news

By Frank Clark

I am pleased to announce that I will be seeking your vote for Select Board in the March town election. I’m running because the town deserves a meaningful choice between the path we’re currently on and a more moderate, inclusive way forward.

We need to balance the aspirations of the town’s politically active residents with the majority of the town who simply need assurance that the town’s essential character will be preserved and public money is spent carefully. Twenty years ago, the town’s long term debt was about $7 million. If the $25 million option for the community center is approved in March, our long-term debt will exceed $100 million. This works out to about $50,000 per household. There are other capital projects waiting in the wings and we’ve fallen behind on essentials such as road maintenance.

Our tax burden obviously falls most heavily on those who can least afford it. We need to find a more moderate, inclusive way forward. We need to prioritize concern for our less affluent neighbors who are being squeezed out of town. I begin this effort with humility and a pledge to do the very best that I can to serve the present and future residents of our beautiful community.

I’ll have much more to say about these issues as we get closer to the town election. I look forward to speaking with you. Please feel free to contact me by phone (978-502-0022) or email (frank.clark@gmail.com).

Sincerely,

Frank Clark, 125 South Great Road (resident for 14 years)

Background: Electrical engineer, optical physicist, astrophysicist. I have been an academic (14 years), federal government employee (23 years), and worked in private industry. I am a long-standing member of Lincoln’s Historical Commission and Historic District Commission.

“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 Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

In the January 28 article headlined “My Turn: Hometown hero enchants a crowd,” former U.S. Capitol Police Office Winston Pingeon was misidentified in two places as “Walter Pingeon.” The original article has been corrected.

• In the January 16, 2024 story headlined “Initial ideas for mall redevelopment to be presented Thursday,” the sentence stating that “the Planning Board is also considering a new ‘building footprint + parking’ parameter that limits the footprint and parking to no more than 50% of the lot” implied that this idea applied to the Village Center 3A subdistrict that includes the mall. That parameter in fact does not apply to that district, but only to the other three in South Lincoln (Lincoln Woods, Lincoln Road and Codman Road).
• In the January 14 edition of “News acorns,” author Katherine Hall Page’s first name was mistakenly given as Kathleen.

Both original posts have been modified.

Due to an oversight by the Squirrel, a submission to the post headlined “Residents share their thoughts about marathon Town Meeting” omitted a submission by June Matthews, which has now been added to the end of that post.

After the story headlined “Residents share their thoughts about marathon Town Meeting” was published, Sarah Liepert asked to add her submission.It now appears at the end of the original post under the subhead “Another point of view.”

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. 

By David Levington

The interminable meetings of the CCBC (Community Center Building Committee) have been disheartening. I had expected discussions of how to design a vibrant new center for the town’s seniors, but instead all I heard was talk about how to save money.

Residents seem preoccupied with the $93 million spent on our new schools and don’t want to add to our tax bills. They seem to forget that we are just continuing a process that began in 2010, when a study group concluded that Bemis Hall and the Hartwell Pods were inefficient. Thirteen years later after several interim reports, they are still questioning the need for something new, and decision time for a community center is here.

The warrant for the December 2 Special Town Meeting asks us to choose between three community center options. The option we choose will be further developed and put forward for final approval at the March 2024 Town Meeting and a ballot-box funding vote. If all that goes through, we should have a new community center in a few years.

But which option?

One of the options is totally unacceptable; its only benefit is that it saves money. It calls for the renovation of one of the old pods, and has LEAP (the after-school program for kids) remain in another unimproved pod.

The other two options each provide for a new community center and a facility for LEAP. The 100% option, expected to cost $24 million, offers a new building on one level with enough space for both LEAP and a gracious community center. The 75% option costs $19 million, leaves LEAP in a renovated pod, and provides “just enough” space for the Council on Aging & Human Services to continue its present programs.

Is that what we want, after a dozen years of planning? A new building (nice of course) but everything crammed into smaller spaces? The financial difference between the two options is about $5 million, which equates to about $150 per year difference in the property tax on an average home (under $100/year on a condo).

Our decision will determine what we will live with and experience for the next 20 years. I urge you to vote for the more generous plan. We seniors have always supported our schools and programs for children. We should do the equitable thing and give our seniors a beautiful new gathering place.

“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.

By Barbara Slayter

Since 2021, when Gov. Baker signed the Housing Choice Act (HCA) requiring communities on transport lines connecting them to Boston to comply with zoning requirements that permit an increase of multi-family housing, I have been keeping an eye on both the proposals of the Housing Choice Act Working Group and various community responses. Recently, I have been trying to sort out the concerns and positions that have been expressed.

Keep Lincoln Green — Lincoln is being asked to rezone 42 acres. Lincoln’s total land area is 9,216 acres. Thus, the land under consideration for rezoning is 0.4 % of the total amount. Lincoln has 40% of its land in conservation. Keeping Lincoln green does not seem to me to be an issue. In fact, “a massive radical rezoning of a huge amount of Lincoln and letting the developers have at it,” as was asserted by a participant at the November 13 meeting, seems a considerable overstatement.

Overwhelming traffic — I live on Trapelo Road, an access road for Lincoln, and am very much aware of rush hour traffic which twice a day pours through Lincoln. I have also observed that at least 90% of the cars are occupied by only the driver and are moving from outside Lincoln to another destination outside Lincoln. The rest of the day traffic is light. I am persuaded that the increase of cars owned by residents in new housing around the town center will be a small part of the traffic problem Lincoln faces and that there are other ways we might deal with traffic flow concerns.

Red herrings — There are several red herrings, but one is particularly bothersome. It is the question of affordable housing. The HCA requires only 10%. We need to have more. Therefore, the argument goes, let’s delay compliance and figure out a higher percentage that the town can determine and control.

However, in my view, if we proceed now with enabling rezoning for 635 units, we shall at least be on the way to 60-plus possibilities for affordable housing, a better option than spending more time trying to figure out how to get there. I strongly support affordable housing, but I also see here the risk of allowing the “perfect” to stand in the way of the “good.”

A second red herring, in my view, is the notion that the town has no agency in the face of “the developers.” There are all sorts of regulations and checks, and I do not foresee Lincoln’s leadership simply “rolling over and playing dead.”

Timing — Timing can be a tool; timing can be a weapon; timing can be money; timing can provide opportunity; timing can “slow walk” a proposal or project into oblivion. One question about timing utterly perplexes me. People have complained that the discussion has been moving too quickly, that we need to slow down, that they are only now learning about this act and the decisions to be made.

This has been under discussion for nearly two years. Have they attended any of the several neighborhood discussions? Or the State of the Town meeting on September 8? (About 100 people only were present.) The HCAWG has provided “tons” of information and offered numerous opportunities for discussion. Do we need more time for this discussion? I don’t think so.

Worst-case scenarios — A number have been presented and most involve traffic lights, ugly multi-story buildings, and an increasingly brown environment. My personal worst-case scenario is the continuing decline of our commercial center if we do not move expeditiously to provide the context in which it can thrive. The HZAWG website offers compelling evidence for keeping the mall area within the zone for HCA compliance. 

Let’s reframe this discussion and think of some best-case scenarios in which we have several handsome three-story apartment buildings attractively landscaped, park benches, a playground, another coffee shop, and other opportunities for residents to congregate in a charming and congenial setting.

Making the decision — Somehow, we must find our way between paralyzing caution and grave risk. I firmly believe that the HCA Working Group, the Select and Planning Boards, and the Rural Land Foundation have provided a path forward to do so. I have confidence and trust in their careful investigation of the issues, their commitment to the values of the town, and their judgment. Whether or not the designated working group and various boards add newly proposed options to the roster for discussion on December 2, I hope that we shall move forward with determination to address fairly and honestly the housing crisis that exists in the greater Boston area.

And if there is any doubt in the need to do so, I recommend perusal of The Boston Foundation’s recent housing report as well as a report published two years ago by the Century Foundation on discriminatory housing policies in Massachusetts. My first two choices for December 2 with Ranked Choice Voting would be Option C and Option D-1.

“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.