[LincolnTalk] Bike light

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Not my bike light that you found, but an odd story: I was going down Bedford 
Road once and was startled to see a little red light down on the pavement 
ahead, blinking away. What on earth was it? Then I realized. I was able to stop 
and pick it up and, sure as shooting, a little way ahead I caught up to two 
cyclists, one without a tail light, and was able to hand it to him
-- 
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] What is the REAL tax increase for the CC project?

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Andy Wang wrote of my post about the Select Board’s November 16 mailing: “Not 
going to argue on the 'prominence' of the presentation, just pointing out that 
the values seem to be properly labeled and consistent. " 

But the PROMINENCE with which the various numbers are presented to the voters 
is the ENTIRE point of my post. Why are the most important numbers buried, or 
not included at all, and an extraneous number highlighted? 

In fuller detail:

1. The information most critical to town citizens about the tax effects of each 
of the three proposals they are being asked to vote upon, which have proposed 
costs of $12.5M, $18.75M and $25M respectively, is presumably what percentage 
increases in their taxes are estimated for each price point. That is certainly 
the first thing I would want to know. These percentages are nowhere disclosed 
in the mailing. Why were these numbers not the numbers most prominently set 
forth? Why were they not included at all?

2. Yes, a useful way of illustrating these percentage increases would be to 
translate them into dollar amounts for a Lincoln home of median value. But the 
fourth page merely says “TAX IMPACT: Up to $773 increase,” “TAX IMPACT: Up to 
$541 increase,” and “TAX IMPACT: Up to $387 increase” without saying that these 
numbers are for a median home and that for half the town residents the dollar 
amount would necessarily be larger than the “Up to” amount. Also it is not 
disclosed there that the increase would be in effect for decades, not for a 
single year. Why was not clearer language such as “ANNUAL TAX IMPACT FOR MEDIAN 
HOME” used instead of  “TAX IMPACT: Up to $773 increase”? Doesn’t that wording 
imply that nobody would have an increase greater than $773?

3. Later on, you can find a reference that the tax impact number is per median 
home if you read the tiny type on the fifth page. This illustrates my point 
about prominence of disclosure.

4. Later on, the sixth page sets forth tables of numbers for hypothetical 
amounts of borrowings at price points that bear no relation to the proposed 
costs for the project, so that voters must calculate the necessary adjustments 
to the real numbers for themselves, assuming that the entire cost of the 
project is to be bonded and the debt service paid entirely by future taxes. How 
does using hypothetical amounts rather than the actual proposed amounts aid the 
readers’ understanding? And why is the hypothetical dollar amount, which is far 
less than any of the proposed project costs, the one that gets highlighted by 
itself in the left hand column? Voters don’t need to know the dollar amount for 
a hypothetical $10M, they need to know the actual dollar amounts for the actual 
price points they are voting on.

5. There is a reference to a "Stabilization balance" of $5.5M but no 
explanation is provided as to what this term means or how it relates to the 
cost of the project. If it is meant to imply that some portion of the project 
cost may be paid out of existing town funds, it should also be pointed out that 
those funds came from past taxes and that any other uses to which they would 
otherwise have been put would need to be funded from future taxes.

6. One would expect that the most important information for voters would be 
highlighted by presenting it (for example) in the largest type size, in 
boldface, on the stand-alone page with lots of white space that is captioned 
“ESTIMATED TAX IMPACT.” Instead, the “ESTIMATED TAX IMPACT” page does not 
mention either the estimated percentage increases in everybody’s tax bill or 
the estimated dollar amounts for a median home; instead, the dollar amount most 
prominently displayed on the “ESTIMATED TAX IMPACT” page is a number for the 
tax impact of servicing a hypothetical amount of debt ($10M) that is lower than 
any of the costs proposed for the project ($12.5M. $18.75M and $25M). Please 
explain why that number is highlighted while some (but not all) of the numbers 
corresponding to the actual proposed costs are set forth elsewhere in smaller 
non-bold type on densely packed pages and without any of the necessary 
explanation provided on the later pages. 

Those are the kinds of questions that I know the Securities and Exchange 
Commission staff would raise if a company presented numbers in a draft of a 
document in the manner presented in the November 16 mailing. The SEC folks 
definitely recognize that the prominence with which data catches the reader’s 
eye, and the orderliness with which the information is presented, is every bit 
as important as whether everything gets printed in small print somewhere in the 
document. (And of course the estimated percentage increases in everybody’s tax 
bill are not presented at all).-- 
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 

[LincolnTalk] Rank choice voting at TM?

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

This suggestion from Barbara Peskin raises an important issue that needs to be 
clarified before the December 2 TM:

 " - Perhaps we could consider rank choice voting. Imagine if Option C had
  73 votes, Option D1 had 70 and Option D2 had 70. It would mean the
  overwhelming majority of Lincoln residents didn't want Option C but it
  would pass anyway.”

The issue is what voting procedures the Moderator envisions as being available 
for us townspeople to use in selecting among a number of options, regarding 
both HCA and community center proposals.

I’m a proponent of rank choice voting in general, but have no idea whether it 
would be allowable under applicable law governing town meetings.

Also, I can’t recall clearly what voting procedure was used at the TM some 
years ago for selecting one out of four or five price points for the school 
building project. And I think I recall that the last meeting about the 
community center used a Robert’s Rules of Order or U.S. Congress type of 
procedure involving a series of main amendments and amendments to amendments 
that ultimately reached majority approval of a compromise measure that merely 
delayed the necessity of choosing among a number of options, but can’t trust my 
recollection in any detail.

Anyway, it would be very useful for us citizens to know what method(s) of 
voting to expect on December 2 and subsequent TMs on these two highly 
important, but highly complex, matters.

Ned Young
Bedford Road


-- 
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] Who's in favor of muzzling Lincoln residents on Lincoln Talks?

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Is the post below actually saying that we the ordinary citizens of Lincoln 
should not talk among ourselves about critical matters of town governance -- 
matters that are ultimately going to be decided by us when we vote on them -- 
communicating with other fellow citizens at any time and in any forum that we 
choose?
Everybody keep mum about issues that may come up at a committee meeting until 
they walk through the door and raise their hands for permission to speak?
Wrong for a resident to tell as many fellow citizens as possible in advance of 
a meeting whatever specific detailed issues that voter thinks an unelected town 
committee needs to address or -- heaven forbid -- criticizing the committee’s 
policy or process?
Talk about democracy dying in darkness!


On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 9:02 AM John Mendelson mailto:johntmendel...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

> Easy to lob accusations and perhaps even some conspiracy theories on LT
> where the members of the HCAWG cannot respond.
> 
> Perhaps there was an error on the submission but a more appropriate forum
> to query this would be in either of the two open forums on November 8 that
> have been widely publicized.
> 
> Questions and answers on the record.
-- 
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] Roof repair

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

For all kinds of roof work, we and several of our neighbors have been very 
appreciative of Fridel Quinonez’s work at J Handyman 617 580 6349.

-- 
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] story on the housing crisis, affordable housing & zoning

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Sara Mattes wrote, in pertinent part:

"But what is of special  note is that the article calls it a crisis for those 
seeking  SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
Those are the first examples they offer.

"And, then the pivot is to apartment developments and condos, with no 
equivalent documentation of demand?just the assertion.
It is easy to document the demand for affordable units as there are waging 
lists.
On the other hand, we are not documenting demand for market rate, especially 
high end units.
It seems there is no discussion as to how to meet the noted demand for single 
family homes."

Exactly...and furthermore:

The article sloshed around quite a bit as to what kinds of people are looking 
for what kinds of housing they desire at a price that is more affordable for 
them than currently prevailing prices. 
This obviously includes low-income households that would qualify for 
"affordable housing" as we use the defined term “affordable housing."
Also, according to the article, average-income households in the Metro Boston 
area (with an average household income of $104,000), many of them looking for 
single-family houses at less than an average price of approximately $925,000 
nowadays in Milton) but others looking for apartments or condominiums at prices 
they believe they can afford.

And then the article failed to show how proposed developments like the one for 
Lincoln would actually help any of those folks, since:

90% of the units in Lincoln would not be affordable units for low-income 
households, as defined.
There would be no single-family houses.
And how would a statistically average household with income of $104,000 be able 
to afford any of the market-rate units?

Edward Young
Bedford Road




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

Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

> "And to that point: the number crunchers say it’s okay, and I believe them."

No, actually, the number crunchers say what the numbers are, and then the 
voters say what’s okay.


On Sep 27, 2023, at 6:34 PM, Lis Herbert  wrote:
> 
> I don’t believe for a second that numbers don’t matter — far from it. 
> 
> But I have no doubt that there is a vocal minority of people who seem to 
> believe that by throwing numbers around — only the numbers they have seized 
> upon as important — they give the impression that they must know what they 
> are talking about, and should be taken seriously. 
> 
> The reality is that they won’t accept any level of public spending, even 
> well-justified public spending for the greater good. And unfortunately, a not 
> insignificant group of people seem to be buying into the argument because, I 
> guess, “numbers”. There is a thin veil of credibility implied in what they 
> are saying, and some people seem to be lapping it up — whether because they 
> believe it, or they themselves want to punt this forever, too, and the charts 
> and numbers make them feel like they are making a reasoned decision.
> 
> Numbers do matter. And to that point: the number crunchers say it’s okay, and 
> I believe them.
> 
> Lis
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Sep 27, 2023, at 6:08 PM, Edward Young  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The idea that someone would advocate that the residents of Lincoln should 
>> pay millions of dollars of their money to a construction project on the 
>> basis of vague aspirations about “values and beliefs", without a close look 
>> at the relevant facts -- including the relevant numbers -- is so mind 
>> boggling that words fail me.
>> 
>> 
>> Message: 24
>> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 19:04:53 -0400
>> From: Lis Herbert mailto:lisherb...@gmail.com>>
>> To: Lynne Smith mailto:ly...@smith.net>>
>> Cc: Dennis Picker > >, Lincoln
>>  mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations
>> Message-ID:
>>  > >
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> I'm sorry, but the hair-splitting -- 13,000 vs. 11,400 sq. ft. -- so clouds
>> the discussion that it becomes meaningless, especially when there is a
>> suggestion to make up that 1,600 sq. ft. with other spaces in town. Aren't
>> there administrative costs -- time and staffing -- associated with that way
>> of thinking? What is gained by slimming things down by less than 10%?
>> 
>> I've read through these threads, and the numbers -- oh my god the numbers.
>> When I listened to a podcast this week from the London Review of Books
>> related to this piece (which I urge you to read)
>> > > all
>> I could think of was the Community Center, and the discussions that go
>> round and round about the usage, the square footage, the justification (or
>> not) for those numbers, the need to survey further, the need to start
>> again, etc. To quote Mr. Lanchester:
>> 
>> Discussions that were once about values and beliefs ? about what a society
>> wants to see when it looks at itself in the mirror ? have increasingly
>> turned to arguments about numbers, data, statistics.
>> 
>> 
>> And:
>> 
>> As the House of Commons Treasury Committee said dryly in a 2016 report on
>> the economic debate about EU membership, *?many of these claims sound
>> factual because they use numbers.?*
>> 
>> 
>> The idea that numbers convey credibility is nonsense. We are meant to
>> believe that some people possess some level of numeracy that the rest of us
>> can't, and that only they pay keen attention to stats and figures. And yet
>> these same people really just don't want to see anything built, at all:
>> some of them voted against the trimmed down, tiered budgets at the vote
>> last winter, after loudly proclaiming by email (spewing numbers everywhere)
>> that what we need are trimmed down, tiered budgets to choose from. This is
>> not arguing in good faith, this is muddying the waters so people feel like
>> they can't agree to anything.
>> 
>> Outside Donelan's last weekend I heard a woman tell CCBC volunteers "I only
>> know we're going to be screwed". Really? How can anybody feel good about
>> convincing people (or trying to convince people) of things that simply
>> aren't true? And should a decades-long initiative be scuttled because the
>> numbers are off a little bit, because a few years have gone by and things
>> have changed, or population has shifted, or or or?? What happens when you
>> survey people again, and the slow churn of committees and bureaucracy means
>> that new number is outdated? (Hint: that's the point of the exercise.)
>> 
>> And has anybody bothered to ask how many people don't take advantage of
>> these programs -- all of them -- because 

[LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

The idea that someone would advocate that the residents of Lincoln should pay 
millions of dollars of their money to a construction project on the basis of 
vague aspirations about “values and beliefs", without a close look at the 
relevant facts -- including the relevant numbers -- is so mind boggling that 
words fail me.


Message: 24
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 19:04:53 -0400
From: Lis Herbert mailto:lisherb...@gmail.com>>
To: Lynne Smith mailto:ly...@smith.net>>
Cc: Dennis Picker mailto:dennis.pick...@gmail.com>>, 
Lincoln
mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>>
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Community Center- size considerations
Message-ID:
mailto:CA+LeGX1Oe7XTQxNKfa6L_f1e-64iB5r30=jub8eaxvmmqa8...@mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I'm sorry, but the hair-splitting -- 13,000 vs. 11,400 sq. ft. -- so clouds
the discussion that it becomes meaningless, especially when there is a
suggestion to make up that 1,600 sq. ft. with other spaces in town. Aren't
there administrative costs -- time and staffing -- associated with that way
of thinking? What is gained by slimming things down by less than 10%?

I've read through these threads, and the numbers -- oh my god the numbers.
When I listened to a podcast this week from the London Review of Books
related to this piece (which I urge you to read)
> all
I could think of was the Community Center, and the discussions that go
round and round about the usage, the square footage, the justification (or
not) for those numbers, the need to survey further, the need to start
again, etc. To quote Mr. Lanchester:

Discussions that were once about values and beliefs ? about what a society
wants to see when it looks at itself in the mirror ? have increasingly
turned to arguments about numbers, data, statistics.


And:

As the House of Commons Treasury Committee said dryly in a 2016 report on
the economic debate about EU membership, *?many of these claims sound
factual because they use numbers.?*


The idea that numbers convey credibility is nonsense. We are meant to
believe that some people possess some level of numeracy that the rest of us
can't, and that only they pay keen attention to stats and figures. And yet
these same people really just don't want to see anything built, at all:
some of them voted against the trimmed down, tiered budgets at the vote
last winter, after loudly proclaiming by email (spewing numbers everywhere)
that what we need are trimmed down, tiered budgets to choose from. This is
not arguing in good faith, this is muddying the waters so people feel like
they can't agree to anything.

Outside Donelan's last weekend I heard a woman tell CCBC volunteers "I only
know we're going to be screwed". Really? How can anybody feel good about
convincing people (or trying to convince people) of things that simply
aren't true? And should a decades-long initiative be scuttled because the
numbers are off a little bit, because a few years have gone by and things
have changed, or population has shifted, or or or?? What happens when you
survey people again, and the slow churn of committees and bureaucracy means
that new number is outdated? (Hint: that's the point of the exercise.)

And has anybody bothered to ask how many people don't take advantage of
these programs -- all of them -- because the facilities aren't up to par,
accessible, pleasant, etc.? That is a number worth talking about.

Lis



-- 
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] Places to drop in and chat

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Another poster wrote: "Besides poor accessibility, COA does not have the staff 
to be present at Peirce house for drop ins.”

Wonder if one of the rooms at the Library is accessible and can be used for 
that purpose during Library hours?
-- 
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] experienced roofer

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Highly recommend German Quinonez at 617 580 6349

“Fridel” Quinonez has done several portions of our roof, including rubber 
roofing, over the years. Lots of seams, valleys, copper trim, sort of a House 
of Seven Gables affair, parts dating back to 1789.

Knowledgeable about locating problems and clear in explaining treatment 
options; he and his crew are always prompt, hardworking, and very pleasant to 
work with.

He’s also done roofing work for a number of our neighbors
-- 
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] Available Electricity Choices

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Just pointing out that we are not limited to a binary choice between the Green 
Energy Choice program and Eversource.

There are currently three different dozen alternative electricity contracts 
with various providers to choose from on the mass.gov website:
> https://www.energyswitchma.gov/#/compare/2/1/01773// 
> 
The contracts differ in price, duration, cancellation terms, and percentage of 
renewable sources.

You should carefully read the website’s explanation of this program, as well as 
of community choice aggregation programs such as Lincoln’s.


https://www.eversource.com/content/residential/account-billing/manage-bill/about-your-bill/supplier-options/electric-supplier-options
 


Current information about price and other parameters of Lincoln’s Green Energy 
Choice are not listed in the convenient table on the mass.gov website, but I’m 
sure they can provide that information here on Lincoln Talks. They have posted 
extensively on Lincoln Talks about why they believe that some sources of 
renewable energy are preferable to other sources, and you should give their 
argument a fair hearing as you decide which choice to sign up for.


-- 
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] The self-identification question

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Curious about two things related to the recent colloquy regarding 
self-identification by posters to LincolnTalk:

1. Can someone provide the background for Lincoln’s current system of having 
certain important matters voted on both in live Town Meetings (which sometimes 
involve self-identification by a show of hands) and also by written ballot in 
the privacy of the voting booth?
Wikipedia points out that, with respect to the election of government officials 
by secret ballot, "Massachusetts  
adopted the first state-wide Australian ballot, written by reformer Richard 
Henry Dana III , in 1888. 
Consequently, it is also known as the "Massachusetts ballot”. 
Curious when and how voting by secret ballot was extended over the years as a 
supplement to live voting at Town Meeting on policy questions as distinct from 
the election of officials.

2. Also curious about why the IDEA Community Survey now being circulated allows 
participants to opt out of disclosing personal things like their ethnicity and 
gender but requires disclosure of their personal income level

No agenda in either case, just curious.-- 
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] Gutter repair

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Fridel Quinonez has done very good gutter and roofing repairs for us and 
several of our neighbors “up the hill” over the years. 

jahandym...@outlook.com 


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

[LincolnTalk] Community Center location

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

I certainly heard what Sarah heard at the Spc. Town Meeting.
The process we have seen to date is not the process I expected from the 
discussion at the meeting.

Sarah wrote:

"And, finally, I respectfully disagree on the sense of the amendment passed at 
Spc. Town Meeting.
My read was there was a clear desire for continued use and potential expansion 
of use of alternative spaces for programming?an expanded use of spaces off 
campus.
I am curious what others heard."
-- 
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] Talk site for Lincoln political discussions?

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

The moderators wrote:

"I believe someone created a more political talk site where this sort of
thing is encouraged, and folks who like the banter have signed up.  (will
the person who did this or someone who has subscribed please provide a link”


Is there such a site? If so, will someone respond?

-- 
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] Electric rates update

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

The 21 alternative electrical contracts currently listed on the Mass.gov site 
(see below) as being available to households in our zipcode continue to reflect 
uncertainty as to where prices for electricity are headed.

https://www.energyswitchma.gov/#/compare/2/1/01773//

You can still get 12-month or 36-month contracts at 19.8 or 20.0 cents per kwh 
from companies 100% of whose sources qualify as clean/renewable, as defined by 
the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. Other bids range as high as 
32.0 cents/kwh.
You are free to choose which of these rates you want in the Mass.gov open 
market.

When choosing, to be sure, you need to pick a time period to lock in, which may 
prove to be advantageous or disadvantageous in hindsight. For example, people 
who selected a 33 month 100% renewable contract earlier this year are no doubt 
pleased to be locked into a 12.9 cent/kwh price through the end of 2024. But 
things might have turned out differently.

You must also read the fine print. For example, some contracts have fees for 
early cancellation and others may switch you into a floating price if you 
forget to take action when your contract expires. The website also advises you 
how much of a supplier’s sources are “premium” sources as defined by the DPU 
and as further explained in detail in various earlier posts on Lincoln Talks 
from the Lincoln Green Energy Committee. 




-- 
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] Somewhat helpful data on electricity prices

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

The mass.gov site that lists 15 long-term contracts (half of them 100% 
renewable sources, the others 51% renewable) currently being offered to 
Massachusetts residential customers by various alternative electricity 
suppliers gives some useful context about electricity prices.

https://www.energyswitchma.gov/#/compare/2/1/01773// 


Compared to the 17.815 cents per killowatt hour being charged by Eversource 
through the end of 2022 and an unknown rate thereafter, the 15 other suppliers 
would lock in a higher fixed price for a longer term. The prices range from 
approximately 19 cents up to 28.1 cents and the termination dates range from 
October 2023 to October 2025. If Eversource were to receive approval for a 60% 
increase for the first half of 2023, their price would then be approximately 
28.5 cents for those six months, and unknown prices thereafter.

The other offered prices, which fluctuate as time goes by, reflect the 
suppliers’ expectations about future conditions in the market price of 
electricity and, of course, right now those expectations, by knowledgeable 
market participants who are risking their own money when offering fixed-price 
contracts, are varyinga lot!

Still, these offered prices provide some perspective on prices in the short 
term.







-- 
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] Endodontist

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Dr. Manuel Molina has done excellent implant work for me on more than one 
occasion. He explains complicated options comprehensively but clearly. Phone 
781-861- 
Webpage:https://www.lexingtonperiodontics.com/dr-manuel-molina.html 
-- 
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] Fridel Quinonez roofs & gutters

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

On Seth’s recommendation we’ve used Fridel on several roofing jobs and also for 
our gutters and find him always to be prompt, reliable and topnotch at 
explaining alternatives in clear terms
> Fridel Quinonez
> German Quinonez
> jahandym...@outlook.com 
> (617) 580-6349 I (781) 535-8468
-- 
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] Rubber roof

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Fridel Quinones (J Handyman) has done excellent work on our rubber roof and 
several of our neighbors’ rubber roofs. 

jahandym...@outlook.com
617 580 6349
-- 
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] barber

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

Jack on Walden Street in Concord has a good traditional, old-fashioned, 
no-frills barber shop: Two chairs, appointments only at (978) 369-8180, 
everybody masked, so fine from a social distancing perspective. 
An extra reason for recommending Jack is that when he was bedridden with a 
heavy dose of Covid early in the pandemic and found nobody was interested in 
contact tracing the 60 or so customers he’d seen while contagious, he got out 
his appointments notebook and called all 60 of them from his sickbed.
-- 
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] transfer station stickers

[Edward Young via Lincoln]

My red windshield sticker says it expires on August 31 of this year (2022)
The old bumper stickers have expired

Interestingly, nowhere on the sticker does it say where or what the sticker is 
for
-- 
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.