Several readers have posted comments and emailed the Lincoln Squirrel about the November 29 Lincoln Squirrel article headlined “Option E is not viable, HCA consultant says” to complain that it was biased. A better word choice for the headline would have been that Option E is not “compliant.”
The reason Utile gave for deeming Option E noncompliant was because its south Lewis Street subdistrict is smaller than 5 acres and is not contiguous with the rest of the Lincoln Road subdistrict. Some commenters (including but not limited to members of the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives) noted that they had submitted a new option that includes 2 Lewis St., saying this now makes the option acceptable to the state.
“After sending our initial option to the Selects and the HCAWG, the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives (LRHA) requested that the HCAWG notify us if they or Utile noticed discrepancies so we could correct them before we issued a public version,” LHRA member Benjamin Shiller said in an email to the Squirrel at 6:20 p.m. on November 30. “Instead, the HCAWG received Utile’s advice and immediately published the comment that Option E was not compliant due to this easily remedied issue. This project is extremely detailed and small discrepancies, like those uncovered by the LRHA in the HCAWG submission to the town, can be corrected once they are pointed out.”
It’s unclear when the LHRA officially submitted its amended Option 3. The Lincoln Squirrel was unaware of that development at the time the article was written, since it was not brought up at the Zoom session held shortly before publication.
LRHA also notes that the Housing Choice Act Working Group amended its own four options after it submitted Option C to the state for a preliminary compliance check, due in part to issues pointed out by the LRHA. HCAWG delves into the details of wetlands, open space, units per acre, and modeled unit capacity numbers in the “2023 11 30 – Deeper Dive into Calculations” update at the top of the HCAWG web page. In a November 30 email to LincolnTalk, Shiller said there are still problems with the state model and the HCAWG options that could allow much more development than intended, as he explains in these two videos (short and long versions).
This is an unusual story where complicated details are changing sometimes several times a day in a flurry of activity leading up to an important town-wide vote. The Lincoln Squirrel has amended the headline in the November 29 article but stands by its reporting as being accurate at the moment the described events took place.
Disappointing to read the Squirrel editor use the word “complain” to describe the feedback to her article. And then refer to Option E as Option “3.”
The tone of the article “Option E is not Viable HCA consultant says” is biased.
Sorry who wrote the piece clarifications and amplification? Why is the author not named. Perhaps an oversight but important to know.
Thanks, Trisha O’Hagan
The editor, Alice Wagh wrote it.
We need clear and concise and factual reporting in this town.
To that end would that are reporting and corrections to previous reports, not include such terms as “complain.” A neutral term would be “said”. That would lead the reader to make their own conclusion, rather than be led.
“My Turn” are citizen’s submissions as “op eds”-opinion pieces. These are the opinions and interpretations of the authors. They should not have insertions of the editor’s words, be they corrections, comments or clarifications. The authors opinions are just that and should be allowed to stand alone.
That is my opinion, based on observation as an avid consumer of many newspapers, both hard copy and on line.