I separated out this part so I could ask the Selects, but thought I would include Lincoln Talk as well.
Selects/HCAWG: Is the Dec 2nd "vote" actually binding in any way? For that matter, is the HCAWG output binding or are they just presenting their work to the Selects who are the arbitrators of what gets put on the ballot? I'm just unclear on the actual relationship between those two entities and who has authority to do what and was hoping to get some clarification. You initially asked for suggestions for other options to be included but I wanted to express concerns that presenting any specific options (C, D, E, whatever) is going to be uninformative. If I heard correctly (and this may have changed since the last meeting), there isn't going to be a presentation, just a rank choice vote. I know there are several folks tracking this very closely, but I'll go out on a limb and say a lot of folks are not. I get a lot of, 'Oh yeah, what's going on with that?' comments when I've asked various people. Having the town rank choice vote without context is not really going to lead to anything informative at best, and misleading at worst. I think there is a better way to use the event to get a sense of what the HCAWG/Selects should put together for the March vote. I would suggest an alternate structure: Knowing that 20% of the HCA zoning must occur within 0.5 Miles of the commuter rail. I think the justification for the districts should stand on their own and we should ask the town if we should include. Check all that apply. (a) The Mall (b) Lincoln Station (c) Codman Rd (d) ... I'm sure there's other options here as well as well as variations of the above (more inclusive/less inclusive) Maybe provide the % each one would contribute, knowing they need to add to 20%. Knowing that 80% of the zoning must occur "somewhere". I think the rank choice voting, or just a vote here would be: Should the HCAWC look to re-zone: (a) 80% within the .5 mile radius of the commuter rail station. This would create a denser development (e.g. traffic, housing), but also closer to retail and mass transit. This includes larger parcels and current individual land owners (b) 80% in existing multi-family developments. This would allow us to be compliant with HCA, but likely not lead to redevelopment in those areas. Other areas would follow the same Town Meeting processed we have used historically (c) 80% as existing R-1 (or other types) of parcels around town. This could create a distribution of smaller developments around town (min. 5 acres each) made up of properties of individual land owners (d) a mix of the above. Would possibly provide a mix of the previous choices (note, I've tried to make the language neutral...but you know). It would be useful for a short narrative to accompany choices. These are all just notional options, but I think would be a better sense of the town than asking about complex packages. I think there is some middle of the road option in all of this. I just wanted to share that thought. Andy On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:10 AM Andy Wang <andyrw...@gmail.com> 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 > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 10:27 AM ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> > wrote: > >> Hopefully the members of the HCAWG or Select board will reply to your >> question regarding the November 21st meeting, I know it is something many >> of us would be interested in knowing the answer to. >> >> And to be 100% clear. Some of the E options do allow for units to be >> built, and are not just creative ways for compliance without adding units. >> The E options represent a range of compliance options. >> So I stand firm that the LRHA is working on a proposal that complies with >> both the Letter and Spirit of the law. >> >> Sarah Postlethwait >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 10:15 AM Rebecca Blanchfield <rsaga...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Sarah, >>> >>> Thanks so much for your input. I'm not disputing that the E options >>> comply with the letter of the law - they absolutely do. As for whether >>> they're in the spirit of the law, it sounds like we might have to agree to >>> disagree on that one :). >>> >>> My question was regarding the November 21 meeting process. >>> >>> Best, >>> Rebecca >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:46 AM ٍSarah Postlethwait < >>> sa...@bayhas.com> 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 *twice* the number >>>> of units to be built than what our town has been designated to zone for. >>>> The current revised Option C allows for more than a *50% increase *in >>>> Lincoln's current housing stock when you compare it to the 1123 max units >>>> that can be built. For reference, we have been tasked with rezoning for 635 >>>> modeled units. >>>> >>>> What is different about LHA's Options, is that they take into account >>>> the flaws of the HCA and the state model, and they do not allow the >>>> "Maximum" units that could be built to get out of control, as a 50% >>>> increase in Lincoln's housing stock would have major ramifications for this >>>> town. >>>> >>>> Furthermore, it's worth correcting this common HCA myth: the "letter of >>>> the law" actually allows communities to take credit for existing housing >>>> developments, and rezoning areas that are already developed is not frowned >>>> upon. "*Whether the proposed new district is currently undeveloped or >>>> "built out" with multi-family will have no bearing on compliance. * >>>> >>>> Thoughtful communities are finding a balance between receiving credit >>>> for the redeveloped areas that already exist while at the same time >>>> allowing for smart development opportunities near transit that will not >>>> have major unforeseen negative consequences on the town. >>>> >>>> Sarah Postlethwait >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:36 AM ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You have been misinformed. >>>>> >>>>> The Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives have proposed options >>>>> that DO allow for development. >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, the HCA “letter of the law” allows communities to take >>>>> credit for existing housing developments. “Whether the proposed new >>>>> district is currently undeveloped or “built out” with multi-family will >>>>> have no bearing on compliance. >>>>> >>>>> So rezoning areas that are already developed is not frowned upon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 6:45 AM Rebecca Blanchfield < >>>>> rsaga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >> >>
-- 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.
