By Lynn DeLisi
Editor’s note: DeLisi, a member of the Planning Board, originally posted the following as a comment on the March 25 Lincoln Squirrel story headlined “HCAWG, RLF were surprised by rumored amendment to zoning motion” and is being reprinted here with her permission.)
None of what is being reported here was shared with both Eph Flint and myself. In fact, let me set this straight: after Eph and I made it very clear that the Planning Board needed more time to address the many outstanding issues residents have raised, [board chair] Margaret Olson contacted me and suggested we do an amendment and told me that [Director of Planning and Land Use] Paula [Vaughn-Mackenzie] would help me. She further added that we could discuss it as a board and maybe then present a unified board to the town meeting instead of Eph and I supporting a “no” vote.
The next day, I contacted Paula; she convinced me not to go below 15 units per acre in the mall and had Utile approve the numbers I had. She asked me to get Eph’s approval, which I did. Margaret then called a special Planning Board Meeting for last Saturday, March 16, but since I was to be out of town then, it was postponed to be discussed at the Tuesday, March 19 Planning Board meeting. However, Eph and I never understood why it was taken off of the agenda and we were not aware that Paula had mentioned it at a [Housing Choice Act Working Group] meeting.
We both talked to many other town residents in the few days before Town Meeting and decided that an amendment was not the way to go — even though it was a step in the right direction and relieved some of the density we feared at the mall. The reason is that there were many other issues not yet discussed and still not, and there has been no consensus yet in town about how to do this right. Nor, most importantly, have the current residents of the Lincoln Station area been consulted about their views for the rezoning in some cases of their own properties. We wanted more time to reach a true compromise in a democratic way. We wanted representatives of different viewpoints to sit at the same table with the Planning Board to discuss what is most important and how to zone for it.
The reporting of the Working Group meeting by Alice Waugh is a good illustration of why that working group needs to be disbanded. Their discussion was never reported to us as Planning Board members and should have been.
I am extremely dismayed by the events of the last few weeks in our beloved town and hope our leadership can find a way to obtain a consensus among all of us for the sake of future generations of residents of Lincoln. I am also outraged that Eph and I were treated as “black sheep” and not allowed to present our wishes for the town at the podium.
I have been a member of the Planning Board for a decade and have never seen such an awful set of circumstances such as these develop — ultimately leading to a very weak and divided vote. I call now for a real vote at the polls.
“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.
Regardless of the vote, the deck was stacked to put leadership in the driver’s seat to best move their agenda. There were several bizarre firsts and occurrences at last Saturday’s town meeting. Where Lincoln does not have well defined and detailed TM rules and regulations, things occur on the fly and that is absurd. It provides way too much control and power to the moderator and leadership’s majority. And there were blatant infractions of the limited stated rules as well as blatant inconsistencies. For example, if, who, how and where one could speak. If, who, how and where one could present.
This is more than disconcerting…Open Meeting law issues among many, many other issues that emerged in review of Town Meeting.
A 21 vote difference between 2 sides demonstrates the wisdom of “ No …for now.”
Instead, it appears “win at all costs” has cost us dearly.
The vote was 427 to 387, a difference of 40, not 21 as has been stated by a few. What if 21 votes flipped from no to yes, would you then say it was a difference of 61 votes? You can’t assume that votes would flip in your favor or not, at the end of the day the yeas has it by 40. The facts matter and stating false information does nothing to move this town forward.