The median for new construction in the US is now 2,179 sf. That the price is so high is a function of this area, not what the “missing middle” purchaser can afford.
> On May 30, 2025, at 10:14 PM, Sara Mattes <[email protected]> wrote: > > I got answer regarding the cost of 17 of the 20 units being proposed by > CIVICO for the Panetta property. > The 1800 sq ft units will sell for $1mill, the larger ones will go for $2-3 > mill. > The income required to afford the “starter” million dollar home is $225,000, > with 20% down ($200,000) and a thirty year fixed rate at today’s rate. > > Is this the “missing middle?" > > > >> On May 30, 2025, at 3:59 PM, Don Seltzer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sara, >> >> Please do not ask me to do research for you. >> As I wrote, I was simply adding one detail to the picture. >> >> Don >> >> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 3:01 PM Sara Mattes <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> And how much do the balance sell for? >>> Are they addressing the “missing middle” we have committed to addressing? >>> Those homes would be $750,00 or less. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 30, 2025, at 2:53 PM, Don Seltzer <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> To provide a bit more detail on the housing, the three affordable 3 >>>> Bedroom houses will, under HUD rules, sell for about $300K to households >>>> making under $132K. >>>> >>>> Don Seltzer >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 6:21 AM Joseph Kolchinsky >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> Fantastic point! I updated the Civico row to indicate that they are also >>>>> "Getting Revenue from sale of 20 Mixed-Income Housing Units". Now it >>>>> matches properly. Updated on the live doc >>>>> <https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d> and attached here as well. >>>>> >>>>> This table isn't meant to indicate that anyone is being generous - simply >>>>> that every part is participating in an exchange of some kind. It helps to >>>>> visualize so that we can all see who is motivated by what. >>>>> >>>>> <Screenshot 2025-05-29 at 9.59.48 PM.png> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>> 978-604-0827 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 6:30 PM, Terry Kay Epperson >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> Concerning the table, I would argue that Civico is not ‘giving’ the 20 >>>>>> units. I think that should belong to the ‘getting’ column, since they >>>>>> will be selling these at profit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Warm regards, >>>>>> Terry Kay >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:57 PM Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> I agree, the moment the town is being asked to participate, >>>>>>> transparency is required. This table I built makes it really straight >>>>>>> forward to answer the question of "to whose gain". I put the below >>>>>>> table together with the help of RLF and Farrington to ensure accuracy. >>>>>>> I continue to update it in this document on page 4 here. >>>>>>> <https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there continues to be doubts as to the validity of this information, >>>>>>> I'd love to hear what kind of confirmation one needs. If I can, I'll >>>>>>> dig. I'm a curious person and really enjoy the pursuit of clarity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joey >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <Screenshot 2025-05-29 at 10.42.42 AM.png> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:20 AM, Sara Mattes <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> To whose gain? >>>>>>>> It is clear that CIVICO, Farrington, Panettas and RLF will, per >>>>>>>> statements by RLF members. >>>>>>>> It is not clear the value of the public investment of significant >>>>>>>> public $$ and significant zoning bylaw changes. >>>>>>>> That case needs to be clearly made. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is no longer a private transaction, but a public one, so the >>>>>>>> public has a right and responsibility to ask for clarity. >>>>>>>> These questions do not reflect conspiracy theories but responsible >>>>>>>> democratic engagement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 29, 2025, at 9:13 AM, John Mendelson <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> One person's conspiracy theory is another person's ideal >>>>>>>>> public/private partnership where 1+1=3. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:46 AM Karla Gravis <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Our CPC tax dollars are actually being used to maximize Civico’s >>>>>>>>>> profits. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Civico is buying the Panetta land at assessed value for its current >>>>>>>>>> best use, which is the buildout of 3 single family homes. Not only >>>>>>>>>> is this deal letting them build at a much higher density through >>>>>>>>>> revised zoning at 20 houses, they are also getting additional land >>>>>>>>>> that currently belongs to Farrington to: 1) build more housing >>>>>>>>>> units, and 2) place a septic system. This scheme allows Civico to >>>>>>>>>> build many more units than it would be otherwise possible. Andrew >>>>>>>>>> Consigli at the PB meeting on Tuesday conceded this point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While Civico is “giving up” 12 acres of Panetta land for >>>>>>>>>> conservation, which will be deeded to the City of Cambridge, this >>>>>>>>>> land is excess non-buildable wetlands of no economic value (see >>>>>>>>>> image below). In essence, Civico is acquiring buildable land, which >>>>>>>>>> they are utilizing to increase their profit, in return for >>>>>>>>>> unbuildable land. None of this would obviously be possible if it >>>>>>>>>> wasn't for the fact that Lincoln is compensating Farrington, which >>>>>>>>>> is the party that is ceding these valuable acres. It is absolutely >>>>>>>>>> fair to say that the town of Lincoln is subsidizing Civico, albeit >>>>>>>>>> indirectly, if you want in a "hidden" way. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I disagree that this has been presented transparently. None of the >>>>>>>>>> documentation available online mentions the transfer of land to >>>>>>>>>> Civico for housing. The documentation and presentations (here >>>>>>>>>> <https://lincolnconservation.org/the-nature-link-project/>) >>>>>>>>>> explicitly state that these are two separate transactions, that is, >>>>>>>>>> Lincoln taxpayer dollars are not benefitting Civico. A prime example >>>>>>>>>> is this FAQ >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/1580/2025-Special-Town-Meeting> item >>>>>>>>>> from the town's website to understand this dynamic at play. Is the >>>>>>>>>> below factually correct? Yes. Does it hide the fact that Civico is >>>>>>>>>> getting land from Farrington, that they wouldn't otherwise have >>>>>>>>>> access to if CPA dollars were not at play? Also yes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is any town funding going to the housing developer? >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/1580/2025-Special-Town-Meeting#> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No! Town CPA funds will be used for land conservation, not housing. >>>>>>>>>> The developer will pay market value for the land for the >>>>>>>>>> neighborhood. As a side note, in 2025 the state is projected to >>>>>>>>>> provide a 20 - 25% match to our CPA funds. CPA funds are explicitly >>>>>>>>>> intended to fund in full or subsidize this type of project. These >>>>>>>>>> are existing funds and property taxes will not go up to fund the >>>>>>>>>> project. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <IMG_4404.png> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>>> To: Lincoln Talk <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 at 06:39:02 AM EDT >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Supporting the Nature Link Project: A >>>>>>>>>>> Comprehensive Perspective from A Page Rd Abutter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I received a number of follow up questions and synthesized them >>>>>>>>>>> into a few addition in the document. The live document can be >>>>>>>>>>> found here: https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The two new Q&As are printed below. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Joey >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why are town CPC funds being used instead of the developer >>>>>>>>>>> paying more? >>>>>>>>>>> A: Think of this as a multi-party negotiation where each side is >>>>>>>>>>> acting in its own best interest. Civico is contributing $3.3M - the >>>>>>>>>>> max they believe makes financial sense. If the project were more >>>>>>>>>>> profitable, they’d likely offer more. But they’ve judged the >>>>>>>>>>> risk/reward and capped their investment. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Rural Land Foundation (RLF) has been the >>>>>>>>>>> conservation-focused voice at the table (which highly aligns with >>>>>>>>>>> the town’s interests), with no financial stake beyond conservation. >>>>>>>>>>> They’ve already contributed $500K and secured significant private >>>>>>>>>>> donations. They also negotiated to get Civico to give 12 acres into >>>>>>>>>>> permanent Conservation Restriction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Could a Town representative have negotiated more? Maybe. But that’s >>>>>>>>>>> not how this deal was structured - and we don’t get to replay it. >>>>>>>>>>> The question now is whether we want to risk the entire deal falling >>>>>>>>>>> apart to test that theory. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The $950K in CPC funds isn’t a gift to Civico - it’s an investment >>>>>>>>>>> in 77 acres of protected land, 65 from Farrington and 12 from >>>>>>>>>>> Civico. This land is prioritized in Lincoln’s 2017–2024 Open Space >>>>>>>>>>> & Recreation Plan. If we don’t use CPC funds here, they’ll be used >>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere because they’ve already been collected and set aside for >>>>>>>>>>> the purpose of land conservation and development. So the question >>>>>>>>>>> is whether we want to put the money here or elsewhere and given the >>>>>>>>>>> value of conserving 77 acres of land I don’t think there’s a better >>>>>>>>>>> place to put it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Isn’t this just a backdoor way for taxpayer money to benefit >>>>>>>>>>> Civico? >>>>>>>>>>> A: It’s completely fair to ask this. When public funds are >>>>>>>>>>> requested, transparency and trust matter. Let’s lay it out plainly. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Civico is paying $3.3M in private funds to purchase land directly >>>>>>>>>>> from the Panetta family. That land includes three existing home >>>>>>>>>>> lots and the ability to build up to 20 modest homes on >>>>>>>>>>> already-cleared land. No public money is going to Civico. That’s >>>>>>>>>>> factually correct. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now, here’s where the perception gets murky: the conservation >>>>>>>>>>> funding going to Farrington will, in part, enable a land swap that >>>>>>>>>>> results in Farrington giving Civico a one-acre septic easement and >>>>>>>>>>> two acres of land for development and in return getting access to >>>>>>>>>>> Page Road. That trade allows Farrington to continue its mission and >>>>>>>>>>> secure conservation for 65 of their acres. So yes - Civico benefits >>>>>>>>>>> indirectly. But that’s also how public-private partnerships work. >>>>>>>>>>> We balance capital investment, private gain, community support, and >>>>>>>>>>> public return: in this case, 77 acres of permanently protected >>>>>>>>>>> land, a new public trail, support for a non-profit, and a >>>>>>>>>>> community-scale housing project that the town needs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that this is a “loophole” or an attempt to obscure the >>>>>>>>>>> facts assumes bad intent. From all public documentation, forums, >>>>>>>>>>> and FAQs, the structure has been disclosed transparently. It's >>>>>>>>>>> complex, but not hidden. The complexity is a big reason why I put >>>>>>>>>>> this document together. >>>>>>>>>>> Skepticism is healthy. But when public dollars are paired with >>>>>>>>>>> private investment, we should ask: Are we getting a good deal? In >>>>>>>>>>> this case, we secure conservation, trail access, watershed >>>>>>>>>>> protection, some moderate housing, and even end up supporting a >>>>>>>>>>> non-profit - all without raising any taxes or requiring substantial >>>>>>>>>>> compromise. That’s a balanced outcome worth serious consideration. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>>>>>>>> 978-604-0827 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 12:01 AM, Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [This post in its entirety can be found here (https:/ / docsend. >>>>>>>>>>> com/ view/ h33hxc7zvdstqa2d >>>>>>>>>>> <https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d>). It's formatted for >>>>>>>>>>> an easier read and contains a number of images, links, and >>>>>>>>>>> references. I will continue to update it with new questions and >>>>>>>>>>> answers as additional conversation develops and more information >>>>>>>>>>> becomes available.] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello neighbors. I live on Page Road and abut the Farrington land. >>>>>>>>>>> Like some of you, I was skeptical of the Nature Link proposal at >>>>>>>>>>> first. But after spending real time with the details, I now believe >>>>>>>>>>> this is exactly the kind of thoughtful, balanced solution we need >>>>>>>>>>> in Lincoln. It protects land, supports an important non-profit, >>>>>>>>>>> adds needed housing, and most importantly it heads off far riskier >>>>>>>>>>> alternatives. Below I’ve laid out the top concerns I’ve heard and >>>>>>>>>>> why I believe this deal is the right move for our town. Happy to >>>>>>>>>>> have thoughtful discourse and welcome open-minds to the >>>>>>>>>>> conversation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As you read on, I ask that you think of a phrase often used in the >>>>>>>>>>> non-profit world: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Things happen to you, for you, or because of you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As a community, if we want to move our missions forward and take >>>>>>>>>>> advantage of this opportunity, we need to take proactive steps to >>>>>>>>>>> pounce on this opportunity and make it happen because of us. No >>>>>>>>>>> one is going to step in and do this work for us. And, if left to >>>>>>>>>>> chance, alternative outcomes are likely to, happen to us, and they >>>>>>>>>>> likely won't be nearly as good as what I believe the Nature Link >>>>>>>>>>> project achieves. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Top Reasons to Support the Nature Link Project >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +Conservation at scale: 77 acres of ecologically valuable land will >>>>>>>>>>> be permanently protected from future development, preserving >>>>>>>>>>> forests, wetlands, and trail systems for generations. This is the >>>>>>>>>>> largest undeveloped, forested, and unprotected area in Lincoln. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +Secures Farrington's future: This deal stabilizes a non-profit >>>>>>>>>>> with a mission to connect under-resourced youth with nature, >>>>>>>>>>> allowing them to continue their work and stay in Lincoln. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +Adds relatively affordable homes: 20 modest homes (replacing 3 >>>>>>>>>>> existing, 17 net) provide much-needed "missing middle" housing >>>>>>>>>>> stock, helping young families and downsizing seniors stay in >>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +Miles of trails will be made permanently available to all Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>> residents through the conservation land carved out by this deal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +Supports 40B compliance: Some units will be income-restricted, >>>>>>>>>>> helping the town meet its Chapter 40B obligations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +Avoids Dover Amendment-risk: By putting Farrington into >>>>>>>>>>> conservation and giving Farrington financial stability, we >>>>>>>>>>> substantially reduce the looming risk of institutional-scale >>>>>>>>>>> development on that land under the Dover Amendment. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +What’s good enough for Cambridge is good for us: While "no septic >>>>>>>>>>> system" is better than any septic system, the City of Cambridge has >>>>>>>>>>> the most to lose here given they depend on the clean watershed to >>>>>>>>>>> protect the reservoir as their water source - and they fully >>>>>>>>>>> support this plan and are putting $800k in to back it up. If the >>>>>>>>>>> people drinking the water support this to mitigate future risk, I >>>>>>>>>>> think we should be aware of that future risk and support mitigating >>>>>>>>>>> it, too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +Realistic traffic impact: Estimated traffic increase is ~5-10%, a >>>>>>>>>>> nominal amount that doesn't warrant the concern. See further below >>>>>>>>>>> for my analysis on the numbers. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +Transparent, enforceable plan: This is a tightly structured, >>>>>>>>>>> multi-party agreement with baked-in protections, approvals, and >>>>>>>>>>> community oversight - not an open-ended blank check to a developer. >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington's land is put into conservation through deeds and >>>>>>>>>>> Conservation Restrictions (CRs), the developer is locked into >>>>>>>>>>> approved plans, and Farrington's use of the access road to Page Rd >>>>>>>>>>> expires upon any transfer of ownership so it can't be used in the >>>>>>>>>>> future by other parties. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +As a direct neighbor to this project, I don’t take change lightly. >>>>>>>>>>> I will see and feel the impacts of 17 new homes more than most. It >>>>>>>>>>> would be easy for me to oppose any development next door. But I >>>>>>>>>>> choose to support Nature Link because I firmly believe it’s the >>>>>>>>>>> best path forward for our community as a whole. It’s a rare >>>>>>>>>>> instance where the community as a whole gets something positive: >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington gets the funds to sustain its nature programs, Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>> gets permanently protected land and walking trails, a thoughtful >>>>>>>>>>> developer gets to build much-needed starter homes, and new families >>>>>>>>>>> get a chance to make Lincoln their home. I'm willing to support >>>>>>>>>>> the greater good and, based on recent discussions, believe most of >>>>>>>>>>> my Page Rd neighbors do as well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No plan is perfect, and it’s okay to have questions and doubts. >>>>>>>>>>> I’ve tried to address the major concerns with facts and respectful >>>>>>>>>>> reasoning further below. Our town’s discourse can certainly get >>>>>>>>>>> heated - but at the end of the day, I think we all share the same >>>>>>>>>>> love for Lincoln and want to see it thrive without losing what >>>>>>>>>>> makes it special. Nature Link is a compromise that achieves that, >>>>>>>>>>> by blending conservation and smart growth in a way that enhances >>>>>>>>>>> our community. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I invite everyone to look at the official documents, ask hard >>>>>>>>>>> questions, and satisfy themselves on the details. From what I’ve >>>>>>>>>>> seen, the more you dig, the more this deal holds up as sensible and >>>>>>>>>>> forward-looking. I’ll be voting Yes at the Special Town Meeting on >>>>>>>>>>> June 25, and I encourage my fellow residents to consider doing the >>>>>>>>>>> same. Let’s seize this opportunity to protect a beautiful piece of >>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln while also shaping a future we can be proud of - one where >>>>>>>>>>> our children and new neighbors can enjoy the same natural beauty >>>>>>>>>>> and community spirit that drew us all here in the first place. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for reading, and I’m happy to discuss further with an >>>>>>>>>>> open mind and mutual respect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Joseph (and Jennifer) Kolchinsky at 83 Page Rd >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you’d like to add your name in support of this perspective, >>>>>>>>>>> please do so by filling out this form. https:/ / forms. gle/ >>>>>>>>>>> JFWdWUzbbdR9mUtC9 <https://forms.gle/JFWdWUzbbdR9mUtC9> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> I pose the following questions further below. >>>>>>>>>>> Q: What are the motives of the various parties in this transaction? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why can’t this be simpler if the focus is on conservation? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why can’t Farrington simply repair/improve the Rt 2 egress? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Most of the land is already wetlands. Why do we need to worry >>>>>>>>>>> about conservation? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Is this project getting special treatment from the town? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why didn’t we know about this sooner? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why aren’t we provided with more options? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Will 17 new housing units create too much traffic on page road? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: How does 17 new homes now mean less development later? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Can we trust the developer, Civico? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why should we support a developer making a profit on land we >>>>>>>>>>> want for conservation? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Is the housing actually affordable? Who will these homes be for? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Will the conservation land be truly protected and will the >>>>>>>>>>> trails be open to the public? >>>>>>>>>>> Q: What if we do nothing? What’s the risk of inaction? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: What are the motives of the various parties in this transaction? >>>>>>>>>>> A: There are economic, community, social, environmental, and >>>>>>>>>>> utility benefits for many parties. At first it felt overly >>>>>>>>>>> complex, but as I dug in to learn more I came to appreciate why >>>>>>>>>>> this project involved each entity. It balances many aligned >>>>>>>>>>> interests, including mine as a Page Rd resident. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> See attached chart titled Parties to the Nature Link Project. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <5a4592ab-dbf7-4464-97e6-5c081c75daed.png> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why can’t this be simpler if the focus is on conservation? >>>>>>>>>>> A: At first glance, a straightforward deal - funding Farrington in >>>>>>>>>>> exchange for conservation - might seem like the easiest path. But >>>>>>>>>>> the key to understanding this proposal is recognizing Farrington’s >>>>>>>>>>> need for access to Page Road (see image attached). Their current >>>>>>>>>>> exit onto Route 2 is suboptimal, and without Page Road access, >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington has made clear they are not interested in this deal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <2b35f295-689f-45b6-b2d8-6a2e3e8b54df.png> >>>>>>>>>>> See attached image titled Farrington Access Road which highlights >>>>>>>>>>> the access road in orange. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington could sell their land outright for a higher price and >>>>>>>>>>> relocate outside of Lincoln. The Dover Amendment allows religious >>>>>>>>>>> or educational institutions who might buy the to override zoning - >>>>>>>>>>> leaving us without say on future use. The Panettas will move on and >>>>>>>>>>> sell to someone else, likely removing any chance for >>>>>>>>>>> community-driven benefit. What brings the cost down - and opens >>>>>>>>>>> the door to permanent conservation - is Farrington’s willingness to >>>>>>>>>>> stay in exchange for a second egress in combination with a >>>>>>>>>>> developer’s interest in purchasing Panetta’s land. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The only viable access to Page Road is through the Panetta >>>>>>>>>>> property. The Panettas are willing to sell, but understandably, >>>>>>>>>>> they want a certain price in exchange, which they’ve set at $3.3M. >>>>>>>>>>> Multiple developers engaged in negotiation, but only Civico was >>>>>>>>>>> willing to pay the price the Panettas set and participate in the >>>>>>>>>>> process. While the Panettas could sell independently, this is a >>>>>>>>>>> rare chance for the community to tie their sale to a broader >>>>>>>>>>> community outcome: conservation, housing, and infrastructure, all >>>>>>>>>>> in one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, other options may exist, but this opportunity has a shelf >>>>>>>>>>> life. If the deal fails, each party will do what’s best for them. >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington may sell, opening the door to higher-impact development >>>>>>>>>>> under the Dover Amendment. The Panettas may move on, taking the >>>>>>>>>>> chance for a coordinated solution with them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nature Link is a community-forged compromise: it protects open >>>>>>>>>>> space, supports mixed-income housing, sustains a local nonprofit, >>>>>>>>>>> and gives Lincoln control over what happens next. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why can’t Farrington simply repair/improve the Rt 2 egress? >>>>>>>>>>> A: While Route 2 access is a challenge, it’s not the core issue for >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington. What they truly need - and have been consistent about - >>>>>>>>>>> is access to Page Road, not an upgrade to their current exit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Even with improvements to Rt 2, Farrington is not willing to stay >>>>>>>>>>> in Lincoln without Page Road access. Without it, they’ve indicated >>>>>>>>>>> they would likely sell the land - potentially for $7-$10M - and >>>>>>>>>>> relocate elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That outcome puts the community at risk of a Dover >>>>>>>>>>> Amendment-related sale, where a religious or educational >>>>>>>>>>> institution could bypass local zoning. Such a development could >>>>>>>>>>> bring greater environmental disruption, threaten watershed >>>>>>>>>>> protections, and increase Page Road traffic as drivers to a future >>>>>>>>>>> school or place of worship avoid Rt 2’s Bedford Rd U-turn and >>>>>>>>>>> instead cut through Trapelo and Page. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Most of the land is already wetlands. Why do we need to worry >>>>>>>>>>> about conservation? >>>>>>>>>>> A: It’s a good question - but wetlands protection and Conservation >>>>>>>>>>> Restrictions (CRs) are not the same, especially in scope, >>>>>>>>>>> permanence, and enforceability. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wetlands are regulated under state law (like the Massachusetts >>>>>>>>>>> Wetlands Protection Act), which limits building near sensitive >>>>>>>>>>> areas. But these protections are regulatory, not permanent. Wetland >>>>>>>>>>> boundaries can shift, and permits can still be granted - especially >>>>>>>>>>> if an applicant shows limited impact. And laws can be amended over >>>>>>>>>>> time, which means protections can weaken. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A Conservation Restriction is different. It’s a legal agreement >>>>>>>>>>> tied to the deed, permanently limiting how the land can be used - >>>>>>>>>>> regardless of ownership or zoning changes. It can’t be undone >>>>>>>>>>> without approval from the state and the CR holder. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: wetlands protection controls what’s allowed today >>>>>>>>>>> while a Conservation Restriction locks in protections forever - >>>>>>>>>>> ensuring the land stays open, natural, and undeveloped. If the goal >>>>>>>>>>> is long-term preservation, CRs are the only real guarantee and are >>>>>>>>>>> worth finding compromise to achieve. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Is this project getting special treatment from the town? >>>>>>>>>>> A: No. Some concerns have been raised about “special treatment” or >>>>>>>>>>> bypassing town process - but this project is following the exact >>>>>>>>>>> path laid out in Lincoln’s zoning bylaws, specifically through the >>>>>>>>>>> North Lincoln Overlay District, which was created by Town Meeting >>>>>>>>>>> in 1986 (and approved with ⅔ vote) and subsequently approved by the >>>>>>>>>>> Massachusetts Attorney General at the time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The overlay was designed to encourage creative, controlled >>>>>>>>>>> development in North Lincoln, where growth potential existed but >>>>>>>>>>> required thoughtful planning. Over the years, the town has added >>>>>>>>>>> other overlays for wetlands, wireless infrastructure, and solar >>>>>>>>>>> development - tools created to address specific needs through >>>>>>>>>>> structured, public processes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The North Lincoln Overlay specifically allows developers to propose >>>>>>>>>>> site-specific plans that undergo: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Rigorous review by the Planning Board, environmental and traffic >>>>>>>>>>> studies, municipal impact analysis, and approval by a ⅔ vote at a >>>>>>>>>>> Special Town Meeting. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I recently read the full application requirements for the North >>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln Overlay District in the Town of Lincoln’s Zoning Bylaws - >>>>>>>>>>> it spans ten pages starting on Page 32 (Section 12.5). The process >>>>>>>>>>> includes detailed plans, public presentations, and ongoing >>>>>>>>>>> oversight. Once approved by ⅔ super majority at the Town Meeting on >>>>>>>>>>> June 25, any future changes require Planning Board approval. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This isn’t a shortcut - if anything, it’s a high bar. The overlay >>>>>>>>>>> was built to allow for public benefit through structured >>>>>>>>>>> development, and that’s exactly how it’s being used here: to lock >>>>>>>>>>> in conservation protections, establish trail access, and cap >>>>>>>>>>> development at 20 homes with pre-approved designs. The developer >>>>>>>>>>> cannot expand or change the plan without full review and approval. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And crucially, this process protects us from the Dover Amendment, >>>>>>>>>>> which could otherwise allow large, zoning-exempt institutions to >>>>>>>>>>> develop this land. By using the overlay to structure a deal that >>>>>>>>>>> places the majority of the land under conservation restrictions, we >>>>>>>>>>> retain control and align the outcome with Lincoln’s values. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why didn’t we know about this sooner? >>>>>>>>>>> A: It’s important to remember that this began as a private >>>>>>>>>>> transaction between private parties. The Town’s involvement is >>>>>>>>>>> limited to zoning approval - specifically, the creation of the >>>>>>>>>>> North Lincoln Planned Development District and the issuance of a >>>>>>>>>>> Special Permit. Until that stage, the private entities are legally >>>>>>>>>>> entitled to work through the details independently. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The zoning bylaws outline what happens next. Once the Planning >>>>>>>>>>> Board approves the application, the Town is required to host a >>>>>>>>>>> Special Town Meeting and send a town-wide mailing at least 14 days >>>>>>>>>>> in advance: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> “In addition to the notices required by law, a description of the >>>>>>>>>>> preliminary plan and notice of such hearing, including reduced >>>>>>>>>>> reproductions of architectural renderings and of the site plan, all >>>>>>>>>>> in form approved by the Planning Board, shall be mailed to each >>>>>>>>>>> postal patron in the Town at least 14 days prior to such hearing.” >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Until that notification window, no formal public outreach is >>>>>>>>>>> required. However, recognizing the complexity and potential >>>>>>>>>>> community interest, the Rural Land Foundation began a public >>>>>>>>>>> communications effort more than two months in advance of the Town >>>>>>>>>>> Meeting. They’ve since hosted (or scheduled) a dozen in-person and >>>>>>>>>>> virtual sessions to inform and engage residents. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This goes well beyond what is required, and includes shared >>>>>>>>>>> recordings and transparent Q&A sessions. In short, while the formal >>>>>>>>>>> process hasn’t fully kicked in yet, the project sponsors have made >>>>>>>>>>> a concerted and good-faith effort to inform the community well >>>>>>>>>>> ahead of schedule. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why aren’t we provided with more options? >>>>>>>>>>> A: It’s not the responsibility of private citizens to present >>>>>>>>>>> multiple alternatives. Under the North Lincoln Overlay District, >>>>>>>>>>> anyone can propose a project, meet the requirements, and seek >>>>>>>>>>> approval at Town Meeting. If voters want other options, they’re >>>>>>>>>>> free to pursue them - but that doesn’t mean this proposal isn’t >>>>>>>>>>> valid. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That said, this deal has a shelf life. The Panettas and Farrington >>>>>>>>>>> are ready to move forward - and they don’t have the luxury of >>>>>>>>>>> waiting. If this falls through, they’ll act in their own interests, >>>>>>>>>>> which likely means no conservation, no housing diversity, and a >>>>>>>>>>> missed opportunity to shape the outcome ourselves. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington needs financial stability and will likely seek a buyer. >>>>>>>>>>> A sale in the $7-$10M range is feasible - especially for a >>>>>>>>>>> Dover-exempt institution - but much harder for the town to match. >>>>>>>>>>> Today’s deal costs far less and offers real protections - if we’re >>>>>>>>>>> willing to meet in the middle. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Will 17 new housing units create too much traffic on page road? >>>>>>>>>>> A: Seventeen net-new housing units will add traffic, but I believe >>>>>>>>>>> the impact will be modest. With three homes already on the >>>>>>>>>>> property, the net change is 17 homes. Traffic studies estimate each >>>>>>>>>>> unit generates 8-10 vehicle trips per day (vpd) - about 170 vpd >>>>>>>>>>> total. Page Road (with its 100 homes and convenient cut through >>>>>>>>>>> from Trapelo to Rt 2) likely handles over 2,000 vpd today, so this >>>>>>>>>>> is only a 5-10% increase. With that said, I have two little kids >>>>>>>>>>> and so wish they could be biking on Page Rd safely and hesitate to >>>>>>>>>>> allow them to do that already, so I understand the concern and >>>>>>>>>>> still believe this is an appropriate increase given the value of >>>>>>>>>>> the rest of the project. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And consider the alternative: if this deal falls through, we could >>>>>>>>>>> face a Dover Amendment-related development on Farrington land, like >>>>>>>>>>> a religious or educational campus. That kind of use could generate >>>>>>>>>>> far more traffic, especially as large volumes of cars, likely at >>>>>>>>>>> peak times, try to access the property via Trapelo > Page > Rt 2. >>>>>>>>>>> If that happens I will for sure regret that we didn’t find a way to >>>>>>>>>>> accept this deal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: How does 17 new homes now mean less development later? >>>>>>>>>>> A: It may seem counterintuitive, but building 17 net new homes now >>>>>>>>>>> actually reduces long-term development risk - while permanently >>>>>>>>>>> protecting more of Lincoln’s rural character. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> While the current zoning allows only three homes on the Panetta >>>>>>>>>>> property, there are no conservation protections on Farrington’s >>>>>>>>>>> land. Lincoln has already identified this as the largest >>>>>>>>>>> unprotected forest block in town and placed it high in its priority >>>>>>>>>>> list per the Open Space and Recreation Plan in 2017. Without >>>>>>>>>>> action, Farrington could sell, and the land could be redeveloped >>>>>>>>>>> under the Dover Amendment, which allows religious and educational >>>>>>>>>>> institutions to bypass zoning. If you're unsure what this could >>>>>>>>>>> look like in our neighborhood, look at this temple in Belmont or >>>>>>>>>>> read this analysis on its impact to Massachusetts towns/cities. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A deeded conservation restriction is our only permanent safeguard. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nature Link proposes 20 total homes - including 17 new units - on >>>>>>>>>>> already cleared land, while protecting over 77 acres (65 from >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington and 12 from Panetta). Only about one acre is used for >>>>>>>>>>> septic, in exchange for safeguarding forests, wetlands, and trails >>>>>>>>>>> forever. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And this isn’t just conservation - it also provides “missing >>>>>>>>>>> middle” housing, the kind Lincoln lacks. It gives young families >>>>>>>>>>> and downsizing seniors a way to stay in Lincoln - in-line with >>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln’s character and community-oriented feel. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Can we trust the developer, Civico? >>>>>>>>>>> A: Healthy skepticism is important - but so is acknowledging the >>>>>>>>>>> goodwill, oversight, and enforceable structure that shape this >>>>>>>>>>> proposal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Civico has worked closely with the Rural Land Foundation, the >>>>>>>>>>> Panetta family, and Farrington to navigate a complex, multi-party >>>>>>>>>>> agreement. Bringing a project like this together isn’t simple - and >>>>>>>>>>> it doesn’t happen without collaboration and transparency. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> More importantly, this deal isn’t based on trust alone. It will be >>>>>>>>>>> codified through zoning bylaws, conservation restrictions, and >>>>>>>>>>> developer agreements. The North Lincoln Overlay District locks in >>>>>>>>>>> the number of homes, layout, and land preservation. Any changes >>>>>>>>>>> would require coming back to the Town for approval. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And with Lincoln’s track record of detailed Planning Board and >>>>>>>>>>> Conservation Commission review, every septic line, drainage system, >>>>>>>>>>> and house footprint will be scrutinized. We're not handing over >>>>>>>>>>> control - we're managing it with oversight and legally binding >>>>>>>>>>> plans. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Why should we support a developer making a profit on land we >>>>>>>>>>> want for conservation? >>>>>>>>>>> A: Because real, lasting conservation often requires balancing >>>>>>>>>>> social good with economic sustainability - and that means welcoming >>>>>>>>>>> partners who can make the math work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Civico is a for-profit company, yes - but in this project, they’re >>>>>>>>>>> also a financial enabler of conservation and housing outcomes the >>>>>>>>>>> town values. The Panetta family is asking $3.3M for their land. If >>>>>>>>>>> the community could raise that ourselves - and fund the access road >>>>>>>>>>> to Page Road - we wouldn’t need Civico. But if we can't, we need a >>>>>>>>>>> partner who can. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Civico is willing to put up the $3.3M in exchange for the ability >>>>>>>>>>> to develop housing under the North Lincoln Overlay District. They >>>>>>>>>>> cannot do that under current zoning, which is why the offer of one >>>>>>>>>>> acre for septic, and the potential overlay designation are >>>>>>>>>>> essential to making the deal viable. In return, we gain: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +A permanent conservation restriction protecting 75+ acres and >>>>>>>>>>> providing public trails, >>>>>>>>>>> +17 new mixed-income housing units for families and downsizing >>>>>>>>>>> seniors, >>>>>>>>>>> +and a path forward that keeps Farrington on its land, doing its >>>>>>>>>>> mission. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Most major conservation deals over the last 60 years have included >>>>>>>>>>> a development component. That’s because conservation doesn't fund >>>>>>>>>>> itself - unless the community pays, it often needs economic >>>>>>>>>>> activity to subsidize it. In this case, the housing helps create >>>>>>>>>>> the opportunity for the land protection. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Even the use of CPC funds reflects this blend: these funds can only >>>>>>>>>>> support open space, affordable housing, and historic preservation. >>>>>>>>>>> In this case the CPA funds will be directed for only the land >>>>>>>>>>> conservation portion of this project with 77 acres conserved, >>>>>>>>>>> however the town will also get 3 income-restricted homes that will >>>>>>>>>>> be fully funded by the Developer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The result isn’t pure profit - it’s shared benefit. Conservation, >>>>>>>>>>> housing, and community values, aligned through a partnership that >>>>>>>>>>> makes it possible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Is the housing actually affordable? Who will these homes be for? >>>>>>>>>>> A: The 20 planned homes are designed as “starter homes” by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>> standards - smaller, more modest, and more accessible than typical >>>>>>>>>>> multi-million-dollar properties. Three units will be designated >>>>>>>>>>> income-restricted at 80% of Average Median Income (AMI); the rest >>>>>>>>>>> aim to serve middle-income buyers: young families priced out of >>>>>>>>>>> town and seniors looking to downsize. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln’s own housing plan identifies this missing middle - condos, >>>>>>>>>>> townhomes, and smaller homes for non-luxury buyers - as a critical >>>>>>>>>>> gap. Nature Link helps close that gap with smaller lots and >>>>>>>>>>> efficient design, offering options between luxury builds and >>>>>>>>>>> deed-restricted affordable housing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> These homes won’t be affordable in every sense, but they are far >>>>>>>>>>> more attainable than what’s currently being built in the town. >>>>>>>>>>> Three units will count toward our 10% 40B requirement, and the rest >>>>>>>>>>> support a diverse, sustainable community. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: this brings in new neighbors who enrich our town, >>>>>>>>>>> instead of limiting access to only the highest bidder. That’s a win >>>>>>>>>>> for Lincoln’s values of inclusion and community. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: Will the conservation land be truly protected and will the >>>>>>>>>>> trails be open to the public? >>>>>>>>>>> A: Yes. A key reason I support this project is the lasting >>>>>>>>>>> protection it gives land that might otherwise be developed. The >>>>>>>>>>> deal puts permanent Conservation Restrictions on 65 acres of >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington and 12 acres of Panetta land. These legally binding >>>>>>>>>>> agreements, held by the Land Trust or Town, prohibit future >>>>>>>>>>> development - permanently. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington will retain ownership but will be limited to educational >>>>>>>>>>> and low-impact uses. If they ever sell, Page Road access is >>>>>>>>>>> removed, preventing future owners from intensifying use. The City >>>>>>>>>>> of Cambridge is also investing in this project to protect its >>>>>>>>>>> watershed - clear evidence that this plan aligns with environmental >>>>>>>>>>> goals. Only one acre is used for septic, and all construction must >>>>>>>>>>> meet state, local, and Lincoln’s all-electric building codes - >>>>>>>>>>> likely an improvement over the existing homes codes, requiring them >>>>>>>>>>> to be all electric, which is likely an improvement on the existing >>>>>>>>>>> homes on the property. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This plan also opens access to previously private land. A 1.5-mile >>>>>>>>>>> public trail will extend through the property and connect to the >>>>>>>>>>> Osborne Conservation Area and out to Page Road. As an abutter, I’m >>>>>>>>>>> glad neighbors can enjoy this space. Trail and land access will be >>>>>>>>>>> open to all Lincoln residents, not just the new homeowners. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All protections - CRs, trail access, septic boundaries - will be >>>>>>>>>>> detailed in the Town Meeting warrant. If anything is unclear, we >>>>>>>>>>> should demand clarification before voting. But from what I’ve seen, >>>>>>>>>>> the deal is clear: conserve land, open trails, allow minimal >>>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Q: What if we do nothing? What’s the risk of inaction? >>>>>>>>>>> A: This may be the most important question. If we reject this deal, >>>>>>>>>>> we must be clear-eyed about what happens next. Farrington, who will >>>>>>>>>>> be committing 65 acres to conservation, is exploring sustainable >>>>>>>>>>> ways to continue its mission amid financial constraints. Without >>>>>>>>>>> this funding, they could shut down or sell. While some hope for an >>>>>>>>>>> all-conservation rescue, it’s speculative and far more expensive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The risk I don’t enjoy thinking about is one where the land gets >>>>>>>>>>> sold to an entity that invokes the Dover Amendment - a religious or >>>>>>>>>>> educational use that can bypass local zoning. Picture dorms, a >>>>>>>>>>> large school, or a church complex with little Town oversight. Open >>>>>>>>>>> space? Gone. Conservation? Gone. The public values we’re trying to >>>>>>>>>>> preserve - trails, ecology, housing - would be at greater risk. >>>>>>>>>>> See further above >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We’d lose control. And ironically, those opposing development now >>>>>>>>>>> might face more disruptive development later - on worse terms, with >>>>>>>>>>> fewer benefits. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nature Link is a proactive, community-crafted solution. It gives >>>>>>>>>>> Farrington long-term viability, preserves land, adds modest housing >>>>>>>>>>> we shape, and avoids the Dover Amendment risk. And it’s backed by >>>>>>>>>>> the Rural Land Foundation, Farrington, the Panetta family, Civico, >>>>>>>>>>> the City of Cambridge, and many individuals I’ve spoken with. Now >>>>>>>>>>> is the time to bring it home with the needed ⅔ supermajority vote >>>>>>>>>>> at the Special Town Meeting on June 25. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Doing nothing isn’t preservation - it’s gambling. And the odds >>>>>>>>>>> aren’t in Lincoln’s favor if we go that route. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>>>>>>>>> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected].> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>>>>> 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 [email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>>>> 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 [email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>>> 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 [email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>>> 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 [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
