[LincolnTalk] A Path Forward for Retail at the Mall Under Option C

[Benjamin Shiller]

In the squirrel or see below:



Option C has emerged as the winning choice for rezoning for the Housing
Choice Act.  Although the discussion may have seemed divisive, I truly
believe that our goals for the Town are aligned.



The Planning Board has already made great strides in a short time towards
drafting the bylaws.  However, time left is extremely limited.  If we all
work together, we can fine tune bylaws that protect retail at the Mall and
benefit residents, the environment, and walkability.  The Mall is the only
area zoned for retail in the station area (under our Housing Choice Act
proposal).  Thus, our only chance for retail is through the Mall’s
redevelopment. More retail increases walkability/reduces fossil fuel usage.



Here are some concerns I think we should consider at the upcoming (Jan 5th)
Planning Board meeting.



1. Retail space and residential affordability are not compatible: At the
Dec 12th meeting, Planning Board members discussed what percentage of
square footage at the Mall should be required to be retail rather than
residential. While town residents benefit from retail space, strict
requirements may make redevelopment unprofitable, and several Planning
Board believe we need to substantially reduce retail space from current
levels to make the Mall redevelopment viable.  I suggest we encourage
developers to use profits from market-rate units in the Mall to subsidize
larger retail spaces.  The Mall is not the place to build a large number of
"affordable" apartments. Fortunately, Option C provides numerous locations
outside of the Mall to build a variety of housing options for a variety of
budgets.



2.  Ground level and second floor retail are both appealing:  The Planning
Board seems to prefer retail on the ground level---which I agree with---but
this is not yet set in stone.  Retail space on the ground level is more
appealing to retail establishments such as restaurants, grocery stores, and
banks.  The second floor may be appealing as office space, as in the
current Mall.



3.  Retail parking is vital: One parking space for retail allows multiple
customers to come and shop there at different times of day; one retail
parking spot = multiple customers.  However, if retail parking spaces are
displaced by resident parking spaces, retail customers will go elsewhere,
putting our retail in a more precarious position than currently.  Moreover,
the Housing Choice Act does not allow us to require any spaces for retail
parking, and there is limited land for buildings and parking.  This is *not
*a problem with a simple solution.



4. Parking During Construction: Our retail is allegedly in a fragile
state.  Can it survive if parking spots for customers are temporarily (or
permanently) removed during construction?  Let’s craft a plan that makes
clear where customers can park and how trucks full of groceries can reach
the offloading bay during construction.





We can do hard things.  And we can do them quickly as long as we all work
together.  This is arguably the biggest change in Lincoln in last 50
years.  Let’s make sure we do this right!


Note: These views are my own, and do not represent the views of any
organization or group that I am affiliated with.
-- 
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] Speed limit and police presence on Trapelo Road

[Benjamin Shiller]

About 5 years ago, two cyclists died after being hit by vehicles in
Lincoln.  Nationwide, vehicle related deaths are the 1st or 2nd leading
cause of deaths for those aged 5 to 24.  If a vehicle is traveling at
20mph, the chance of death of a bicyclist or pedestrian is 20%.  If the
vehicle is traveling 40mph, that rises to 80%.  Deterring aggressive
driving is a worthy goal.



References:

https://wisqars.cdc.gov/lcd/?o=LCD=2021=2021=10=ALL=00=0=0=0=0=lcd1age=groups=lcd1age=0=199

https://www.massbike.org/two_crashes_draw_increased_attention_to_suburban_bike_accommodations

https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/41573/Cycling



> I find this deeply offensive.
> Our Public Safety Dept. is highly professional and well-respected thought
> the Commonwealth.
> They keep us safe and work with the utmost sensitivity to our small town
> population, regardless of race, color or creed.
> I have been here since 1976 and have raised 2 boys here-lord knows PS has
> been tested by them and their peers.
> All our experiences have revealed a truly professional department.
> We are very blessed to have had great leadership in the department-most
> recently in Chief Kevin Kennedy -and I am confident that level of stellar
> professionalism will continue.
> Thank you to that department and to all who serve us.
> Sara Mattes
> -- Sara Mattes >
> --
> Sara Mattes
> >
> * On Dec 29, 2023, at 6:17 PM, John F. Carr  > wrote: *>
> >
> * There are two types of enforcement in America – revenue based, and to *>
> * grease squeaky wheels. My sense is Lincoln has the second kind. *>
> * America basically doesn't do data-driven enforcement based on accident *
> >
> * counts and causes, which is one reason traffic enforcement doesn't *>
> * affect safety. Police go where residents complain and hang out until *>
> * residents are reassured that the Select Board really loves them after *>
> * all. *>
> >
> * Hand in hand with greasing the squeaky wheels, avoiding inconvenience *>
> * to residents is a top priority of a small town police force. I'm sure *>
> * our police force understands when to patrol to get the maximum *>
> * fraction of nonresidents and the most visibility to possibly *>
> * housebound residents. They must have a sense of which types of cars *>
> * are likely to contain residents. Somebody on the way to my house, not *>
> * driving a high end car, got stopped. The police officer was thinking *>
> * "jackpot!", a black non-resident. But she said she was going to see *>
> * somebody in town. Which would make her almost as good as a white *>
> * resident. So the officer argued with her about whether she had *>
> * legitimate business in town even though it was completely irrelevant *>
> * to whether she should have been pulled over and whether she should get *
> >
> * a ticket. (If you are interested in this subject matter, get a copy *>
> * of _Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us About *>
> * Policing and Race_.) *>
> >
> * There are consequences if police in a small town ticket too many *>
> * residents. Utica, Indiana let go of most of its police force because *>
> * they didn't understand who should get tickets. There was no *>
> * suggestion that the tickets were not legitimate. But you just don't *>
> * DO that. *>
> >
> * As for the specific speed limit mentioned, it was set in the 1950s for *
> >
> * no reason that appears in records. It was not reviewed when the law *>
> * changed to require a written reason, nor when the standards for *>
> * setting speed limits changed and changed again. It is just an *>
> * obsolete relic left by some long dead official in the state DPW. *>
> * Possibly it was based on what speed through the curve was comfortable *>
> * in a Ford Model A with bench seats and no seat belts. Formally, this *>
> * many degrees on a ball bank indicator indicate that many miles per *>
> * hour. The numbers were based on what was comfortable in a Model A. *>
> * The ball bank indicator is no longer a legitimate basis for regulatory *
> >
> * speed limits, but it lives on in fossil form in a thousand signs from *>
> * the 1950s and 1960s. This is one reason why speed limits in *>
> * Massachusetts bounce up and down apparently at random a few times per *>
> * mile while other states pick a speed limit and stick with it for miles *
> >
> * if not tens of miles. *>
> >
> >
> * John Carr *>
> >
> * On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 7:09 PM Marcus Ruopp  > wrote: *>>
> >>
> * Good evening Lincoln Talk, *>>
> >>
> * I was hoping to engage the community regarding the speed limit and
> police presence on Trapelo Road. We were taking the family today to dinner,
> and like many days, there was a police presence taking speed limits by
> Lexington Road coming downhill where the speed is difficult to control. We
> are conscious of this these days, but my overarching feeling is that 

Re: [LincolnTalk] 2023 11 30 - HCAWG Update: Diving into the calculations

[Benjamin Shiller]

I am glad this issue has finally been partially addressed, although there
is more that needs to be done.  For those of you who are curious, this
problem was identified by the LRHA and described in two videos I posted to
YouTube over the last couple months. The videos describe the issue and how
to fix it.


Shorter video: https://youtu.be/OQBtwTW7Uow

Longer video: https://youtu.be/mqXo4TPw3MI



However, the problem of overbuilding is not fully addressed.  The override
option does not fully address the wetlands overbuilding issue, and town
lands remain among the selected parcels, implying that we are still
rezoning land that counts zero towards HCA compliance.  The potential
development under options C and D still far exceeds the quoted statistics.



More information can be found at LincolnHCA.org





> For those who enjoy a granular look at how the numbers work, here is
> additional information from Utile:
> Wetlands Calculation Explanation: You will notice in this iteration of our
> calculations  that
> there has been a change in the relationship between the units/acre cap
> (which has generally been lowered) and the modeled unit capacity (which has
> generally stayed the same or increased slightly). This is because we have
> implemented an override option in the compliance model spreadsheet that
> alters the way open space and wetland deductions are handled. We learned of
> this override after seeking advice from the State on how to better address
> Lincoln's unique wetland constraints and get the model to more accurately
> account for them. Below is an explanation of how this "wetland open space
> override" works. The default of the model is to first subtract all
> undevelopable wetland area (excluded land in the State model), and then
> subtract an additional 20% of total lot area for open space to approximate
> the impact of setbacks on maximum building footprint as well as any lot
> area needed to meet parking requirements. With the "wetland open space
> override" we have implemented, the compliance model spreadsheet is now
> allowing wetland area to count towards that 20% open space requirement,
> which more accurately represents the actual development potential of
> Lincoln properties that have significant wetland area. To provide an
> example, 140 Lincoln Rd (Ryan Estates) under the default model calculation
> method is handled as follows: 85% of the land area is subtracted because it
> is undevelopable (excluded) wetland area, then an additional 20% of the
> land area is subtracted for the minimum open space requirement leaving no
> developable area and therefore no modeled unit capacity. With the "wetland
> open space override" implemented, the model calculation is handled as
> follows: the model assesses which is greater - the excluded wetland area or
> the 20% minimum open space requirement - it then subtracts whichever is
> greater, in the case of 140 Lincoln Rd the excluded wetland area (85%) is
> greater, so it subtracts that 85% from the total lot area leaving 15% as
> developable land for parking and building yielding a unit capacity of 87
> units under the original 18 units/acre cap for this district. We were then
> able to reduce the units/acre cap to 11 units/acre which caps the maximum
> number of units on this lot to exactly 87.
> Units per Acre Cap Explanation: The units per acre maximum written into
> each subdistrict’s zoning is a hard cap with which developers and property
> owners will have to comply. The units per acre zoning parameter does not
> specify unit size, so it will allow for a range of unit sizes. However, the
> maximum allowable number of units will remain constrained by the size of
> the property multiplied by the units per acre cap.
> Interpreting Modeled Unit Capacity Numbers: For those who have been
> working in the State Compliance Model Spreadsheet or have been speaking to
> people who have, you may be focused on the difference between four numbers
> provided in the "summary" tab of that spreadsheet: Modeled Unit Capacity
> vs. Dwelling Units per Acre Limit vs. Max Units per Lot Limit vs. Final
> Unit Capacity per District. The number you should be focused on is the
> Final Unit Capacity per District, which includes all the zoning
> constraints. The other unit capacity numbers shown reflect the application
> of specific constraints that are applied cumulatively to arrive at the
> overall modeled unit capacity. Here are a series of slides <
> https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85304> that show those
> relationships.
-- 
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] Updated video

[Benjamin Shiller]

I have received a number of requests to create a clearer and more concise
video explaining why the number of housing units quoted under the C
options for the housing choice act substantially underestimate actual build
potential.  The new video can be found in the link below:

https://youtu.be/OQBtwTW7Uow


For anyone interested in a more detailed explanation that digs into the
formulas, please see my previous video, here: https://youtu.be/mqXo4TPw3MI
-- 
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] November 21st meeting - question

[Benjamin Shiller]

I hope recent comments lead to a discussion as to what is the right amount
of development for Lincoln right now.  So far, I feel the argument has been
binary, assuming that someone either supports housing (to the max) or wants
absolutely zero development and is accused of being a NIMBY.  Yet, at least
in my opinion, we all would benefit by having a well-substantiated, middle
ground option that balances the needs to expand housing in Massachusetts (a
problem Lincoln cannot solve on its own) with the impacts of
overdevelopment (limited infrastructure like roads, which in Lincoln cannot
be widened) and the impacts on the cherished central area.  I have had
concerns that the options initially put forth by the presenters were too
aspirational and lacked substance (e.g., # units that can actually be
built, impact on traffic, taxes, etc.).  But I do not want to vote against
more development either.  So, I am hoping that we can come together at town
meeting, iron out the issues, and find a great solution that nearly all in
town can be happy with.

I have been trying to understand the issues better myself and created a
video focusing on just one aspect: how much higher is the actual number of
units that can be built.  I tried to be completely unbiased and just
focusing on facts when creating this video, and hope many will consider
watching it: https://youtu.be/mqXo4TPw3MI



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.

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

[Benjamin Shiller]

I get the concern about growing up privileged and isolated.  However, I am
not sure the HCA gets at the root cause.  40% of Lincoln’s housing units
are multifamily.  It would seem that the issue is not the amount of
multifamily housing, but apparently a lack of intermingling, which would
suggest a different policy response.



[image: image.png]


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




Ben
-- 
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] Many more than 640 units may be developed. An explanation

[Benjamin Shiller]

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.

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

[Benjamin Shiller]

After posting, additional data was very quickly brought to my attention.
Apparently, even without a 1 million dollar forgivable loan, the rate of
return on the investment was anticipated to be 14%.  That seems
very high, and was the expected return on investment at that time.  Yes,
home prices went up, increasing their profits. But that does not change the
fact that it would certainly appear that the $1 million forgiveable loan
seems unnecessary.  I now join the call for more transparency and citizen
involvement in future negotiations.

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 8:54 AM Benjamin Shiller 
wrote:

> The stated numbers in earlier messages in this thread suggest that Civico
> earned about $8-$12 million in profits from Oriole Landing.  If true, it
> still does not necessarily imply that we were ripped off as a town. It
> might have been that we needed to provide the $1 million forgivable loan to
> make it such that the *expected* profits at that time were high enough to
> build.  First, the profits need to be as high as the developer could have
> earned elsewhere. Second, there’s an ex-ante ex-post problem.  After
> building, real estate prices in Massachusetts increased dramatically,
> implying that the profits that they ultimately earned may be much higher
> than the profits that would have been reasonably anticipated.  All that
> said, it’s still good basic economic practice to get many developers to
> make competing bids.
>
>
> >*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.
>
>
>
> Ben
>
-- 
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

[Benjamin Shiller]

The stated numbers in earlier messages in this thread suggest that Civico
earned about $8-$12 million in profits from Oriole Landing.  If true, it
still does not necessarily imply that we were ripped off as a town. It
might have been that we needed to provide the $1 million forgivable loan to
make it such that the *expected* profits at that time were high enough to
build.  First, the profits need to be as high as the developer could have
earned elsewhere. Second, there’s an ex-ante ex-post problem.  After
building, real estate prices in Massachusetts increased dramatically,
implying that the profits that they ultimately earned may be much higher
than the profits that would have been reasonably anticipated.  All that
said, it’s still good basic economic practice to get many developers to
make competing bids.


>*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.



Ben
-- 
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

[Benjamin Shiller]

I know that town employees cannot respond via Lincoln Talk.  But this needs
a response somehow from the town.  If true, this would be extremely
concerning about the process and procedures.



> *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 towards
> compliance, their inclusion would lead to up to ~325 incremental units
> given the unit per acre cap.
> I alerted the Director of Planning of the discrepancy. After she checked
> with our consultant, Utile, I was informed that the inclusion of those
> parcels had been a mistake. This revelation raises a few questions:
> - *Are we submitting rezoning proposals to the State prepared by a third
> party without reviewing them?*
> - *Is there someone in the Administration or the HCAWG who has studied
> the model and understands how it works?*
> - *Who is driving the decisions about our district design? Utile or
> appointed officials?*
> The State uses a very basic model to calculate the maximum building
> footprint of any parcel. First, any wetlands are excluded. Then, 20% of the
> gross acreage is also taken out as “open land”. Finally, 45% of the
> remainder is considered parking spaces – note the irony that we are
> fantasizing about a car-free neighborhood and the State is assuming parking
> space will take almost as much land as the buildings*. It is extremely
> punitive to include parcels with a big wetland presence. Either Utile did
> not communicate the message or our WG/staff did not digest it, as we could
> not have come up with a more wetland-heavy district.*
> Option C includes *over 40 acres of parcels for which we get no credit from
> the State*, which we could drop from our proposal with no repercussions. We
> are *unnecessarily including 6 acres of public land, even conservation
> land, most of which is the DPW, which could have been left out
> altogether.* Including
> all that unnecessary public land lowers our gross density. It is important
> to note that just because the State does not give us credit in modeling
> does not mean that those parcels could not be developed at some future date
> to the maximum number of units per acre they have been rezoned to, perhaps
> in combination with other parcels.
> There are more surprises. Option C would allow TCB, the owner of Lincoln
> Woods, to build up to 403 units in that parcel. It is important to
> understand that the maximum number of units per acre applies to all the
> land in a parcel, not just the developable land. *TCB could in time evict
> all tenants, tear down all of the 125 two-story semi-detached housing
> units, and build one or more massive three-story buildings in their parcel
> with a lot more units.* The fact that the affordability restriction for
> Lincoln Woods ends in 2032 makes that possibility all the more real. This
> threat can be avoided if the WG puts a cap of 7 or 8 units per acre rather
> than 20. The Town gets absolutely no compliance benefit from having that
> higher cap since it is only modeling 159 units. 

[LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Benjamin Shiller]

I doubt that the additional housing supply would materially impact housing
values in Lincoln (unless they make it a less desirable place to live).
Lincoln is not an island, but rather part of the Boston metro.  The 600
housing units we are talking about won't substantially change supply around
Boston.  The overall housing choice act might, but whether other towns
develop is out of our control.  Thus, I hope that we can stop focusing on
home values in relation to the HCA (no matter which side one is on) vote,
and focus on the other issues at hand.

Ben
-- 
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 and Commuter Rail Ridership

[Benjamin Shiller]

The data on commuter rail ridership is not promising.  The most recent
data, from spring 2018, finds that 288 people boarded the commuter rail
train in Lincoln on a typical weekday (source: :
https://mbta-massdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/MassDOT::mbta-commuter-rail-ridership-by-trip-season-route-line-and-stop/explore).
Not all of these are among Lincoln's ~7000 residents.  The MBTA lists 161
paid spaces for out-of-town residents (
https://www.mbta.com/stops/place-FR-0167).  And ridership appears way down,
I doubt it's even half that now.


- In 2018 (traffic study), 8% of Lincoln residents report using public
transit (including bus and subway).  Source:
https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/65207/19055-Traffic-Study-123020--Final



As someone who owns a monthly commuter rail pass and for the last three
years has owned one car for my wife, myself, and four kids, I think only a
few will put up with the hassles.  The commuter rail runs infrequently and
this year is on time only 53% of the time.  Source:
https://www.mbta.com/performance-metrics/service-reliability



I expect most new residents in South Lincoln to drive north through the
five-way stop.  I am not aware of any traffic study for the five-way stop
area.
-- 
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 character assassinations on both sids

[Benjamin Shiller]

I feel a need to chime in and suggest that the conversation about the HCA
depend on the merits, rather than inferred motives.



Recently, there have been allegations that those rich single-family
homeowners are just trying to keep more (affordable) housing units out of
Lincoln, and are against the public good.  Is it fair to assume all they
are trying to fight against housing in Lincoln, as opposed to asking
questions about WHERE needed housing is placed, and whether option C has
real flaws?



A little while back, there were allegations that those on Codman road were
just trying to cash it.  Again, inferring motives is potentially
slanderous.



I would like to suggest that we try to have a reasoned discussion to create
the best outcome for us all in Lincoln, while doing our part to help the
very real housing crisis in Massachusetts.
-- 
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] Another article on the hanscom airport expansion

[Benjamin Shiller]

>From the Lexington Observer:

https://lexobserver.org/2023/06/15/what-you-can-do-to-help-stop-the-private-jet-expansion-at-hanscom-field/

Ben
-- 
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] MBTA Vision

[Benjamin Shiller]

Dramatically increasing housing near the commuter rail station might be a
big mistake if thinking long term.  I know self-driving cars have been
overhyped, but they are coming, probably within 10 years (they already
exist and are operating in Chandler Arizona).  When they do come, the
commuter rail may become a less enticing option for those who can afford a
self-driving car (or to rent a ride in one), as one can just sit there (as
on the commuter rail), but does not need to be restricted to the limited
schedule of the commuter rail or wait/face delays.  And that will apply to
more people as prices come down.  If this undermines ridership of the
commuter rail, then the commuter rail will further reduce service, and
possibly eventually shut down.  This would force those in central lincoln
to find another way to work, stressing roads near there, especially since,
by some quick calculations, the proposed housing would add about 40% more
housing units to the town of Lincoln, all located in central Lincoln.

Relatedly, if self-driving cars become common, and the commuter rail shuts
down, that would dramatically change the optimal location for denser
housing, both for traffic and climate reasons. In that case, the ideal
location of denser housing would be closer to major roadways (route 2,
128).  Or even better, if closer to people's work locations.

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 8:06 AM Lis Herbert  wrote:

> I agree.
>
> I'd like to push back on the idea that you can't live in Lincoln without a
> car. We moved here in June 2016 with two young kids, and I didn't know how
> to drive. I got them around town using a bike trailer -- to camps, to
> school, to playdates, etc. It wasn't ideal, and I would have much preferred
> an electric cargo bike, but I had to get myself to and from Cambridge via
> Porter Square and inbound trains involve stairs. (It would have been too
> heavy for me to lift onto the train, and I couldn't leave it in Lincoln at
> the station for days on end.)
>
> All of that is to say that you can probably manage most, if not all,
> erranding around town with an electric or regular old bicycle, and that
> includes transporting other people, but for that I'd recommend the
> electric.
>
> If, on top of an electric or regular bicycle, people living without cars
> in Lincoln had access to a number of Zipcars, located at the train station,
> I think they could forgo owning a car altogether. (If you are wondering how
> much I drive now that I have a license, I can tell you that I have put 168
> miles on my car since January 1.)
>
> I'd also like to push back on the idea that Lincoln can't support more
> housing. I grew up in New York City, and moved to a very small town in
> Westchester County called Bronxville when I was in 7th grade. Bronxville,
> like Lincoln, is a very desirable place to live, with a much-admired school
> system, in close proximity to the city, and served by the commuter rail.
>
> Unlike Lincoln, Bronxville has, like virtually all towns along the train
> tracks in Westchester County, a terrific commercial center
>  with an impressive number of shops,
> restaurants, and services. Within walking distance of the train station,
> there are several hundred apartments, many of which are by and large much
> less expensive on a per square foot basis than single family houses in
> town. Metro-North is relied upon by most people to commute or go into the
> city since street parking is a nightmare, garages are expensive, and Grand
> Central is a treat. And (a different conversation but worth mentioning) the
> bustling commercial center and greater housing density both help pay for
> things like the school and community services.
>
> According to Google, Bronxville and Lincoln have a near identical
> population of a little more than 6,000 people. Bronxville is 1 mile square.
> Lincoln (again according to Google) is 15 square miles, of which something
> like 35% of the land in town is held in conservation. My point is that
> Lincoln, unlike Bronxville, is rural, and it is going to stay rural,
> whether we allow 10 units of housing to be built near the train station, or
> 100. And Lincoln could, I think, support -- with its similar population,
> both size-wise and socioeconomically -- at least half a dozen more of
> something (anything!) near the train station.
>
> I draw this comparison between two very desirable and familiar-to-me towns
> with similar populations and demographics to say that Bronxville's mayor
> sort of, maybe, has a leg to stand on when she says
> 
> that the state housing mandate is going to be very difficult to fulfill,
> and besides, they already have a lot of apartments. From the standpoint of
> this very late-to-drive, public-transportation-loving relative outsider, it
> is hard to believe that anybody in Lincoln is trying to make a similar
> claim.
>
> Lis

[LincolnTalk] Class Sizes Does Matter

[Benjamin Shiller]

I would like to push back against recent claims that smaller classes do not
improve outcomes.  A recent study in a top journal (implying the study was
highly scrutinized and passed) shows that exogenous changes in class size
have meaningful impacts on a variety of long run outcomes.  Smaller class
sizes are found to be better, and pass some notion of a cost benefit
analysis.

Link to final published study:
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/128/1/249/1839904

Link to earlier version of the paper that is not behind a paywall:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6857958.pdf

While I fully agree with the notion that we should look hard at how to
improve the outcomes of our students (both for parents and because better
schools = higher property values), larger classes seem to hinder that
effort.
-- 
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] Things not to compost

[Benjamin Shiller]

I very much enjoyed reading Alice Waugh's articles on where our trash
goes---great articles---but was concerned that a common misconception was
included.  If pizza boxes and fast food containers are included in compost,
I would hope that it isn't used on local farms.  If enough of the harmful
materials accumulate, then the farmland becomes harmful and potentially
unusable:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/us/pfas-chemicals-fast-food.html



https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2022/04/ewg-forever-chemicals-may-taint-nearly-20-million-cropland-acres


https://extension.umaine.edu/agriculture/guide-to-investigating-pfas-risk-on-your-farm/


That said, Lincoln is just a drop in the bucket.
-- 
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] Structural engineer

[Benjamin Shiller]

It was suggested to us that we might need a structural engineer to analyze
part of our house. Does anyone have any suggestions? Would be much
appreciated.

Email sent from my phone. Please excuse typos.
-- 
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.