working farms are.  A quick search shows there are at least 20
> working farms in Bolton. Likewise, Harvard has 19. Therefore, the numbers
> may not be so comparable.
>
> On Nov 28, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Adam M Hogue  wrote:
>
> Agreed, this chart shows it the best.  Towns with our population generally
> do not have a large community center because they do not have the tax base
> or population to support it.
>
> *Adam M Hogue*
> *Cell: **(978) 828-6184 <(978)%20828-6184>*
>
> On Nov 28, 2022, at 2:12 PM, Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Rich,
>
> While the hypothesis you presented seems reasonable, the facts show
> otherwise. If you look at the site you just linked, there are many Greater
> Boston Area towns in that list with lower population density than Lincoln,
> lots of open space, very little commercial base AND* much lower property
> taxes. *None of the towns in the table below are contemplating a $25M
> Community Center.
>
> Note: I have taken the population and density data from the site you
> linked and the average property tax rate is from the Department of Revenue
> https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=AverageSingleTaxBill.SingleFamTaxBill_wRange
>
> 
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:04 PM Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:
>
>>
>> There has been a bit of discussion regarding LIncoln's property taxes
>> compared to other towns. One reason taxes may be higher than similar towns
>> is our low housing density.
>>
>> Lincoln has consciously and deliberately limited density with land
>> acquisition, zoning regulations, agricultural easements and more.
>>
>> The result is that there are fewer houses to distribute fixed costs. If
>> you have two similar towns with the same number of miles of road, the less
>> housing-dense town will pay more per family to maintain those roads. The
>> same goes for many other services provided by the town.
>>
>> All of this wonderful open space that we all enjoy is not free.
>>
>> --
>> Here are some statistics from this site
>> <http://zipatlas.com/us/ma/city-comparison/population-density.htm> (not
>> sure of the date but I assume it does not change quickly):
>>
>> *TownPopulation / sq. mile*
>> Bedford 926.37
>> Wayland 819.52
>> Sudbury 683.63
>> Weston  664.03
>> Concord 656.11
>> Lincoln 359.11
>>
>> Our limited commercial base is also a factor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

[LincolnTalk] CC - Specificity in the motion

[Karla Gravis]

I 100% agree with what others have said in that we need specificity in the
motion.

The motion needs to clearly lay out that *at least* one of the desired
outcomes is the no-frills option (without the features that are currently
part of the $25M proposal that were mentioned yesterday by the CCBC like a
teaching kitchen or an indoor/outdoor cafe, etc).

I fear that if that if this is not explicit in the motion, we will get one
$25M option and maybe a $20M option and then be presented with a false
choice under pressure from “we need to get this done before inflation hits
us again”.

I think what you said Dennis is critical and on point and should be
included in the motion: the low-cost alternative NEEDS to be developed to “*the
level where it can be considered on an equal footing with the two existing
proposals when it comes time for the town to vote and chose a preferred
approach.”*

I also want to call out that options outside of Hartwell should be given a
chance. The 8-year old SOTT exercise where 150 folks where given 2 dots
each to choose should not be used as the “will of the town”.

Thanks all for listening to me!




On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:05 PM Dennis Picker 
wrote:

> Andy (and all the rest of you!),
> I feel we might be getting close. (what a relief it is to be able to write
> that)
>
> Given what I now know, having attended last night's select meeting, I
> agree that we need to spend study money in order to get another option,
> what I call the no-frills approach, on the table.  That money will flesh
> out a newly conceived option that is no-frills, addresses the essential
> needs, is Hartwell-centric, focused on new construction/renovation at
> Hartwell, and flexibly addresses the location of some services at
> other locations when that makes sense.  The study would allow this new
> alternative to be developed to the level where it can be considered on an
> equal footing with the two existing proposals when it comes time for the
> town to vote and chose a preferred approach.
>
> I sincerely believe that such a no-frills version would still be worthy of
> the label "integrated community center."
>
> In that sense I would like to vote yes as a path forward.  But I am not
> there yet.  The devil is in the details of the wording of the warrant
> article and what gets presented by the CCBC tomorrow regarding how they
> intend to proceed if the $325,000 funding is approved.  The clarity and
> specifics about what the warrant explicitly requires as output of the study
> is of vital concern to me.
>
> I am aware that it may take an amendment from the floor to constructively
> sort this out.  I am waiting to see what plays out tomorrow. I hope that
> the collective "we" can sort enough of this out through this type of dialog
> to avoid chaos and confusion tomorrow night if it comes to amendments.
> Fingers crossed.
>
> Dennis Picker
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:30 PM Andy Wang  wrote:
>
>> Dennis,
>>
>> I agree that you are not distorting the sentiment of the statement I
>> posted before.
>>
>> However, I think you're probably more correct to question this
>> statement:  "However, if you are in favor of a combined community center on
>> the Hartwell campus, but are concerned about the cost, then I would
>> encourage people to support the vote with a YES on Wednesday because this
>> is the only way that the project can move forward and further define what
>> the costs will be (and potential cost savings...and to be fair, possible
>> cost increases) and overall impact.  And whatever comes out, the town will
>> be back to vote on THAT plan with, hopefully, more information."
>>
>> I will correct myself in saying that I should have said 'but are
>> concerned about cost *and/or scope*' and not just the cost.  I still
>> believe, that without the funding, some of that reduction in scope can't
>> happen without professional services to back them up. Some outreach could
>> be done, but the real impact to the building and spaces can't really be
>> determined without services.
>>
>> I've personally gone back and forth about supporting an amendment to put
>> more explicit language in the warrant, but given the way it is written, it
>> does not seem to fit in.  The language is intentionally broad to give the
>> committee some latitude in this next phase.  I believe this puts more trust
>> in the CCBC to look into some of the things you are suggesting in looking
>> for some things that might be elsewhere, but given that I'm not going to do
>> that work, I'll have to rely on the output of others.  I always come back
>> to the belief that the committee would like to build a community center,
>> and they are going to come to terms with the fact that they are going to
>> have to put forward a plan they think will pass a 2/3 vote to bond.  This
>> vote should not be the hard vote, the next ones (pick proposal & bond) are.
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 1:01 PM Dennis Picker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I 

Re: [LincolnTalk] CC - Specificity in the motion

[Karla Gravis]

Hi Andy,

The CCBC has posted multiple times in different forums about the 2 $25M
proposals, and the $325K was built based on an architects fee to refine
those 2. It seems like we’re now exploring “potential” lower cost options,
but why do we think that the $325K will be enough to cover completely new
ones? Especially if the architect we’re hiring is MaryAnn Thompson who is
known for beautiful, but expensive, designs.

The starting point that the CCBC continues to quote is the 2 proposals.
What I am afraid will happen, without specificity in the motion, is that we
will shave “some” costs off the original two and end up with one $25M
proposal and one $20M proposal.

“Low cost” options is too vague - what is low cost to some may be
prohibitively expensive to others. We need to go back and reassess needs vs
wants. The vague wording of the warrant gives me little confidence we will
do so.




On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 5:01 PM Andy Wang  wrote:

> Karla,
>
> This is the text of the Motion (
> https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/78665/Motion---Final):
>
> *Motion Under Article 1:*
> *That the Town vote to transfer the sum of $325,000 from the Town’s
> Stabilization Fund for the purpose of hiring relevant consultant support
> services, to potentially include project management, design, engineering
> and other technical reviews to assist the Community Center Building
> Committee in developing a range of Community Center design choices and
> budgets for the Hartwell Complex, with the intention of presenting said
> choices at a fall, 2023 Special Town Meeting for a vote on a preferred
> option; and provided further, that it is anticipated that the preferred
> option selected by the Town will be presented for a funding vote in March
> of 2024.  *
>
> That's it, that's the whole thing. There is nothing in there that actually
> dictates 2 proposals, or the cost of any of the proposals, or the level of
> 'frills' or 'features' that are included / excluded either.  They can
> develop a 'range of design choices and budgets'.  I'm not sure how one
> would define a 'low-cost alternative' in the context of the motion, though
> maybe someone smarter than I could.  None of the things you are suggesting
> are precluded from being done in the motion, though the CCBC is not
> obligated to either, except for the fact that they have to come back in
> another meeting next year and again a year after that to actually get the
> funds bonded.  In my opinion, that is the real motivation to internalize
> the feedback.
>
> - Andy
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:31 PM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> I 100% agree with what others have said in that we need specificity in
>> the motion.
>>
>> The motion needs to clearly lay out that *at least* one of the desired
>> outcomes is the no-frills option (without the features that are currently
>> part of the $25M proposal that were mentioned yesterday by the CCBC like a
>> teaching kitchen or an indoor/outdoor cafe, etc).
>>
>> I fear that if that if this is not explicit in the motion, we will get
>> one $25M option and maybe a $20M option and then be presented with a false
>> choice under pressure from “we need to get this done before inflation hits
>> us again”.
>>
>> I think what you said Dennis is critical and on point and should be
>> included in the motion: the low-cost alternative NEEDS to be developed to 
>> “*the
>> level where it can be considered on an equal footing with the two existing
>> proposals when it comes time for the town to vote and chose a preferred
>> approach.”*
>>
>> I also want to call out that options outside of Hartwell should be given
>> a chance. The 8-year old SOTT exercise where 150 folks where given 2 dots
>> each to choose should not be used as the “will of the town”.
>>
>> Thanks all for listening to me!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:05 PM Dennis Picker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy (and all the rest of you!),
>>> I feel we might be getting close. (what a relief it is to be able to
>>> write that)
>>>
>>> Given what I now know, having attended last night's select meeting, I
>>> agree that we need to spend study money in order to get another option,
>>> what I call the no-frills approach, on the table.  That money will flesh
>>> out a newly conceived option that is no-frills, addresses the essential
>>> needs, is Hartwell-centric, focused on new construction/renovation at
>>> Hartwell, and flexibly addresses the location of some services at
>>> other locations when that makes sense.  The study would

Re: [LincolnTalk] COMMUNITY CENTER

[Karla Gravis]

There have been many changes in 10 years, including a pandemic with lasting
behavioral changes and a rapidly shifting economy. 10 years ago I had no
children and now I have 3, so my priorities are very different now. I would
assume a change in circumstances in 10 years is the case for many.

The study we use as the “will of the town” was done 8 years ago with only
150 people or so participating.

I fully support what Joe said: *let’s reevaluate our needs*. Voting “no” is
not voting against a community center. It is “*let’s figure out what we
really need before spending $25M*”. The proposal as was presented at the
Select Board meeting includes things like a teaching kitchen and an
indoor/outdoor cafe. Are those things we “need”? Adding a “cap” to the
budget will not fix that if we don’t do a bottoms-up exercise of
understanding what the town needs.




On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:26 AM DJCP  wrote:

> Oh great, let's wash 10 years of work down the tube so we can start on a
> new project.
> Diana
> Giles Rd
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:16 AM  wrote:
>
>> Hello friends, I will *not *be voting in favor of the community center
>> project now… for several reasons explained below.  If these considerations
>> and others you have give you pause, I hope you will join those of us who
>> are interested in further discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, Lincoln’s once in  a generation Comprehensive Plan, approved at
>> Town Meeting ~ten years ago prioritized revitalizing  our South Lincoln
>> commercial center. *Without a vibrant place to gather, we risk becoming
>> an inert, mono-culture suburb,* of increasingly high priced single
>> family homes and residents who can afford them. A vital Mall at our center
>> would be a place to gather, meet with friends, and exchange ideas with
>> others who have diverse backgrounds and views.  Before locating a COA or
>> Community Center building at the school property we should evaluate its
>> potential to jump-start and support commercial and civic growth at the mall
>> and help Lincoln slowly and steadily transition into the dynamic community
>> we can be. It’s time.
>>
>>
>>
>> We haven’t had a thorough review of town goals or prioritized them since
>> the Comprehensive Plan. If we choose to ignore the last Comprehensive Plan,
>> let’s plan again. Let’s agree on priorities.
>>
>>
>>
>> There seems to be an ongoing, important, and complex discussion re the
>> distinctions and requirements of a community center vs. a facility for our
>> Council on Aging program….prudence dictates these  be thoroughly studied
>> and resolved before being considered for funding by town meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> And this project will cause real estate taxes to increase above the rate
>> of inflation, again. It will be particularly troubling now for seniors
>> living on a fixed income
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Let’s consider/reconsider these matters fully before we vote for a
>> community center or a COA facility at school property. Let’s get this
>> right. Please consider voting No.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best, Joe
>>
>> Joe Robbat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] COMMUNITY CENTER

[Karla Gravis]

The problem is the starting point of $25M, which includes so many “wants”
like a teaching kitchen and a cafe.

Inflation shouldn’t be the reason we push forward a $25M project without
understanding our true needs.

Wayland, which has so many more residents than us, is building a community
center for $11M and at 13Ksqft (half the size we’re proposing).

We need to level-set our needs, and spending $325K on refining proposals
will *not* get us there.



On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:11 AM Lis Herbert  wrote:

> Sara:
>
> Do not try to contort the meaning of my words and frame me as insensitive.
> Don’t.
>
> I didn’t say that I think $25 million is something to sneeze at. I said it
> will seem like peanuts if we delay, ie when the town is presented with a
> 40M price tag down the road.
>
> The history of these projects has shown that 11M can balloon to 25. The
> first school vote was for roughly half what the new school ultimately cost.
> That’s mostly the result of waiting, and little else.
>
> Lis
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 30, 2022, at 9:19 AM, Sara Mattes  wrote:
>
> Calling $25 million “peanuts” is a bit much.
>
> While it may be “ peanuts” to you, a significant portion of our population
> would find it otherwise.
> And, to date, no one is talking about the Town operating budgets and what
> they will look like, going forward- after we address teachers contract, the
> hiring a new Superintendent, changes in Town Office staffing and the
> impacts of inflation across the board.
>
> I suspect we will see the need for an override to support the staffing
> needs.
>
> That is part of the total tax package that has an impact on individual
> households.
>
> So, what may be “ peanuts” to you, may have serious and crushing impacts
> on others.
>
> We need to be mindful and sensitive to that reality.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 30, 2022, at 9:05 AM, Lis Herbert  wrote:
>
> Sara:
> If this process is delayed or stopped entirely, again, the price tag for
> needs may well exceed current “wants” — many of which, judging by the
> survey results the CCBC circulated yesterday, are pragmatic, and reflect a
> community’s needs in 2022, not 2012.
> $25 million will seem like peanuts when it’s time to vote on whatever the
> next iteration of this process is 5 or 10 years down the line. And people
> will surely wonder then, if the vote is for a center in some unknown
> location near Donelan’s, why it isn’t sited at Hartwell?
> And around and around and around we can go, forever.
> Lis
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 30, 2022, at 8:51 AM, Sara Mattes  wrote:
>
> That was then, this is now.
> We have gone through some radical changes in the last several years.
> Our economy is volatile.
> Our work lives have changed, as have commuting patterns.
>
> Should put our fingers in our ears, hands over our eyes and act as if it
> is 2012 all over again ?
>
> We need to be more flexible and creative to meet the needs ( and be
> careful about “ wants”) of the town in 2022 and beyond.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 30, 2022, at 8:41 AM, Sara Mattes  wrote:
>
> Times have changed, and so must we.
>
> There is an opportunity tonight to be more creative.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 30, 2022, at 8:26 AM, DJCP  wrote:
>
> 
> Oh great, let's wash 10 years of work down the tube so we can start on a
> new project.
> Diana
> Giles Rd
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:16 AM  wrote:
>
>> Hello friends, I will *not *be voting in favor of the community center
>> project now… for several reasons explained below.  If these considerations
>> and others you have give you pause, I hope you will join those of us who
>> are interested in further discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, Lincoln’s once in  a generation Comprehensive Plan, approved at
>> Town Meeting ~ten years ago prioritized revitalizing  our South Lincoln
>> commercial center. *Without a vibrant place to gather, we risk becoming
>> an inert, mono-culture suburb,* of increasingly high priced single
>> family homes and residents who can afford them. A vital Mall at our center
>> would be a place to gather, meet with friends, and exchange ideas with
>> others who have diverse backgrounds and views.  Before locating a COA or
>> Community Center building at the school property we should evaluate its
>> potential to jump-start and support commercial and civic growth at the mall
>> and help Lincoln slowly and steadily transition into the dynamic community
>> we can be. It’s time.
>>
>>
>>
>> We haven’t had a thorough review of town goals or prioritized them since
>> the Comprehensive Plan. If we choose to ignore the last Comprehensive Plan,
>> let’s plan again. Let’s agree on priorities.
>>
>>
>>
>> There seems to be an ongoing, important, and complex discussion re the
>> distinctions and requirements of a community center vs. a facility for our
>> Council on Aging program….prudence dictates these  be thoroughly studied
>> and resolved before being considered for funding 

Re: [LincolnTalk] COMMUNITY CENTER

[Karla Gravis]

I was not in town when the school was being built, but perhaps someone who
was can answer this question: how much of that increase in costs was due to
inflation vs “nice to haves” and features that were added without doing a
needs assessment? Did we ever look back at the school project and say: “how
can we make this more cost efficient?”

I REALLY struggle with the premise of “we need to spend $25M now because
it’s going to be more if we wait.” It’s a huge amount of money to push
through without understanding needs and alternative options.

To me the question is: do we need a single COA/PRD facility located on
Hartwell Campus that is larger and more expensive than any other community
center in the area? Spending $325K to flesh out designs will *not* answer
that question.






On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:08 PM Andy Wang  wrote:

> Part of it was the lost of state funding, but costs to build the school
> about doubled.. between 2012 and 2018
>
> In 2012, the school building was going to be $49M,  $21M was from state
> funding + $28M was from the town.
> In 2018, we ended up spending about $94M
>
> So the building costs almost doubled ($49M --> $94M)
> But the town ended up paying more than triple ($28M --> $94M)
>
> State funding is not on the table here for the Community Center
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:34 AM Richard Panetta 
> wrote:
>
>> Wasn’t in part to the loss of funding from the state.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:11 AM Lis Herbert 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sara:
>>>
>>> Do not try to contort the meaning of my words and frame me as
>>> insensitive. Don’t.
>>>
>>> I didn’t say that I think $25 million is something to sneeze at. I said
>>> it will seem like peanuts if we delay, ie when the town is presented with a
>>> 40M price tag down the road.
>>>
>>> The history of these projects has shown that 11M can balloon to 25. The
>>> first school vote was for roughly half what the new school ultimately cost.
>>> That’s mostly the result of waiting, and little else.
>>>
>>> Lis
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 9:19 AM, Sara Mattes  wrote:
>>>
>>> Calling $25 million “peanuts” is a bit much.
>>> While it may be “ peanuts” to you, a significant portion of our
>>> population would find it otherwise.
>>> And, to date, no one is talking about the Town operating budgets and
>>> what they will look like, going forward- after we address teachers
>>> contract, the hiring a new Superintendent, changes in Town Office staffing
>>> and the impacts of inflation across the board.
>>>
>>> I suspect we will see the need for an override to support the staffing
>>> needs.
>>>
>>> That is part of the total tax package that has an impact on individual
>>> households.
>>>
>>> So, what may be “ peanuts” to you, may have serious and crushing impacts
>>> on others.
>>>
>>> We need to be mindful and sensitive to that reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 9:05 AM, Lis Herbert  wrote:
>>>
>>> Sara:
>>> If this process is delayed or stopped entirely, again, the price tag for
>>> needs may well exceed current “wants” — many of which, judging by the
>>> survey results the CCBC circulated yesterday, are pragmatic, and reflect a
>>> community’s needs in 2022, not 2012.
>>> $25 million will seem like peanuts when it’s time to vote on whatever
>>> the next iteration of this process is 5 or 10 years down the line. And
>>> people will surely wonder then, if the vote is for a center in some unknown
>>> location near Donelan’s, why it isn’t sited at Hartwell?
>>> And around and around and around we can go, forever.
>>> Lis
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 8:51 AM, Sara Mattes  wrote:
>>>
>>> That was then, this is now.
>>> We have gone through some radical changes in the last several years.
>>> Our economy is volatile.
>>> Our work lives have changed, as have commuting patterns.
>>>
>>> Should put our fingers in our ears, hands over our eyes and act as if it
>>> is 2012 all over again ?
>>>
>>> We need to be more flexible and creative to meet the needs ( and be
>>> careful about “ wants”) of the town in 2022 and beyond.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 8:41 AM, Sara Mattes  wrote:
>>>
>>> Times have changed, and so must we.
>>>
>>> There is an opportunity tonight to be more creative.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 8:26 AM, DJCP  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Oh great, let's wash 10 years of work down the tube so we can start on a
>>> new project.
>>> Diana
>>> Giles Rd
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:16 AM  wrote:
>>>
 Hello friends, I will *not *be voting in favor of the community center
 project now… for several reasons explained below.  If these considerations
 and others you have give you pause, I hope you will join those of us who
 are interested in further discussion.



 First, Lincoln’s once in  a generation Comprehensive Plan, approved at
 Town Meeting ~ten ye

Re: [LincolnTalk] COMMUNITY CENTER

[Karla Gravis]

I have nothing against a kitchen. I am just asking whether a “teaching”
kitchen specifically for the purpose of teaching cooking classes is a
“need” or a “want”. It’s just an example of the “features” that all add up
to $25M. An “indoor/outdoor cafe” was also mentioned.

You’re right, these are all ideas that were raised but do we NEED all of
them? I want plenty of things, but I know I can’t have them all.

Maybe the teaching kitchen alone won’t cut $10M but the sum of all these
“want” features I am pretty sure add up to a lot.





On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:35 PM DJCP  wrote:

> Why the harping on the kitchen?  Do you think cutting the kitchen is going
> to save $10 million?  The cost is going to be relatively nominal.
>
> Plus, it seems like people who are opposed to the kitchen have the
> privilege of not having had to watch their aging parents lose the ability
> to safely cook at home.  Cooking was a big part of my family growing up, as
> it is for many, and I think my mom would have enjoyed watching cooking
> classes.  (The Codman kitchen, while lovely, is in the barn and does not
> have a lot of room for sitting, nor is the barn temperature regulated.)
> It's almost like there were people on a committee and people were surveyed
> to find out what could best serve the COA community, and these were the
> ideas that were raised!
>
> Diana
> A former member of the dreaded "sandwich generation" and may you never
> need to know what that means if you don't already
> Giles Rd
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:34 AM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> The problem is the starting point of $25M, which includes so many “wants”
>> like a teaching kitchen and a cafe.
>>
>> Inflation shouldn’t be the reason we push forward a $25M project without
>> understanding our true needs.
>>
>> Wayland, which has so many more residents than us, is building a
>> community center for $11M and at 13Ksqft (half the size we’re proposing).
>>
>> We need to level-set our needs, and spending $325K on refining proposals
>> will *not* get us there.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:11 AM Lis Herbert 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sara:
>>>
>>> Do not try to contort the meaning of my words and frame me as
>>> insensitive. Don’t.
>>>
>>> I didn’t say that I think $25 million is something to sneeze at. I said
>>> it will seem like peanuts if we delay, ie when the town is presented with a
>>> 40M price tag down the road.
>>>
>>> The history of these projects has shown that 11M can balloon to 25. The
>>> first school vote was for roughly half what the new school ultimately cost.
>>> That’s mostly the result of waiting, and little else.
>>>
>>> Lis
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 9:19 AM, Sara Mattes  wrote:
>>>
>>> Calling $25 million “peanuts” is a bit much.
>>>
>>> While it may be “ peanuts” to you, a significant portion of our
>>> population would find it otherwise.
>>> And, to date, no one is talking about the Town operating budgets and
>>> what they will look like, going forward- after we address teachers
>>> contract, the hiring a new Superintendent, changes in Town Office staffing
>>> and the impacts of inflation across the board.
>>>
>>> I suspect we will see the need for an override to support the staffing
>>> needs.
>>>
>>> That is part of the total tax package that has an impact on individual
>>> households.
>>>
>>> So, what may be “ peanuts” to you, may have serious and crushing impacts
>>> on others.
>>>
>>> We need to be mindful and sensitive to that reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 9:05 AM, Lis Herbert  wrote:
>>>
>>> Sara:
>>> If this process is delayed or stopped entirely, again, the price tag for
>>> needs may well exceed current “wants” — many of which, judging by the
>>> survey results the CCBC circulated yesterday, are pragmatic, and reflect a
>>> community’s needs in 2022, not 2012.
>>> $25 million will seem like peanuts when it’s time to vote on whatever
>>> the next iteration of this process is 5 or 10 years down the line. And
>>> people will surely wonder then, if the vote is for a center in some unknown
>>> location near Donelan’s, why it isn’t sited at Hartwell?
>>> And around and around and around we can go, forever.
>>> Lis
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
&g

[LincolnTalk] Fwd: Exploring the Holy Land Problem: Friday, Dec 6 and Saturday, Dec 7

[Karla Gravis]

*“And, that no one who is not a Jew, by birth cannot understand
antisemitism”*

I don’t believe that is what some of our Jewish town residents are saying.
What Forest, Jonathan, Lisa, Margo and others are asking us to do is to
listen to their experience with this *particular* type of inflammatory type
of language and this *particular* speaker and the impact that it has on
them as Jews. Looks like Qumfiyeh has been speaking against Jews for years,
many years prior to the current conflict and in a highly-offensive way.
The truth is that non-Jews have a different lived experience, so we owe it
to Jews to listen. As white people, we must listen to Black and Brown
people to understand our privilege and unconscious bias. As cisgender
people, we must listen to LGBTQ folks’ concerns. I am a Venezuelan
immigrant, so I would hope that folks would listen to my lived experience
instead of just assuming we are all gang members or do in fact eat cats and
dogs. All that our Jewish citizens are asking for is the same open
mindedness to listen to their lived experience and the impact this
particular speaker has on them, in their own home town. There needs to be a
better way to have this conversation.





-- Forwarded message -
From: Sara Mattes 
Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Exploring the Holy Land Problem: Friday, Dec 6
and Saturday, Dec 7
To: Lincoln Talk 
CC: Forest Brown 


An odd post below-

It would seem the author is  dismissing any in this conversation who do not
embrace the hostility to the upcoming program.
And, that no one who is not a Jew, by birth cannot understand antisemitism
is fairly uneducated in the history of many non-Jews who stood with Jews in
a variety of human rights endeavors, and those who gave their lives to
raise issues about dangers to Jews (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

No one is dismissing struggles.
That is a bizarre leap from my previous posts.

And one does not have other be a Jew to know something of Jewish history,
not does need to have a direct connection to Isreal (I have relatives
there, but that is neither here not there).

And then there is this comment:

"I am deeply grateful to those who approach these complex conversations
with humility, willing to pause and reflect when others are crying out for
help and understanding."


To suggest that others than those who are opposed to the upcoming lectures
approach the debate lack empathy, humility or sensitivity is downright
insulting!



On Dec 4, 2024, at 12:18 PM, Forest Brown  wrote:

Thank you to everyone who has contributed thoughtfully to this
conversation, sharing facts and insights rather than relying on assumptions
or feelings.

It’s relevant to mention that when a Black person shares their experience
of something they feel is racially discriminatory or offensive, it’s
crucial for others—especially white individuals—not to dismiss those
feelings by saying, “it’s not racist.” This dynamic can reflect deeper
power imbalances and a history where white voices have often dominated the
conversation about racism, even in situations they haven’t directly
experienced. I am seeing this happen here to Jews.

I would be deeply troubled to hear a white person dismiss the struggles of
Black people with phrases like "there’s enough hate to go around" or “chew
gum while walking.” Antisemitism is often subtle and can be overlooked.
When the Black Lives Matter movement began, many white people were
confronted with the reality of their own biases and took the initiative to
educate themselves. A similar approach—one of openness and humility—would
be greatly appreciated here, especially as Jews and allies have shared
important facts and perspectives that seem to have been overlooked in this
discussion- and sadly seem to be getting ignored as the conversation
continues by those defending the presentation in question.

It is painful to witness others tell Jews what is or isn’t antisemitic,
particularly when they do not have a direct connection to Israel or a deep
understanding of Jewish history. Knowing or marrying someone Jewish, or
disliking a specific political conflict, does not give anyone the authority
to define antisemitism for the Jewish community.

I am deeply grateful to those who approach these complex conversations with
humility, willing to pause and reflect when others are crying out for help
and understanding.

On Dec 4, 2024, at 11:35 AM, Margo Fisher-Martin <
margo.fisher.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sara and Lt,

I think that although you might be able to, many people CANNOT “walk and
chew gum” at the same time - to use your analogy.
I agree with Seth that Israel hate and Jew hate are very much connected,
and this type of presentation will only foster antisemitism, no matter how
well-meaning  attendees are.

Margo


On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 10:26 AM Dianeclimo--- via Lincoln <
lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:

> Two comments :
>
>1. The bombing of Gaza and Lebanon i

Re: [LincolnTalk] Keeping an open mind-

[Karla Gravis]

Unfortunately, hate crimes are not limited only to killings. According to
data from the Anti-defamation league published by CNN (copied at the end),
incidents against Jews in the U.S. have tripled over the last year.

I don’t believe anyone is trying to shut down true good faith discussions,
but I agree with others on this thread that the language describing this
event seems unnecessarily (and dangerously) inflammatory in its choice of
terms. Shouldn’t we all be extra careful with our words given this
increased violence against Jewish community members? What is the point of
using “fascists”, “supremacists”, “elimination of non-Jews” when talking
about this issue?

*“Threats to Jews in the United States tripled in the one-year period since
the deadly October 7 terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas, preliminary data
<https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/over-1-antisemitic-incidents-recorded-us-oct-7-2023-according-adl>provided
to CNN by the Anti-Defamation League shows.*

*More than 10,000 antisemitic incidents occurred between October 7, 2023,
and September 2024 – up from 3,325 incidents the prior year. That marks the
most incidents recorded in a 12-month period by the organization since it
began tracking threats in 1979.”*

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/10/06/us/anti-jewish-threats-us-adl

Karla Gravis
Weston Rd.



>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Sara Mattes 
> Date: Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 12:08 PM
> Subject: Keeping an open mind-
> To: Lincoln Talk 
> CC: Sara Mattes , Joan Kimball ,
> Forest Brown , Jonathan Sheffi ,
> Paul Shorb , Rosa Elena 
>
>
> Exploring the Holy Land Problem: Friday, Dec 6 and Saturday, Dec 7-scroll
> down for details.
>
> This is an opportunity to hear from “the other side.”
> Of course there are bias./opposing opinions and posturing.
> That is the nature of debates, and certainly we have heard much from
> Netanyhu’s position.
> There are “experts” in they know the issues form their lived experience
> and perspective.
> Most of us have had little exposure to these types of opinions and
> presentations.
> Let’s go hear them and round out the experience.
>
> None of this takes away from the unique horror of Oct.7, not the ongoing
> killings of innocent Palestinian civilians by the 10,000s of thousands.
>
> As to "hate crimes,” certainly there has been a rise in antisemitism and
> it will grow as the war in Gaza and Lebanon continues.
> But what is the nature of these crimes?
> Has any Jew  been killed in the US for being Jewish?
> This does not mean we should look away and not address anti-semitism, nor
> should we look away from racism in all its sordid aspects.
>
> Let us try to not shut down discussion and others opinions.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2024, at 11:54 AM, Rosa Elena  wrote:
>
> While I agree that we should not censor good faith discussions on
> difficult topics, can we really say that that the intent of this specific
> meeting is in “good faith”? Let’s take a look at the invitation (please
> look at the pdf with the actual description of the event). It says things
> like the following:
>
> *“… confirm Israel as a Jewish supremacist/apartheid state, and to further
> subjugate or eliminate non-Jews living in a Greater Israel.”*
>
>
> *“Zionism today (…) has emerged as an expression of neocolonialism,
> Christian nationalism, and fascism.”*
> Using words and phrases like supremacist, Apartheid, elimination of
> non-Jews, fascism - is that “good-faith criticism” or hyperbolic language
> meant to incense and generate anger/fear of Israel and by extension the
> Jewish community? I am all for a fact-based discussion with multiple
> perspectives, but that does not seem to be the goal of this talk.
>
> I don’t think the “real-life risk” of hate crimes due to this type of
> language is as low as some might like to think it is. To me, the fact that
> these “experts” chose to use this type of tired rethoric instead of
> fact-based and rational arguments diminishes their respectability, and yes,
> I find it dangerous.
>
> - Rosa
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 6:07 PM Joan Kimball  wrote:
>
>> Thank you Paul. A very thoughtful, clear  response that, for me, puts
>> these very difficult issues in perspective.
>>
>> Joan
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2024, 12:46 PM Paul Shorb  wrote:
>>
>>> Rosa -
>>> One can't deny the fact that sometimes, anger at Israel seems to
>>> trigger/release/self-justify hate crimes against Jews in the United States.
>>> Similarly, hate crimes against Muslims soared after 9/11
>>> <https://naacp.org/resources/hate-crimes-against-muslims>;
>>> African-Americans were lynched in New York City riots of 1863
>>> <https

[LincolnTalk] Are we getting our conservation priorities right?

[Karla Gravis]

“You can be irritated with the LLCT/RLF who had the right of first refusal
and declined to take action on a property that has a large portion of
protected wetlands within its borders.”

This brings up a number of questions:

1) Why did the RLF/LLCT choose not to focus on this land, yet are now
asking the town to chip in $1M in CPC funds for a deal with Civico at a
special town meeting in June? Why wasn’t the use of CPC money contemplated
for the purchase of this parcel instead, given that the risk of
deforestation is much greater than the risk at Farrington, which is owned
by a nonprofit with a nature-oriented mission?

(2) One of the key arguments for approving the mall zoning was Civico’s
claim that they would not be willing to go through a town meeting process
ever again. In fact, this is spelled out in the HCAWG deck

available
on the website:  "One developer, who has gone through a Lincoln Town
Meeting process for project approval, said they would not be willing to do
so again." What changed, that now Civico is willing to go to town meeting,
so soon after expressing that strong opinion? Or was it all a bluff from
Civico? Can we trust their latest assurances that the Farrington deal would
fall apart without CPC funds?

(3) Why is the town of Lincoln being asked to subsidize yet another
lucrative deal for Civico, while other towns not only avoid giving
financial support, but actually receive benefits from them (see
Winchester)? The developer will probably collect in the neighborhood of
$30M in revenues and can only devote $3M to land acquisition? This seems
like a redux of the Oriole Landing deal where the town gives up money to
increase the already high profits of an anointed developer.

Karla

On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 4:27 PM Justin Hopson 
wrote:

Hi -

As an abutter I am going to respond to this. An abutter who is mostly
negatively impacted by the project.

There are lots of places to focus your disappointment with, but the current
purchasers of that land should not be it, nor the current planning board.

You can be irritated with the people who sold the land for the development
of 3 houses.

You can be irritated with the LLCT/RLF who had the right of first refusal
and declined to take action on a property that has a large portion of
protected wetlands within its borders.

You can be irritated with the abutters who didn't feel it was financially
responsible to purchase the land.

You can be irritated with the ~2015/2016 planning board who originally
approved the site plan with the 3 lots for development.

You should understand that the people purchasing this land will be
reforesting it after this project. They also will only be building one
house at this time. So in the grand scheme of things, apart from this land
never being sold, there are a lot worse outcomes for the town, abutters,
and wildlife. The alternative is a developer who has to flip 3 lots to make
it profitable and I can assure you that would be worse for every aspect of
this land.

I think the planning board did an admirable job within the scope of their
jurisdiction.

Appreciate your concern and caring for the environment and Lincoln.


JCH
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Citizens' Petition at the Special Town Meeting: Finance Committee Appointments

[Karla Gravis]

It’s in large part an issue of transparency. Look at how other towns
mentioned in the search actually conduct their candidate selection.
Positions are posted and advertised, and public interviews are conducted.
In Lincoln, the process happens behind closed doors, no positions are
posted and candidate selection is largely delegated to the Chair of Fincom,
making the Lincoln Fincom a self-appointed body in essence.

>From Harvard’s website:
Vacancies and Reappointment:

Upon the occurrence of any vacancy or conclusion of a given term, the Board
of Selectmen will publicize the opening and invite candidates to submit a
letter of interest and qualifications to the Town Administrator. The
Moderator shall present the candidates at a meeting of the Board of
Selectmen allowing time for public participation during the meeting. The
Moderator shall make the appointment no later than sixty days after public
notice of the vacancy or conclusion of a given term.

https://www.harvard-ma.gov/finance-committee



>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Margaret Olson 
> Date: Sun, Jun 8, 2025 at 12:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Citizens' Petition at the Special Town Meeting:
> Finance Committee Appointments
> To: Robert Domnitz 
> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
> I asked Claude, an AI, how the Massachusetts towns close in size to
> Lincoln select their Finance Committee members.
>
> *Towns Close in Size to Lincoln (*population 6,996 based on the 2024
> census
> 
> *)*
>
> *Finance Committee Selection Methods*
>
> *Town*
>
> *Population*
>
> *Finance Committee Selection Method*
>
> *Shirley*
>
> ~6,851
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Berkley*
>
> ~6,822
>
> Appointed by Select Board
>
> *Harvard*
>
> ~6,900
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Berlin*
>
> ~6,700
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Boylston*
>
> ~7,100
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Sherborn*
>
> ~7,400
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Stow*
>
> ~7,200
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Dunstable*
>
> ~7,200
>
> Appointed by Select Board
>
> *Boxford*
>
> ~7,800
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Mendon*
>
> ~6,100
>
> Appointed by Select Board
>
> *Bolton*
>
> ~5,800
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Boxborough*
>
> ~6,000
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Carlisle*
>
> ~5,900
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Dover*
>
> ~6,200
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Hamilton*
>
> ~7,600
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Plympton*
>
> ~6,300
>
> Elected by Town Meeting
>
> *Petersham*
>
> ~6,500
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Hardwick*
>
> ~6,400
>
> Appointed by Select Board
>
> *Ayer*
>
> ~8,100
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Norwell*
>
> ~7,900
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Westford*
>
> ~8,200
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> *Lancaster*
>
> ~8,100
>
> Appointed by Town Moderator
>
> Margaret
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2025 at 12:01 PM Robert Domnitz 
> wrote:
>
>> Several weeks ago, 130 residents signed a Citizens' Petition asking that
>> our Special Town Meeting consider an amendment to the General Bylaws of the
>> Town.  If adopted, the amendment would grant authority to the Select Board
>> to appoint the members of the Town's Finance Committee. That authority is
>> currently held by the Town Moderator.
>> The Finance Committee (FinCom) is one of Lincoln's most important
>> volunteer committees.  Its work is complex and its analysis and
>> recommendations have a decisive impact on town operations and residents'
>> taxes.  Despite its importance, FinCom receives limited direct engagement
>> from residents.
>> As signatures were gathered for the Petition, the vast majority of
>> residents said they did not know how the members of FinCom were chosen.
>> They thought that the Moderator's role was limited to presiding over Town
>> Meeting.  No one could recall a contested election for the position of
>> Moderator, and no one could recall that a Moderator had ever expressed a
>> viewpoint on Town finances or FinCom appointments.
>> The disconnect between FinCom and residents has been compounded by the
>> current practice of relying on FinCom to screen potential candidates for
>> membership.  Vacant positions have not been advertised, and public
>> interviews have not been held.
>> If endorsed by Town Meeting, the Citizens' Petition will make the Select
>> Board the appointing authority for FinCom.  Residents look to the Select
>> Board for overall management of the Town.  It seems natural that they ought
>> to be the authority that appoints FinCom.  The Town usually has a contested
>> race for Select Board, and candidates differentiate themselves based on
>> their views and policy preferences.  That process helps align our Select
>> Board with residents.  Adoption of this amendment will empower the Select
>> Board to solicit and publicly interview volunteers for FinCom, following
>> the same public process they u

Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln taxes

[Karla Gravis]

… except no one voted to be overtaxed, for years, for pet projects. It’s
one thing to be upfront why you’re overtaxing. It’s another thing to hide
details behind a fictitious budget. I agree with Peter. It shouldn't
require a forensic accounting degree to cut through the marketing claims.

No one is claiming the money goes missing. The issue is that we’re
collecting more in taxes than we need and using that excess to build up a
multi-million-dollar slush fund, essentially giving ourselves an excuse to
spend on pet projects later.

For example, this surplus allowed the town to contribute $7 million to the
Community Center last year and apparently we can contribute another $2.3
million this year, *all without affecting services. If we have that kind of
flexibility, why not simply tax residents less and let them decide how to
use their own money?*

Karla Gravis
Weston Rd



>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: RAandBOB 
> Date: Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 6:15 PM
> Subject: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln taxes
> To: Lincoln Talk 
>
>
> if you live with a constrained budget like I do, when you see a big
> capital expense like a new car on the horizon, you start putting money away
> ahead of time so you have the money when the time comes. Similarly, when
> the finance committee sees large capital expense on the horizon, they start
> putting away money so the money is there when the need arises.
>
> Think what they have accomplished! We have not had a budget override in
> many years. Compare that to our neighboring towns. Moreover, as I recall,
> last year‘s tax increase was only 0.9% in an era of year over year 2.5%
> inflation and in spite of the community Center project. I consider that
> worthy of Commendation, not accusations of poor fiscal management.
>
> Now I voted for the cheaper option for the community center, but the
> figures were presented to the electorate and the majority of the voters
> wanted the more expensive option. That’s democracy in action. If you were
> on the losing side, you have another chance to make your case at the
> special town meeting. But when you lose the vote, you lose the vote.
>
> Ruth Ann Hendrickson
> (She, her, hers)
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Vote No to the Community Center, save yourself a tax payment!

[Karla Gravis]

Many towns (see Concord and Winchester) run excellent after-school programs
within their school buildings using shared space. And those towns don’t
even have the benefit of a recently built $98 million school, designed for
700 students but currently serving only about 550, like we do. We also have
new information that is ominous: the CC project is already at a cost
overrun and it hasn't even broken ground. Are we confident that this is the
last time we are going to be asked for more money?

Concerns about setup logistics don’t justify a $27 million facility.
Schools regularly host after-hours programs, and those challenges can be
managed with planning, not new construction.

And let’s not forget: the Community Center would also bring more traffic
and drivers to the school campus right during peak times, introducing new
safety concerns that haven’t been fully addressed.

Thanks,

Karla




On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 10:55 AM Bob Kupperstein  wrote:

> LEAP can function in the school building on a temporary basis, but no one
> should think this is an optimal or even adequate solution.
>
> LEAP, in its own building, has dedicated space for educational, artistic,
> recreational, tech and media activities.   In the school building, they
> would not 'own' any space - so anything they use on a daily basis would
> have to be set up and stored away each day.   This puts an unrealistic
> burden on staff and creates logistical issues with the setup needing to
> happen just as the school is emptying out and the clean-up/storage having
> to happen during the pick-up hours, while the students have a range of
> pickup times.  The activities and programs that make LEAP such a great
> after-school program would have to be scaled back.
>
> I can also imagine safety/security issues, with students in the school
> building after most school staff have left, leaving large parts of the
> building unmonitored.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Bob
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 12:36 AM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> We’ve already set aside $6.75 million for the Community Center, and now
>> we're being told we can afford to spend another $2.3 million from reserves,
>> without any impact to town services. *That means if the project is voted
>> down, a total of $9 million could safely be returned to taxpayers*. For
>> the average household, that’s roughly $5,000 back, plus avoiding a $515
>> annual payment for the next 30 years. How is using surplus funds to deliver
>> real tax relief *not* financially responsible?
>>
>

> Leap can remain in our brand-new school building as it will be hosted
>> there for the next two years anyway.
>>
>> Karla Gravis
>> Weston Rd
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>> From: Sara Lupkas 
>>> Date: Sun, Jun 8, 2025 at 10:53 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Vote No to the Community Center, save
>>> yourself a tax payment!
>>> To: Listserv Listserv 
>>>
>>>
>>> David Cuetos wrote: "After adjusting for structurally inflated budget 
>>> lines, our true operating budget is likely closer to $46–47M—implying a 
>>> reserve target of around $7M. That leaves as much as $18M in excess 
>>> reserves available."
>>>
>>> What is meant by structurally inflated budget lines and how are you 
>>> calculating our "true operating budget"? Implying that citizens should 
>>> somehow equate not passing the Community Center Warrant article with the 
>>> town not needing to collect taxes in the fall seems a huge reach and not 
>>> very financially responsible for our town. And if our reserves are so 
>>> healthy, why is there even an argument against allocating an additional 
>>> amount to cover the Community Center shortfall?
>>>
>>> Let's also not forget that if the Community Center somehow fails now, we 
>>> would still need to renovate Bemis and the LEAP pods, so this wouldn't free 
>>> up *that much* in the town budget. This is reminiscent of the first school 
>>> building project getting voted down and then a more expensive project (with 
>>> no state matching funds) finally passing years later.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Sara Lupkas*
>>>
>>> --
>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>>> Browse the archives at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>>> Change your subscription settings at
>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>>
>>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

[LincolnTalk] 14 acre leaching field on Farrington?

[Karla Gravis]

I don’t believe every angle of the deal has yet been surfaced. Given the
rushed nature of the process, we keep learning new information that
substantially changes the dynamic of the decision. For example, the recent
mailer that Civico sent to our homes show *that the leaching field from the
septic will be approximately 14 acres, all on Farrington land. *This is in
addition to the 2 acres that Farrington would give to Civico for housing
and Farrington’s own building envelope.

What this means is that, from the town’s standpoint, this is not a good
deal. It would involve using taxpayer funds earmarked for preservation
to *enable
the degradation of 18 acres of dryland, half of Farrington’s total dryland,
through a combination of cut-clearing for development and use as a septic
leaching field.*

Accepting such a compromise, when a better outcome is clearly within reach
for both the town and Farrington, would be a failure of responsibility and
resolve on our part as voters. Farrington trustees have a fiduciary
responsibility to pursue the best possible agreement. If they are willing
to accept the current terms, they should be willing to accept a deal that
avoids handing over land to Civico for housing and septic infrastructure.

I still think we should delineate the wetlands before committing any public
money, but I agree that it is unlikely to change the best course of action
in this instance, which is to reject the deal. *However, the fact that we
even have this uncertainty around wetlands does speak to the inadequacies
of how the process has been handled and the problem with keeping the public
in the dark.*

This is what happens when private entities with significant interests are
allowed to operate with the advantages of both public and private
processes. A public-private partnership doesn’t mean the “public” part
begins only when it’s time to approve the check. Negotiations shouldn’t
happen entirely behind closed doors, only for the public to be asked to
rubber-stamp decisions that have already been made without meaningful
opportunity for input.
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Nature Link Update: Cambridge, Page Rd open questions

[Karla Gravis]

We are incredibly grateful to have Michele's expertise in town. Based on
Michele’s email to us, her professional judgment is that “the Massachusetts
DEP wetland data layer appears to more closely match the wetland boundaries
I observed during my site visits.” In other words, her assessment is that
the DEP maps are more accurate in this case than the town’s maps and, she
said: “Conservation Staff have calculated the DEP wetland boundary
information on the Farrington Property”. These DEP numbers are those quoted
in the Q&A. According to MassDEP, "The wetland delineations shown on these
(DEP) maps do not substitute for a field delineation under Massachusetts
General Laws c.131, s.40 (the Wetlands Protection Act)." Similarly, the
MassGIS Wetlands Viewer notes that these maps "do not represent, and should
not be used as, wetlands delineation under the Wetlands Protection Act
(M.G.L. c. 131, § 40).  An official wetlands delineation (with on-site
flagging) is ultimately needed to settle this question.

More importantly, the notice received in the mail is the first time that I
see anywhere that Cambridge is receiving a total of 52 acres of land. This
is ~30% more than is reflected in Mr. Kolchinsky's table. I, personally,
have not seen this information in any of the official documentation
provided by project sponsors.

Regarding Page Road, the concern isn’t that access would disappear if
Farrington were sold (that detail has been shared before). What we’ve
learned this week is that, apparently, the access agreement is revocable,
either by Civico or the HOA, at any time. Since the details have not been
made public, it's difficult to verify whether this is accurate. While
Farrington may not be seeking to maximize the financial value of its land,
it’s becoming increasingly clear that the terms of the deal may be
undermining its mission. As we currently understand it, they are ceding up
to two-thirds of their property: several acres to Civico and 40 acres to
the City of Cambridge. Now, with this new information on the potentially
revocable access, even their original goal of securing Page Road access
seems uncertain. Could someone confirm the details of the Page Rd. access
deed, to at least alleviate this concern?

It’s taken considerable time and effort by engaged residents to even begin
to understand the trade-offs involved in this proposal. Community members
shouldn’t have to dig so deeply or feel like they need an engineering
degree just to get clear answers from project sponsors to basic questions
and sort through promotional messaging. These facts deserve to be presented
in a straightforward and transparent way, especially now that both the
official sponsors and town leadership are actively promoting the project on
the town’s website.

Thank you,
Karla
Weston Rd





>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 10:48 PM Joseph Kolchinsky <
> joseph.kolchin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> David – appreciate you sharing your interpretation. Just a few
>> clarifications based on my conversations and intent:
>>
>> *First, I asked Michele to vet my post before I shared it publicly.  *But
>> if there’s any inconsistency in how we’re relaying her comments, I
>> absolutely encourage anyone to reach out to her directly for clarification.
>>
>> You’re right to call out that I conflated the 8.42 acres with the 2005
>> “At Risk” report's mention of "Wetland Area" and "Wetland Buffer". That was
>> my error, and I appreciate the correction.
>>
>> That said, we seem to ultimately agree that - accounting for buffer zones
>> - *somewhere around 30–45 acres of the 65-acre CR are upland today*.
>> That’s an important baseline for this discussion, and I’m glad we’re
>> converging on it.
>>
>> More importantly, *I’ve consistently made the case that Conservation
>> Restrictions (CRs) are valuable even on wetlands. *Wetland protections
>> are regulatory - they can change with laws, agencies, or conditions. CRs
>> are deeded and permanent. They override zoning and withstand ownership
>> changes. That’s the core value we’re protecting here.
>>
>> On the Page Road access - my understanding is that *Farrington’s use of
>> the road is non-transferrable*. When/if they sell in the future, the
>> right to use the road terminates. That seems like a reasonable safeguard to
>> limit long-term traffic concerns. I expect more clarity on this in the
>> coming days.
>>
>> Your question about Farrington’s motivations is a fair one. I can’t speak
>> for their board, but what I’ve heard consistently is this: *they’re
>> trying to preserve their mission, not maximize land value*. At an early
>> open house, a Farrington board member said plainly: they want to remain
>> good stewards of the land given their founding mission, but they also need
>> operational sustainability. This deal lets them do both. Could they sell
>> the land outright and walk away with more money? Yes. But that would likely
>> lead to full development of the property - something that directly
>> contradic

Re: [LincolnTalk] Proposed Community Center

[Karla Gravis]

One of the CCBC's main justifications for pushing the most expensive CC
option was that LEAP *absolutely could not* be hosted at our brand-new
school. But according to CCBC’s current plans, *LEAP will be at that school
for at least the two years of construction, maybe even longer, starting
this fall*. Clearly any obstacles have been sorted out. So if it's good
enough for that long, why not just make hosting it at the school a
permanent solution, like most other towns do?

Karla Gravis
Weston rd


>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025, 1:45 PM dgloew--- via Lincoln <
> lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think I recall that a portion of the proposed Community Center is
>> specifically designated for LEAP.
>>
>> If the funding for the Center doesn’t pass, what will happen to LEAP?
>>
>> Davida
>>
>> Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
>> <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/aol-news-email-weather-video/id646100661>
>>
>
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
>> Browse the archives at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
>> Change your subscription settings at
>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>>
>> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
> Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/
> .
> Change your subscription settings at
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
>
>
-- 
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org.
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at 
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.