Hello Louis, I believe your reference to a scare tactic is not accurate.
Perhaps unlikely to be reached (but who knows once developers get involved in a "by-right" situation) but these real numbers came from a flawed State model corrected by David Cuetos. He's the only one I know of who discovered these flaws in the state model. We are very fortunate to have residents like David in town. And what happened to the affordability and diversity argument. I'm not convinced that $1 million condos would satisfy this argument. And I'm not saying they wouldn't make good neighbors. Everyone's voice is important. Kind Regards, Scott Clary 617-968-5769 Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and brevity On Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 11:37 AM Louis Zipes <louiszi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <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. > >
-- 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.
