2019 Town Meeting - Night One

Welcome to the 2019 Annual Town Meeting!  If you are new to my blog, welcome.  I use this forum to write about my experience of town meeting.  It is not intended to be authoritative or definitive.  (If you are looking for that, I would refer you to Dan Dunn's excellend blog.)

We started the evening with the usual start of meeting pomp.  The Menotomy Minutemen marched in to drum and fife.  They led us in the "Star Spangled Banner" before marching out again.  We stayed standing for the invocation, given this year by the priest from St. Agnes.  The moderator called for a moment of silence for members who had passed on during the preceeding year before swearing in the newly elected members and re-elected members.

After initially skipping ahead to reports, we went back to the annual State of the Town report.  This year, the report was given by Diane Mahon.  She touched on several topics including a big push for building a new high school, recommending passage of the AHS debt exclusion and the budgetary override, senior tax relief, and the completion of the town finance department.  There was a special note of thanks to Clarissa Rowe for agreeing to again serve in an interim capacity with the Select Board.  She concluded with a warm remembrance of Kevin Greeley.

We now properly moved onto the acceptance of reports.  There were submissions from the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB), the Select Board, the Finance Committee (FinComm), and the Master Plan Implementation Committee (MPIC).  Al Tosti, the chairman of FinComm had a very heartfelt remembrance of a past member and mentor who passed away last week.  This article was tabled to allow acceptance of additional reports as meeting progressses.

The position of Measurer of Wood and Bark is a colonial-era position.  If you purchase wood and are concerned that you were shortchanged, you can request the measurer come out and verofy the cordage.  This mostly ceremonial position is often held by the longest serving member of Town Meeting.  This year, that honor went to our past moderator, John Worden.

James O'Conor was elected to the position of Assistant Town Moderator for the umpteenth year.

The next article, #6 is the first of the zoning articles.  At the recommendation of the ARB, articles 9 , 10, 12, 13, 14, & 15 were tabled to allow us to discuss articles 6, 7, 8, 11, & 16 together.  These are the so-called density articles.  Articles 6, 7, 8, & 11 have no changes except that there would be a density bonus if an additional affordable unit was provided per article 16.  The articles were presented by Andrew Brunnel, the chair of the ARB.  He was given 20 minutes to make the case for the articles.  It was a good presentation, but certainly not enough to overcome doubt about the proposal.

The moderator wanted to put forward the substitute motions and amendments at the start of the general discussion.  Jon Gersh presented his substitute motion to replace the proposed vote under article 16 to the original language from the original proposal.  This would only provide additional affordable units if a development included 20 or more units (20% instead of the current 15%).  If you think of how many 20+ housing developments we have in Arlington, you can see how many affordable units will be created.  In my opinion, this proposal is more feel-good than productive.  My opinion could have been swayed by the proponent who insisted on maligning my yet unpresented amendment, using my name no less that six times in seven minutes.

I was next to speak, so I made sure to thank the previous speaker for his "warm introduction".  My amendment, removing the exemption from affordable housing from 4-5 unit buildings came as a result of discussions at the Precinct 8-10 meeting.  The proposal is to strike paragraph 2 under 8.2.4.C, simplifying Article 16 so all development bonuses require affordable units.  This makes a stronger proposal, focused on affordability.  I noted how adding units with limited financial returns can be challenging for builders.  Is this enough?  Contact with constituents made me aware of several things:  everyone wants affordability, few like the new mixed-use building near the high school, everyone likes Capital Theater building, and not knowing what we might get is disconcerting.  We need to understand that the ARB will review all proposals under these revised bylaws.  With strong resident participation, the ARB can address resident concerns regarding which projects they approve.  Should this pass, the ARB needs to be very clear that they are going to have the residents' back, that the process will be well publicized, and well explained

There were two additional amendments presented.  Barbara Thornton put forward an amendment that would better address environmental issues surrounding the increased density including surface water infiltration.  Marvin Lewiton presented an amendment to remove balconies from areas to be counted towards landscaped areas.

Steve Revilak, the originator of article 16 spoke about the history of exclusionary zoning practices in Arlington.  Whether intensional or not, the result has been to limit housing production, driving prices up, and limiting who can afford to live in town.  He explained that his original warrant article was written in an pen fashion to allow the ARB some leeway in how to address the issue of affordability.  He worked with the ARB to develop the density bonus strategy.  He did not oppose any of the amendments.

There were fourteen additional speakers before we adjourned at 11:00pm.  Jo Anne Preston intorduced resident Janice Broadman, who works in international economic development who did not believe there was evidence for density bonuses leading to increassed affordable housing.  Patricia Worden spoke next.  Jordan Weinstein wanted the town to delay for a year so it could conduct its own studies, rather than rely on the experiences for other communities.  Anne Thompson, a real estate economist, encouraged a delay a year to create a more developed and nuanced proposal.  She had several arguments both for and against.  Maureen Gormley introduced Julia Myrak Kew of the Mirak business family.  As a member of the Chamber of Commerce, she made a business case for increasing development to encourage private investment and not being afraid of change.  She also noted that a single parking space for an apartment was working at the Legacy apartments in the Center.

John Worden touted his years of opposing overdevelopment without being exclusionary.  He warned of an ATTACK.  He would prefer only affordable housing to be added, but only under the existing framework.  He then referred to my amendment as lipstick on a pig.  Better a sexy pig than a stick in the mud, calling this ATTACK the town's biggest threat in 50 years.  Kaspar
Kasparian touched on a number of topics including good critical thinking skills, holding off on passing all articles, worring about the safety of cyclists,  speculating who has what interests, wanting certaintyabout the future, bad landlords, greedy landlords, onstreet parking, rent control, and the state revisiting the long term capital gains tax.  Susan Stamps read a statement from the Tree Committee opposing the density proposals because they do not adequately address impacts on tree canopy.  She recommended more study and constituent contact.

Peter Howard noted how development can strengthen the local economy, how larger buildings contribute to a higher tax base, larger buildings have more efficiencies and lead to more affordability.  Kevin Koch wanted to let MIT run a simulation on what might happen.  He also asked about preventing subdivision like at the Time Olds site.  (The moderator noted that Town Meeting acted to allow that to happen.)  Bill Berkowitz intorduced Don Seltzer who gave a history of inadequate information from MAPC.  He presented shadow studies confirming taller buildings cast longer shadows, especially in winter.  He was the only presenter with realistic graphics.  (Even the ARB stayed away from renderings of buildings.)  Joe Tully introduced Wynelle Evans who was concerned about Arlington turning into "Bladerunner" with a vertical bifurcation of the population by wealth.  She encouraged reverting to the original language (no bonus), because the proposed vote included no protection for current tenants, no meaningful increase in affordable housing, no studies, no specific application for distinct character, no linkage and impact fees, and no cohousing provisions.  (I would note that little of this can be included in a zoning bylaw.)

The next speaker from precinct 6 noted people want to be here but wasn't sure how to allow that to happen.  The ARB hasn't made the case.  It would be OK to postone making changes.  He wanted to know what the ARB thought about the other two amendments.  (Thornton : Yes, Lewiton : OK)  Bill Hayner asked about the cost of an affordable unit ($1500 max rent/ $200K max buy).  He noted affordable doesn't equalavailable to low income.  He asked about the impact on the schools even if the population is currently peaking.  If Mugar moved forwrd, it would make things worse.  Looking for more answers, he wants to come back next year.  At this point, we adjourned for the night.
--------------
According to the Moderator, we made it through a quarter of those on the speaker list.  I expect we will have a few more presentations on Wednesday, but we seemed headed for a concensus.  I would not be surprised if someone calls for a closure vote before too long.  Otherwise, we're going to go very, very long this year.

I went into the night hoping to move this forward.  Since our tax revinue is tied to property value, if we want to create more revinue without taxing ourselves, we need to create some development.  That means redevelopment of parcels and increased density.  Article 16 would encourage more affordable housing in exchange for development.  However, the late feedback from constituents, whether by form letter or original writing, is decidedly against increasing density.  The will of the meeting appears to be in favor of more research.  We are two years into this process, so I am not sure what an additional year will produce.  What is most important is participation.  Citizens need to be engaged.  They need to seek out opportunities to be involved early and often.  Signup for town notices, read the Advocate, check the town calendar and meeting agendas.  Put in the effort, and you will be amazed at the rewards.